//Don't leave it up to the historians or the scientists.//

Science has nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of god. This is one of those questions that simply cannot be addressed using the scientific method, because science is only concerned with the natural and the supernatural is outside its remit. It is only a grave misunderstanding of the scientific method, or a dodgy god-of-the-gaps theology that leads people to believe that the existence of god can be proven/disproven by applying the scientific method.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« One can "see gravitation" only through its effect on material objects, and one can “see God” only through His effect on humanity, especially on the person who sincerely seeks Him »
.

Gravitation is one of the four fundamental physical forces of nature, the other three being electromagnetic force, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force. It seems that without these forces, all matter would fall apart.

While it is true that we cannot see gravitation anymore than we can see God, the former is an objective reality. The latter is not. God is a hypothesis which has never been indisputably established.

An interesting article on “Symmetry and Symmetry Breaking” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains this objective reality in the following terms :

« … the laws by means of which we describe the evolution of physical systems have an objective validity because they are the same for all observers. The old and natural idea that what is objective should not depend upon the particular perspective under which it is taken into consideration is thus reformulated in the following group-theoretical terms: what is objective is what is invariant with respect to the transformation group of reference frames, or, quoting Hermann Weyl (1952, p. 132), “objectivity means invariance with respect to the group of automorphisms [of space-time]”. Debs and Redhead (2007) label as “invariantism” the view that “invariance under a specified group of automorphisms is both a necessary and sufficient condition for objectivity” (p. 60). They point out (p. 73, and see also p. 66) that there is a natural connection between “invariantism” and structural realism. »

Unlike the hypothesis of God, the existence of gravitation can be identified and measured according to the following formula :

Fg = (Gm1m2) divided by (r squared)
.

The hypothesised God cannot “be seen through his effect on humanity” as you suggest. That is a belief, not an objective reality. Nobody “who sincerely seeks him” can ever find him. They only believe they do. His existence has never been indisputably established.

.

Dear Banjo,

I agree with all you wrote about physics. God is not a scientific hypothesis, neither is gravitation as a matter of fact. They are concepts. To understand the physical world the physicist (theist or atheist) does not need the concept of God - c.f. https://www.quantumdiaries.org/2011/09/16/there-is-no-need-for-god-as-a-hypothesis/ - but he/she needs that of gravitation. Some people need the concept of God to understand themselves and the world they live in, some don’t. NNS, Yuyutsu and I belong to the first group, you to the second. This is all my remark wanted to say.

Dear Banjo,

I can explain in plain words how all I wrote fits nicely together, but I respect your wish to sign off this thread and wish you well.

---

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

You seem to have misread me:

«That said, I do not agree with Yuyutsu regarding God being a collection of all of us, or something similar to that nature.»

God is not a collection. We and all else are God for there is nothing but Him, but this also implies that we are all one and the same. "Our" being many, that deceived sense of ego which causes us to feel separate from each other, is just an illusion.

«In my opinion a personal search for God will find results.»

And so is my opinion too.

«It has for me and has for so many others. Therefore the point Yuyutsu makes that He can't be found, comes up short against the testimonies of those who say they have found God.»

What I said and continue to say, is that God cannot be found using objective/empirical/scientific methods.

Of course many have already found God and everyone eventually will - otherwise there would be no point to life, but we do so by looking inside, subjectively, rather than outside, empirically.

Yuyutsu writes Tuesday, 9 October 2018 10:30:22 AM P.23.: "...just imagine how good it could be if politicians actually listened and meant it when parliament opens with "...thy will be done on earth... for the kingdom, the power and the glory are yours..."

What positively asinine behaviour are you advocating? This is not the Christian Republic of Australia yet!

That prayers have been read for the past 117 years is not by itself a good reason for them to continue. But, there are valid arguments why there should be change. The separation of church and state is provided in section 116 of the Constitution. There we can read that the federal Parliament "shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance". There, too, the Constitution also prohibits religious tests "for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth". These provisions are incongruent with Parliament maintaining the observance of Christian ritual.

The census shows that Australia is no more predominantly a Christian nation. In 1966, 88 per cent of people identified as being Christian. 50 years later by 2016, this figure had fallen to 52 per cent. Over the same period, the number of people with no religion has grown from 0.8 per cent to 30.1 per cent. Today, the number of those declaring no religion are the most numerous, well ahead of catholics.

Australia will soon have a majority declaring no religion or have a religion other than Christianity. This is true now in every state and territory except NSW and Queensland. The recital of a christian parliamentary prayer no longer reflects the majority sentiment and privileges one religion above all others.
Our multicultural society should first acknowledge the indigenous owners of the land and one minute of silence provided for those who wish to pray for guidance SILENTLY. No separate areas should be set aside for exclusive use and no special provisions of any kind should be established so that one religion is favoured over others.
Continued...

You write further: "For example, when I see an image of someone who overcame lust, whom lust no longer has any hold on, I prostrate myself and pray to attain the same.

Why are you theistic robots so obsessed with lust and hardcore sex? Fornicating's as natural for our biosphere as defecating and/or funambulating. Anyone who opines that no winkiepop is more intellectually transcendental than lots is a guy better not disturbed any more than he is already. That transcendental high makes a diamond-cutter feel slack. Transcend? When you are transcending man it's the intellect that gets to fly at forty thousand feet and you don't feel the cold, I can tell you.
And there are more thrills in being transcended for the third time than there is in prostrating yourself! I've just got to tell you! After a couple of cups of Kopi Luwak and a Romeo y Julieta cigar fresh from its hermetically-sealed aluminium tube you just know the old intellect can find its own way home. I'm told never roller-skate to the beach straight afterward unless you have a death-wish.