Is science compatible with the existence of God?

Thank you for joining me, Mall. 

God: that which encompasses all, knows all, and, has the power to do all

Science: study of the world

God and science at their most basic definitions do not contradict one another. Perhaps a specific religion may contradict science, perhaps a specific scientific study may disagree with the existence of a specific God. 

If God is seen as the totality of nature, of space and time, of energy, and matter, and the force which drives it, then science is simply the pursuit of understanding God. 

God is simply the basic building block for the Universe, thus everything within the Universe is God. 

I posit God as the all encompassing force which rules all. God is that which resides in and makes everything. God is a term which refers to the energy that builds our most basic particles, and the natural processes that happen between the particles. 

Science studies the relationships of God with itself. There is nothing to see that isn't God.

The problem with God in the modern age isn't that people can't prove the existence of God. The problem is people can't agree on what God is. 

If you look within all the religions, they all are trying to describe one thing, nature. They try to describe a force that is already clearly visible.

God can't be escaped, because we reside within God, as God resides within us. 

To deny the existence of God is akin to denying the existence of Reality itself. 

Most people, regardless of what they say, act in a way that shows they believe in their existence and the processes which happen around them. The people that understand and study these processes, trust that the information they gather is valid and conclusive, and in turn use that information for further study, typically refer to themselves as scientists. 

Science is the process by which astute believers of God observe God and use their findings to better understand God. 

Science is a religion. It is a religion that preaches that reality(God) is clearly visible and doesn't need people to invent their own understandings, they simply need to observe to find understanding. 

Science is the product of someone having a hypothesis and then proving it. Scientists see God clearly, but many deny that it is God due to pre-existing notions of what God must be. 

Scientists are the priests that preach the wonders of the Universe, from the understanding of the microcosmic particles to the process of galactic formation.

"Science studies the relationships of God with itself. There is nothing to see that isn't God."

This would include children and beings less than or inferior including things called pets. Now being that parents have authority over children and owners over their pets, there are beings that have no authority of themselves, they can't be a force that rules everything. 

So some more holes here in the opposing side's stance .

"The problem with God in the modern age isn't that people can't prove the existence of God. The problem is people can't agree on what God is. "

There are some that can't. There are those that do agree amongst themselves and have a cohesive thought on God and believe in God.

"If you look within all the religions, they all are trying to describe one thing, nature. They try to describe a force that is already clearly visible."

This is not true in all religions. That's a gross generalization out of pocket. Certainly religious atheists don't subscribe to that.

"God can't be escaped, because we reside within God, as God resides within us. "

This is more incoherent. In one breath it's like you're depicting something independent and in another you're integrating the idea of God in an unitarian nature .

Of course you can argue both. Doesn't mean you won't have problems doing so. 

"To deny the existence of God is akin to denying the existence of Reality itself. "

Especially when regarding God as an individual invisible spirit non material non physical being that would of created everything.

If you say I'm God or a part of God , I never created anything. I'm not denying my existence but I can't accept a lie or take credit for something I didn't do.

"Most people, regardless of what they say, act in a way that shows they believe in their existence and the processes which happen around them. "

I doubt they believe they're God who created everything.

"The people that understand and study these processes, trust that the information they gather is valid and conclusive, and in turn use that information for further study, typically refer to themselves as scientists. "

That's about as far as you can take it. There are sientists that don't accept the idea of God and they're scientists. If they can't agree with God and science compatibility, we have no foundation to go on from a solid basis.

"Science is the process by which astute believers of God observe God and use their findings to better understand God. "

Just want to make sure we're separating from believers in a spirit versus the universe.

"Science is a religion. It is a religion that preaches that reality(God) is clearly visible and doesn't need people to invent their own understandings, they simply need to observe to find understanding. "

What is religion when you use the term?

I understand science to be the explanation of study involving empirical observation, experiment, repetitive results, from hypothesis to conclusion of the natural world eliminating beliefs or converting them to straight knowledge.

"Science is the product of someone having a hypothesis and then proving it. Scientists see God clearly, but many deny that it is God due to pre-existing notions of what God must be. "

Question is, how or why does religion tie into it?

