To Einstein, "Evil is simply the absence of God. ..God must be in the heart" https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/false-einstein-humiliates-professor/

Dear All respected researchers,

Everything is not for research. It has some ethical grounds. Avoiding sensitivity is essential . I think religious and anti-religions issues should be avoided.

P. Contreras ,

Thanks you sir. Really I get pain if I see this type of topic . There are lot of problems and issues in life which may be the topics of research in fact.

Regards

This is a matter of faith, not research. Although such studies exist, and are funded very well.

The methodical problem of theology (as science) is that it cannot prove the existence of its research subject, but can only build a (sophisticated) 'dogmatic edifice', based on human narratives and real experiences of divinity. So, any research can only reflect human faith in G-d; according to the (Hebrew) Biblical precepts, our faith in G-d is no proof of any existence of G-d.

Dear Zafar Alam Bhuiyan

I agree that the existence of God can not be the subject of scientific research (in a rigid sense), first because I do not know (and I do not know if anyone knows) what "existence" means. We can not define words. Maybe we feel them ... If we get into the realm of the senses ... then I think the sensation of love is a feeling alongside the other five that many people have ... and the research of existence means possibly the feeling of God's love, possibly with organs located in the heart, or who knows where ... Using evidence alone, proofs are required, and the evidence of divinity is spiritual .... and those who do not have a sense of divine love, of the absolute and divine good, or of they had and lost it, they would try in vain the search for the existence of God ...

God help us !

Following answers

I believe you are right sir, The way of a .... is right in his own eyes, but a wise man listens to advice. See this for more info https://www.researchgate.net/post/Dear_Colleagues_do_you_avoid_giving_answers_to_some_questions_based_on_religious_gender_and_ethnicity_sensitivity?_ec=topicPostOverviewAuthoredQuestions&_sg=LMQHiAtFRI-ZEhUrnYOq6QXn4RfRkm2nDYyVsPyx2QMbZtR90j3_O47PQJ92_QQ9cX3ErBvrLmN5NGfl.gcE9-DmOqkPWf10CkKuOq5pJf4oQWoDnxm6YtaLiZAmsuvSmzC75oYeyuoQFBkKFhqDPyMJWmnDMC0ksVw6B8bg

Yes, you are right.

Stephen I. Ternyik

I don't agree with you. Theology as well as history of Church and history of Religions, as I understand it, are quite a science, as these sciences studies the documents. One can argue about the content of these documents and the consequences, but these documents exist. One can also argue with arbitrary human interpretations and conclusions.

I am against archaeological, etc. studies equipped with "modern physical methods", taking root in the field of faith. It is very similar to Thomas the Apostle action. Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe [John 20:25].

To Einstein, "Evil is simply the absence of God. ..God must be in the heart" https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/false-einstein-humiliates-professor/

The idea of God or the idea of immortality can be metaphysically reflected upon, but it is not an empirical knowledge that can be replaced by a newer objectively tested experience, like any scientifically gained knowledge.

The basic difference between science and faith lies in the intention of any (empirically working) science to change: As a scientist I examine existing theories and try to replace them with more precise and better working theories. If doctrines are based on historical facts (as is partly the case in Christianity), there will always be the possibility that science will question assumptions of faith based on mere myths, such as the postulate of faith that the world was created by a God in seven days, according to Scripture handed down. But it bothers people today.

In the past, the Church felt compelled to condemn all the findings of scientific thought and to persecute their authors if they did not agree with the dogmas and statements of the Holy Scriptures. It has thus loaded on itself a guilt that is still effective today, without there being, as far as is known, an admission of guilt.

In addition: Every attempt at proof of God in the logical or empirical sense is an attempt to seize the essence at most - a questionable attempt, however, which is understandable as a need to justify one's own faith.

Following question ...........

If I took said documents of the Church, of monastries and scholars of theology from medieval times, I might well base my research on it and inquire their ideas, their philosophy and their reasoning, I might come up with the history of monastries or the history of Christian scholars, but thats about it. There is no proof of God to be found there. It is the essence of religion and faith, that one can not proof God. You either believe or you don't, but unless you manage to come up with a litmus-test that proofs beyond any doubt the existence of God, there is no science in it.

Ethnological, philosophical, historical (ect.) research on Church and belief: yes! Scientific study on the existence of God: no!

