Concepts. On any well known and respected liberal arts campus in this country we have: physical sciences, we have the science of psychology which studies the mind, we have religious science classes, science of music, political science, the science of art, science of philosophy, mathematical sciences, statistical sciences, etc. I see the major problem when it comes to discussions of God, in that we have folks here who call themselves "scientists" who are attempting to evaluate the concept of the existence of God on a purely physical scientific level. By their own admission, they limit God to be something which only the physical sciences could measure and discover, that only the physical sciences are real and legitimate as it involves the study of man and his relationship to the known and unknown aspects of this world we live in. Narrow minded is how I would define such an approach to knowing God, who by definition is the creator of all that is physical, mental, spiritual, and mental....and as such could be reasonably thought of as existing in His own Dimension beyond the limits of the physical universe we are bound to. Imagine what life would be if we limited the concepts and human experiences of beauty, truth, morality, philosophy, humor, art, love, faith, etc. to only the field of the physical sciences, concluding that if something cannot be measured physically, it doesn't exist. Regarding Longshot and his unicorns, I cannot comment on the reality of his beliefs. However, since he is in an extreme minority of human beings who believe in unicorns, unlike the majority of people in this world who believe in God, I think most would place him in a nut house.....both the practicioners of faith and science would agree on this.
Malestrom, You have brought up some excellent points. What you have said is true and is the essence of existence. Your analogy of the steak was terrific and very true. It applies to so many things in our world. In fact, the beauty of existence can be seen in anything, including mathematics. Mathematics is the purest science, and may be the very essence of everything we encounter and experience in this physical world. Now I know that a classical piece from Bach is simply a collection of harmonics that are played at various amplitudes and at various rhythms and times. I can describe the changes in the music and mathematically account for every change within the song -- but I have not experienced it until I have listened to it. I know scientifically why I can see, hear, taste, smell and feel. However, I don't know what or how or why I "experience" these senses. If I was purely a machine, why couldn't I process all this stimuli without a conscious understanding and awareness of what I am perceiving through my senses. This is the "life" within me and every other animal and it is an emergence principle from a deep and complex interwoven fabric of physics. ... Imagine an individual that was born and raised in a large white room with no windows. This person is cared for properly, fed well and educated as he is growing up. Part of his education is instructing him in mathematics, physics and philosophy. He is not made aware that anything exists outside of the room he has grown up in. Suddenly, on his 18'th birthday, his guardian/instructor asks him about the nature of reality. What type of answer would the person give? Would he believe the guardian if he was told that there was much more to the world than what he could see? Perhaps, depending on his faith and reliance on the guardian. At some point, the walls are torn down and, for the first time in his life, he is introduced to a larger world than he has ever known. That is my impression of death.
One of the most beautiful equations in mathematics -- combining the most important constants including 0, 1, pi and e e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0
Regarding the great steak taste analogy. A number of years ago the meat industry wanted to set standards for various cuts of meat for tenderness, taste, etc. so they went to the scientific community to design mechanical ways to measure these things. They wanted the results to be consistent, completely objective, and accurate. After some time they designed a small machine to measure the cutting force needed to measure tenderness but the taste thing never went mechanical. They had to rely on groups of tasters and then try and scientifically qualify the variations. Try as they might science was limited on the perception aspect. Once they understood what humans liked best then science could be used to enhance the favorable characteristics. Science is a very good and useful tool but is not an end and does have limitations.