"Scientists are the priests that preach the wonders of the Universe, from the understanding of the microcosmic particles to the process of galactic formation."

What is a scientist and what is a priest upon you using those terms?

So much unpacking here from you I'm requesting. The language you're using appears to be hijacked from their conventional usages.

But all in all, just seeking to get understanding of you.

I will try to address all your concerns, let me know if I miss anything. 

You are correct that I view God as synonymous to the Universe. Rarely do people deny the existence of the Universe, and those that do are often not taken seriously, or are seen as extreme conspiracy theorists. 

I do not see science as necessitating complete understanding, I see it as the pursuit of that understanding. Often we believe we have understood a process, only to update it with further scientific observation. The updating of our conclusion does not make the previous science non-scientific, it just makes the old conclusion incomplete or incorrect.

The knowledge that "God" or the "Universe" has is based on the relationships it has with itself, and is visible through repeated observation. A simple example is gravity. The verbiage of know is more along the lines of "Is." Our language is an attempt to understand the knowledge and working of God/The Universe, and share that knowledge with each other. Back to gravity, Mass attracts mass, the mass knows what to do within the confines of this rule, rule here is not something that we ascribe to the phenomena, and more of an explanation of this Is what it does. A more complicated example would be the forming of mass from base particles. Under different conditions and quantities, different atoms are created which form different types of mass that interact with each other in specific ways. All of this is the "knowledge" that I speak of. The innate nature of the substance and energy that interacts with each other in specific ways leading to specific outcomes. We, as humans, zoom in and focus on a small area to further understand the larger processes. But nature itself does it all without needing to study. That is the knowledge of God. That is the force that is God. God is what is. It does as it does, because that's how it is. Science explicitly studies these processes. Regardless of the semantics, this force exists. That which makes all happen how it does. And within quantum studies, particles are linked at a distance and interact with each other without physically interacting. That is the knowledge. These particles know what to do based upon their linked particle, even without physically "telling" the other to what to do. I can expound on this with more detailed questioning.

God contains all this knowledge, i.e; the Universe interacts with itself. The knowledge is stored in the processes themselves. Similar to how humans form neural pathways, but different considering scale. 
 
God needs no pronoun or "masculinity," God isn't human nor does God prescribe to our social boundaries. God doesn't have to be proven to be studied any more than the Universe's existence has to be proven to be studied. There is no way to prove the existence of the Universe, beyond that which can be clearly seen. Even if/when we advance to a point technologically where we can observe the entirety of the Universe, people can still deny the existence by saying "it's a simulation" or "it's imagined", and in those cases, who or what is doing the simulation or imagining? That force. 

"Rules" refers to the processes which exist. God sets rules for physical interaction and outcomes of specific instances. The combination of all the rules colliding with one another creates time and space playing out in the manner which it does, and which we are observing.

And yes, we are God. We all may not be aware of our nature, but we are God, removed from total awareness and experiencing ourself. Consciousness is the Universe/God observing itself within itself. 

We are a part of the "Rules" we are agents of God, just as much as anything else is. 

Grass photosynthesize, sun provide energy, animals interacting with one another, rocks forming, all of it is the rules playing out. We only have a limited sphere of influence based upon the amount of rules we can observe or impact. 

Every interaction makes a difference. I could go write a book, or I could rot away in a cave. That choice is where our freedom lies. A rock may not have the same choice or muscles to make changes in the way we do, but they are still enacting their existence on the world around, within the confines of their rules.

A rocks rules may be simpler than ours but that does not make them inferior.

Inferior is a social term that has no objective meaning. All is God, interacting with itself.

You think in a very black an white manner.

Even if some people disagree on the semantics they are effectively doing the same thing.


You are projecting conceptions from prior interactions onto me.

Why, in your view, must the spirit be separated from the Universe?

Religion is a system of faith or worship. Faith meaning belief that what you observe is true, faith that your theories are founded. Worship is to show reverence or adoration. 

A scientist who lacks faith in the existence of what they are observing and lacks reverence or adoration of that which they are observing wouldn't be making the most astute observations. 