Religion and Ethics:

Scientific knowledge and religious faith formed a solid unit over many centuries. In Christianity, for example, this unity can be admired in the thinking of Thomas Aquinas. It was not until the Age of Enlightenment that the idea of distinguishing between faith and empirically verifiable knowledge finally gained acceptance. The philosophers of the Enlightenment recognized the religious faith within mere reason, so they were - predominantly - not atheists.

But also the separation of ethics from religion is a product of the philosophy of the Enlightenment. Ethics has to do with theories of good (valuable) and evil (damaging) action. The direct point of reference for good and evil is no longer necessarily a divine authority but a responsibility postulated to fellow man and mankind. Here the human rights have their origin, which do not exclude the possibility of a reference to a divine instance, but do not demand either.

Science requires evidence that can be reproduced independently by other researchers. Direct incontrovertible evidence for the existence of God is unlikely, placing it outside the scope of science.

But science can explore people's religious beliefs, and their ethics and behaviors based on those beliefs.

I largely agree with Stephen I. Ternyik except for the ambiguity in his phrase “real experiences of divinity” — experiences are psychologically real, yes, but real as regards what those experiences purport to refer to, no; that would be begging the question. I think history, anthropology, and other social sciences can contribute a lot to understanding how religions and conceptions of god arose and developed, with later religions incorporating elements of earlier religions, etc. Philosophy can make contributions too, e.g. in analysing various religious conceptions (including conceptions of God) for their broader implications or for consistency. There is a type of atheist or agnostic whose stance is not blunt skepticism but a stance of ignorance, namely of not understanding what it is that he is supposed to believe in, so such studies may have an impact on such persons' belief.

God sent His Son to die for our sins. God is not a topic to research but a being to honor , serve, and glorify.

Well, you know, perhaps the question about God's existence can be classified under "therapy," the 10th standard in your list. Otherwise, it's a matter of faith, and not research. Some people argue that researching religious texts is research, however, none of those texts can prove that God exists. They just say so.

So I would say that research of religion has more to do with history, philosophy, ethics, history of morality, and so on, and never actually addresses the question of God's existence.

Yes it could be a research question but not a topic. We can have research in the area for enhancing the human thoughts

Vadim S. Gorshkov ,

Yes Sir, Thats why it may only be a debate not a research in fact and the debating will be with the arguments not by the postulations.

Thanks

Stephen I. Ternyik ,

Thanks you dear sir for your very insightful answer and supporting .Yes, in research I think matter of religion, personal issues with other sensitive issues should be avoided.

Regards

Yes I am totally agree with statement

Research has some ethical grounds, everything is not Research

There is no doubt. Allah almighty does exist. That's the difference between believers and atheists or unbelievers. I

Albert Manfredi

Yes , its a matter of faith not research rather it will be chaos , not scientific process of investigation. and the result is very simple argument .

So we shouldn't go for this.

Thanks

Beth Ann Fiedler ,

Yes, Marry's Child was born in Bethlehem was born in a Xmas day with the divine blessings.

Karl Pfeifer

Yes, thats nicely saying ' "I think history, anthropology, and other social sciences can contribute a lot to understanding how religions and conceptions of god arose and developed, with later religions incorporating elements of earlier religions, etc. "

I totally agree that research has to follow ethical standards. Bright and attractive titles of our research cannot be about "God existence"! This is an issue of faith. I've said that already.

If somebody does not believe in ALLAH, then he has to wait for the judgment day to be sure!

I strongly support the opinion that research has to be fruitful& conclusive. There are many topics that serve humanity. Research has to go deeply through those topics.

Thanks

Amjad Hazim Al- Naemi

Yes, you are alright sir, Its the matter of belief nothing else. If anyone doesn't belief that s upto him or her. Taking this, a research question cannot lead anything.

Thanks

Hazim Al Dilaimy ,

Yes, there is no doubt about it and this type question should be raise.

Thanks

Cardei Petru ,

The non believer still make some arguments with the existence of God, which may lead an foolish arguments, not research . The ultimate result of the argument is a big zero , I think . There are huge problems in our daily life, we can go for the research.

Thank you sir for your very insightful answer.

Hein Retter

I am very happy getting you here and you are absolutely right. Everything is not under the measurement of empirical knowledge.

