A problem with this line of thought is it´s very limited concept of the Divine.

No matter where you face, you face the Divine, Divinity is in you, outide of you, in me and all things and is not limited by earthly rules...like rules regarding gravity or time.

I have to laugh at the narrow mindedness of much Science. Didn´t we learn life could not exist in.....say temperatures above....or below certain certain amounts.....but now we find....life does exist in those previously thought lifeless habitats.

I think the inclination towards belief by all humans is part of the collective wisdom we all share from memories of that other world.

Belief is like a sense, some are born blind, others become blind later in life...some are born with belief....some loose it..........Anyway, believe or don´t believe.

Science doesn´t really make hard conclusions on most things. What I like about science is that good research mentions its own limitations, something that religion fails to do. Science doesn´t say "there is no God, I´m 100% sure"... it says "we have not found any proof for God". There is a big difference between the two statements. Saying the second statement is not narrow minded.

I read many books of Ibn Arabi and other sufis. You say there is a contradiction. But there is not. You don´t need to find or show god to prove it. If you need a creator factor when you want to explain some scientific events it means you proved there is a god. I said there is nothing except god. Whole universe is a part of god. But god is more than that. We can´t understand it fully because our brains function according to time and space concepts. God is above time and space.Nobody can define fully what is god. But this doesn´t mean you can´t prove it´s existence.And i believe science will prove it.

How can you not see that it´s illogical to assume so? For this theory to be true, we´d have to come to the point where science does not further develop, where everything have been learnt and everything have been discovered. Only then would it be possible to say that solely creationism can explain the universe. And this is impossible. Science will never reach the level where no further research will be possible. If today´s sicentists cannot prove something, it doesn´t mean they won´t be able to do it in 20, 50, 100 years´ time.

Do you realise how long people believed that the Earth is flat? Ha! There still is a group that believes it!

It might be hard for you to imagine that our existence in this world is nothing in terms of time, we´re a new species, still crawling and learning about this planet. It´s naive to assume we´ve got nothing more to learn.

 I read many books of Ibn Arabi and other sufis. You say there is a contradiction. But there is not. You don´t need to find or show god to prove it. If you need a creator factor when you want to explain some scientific events it means you proved there is a god. I said there is nothing except god. Whole universe is a part of god. But god is more than that. We can´t understand it fully because our brains function according to time and space concepts. God is above time and space.Nobody can define fully what is god. But this doesn´t mean you can´t prove it´s existence.And i believe science will prove it.

Gokum, you obviously didn´t understand my point and just repeated your earlier post. I´ll try to break it down for you..

You´re saying:

If something cannot be explained by science, it proves that god exists

I´m saying:

If something cannot be explained by science, it means we don´t have enough knowledge YET. It may be explained in 20 years

Alameda

The concept of deity seems more amusing and childish than your dislike for science. You want to hold it against it that it makes mistakes. Aren´t mistakes inevitable part of learning? Once again, we´re a young species and we´re learning fast. We make mistakes along the way but that´s normal. A child´s view of the world differs from an adult´s one. Things that used to be magical are magical no more - that´s because we learn, think and experience. It´s the same with science. One breakthrough enables other ones.

What you call a sense, a human need to have god is nothing but a need to feel safe. And feeling safe is easier when you explain things you don´t understand. Primitive tribesmen called thunders gods. Today we know that it´s not like this. Still, many phenomena are left unexplained, so, people go for the easy "god" explanation.

And, of course, there´s this sociological aspect of religion, unity with a group, family tradition etc

 I am saying if you need a creator factor to explain a scientific event it means god is proved. This is very different from what you say. Because in my situation science would say that some phenomenons can be explained by a creator factor so these phenomenons are not incomprehensible from now on. It would say we can understand these phenomenons if we include creator factor into our calculations. So when a creator factor makes some phenomenon understandable for us, we can say god is proved. As you know there are a priori principles in science.  Scientists accept these a priori principle without proving them. Because these a priori principles are needed to make some calculations. Science need a logical base to form its theories. For example science accept universe has always existed. This is a logical inference. But science can not prove it with solid evidence. Maybe it is right maybe wrong but science needs this a priori principle. Some day maybe god´s existence will be an a priori principle for science. You can´t know this. You have to wait and see.

I still disagree. If scientists assume creation as the only possible explanation to certain phenomena, it means they consider their theories proven beyond doubt. And this is just wishful thinking. Nobody can guarantee that

a) creationism in this case will not be excluded in the future

b) all scientists will agree

Resorting to creationism is merely admiting that you have no idea how something works and you lack faith that it will ever be explained Knowing our smart species, nothing is impossible

.

I respect your ideas. Lets wait and see.