Concepts of God (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Sunday, April 10, 2016, 14:21 (3148 days ago) @ BBella

Dhw: This is where mysticism takes over - which is not meant as a criticism. God must close the door on his own identity, and yet he retains his own identity. And: “All identities return to that place in-between”, where they are…what? Themselves but not themselves? And God is “all and separate”. -BBELLA: I would think anytime we talk of God we are stepping into the waters of mysticism. Religion is just mysticism written in stone (a book), so at least we aren't going there. But, we are treading the waters between science and religion. We are discussing the unknown that we know is not science, but can be discussed scientifically - about what we do know. 
There are a lot of factors that can be considered that we do have evidence of, as I said before, by testimonials. The fact that so many religions, personal testimonies, etc, tell us there is something "out there" and an afterlife, God or whatever - some have even been "there" and returned to tell us about it, does give us some scientific facts to go on - just on the overwhelming amount of accounts (probably way over 50%) alone! We have to at least acknowledge there is an overwhelming possibility that "something" happens after we die - has to be a huge possibility and more likely true than nothing happens. But what happens? is the next question, scientifically.-David has once again raised the subject of NDEs, and one can broaden this out to other psychic experiences such as your own, in which there is a transcendence of our known material reality. Materialists may not agree that such experiences are “scientific facts”, or at best they will argue that there must be a materialist explanation. The latter case requires faith and has nothing to do with science, while the former depends on how you define “scientific”. If someone provides otherwise inaccessible information which has been confirmed by independent third parties, that's good enough for me, and the experience must be taken seriously. But the word “scientific” bothers me, as you will see in Part 2!