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]

Science is good but limited.

Those limits still remain to be reached, lets see how far we can get.

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.

All problems have a scientific part at very least. Choices are choices, they don´t change the subject or the issue, they change how you perceive them. What´s the difference between several ways of perceive reality? That some will be more useful than others. Useful for what? that depends on your purpose. Different purposes will prefer different perceptions so maybe the right question would be what is your purpose before choosing the point of view from which you are going to perceive something. But then again, who do so? We tend to attach to unconsciouss purposes and that blurs reality.

[PANCHO]

All problems have a scientific part at very least. Choices are choices, they don´t change the subject or the issue, they change how you perceive them. What´s the difference between several ways of perceive reality? That some will be more useful than others. Useful for what? that depends on your purpose. Different purposes will prefer different perceptions so maybe the right question would be what is your purpose before choosing the point of view from which you are going to perceive something. But then again, who do so? We tend to attach to unconsciouss purposes and that blurs reality.

Not all problems have a scientific point of view. People have lived for millennia? and science is new, so there. Science is more of cultural phenomena than a natural way of thinking. You can chose to make the problem scientific, sure, but that is a choice like you said. But that choice comes from a philosophical one, the one that made you chose science, the one that sits on top, telling what you like and what you don't like. For example, pondering about this has nothing to do with science.