Thanks

Md Zafar Alam Bhuiyan

Perhaps faith is ... a sixth sense ... or a remnant of it ...those who repress their faith, mutilates his own being ... those who puts face in face their faith and their reason, I think that he training the both ... Maybe, they're reconnecting ... so I feel ... The faith and the reason like a baby boy and girl .. .in childhood they are arguing, they are selfish and even struggle ... next, they grow up, they get better between each other until they reach love, their unique being ... but, from up there, many falls are possible ...then again, like Sisyphus and again ... and again ...

God help us !

Vadim S. Gorshkov

You are running 2 answers here with very different positions, but I do understand your point: https://stanfordmag.org/contents/the-gospel-truth

We can take the work of Elaine Pagels as example; however, she is not engaged in our research question or topic, but in the historical codification of the gospel. I like to read her works.

Fact.

Dear Pedro Contreras,

I fully share your phrase "For me its very simple. Let God be God and Science be Science!"

The famous Russian proverb answered this question a long time ago: "На Бога надейся, а сам не плошай" (God helps those who help themselves).

Nevertheless, I want to note that any science is subjective except for mathematics. However, there are allegations that Mathematics is not a science, but only a universal language. Now let's argue. If any science is subjective, then research on the existence of God differs little from research on any scientific issue in any field of knowledge, since everything of this life is subjective. I want to ask "Is the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics a proven fact?" We often assert that if the results of experiments coincide with the theory, then this theory is correct. However, is this theory true? We just believe in it, right? The same with God, we just believe in this phenomenon. Today's statements in science can be completely revised tomorrow on the basis of new concepts. For example, there are opinions that economics is not a science "Economics is not a science. Valentin Katasonov - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3rUmCBLm9Q). Here is a short quote from the video: "Economics is not a science, but a kind of ideology and even religious faith. Economics is creativity, the same as painting or sculpture, for example". If this is the case, then I want to ask: Why has the Nobel Prize in Economics been awarded since 1969? Thus, let us, for the time being, decide on the fact that it is scientific and what is not scientific with today's sciences, of which the majority could relate simply to creativity like economics. However, I would like to complete on a positive note. There is Putin’s phrase “Russia, unlike other countries, is governed directly by God, otherwise it’s very difficult to understand how it still exists” - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXU9Z0Jxz60.

Stephen I. Ternyik

Why so different?

1. Religion is sphere of faith.

2. It is possible research the religion both "inside" and "outside", as sphere of spirit, or self-sufficient system of views, judgments and human institutions. Especially taking in account that practically the entire philosophical base of modern science has grown out from theology .

3. As well as we starts research religion using instrumental methods, looking to religion actuality as an composition of different objects - this is profanation. Simply say, God has no DNA.

Vadim S. Gorshkov

The ethics of Spinoza is maybe a methodical inter-section of religion (faith) and science (knowledge), concerning your take of the debate (DNA and G-d). An old inscription on graves reads: only faith and knowledge together can create bliss.

I think it can be but the proves are so obvious

I disagree ... because ethics must be the basis of scientific research

@Majeed Hadi ,Any type of disagreement may come but scientific work is for the society where only ethical standard is accepted. research wont be accepted without society values.

Totally agree! Topics such as "Does God exist?" is not a research topic.

Abdullah Noori

Thanks for the support.

yes i agree with you

Noor Dia Jaffer

thanks for the support .

Regards

scientific topics are prone to concrete evidence but ethical ones are abstracts ; they can bebased on abstract ideas. both cann be researched but differently

In my opinion, there is no point in discussing such topics.

Regards

Researchers find out the truth based on rigorous study, searching ,sorting and facing the troubles. Revealing the truth is the responsibility of researchers. Skipping the responsibilities also a sin.

Thanks

Scientific research has its own specificity and must be supported by facts. Including research in the field of philosophy.

Ethics is undoubtedly an important value and should be respected during scientific research.

Resolving the unscientific but religious problem, which is the existence of God, does not fall within the scope of scientific research.

It is a creator in the form of God who has sent us for fulfilling the action of our life where it is only our god who knows the period of existence as we all know that with our birth our final journey is certain & not in our hand .

It is in this line I have my publication under the captioned '' Existence of God '' which I submit herewith for your perusal with a request to offer your valuable opinion in this respect .

This is my personal opinion

Rohit Manilal Parikh

Subjective philosophical reflections can help us to clarify our deep and inner conceptions of the eternal and creative upper force. The existential proof itself, however, cannot be given by the scientific method, although some limited philosophical research like yours can be done as personal exploration.

Following

''Research has some ethical grounds, everything is not Research'' .''Is God Exist?''it can't be a topic of Research . Are you agree? Why or Why not?

Agreed not everything is researchable as we can't collect data for analysis to provide empirical evidence e.g. life after death, time travel, conditions at the center of the earth, aliens, outer space dynamics etc. However, not researchable now might be researchable in the future as epistemology keeps improving. Also there might be certain limits on what we human beings can research i.e. some phenomena might beyond our comprehension / research capability for generations. In the absence of empirical evidence, we need to apply our faith on certain issues including the existence of God Creator.

Agree, discussion on God is purely a religious subject.

We should focus on problem S if our daily life. How to encourage healthy activities.

What can be empirically proved is the fact that there are believing people who believe in a God. Other people, Hindus for example, believe in several gods. Millions more people, Buddhists, believe neither in one nor in several gods, but believe in a destiny that is part of the cosmos and can be changed for the better by faith. And atheists exists also.

The world is multifarious, also in the question whether one exists or is only the mirror of a human need, a power over us, to which we assign all good qualities in which human ideals are reflected.

but now a days politicians are playing with the emotions of the people on the name of god therefore it should be criticized

Dr. Meena Potdar

Yes, But times have changed in this respect. In former times the rulers invoked their divine right to let the people work for them. Unfortunately, this still happens today in many cases. But there were and are small, hopeful changes. Firstly, rulers have often been replaced by politicians who cannot escape a certain control by independent media - even if many media exist depending on power structures - the worldwide communication by the Internet cannot be prevented by dictators of a country. Secondly, in addition to adapting to existing conditions, there is always resistance and a growing awareness of the need for criticism, self-help and the establishment of associations in which people fight together for a better world. That corruption damages such positive developments is a well-known fact, unfortunately.

Dr Meena

Thanks for your answer with revealing the fact

The question raised is interesting and intelligent. Though 'God' can not be a subject of research, many aspects of his " Values" can be important areas of research. Research on those who have followed the 'path of God' , morality, law of conscience etc are many such illustrations on research on God relevant matters.

Dr K N Sheth ,

Thanks you sir, for your contribution. Your valued saying: ''Though 'God' can not be a subject of research, many aspects of his " Values" can be important areas of research. Research on those who have followed the 'path of God' , morality, law of conscience etc are many such illustrations on research on God relevant matters.''

it matters .

regards

Some topics raise the sensitivity of some, has nothing to do with any research or knowledge, it is sometimes for chat only, so ignore them leads to the disappearance

Thanks Dr Md Zafar Alam Bhuiyan for your comments to Dr K N Sheth I also think in the same direction

Anything can be topic of research interest, it is the eye of the beholder. May be every topic may not invoke an interest for a research orientation in everyone. Research is plorable towards an unidentified arena, hence i am neutral, to for or against the statement.

The Force in the Star Wars epics has been likened to the panentheistic conception of God. Indeed, Jediism is now an officially recognized religion in some jurisdictions. If the Force or similar panentheistic entities are conceived of in natural rather than in supernatural terms, some form of empirical investigation might be possible.

It can be researched but some might say you may not.

I fully agree with the statement.

Religion is matter of believe without doubt. Research is what you don't know or doubt. If a researcher is interested in knowing what people believe about God is ethical research.

If one has no heart, one cannot write for the masses.

Heinrich Heine https://www.azquotes.com/quote/921351?fbclid=IwAR2JxhCvMXLvbXCcz-2aioa1ZakRBVEevR2d1_i29dn4b3mXlmmL4DywEAs

Since God is Consciousness, He actually is a topic of everything. Thus, ethics are a natural part of research too. Those who discard that essential circumstance, will nevertheless be taken responsible for their deeds, whether they are researchers or not.

I don’t see why not. In my humble opinion everybody can raise any topic of their own interest. If I’m not interested then I simply don’t participate. Who am I to tell others what they can or cannot discuss or where after all? If a topic is not disrespectful, then no problem!