Q: Can science disprove the concept of an undefinable god(s)?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Yes, I understand what you are talking about, but it seems you may not understand Pantheism's focus on the Divine. A Pantheist need not view their God as being in any sense human or conscious. For them, the universe is considered to be as mysterious, powerful, nurturing, and beautiful as any Theistic God. Rather than preying to the Divine, a Pantheist may strive to simply listen to the Divine, and this listening can include worshiping through the practice of science. In other words, science does not rule out the possibility of the universe being Divine, nor does it say anything about our personal feelings of gratitude we might feel for our existence.

For many Theists the idea of such an abstract vision of worship may seem strange, but what remains the same is the feelings of worship they share. One of the more poinent images of Pantheism is the Japanese Shinto shrines. These were tiny huts with perhaps a few scrolls, a spiral carved in the wall, and a mirror on the ceiling. The mirror was there so that if the person looked up to prey to an anthropomorphic God, they would see themselves. This was, among other things, a subtle reminder there ain't nobody home but us chickens.

Modern science has discovered that the human brain is geared towards religious experience, and this adds further weight towards the validity of Pantheist feelings. Whether these peoples' feelings are inappropriate or misguided is something only they can know currently. Science it seems may sometime in the next century or so find other corroborating evidence to either support or refute Pantheist claims. Unlike the infinities of classic Theistic religions, Pantheist claims are apparently more capable of being scrutinized by modern science.

What do you want to say with this?

I just showed that amongst many definitions of God, the definition of God as creator of the universe is a flawed concept, cause the only way one can arrive at the conclusion that this God need to exist, is to claim that the universe/material world is somehow finite, and hence needs an act of 'creation' to actually exist. Introducing that concept of God, then effectively 'undoes' this wrong assumption, cause it then is stated this God was not created itself, but existed for all of eternity. Hence, our conclusion of this is, that the initial assumption, that it would be possible for the world in total, to be finite (have a beginning), was a wrong assumption, and urges us to consider the world to be infinite (no begin).

Not a disproof of God, cause the concept of God is such a vague concept with concurring and even contradictionary definitions, that such a thing can not be disproven. But from the fact that the vaguge concept cannnot be properly defined, one can just conclude that there is a total inability to proof this in the real world. Which just shows the very concept of such an entity is not meaningfull to the world.

Your claim is then, but if we do assume the pantheist assumption about God, then this may be a proper definition of such an enitity/deity, that can be called 'real'.

You forget however that an intrinsic property of God is that it does not have but ONE definition, but MANY, and some of them are too vague to even call it a definition. You can not just 'pick one' and see if that fits reality, but you have either to accept God 'as it is', or reject it in total. This very construct of human mind, to built a concept that can be attributed existence, purely based on reasoning and without any observable propertie, has be shown throughout history to serve no real purpose, and just obfuscates our ability to know about the real world.

We have a better concept of what reality is, which is matter in eternal motion. We do not need the concept of God, the material world is open for inspection, it means the same to everyone, is objective and independend of one's mind. 'Matter' just denotes the philosophical categorie of 'things' that exist outside of one's mind, and independend of it, and form an objective world. That is the concept science has sucessfully explored and investigated.

To say that we - apart from such a concept - need any vague creator/deity thing, is clearly nonsense. We only need one concept to denote the things that exist outside of one's mind. The concept of matter, is the most clear to anyone.

All other concepts, lend from objective idealism and religion, are nothing but vague concepts, and are unhandable for science.