- #36
phoenixthoth
- 1,605
- 2
developing scientific theory would seem to be relevant if and only if there were any scientists trying to prove God exists.
developing science would seem to indicate or presume that God's existence is mysterious or non-obvious, which it may or may not be. but let's even say that some being claims to be God and shows itself to everyone "in the flesh." the above arguments in a previous post of mine show that even if a supposed God revealed itself to us, we would have a hard time proving that it is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, perfect, immortal, and all the jazz, unless it uses its omnipotence to give us omniscience which would then give us the ability to know if it is God.
btw, my guess is that psychology or some psychology-related science will be more relevant than a physical science if science will ever prove God exists. specifically, the psychology of consciousness and the "expansion of consciousness."
developing science would seem to indicate or presume that God's existence is mysterious or non-obvious, which it may or may not be. but let's even say that some being claims to be God and shows itself to everyone "in the flesh." the above arguments in a previous post of mine show that even if a supposed God revealed itself to us, we would have a hard time proving that it is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, perfect, immortal, and all the jazz, unless it uses its omnipotence to give us omniscience which would then give us the ability to know if it is God.
btw, my guess is that psychology or some psychology-related science will be more relevant than a physical science if science will ever prove God exists. specifically, the psychology of consciousness and the "expansion of consciousness."
Last edited: