@Rigwyn: I have a question for you - and beware I'm leading you into a trick - you've been speaking about god(s) now please give me the scientific definition of a god.
I have never been given a scientific definition of god. I've heard a lot of inconsistent and conflicting accounts of who and what this god is, but none of them have been any more than opinions and hearsay as far as I can tell.
You might ask how I can say there is no god if I cannot tell you what a god is, but like I said before, this god that christians and other various religions talk about is unfounded. You could say that I am somewhere between agnostic and atheist in my view.
If your rebuttal is that only the heart can know love or god, then I'll ask you to give me a scientific definition of the "heart". To my knowledge, its basically a blood pump. :p
As I foresaw you've fallen into the trap
... almost...
You were on the right way by recognizing science has no definition of the term "god" and this is one of the reason among many why science can tell nothing about god...
So yes now I could ask how you can say god is unfounded but you somewhat already answered: from a scientific pov you just cannot (because the foundation of every theory require at least a good understanding and definition of the subject being researched), but taking the term
unfounded in the realm of philosophy this could be simply read you cannot find any foundation of its existence in your personal experience.
And here is the point: the definition of "god" as it seems we are using in this topic can only be found withing the
realm of philosophy, and in this realm I can easily find the definition of the term "heart" as well: "the inner seat of the emotions and the conscience in a human being". You can use for my definition other words like "Ka", "soul" ... whatever ... still a
philosophic fact exists: human beings have emotions and a conscience and the this fact is based upon the evidence that emotions and conscience are an human experiences shared by the majority of human beings during the course of their lives and the course of history. And please note from the philosophy perspective no further proofs are needed for that statement.
For those of you who don't know what philosophy is and before you all start saying silliness
it must be very clear that:
1. philosophic statements don't require a strict proof like a scientific statement require;
2. philosophic statements are based upon coomon human experiences which are also based on the observations of the world around us (so a philosophic theory which lead to deny altogether the evidence of the existence of the gravity is off, albeit a philosophic theory can't care less how the phenomenon exists and its physical causes - that ust be let to science)
3. philosophic theory need an internal consistence so while strict logic
is not a mandatory requisite relying on logic statements make a theory more consistent.
So as shown above philosophy both exist
at the same time in the realm of subjectivity and objectivity. So please let's avoid stupid silliness like: "philosophy is only subjective and anyone can make its own philosophy and they are all true".
Of course if it will appear quite clearly from the above statements that once an individual has embraced a (hopefully consistent) philosophic theory this
must be adapted to his own subjectivity.
