Why the science is silent about the unimaginable, Only the existence of God is acceptable and explicable Options

[antonyanil]

Why the science is silent about the unimaginable
Only the existence of God is acceptable and explicable

The silence of science about the unimaginable God is mis-understood as the negation. Similarly, the silence of Buddha about the unimaginable God was mistaken as negation of God. By this, both Buddha and science were treated as the sources of atheism. Silence does not mean negation of unimaginable entity. Even the authority of theism, the Veda, says that the best expression of God is silence. Even Shankara clearly stated that the absolute God (Parabrahman) is always expressed by silence. Shankara debated with the followers of Buddha only on this point and proved that silence is not the indication of negation of God. Silence is only the acceptance of existence of unimaginable God.

You must say that the unimaginable God exists. You are authorized only up to this single point. The Veda says that only the existence of God is acceptable and explicable (Astityeva…). Regarding the further information of God, silence is to be adopted. The acceptance of existence of unimaginable God is based on the exhibition of unimaginable events called as miracles. The multiplicity in the unimaginable events is not the multiplicity in the unimaginable item. There is only one unimaginable item called as God. He is establishing the existence of the unimaginable item on several occasions using several imaginable materials. Therefore, the multiplicity is only in the occasions and in the imaginable materials and it is not in the final conclusion, which is the existence of single unimaginable item. Already, we have established that there cannot be multiplicity in the unimaginable item.
www.universal-spirituality.org
Universal Spirituality for World Peace

[Jakare]

It is funny because the same thing also happens with science. People believe that science one day will solve their spiritual problems (and all the problems of humanity). People rely on science for many things and they even now start to view their bodies\lives as a scientific material object. So in a way, science has also good and bad things.

Well for sure you will agree with me science is already showing some results on that. Although I´m not going in to whether the biological/materialistic point of view is the only one or not, It is pretty obvious that an important part of who we are is in our bodies, genes and brain. The more we know about it the better, and if there is any true to find about spirituality or soul we will find it. People is not stupid they rely in science because it works and because it please them in a hedonistic way.

Putting your hopes in one single basket may not be a good life investment.

That´s more of a personal style choice, but its my believe that if such a basket as after life do exist your ticket is already in, you actually don´t need to do anything special whatever some religions could say. Actually that´s exactly how i feel it. Why should we care so much about after life? We live here and now and having an Ego and a consciousness is a gift we must tresure here and now, not in the future for an hypothetical after life. If something threats my ego i will try to protect it with whatever tools i have around.
On the other side if only the science basket is real and in future it gives you the solution of some of your problems, well that´s a train you can loose if you decide not to take it.

[PANCHO]

Well for sure you will agree with me science is already showing some results on that. Although I´m not going in to whether the biological/materialistic point of view is the only one or not, It is pretty obvious that an important part of who we are is in our bodies, genes and brain. The more we know about it the better, and if there is any true to find about spirituality or soul we will find it. People is not stupid they rely in science because it works and because it please them in a hedonistic way.

Science is good but limited. Are all problems scientific problems or do you chose to make them scientific? There are infinite nonscientific problems depending on how you look at things. Using the wrong tool may not work. Using science may not work. The problem may not have anything to do with science. Science cannot substitute philosophy because it is a subset of it.