Is existence/non-existence of God a scientific or philosophical question?

[anirvan]

@anirvan:

My point is *not* to doubt spiritual truths.

The point of my OP was whether the question of God's existence/nonexistence is a scientific question (an answer to which requires inter-subjective evidence/verification) or a philosophical one. From your response it appears that you have a third option - God is self-experiential. That is also fine. I agree with that. But purely self-experiential evidence does NOT count as science because of the following problem:there is no way to tell apart a quack from a truly realized soul.

Just for the sake of completion let me also state that the philosophical foundations science are not without "leaps of faith". Science does suffer from the epistemological problem of induction. Stated another way, there is no reason to expect that the repetition of a scientific experiment will yield the same result every time. A version of this was identified in Tripura Rahasya.

My aim is to ask those doing pointless debate without bothering to see them self the truth.

second thing,even how many percentage of world population understand science. again most of advanced physics are theoretical in nature and understood by those deeply involved. exactly same thing happens in spiritual world.

ordinary people believe in science without understanding even 1% of it,because substantial evidences they are seeing in the applied technologies..like, TV,Computers,vehicles etc etc. but when coming to philosophical aspect of physics ,they just follow like sheep herd

[Kismet]

Hello All:

I have read Dawkins' The God Delusion in which he forcefully argues that the question of God's existence/non-existence is a scientific question. That is, it is a question for which an answer in the affirmative/negative can be obtained using the scientific method. He also states that his book specifically deals with the God of the OT/NT/Quran.

For us Sanatana Dharmists, God is a much more complex entity. It is equated to Sat+Chit+Ananda (Existence, Consciousness, Bliss). Advaita approaches God by negation (see link here).

For us SDs, is the existence/non-existence of God more a philosophical question rather than a scientific question? If it is a philosophical question, then, however much we argue this way or that way, a solution can *never* be arrived upon. We pretty much have to accept the existence/non-existence of God as an *axiom* making it beyond proof/disproof.

What are your thoughts on this?

I think it can be both, really. But the philosophic/theological position should come first.

Some skeptics state that using certain scientific discoveries (such as the findings in QM to support God's existence) is fallacious. And in a way I would agree. It is assuming that because a different perspective is offered this must amount to a proof of God, and on a purely scientific way of viewing things, evidentially, that is not borne out by itself.

However, if you start out with the guiding metaphysical assumption that there is a God, then I believe it is fully appropriate to give weight and heft to your world-view from all corners, and plug in such findings, as rational support. Sort of like grafting flesh onto a skeleton, and showing that there is a real picture you are, not making up, but revealing. That it indeed finds its source in the reality you take to be true.

[ZarryT]

God will be beyond scientific categorization until consciousness is considered a substance in its own right.

[Atheist Guru]

If anybody posits the existence of anything including a god or gods, as objective reality then it IS a scientific question.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and for me, the existence of god lies in the imaginary corridors of subjective belief. But if that makes people happy, who am I to spoil that party? Fortunately though, more and more people are leaving religion like it's Cuba and embracing reality.

Peace
AG

[jignyAsu]

What does a strong inference fall under? Science or philosophy? Seeing such a beautiful complex cosmos ranging from a galaxy to an atom; a human to a bacteria, who will deny the existence of an intelligent creator? If this inference is scientific then it is science; else it is philosophy.

"JanmAdyasya yathah" - is the inference that we can all make. However to look into the exact nature of the Jiva, Paramatma and their relationship, we need the Vedas for rational faith.

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

If anybody posits the existence of anything including a god or gods, as objective reality then it IS a scientific question.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and for me, the existence of god lies in the imaginary corridors of subjective belief. But if that makes people happy, who am I to spoil that party? Fortunately though, more and more people are leaving religion like it's Cuba and embracing reality.

Peace
AG

Dear Atheist Guru,

There is a trap here laid out for you, as well. When Vedantist says, "neti neti", i.e., "this is not that (God), that is not that" ad infinitum, he is echoing the same as yours, that is, "God doesn't exist".

So atheists are comprehensively covered. You are an atheist, as you say. Now you are a "Guru", you will have to prove.

[Necromancer]

Namaste.

It is a philosophical question, because to prove that God exists, you must first prove that he doesn't and vice-versa.

*I knew that my Immanuel Kant would come in handy some day.

Aum Namah Shivaya

[OmAspie]

I don't think most true scientist would touch the God exists or doesn't exists question with a ten-foot pole and would rather leave this matter to philosophers.

[kallol]

It is true for both. It is upto the individual minds.

As Anirban has questioned correctly : What is science ?

The science of today was the philosophy of yesteryears. So the science of future will be significantly different from what we see today.

Today we are limited by our dependence on the 5 senses. I can say we are reaching the boundary of the gross physical science. In some hunderds of years we will be reaching the limit. It is then we will have toe migrate to the next level of science which will involve the subtle science. Subtle science can only be realised through the power of mind.

It is this science which will lead us to the border of the TOE - Theory of everthing. All major saints have realised this.

Beyond this nothing can be known as that is the final substratum - the SIMPLEST form (thanks Yajvan ji). There is no medium or vehicle though which that can be known. It is the knower of everthing but itself cannot be known.

Yes this is science for those who want to understand the phenomemenon of God through science.

But this population is a fraction percentage. 99+% look at God as someone different from self and looks at him philosophically.

[Spiritual Bee]

Hello All:

I have read Dawkins' The God Delusion in which he forcefully argues that the question of God's existence/non-existence is a scientific question. That is, it is a question for which an answer in the affirmative/negative can be obtained using the scientific method. He also states that his book specifically deals with the God of the OT/NT/Quran.

For us Sanatana Dharmists, God is a much more complex entity. It is equated to Sat+Chit+Ananda (Existence, Consciousness, Bliss). Advaita approaches God by negation (see link here).

For us SDs, is the existence/non-existence of God more a philosophical question rather than a scientific question? If it is a philosophical question, then, however much we argue this way or that way, a solution can *never* be arrived upon. We pretty much have to accept the existence/non-existence of God as an *axiom* making it beyond proof/disproof.

What are your thoughts on this?

All of Dawkins arguments against God are based on the idea of a personal God - that God is a person who sits in heaven and decides to create the heavens and the earths, and punishes us when we do wrong.

Advaita Vedanta has rejected such an idea of a personal God thousands of years ago.

So I feel Dawkins is mainly wasting a lot of his energy attacking childish notions of God - that are anyway wrong as any rational person can attest.

The fact is that God is an ocean of consciousness (sat-chit-ananda) as the Upanishads describe, and to fully "SEE" this ocean i.e. to experience it - one has to transcend the mind - in fact one has to transcend space and time itself, because this ocean lies beyond both those.

Science as we know it, which is fundamentally a subject-object type of analysis i.e. I the observer (subject) observe certain facts about the world such as a car (object) moving, can never transcend this limitation of duality.

When the world appears divided into the observer and the observed, such a science can never "SEE" or discover God as Dawkins is expecting.

To "SEE" God one has to transcend this subject-object duality and reach the UNITY where there is no subject and no object, because they have merged into 1 existence - an ocean of pure consciousness which is YOU yourself.

Thus traditional science can never "KNOW" God, because it always exists in this observer and the observed state. God is a subjective experience, to be realized when you transcend last frontier the mind. When the INSTRUMENT of analysis (the mind) itself disappears. This is the state of Samadhi or enlightenment. At this point you are beyond space and beyond time.