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]

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.

Science is not new, it was born with a different name from philosophy in Greece B.C., and how did the egipcians build the piramids? how did the Mayas its famous calendar? With science. So is not so new, what is new is its general use to solve common problems. And honestly, people haven´t "lived" for millennia, they have just struggled for "survival", is different.

[PANCHO]

Science is not new, it was born with a different name from philosophy in Greece B.C., and how did the egipcians build the piramids? how did the Mayas its famous calendar? With science. So is not so new, what is new is its general use to solve common problems. And honestly, people haven´t "lived" for millennia, they have just struggled for "survival", is different.

Does a bird making a nest use science? I thought that scientific thinking started with Galileo (historically). Previous to that not sure. Engineering achievements could not be considered scientific achievements thougfh I can see the necessity of knowledge, which may not be scientific.