Running out of time to publish, will expound further in later rounds.

Looks like the opposing side just made it by the skin of their teeth. 

Good for them.

Hopefully they have cleared up the many things I put forth last round.

"You are correct that I view God as synonymous to the Universe. Rarely do people deny the existence of the Universe, and those that do are often not taken seriously, or are seen as extreme conspiracy theorists. "

I don't know about denying the existence of the universe. But people challenge that it's real. How do you know it's real?

If you can't even prove that it's real, the universe, solar system, God , whatever you want to call it, you haven't proven that it exists.

"The updating of our conclusion does not make the previous science non-scientific, it just makes the old conclusion incomplete or incorrect."

Being that something is incorrect and incomplete, that something was not proven. If that's the kind of science you're talking about guessing or hypothesizing, learning, receiving information/knowledge of "God", I can't take anything you say as proof or real information/knowledge because it can very well just be incomplete and incorrect now. Question would be when do we actually get to ascertaining facts.If that's not the objective or never a stance we think we're resting on, then that raises this next question. If you try to argue that things continue and pursue to correction at some point, when is that point finally without going in a cycle loop?

Do we just stay in a vicious cycle of incomplete information?

I find big problems with that .

Rhetorical. Just a thought.

" The verbiage of know is more along the lines of "Is." "

I think you're saying here that when you use the word"know " in the context of this topic, you mean "is".

So for example, the universe"knows" operating in cause and effect with light, gases, explosions, orbiting and etc.

Translation by your lingo: the universe "IS" operating in cause and effect with light, gases, explosions, orbiting and etc.

So yes you're shifting around terms to technically make your case by using nominally scientific fields of study such as astronomy.

It's a sly and slick way to make the topic appear one way and maintaining a technically valid point without violating the said rules of whichever has been laid out in this topic.

The topic is God and science. On the surface the conventional way that's interpreted is supernatural, spiritual or other worldly phenomena in tandem with the natural world and observation.

But after opening up your position, what you have revealed is that the topic is the physical world and natural laws in tandem with the study, explanation, empirical information and observation of it (science).

So it's not actually supernatural versus the natural or that they're actually compatible. It's the natural is compatible with the natural but the play on semantics is setup to just reinforce what's supposed to be an irrefutable position.

Prove that God exists. By God we mean the world, the universe. Prove that unicorns and fairies exist. By that I mean mentally ill and LGBT, no disrespect to anybody.

So it's a crafty way to just rearrange things that perhaps can't be really contested.

Butttttttt here's what I will argue even against what you tried to do and you've touched on this with the "simulation" scenario.

Is the universe real?

Since you're saying it's compatible with science. Science is all about explaining the evidence.

We should be able to know through the scientific method that the universe is real. 

"Regardless of the semantics, this force exists. "

Something physical. It's physical reality you're affirming. I'm going to tie this in to another statement you'll make next.

"God isn't human nor does God prescribe to our social boundaries. "

Maybe the correct term you meant here was "subscribe". According to you, God or the universe controls everything and how all happens. That would include prescribing things.

"God doesn't have to be proven to be studied any more than the Universe's existence has to be proven to be studied."

How do you know it's there if it was not proven?

Doesn't make sense. We're able to study history, do archeology because of relics , artifacts, fossils and materials from the past . That's what we call proof which is just the physical contact of the physical world.

Remember you define and depict the universe as a physical reality. All the things you mentioned,

atom(s),mass, force. These are all physical elements in matter.

You , anybody only knows any of these elements exist is by receiving information from their actual existence detected by senses as you mentioned neural pathways. That is connected into the brain.

"There is no way to prove the existence of the Universe, beyond that which can be clearly seen."

This is somewhat backing out of your burden but in a waffling matter. On one hand you said no way to prove the universe while the next line you say by which can be clearly seen.

Being that you can clearly see it , it's there , it's proven. The universe is proven. You've received the information processed from the visual receptors for instance that makes the statement true "I've seen the universe" period.

"Even if/when we advance to a point technologically where we can observe the entirety of the Universe, people can still deny the existence by saying "it's a simulation" or "it's imagined", and in those cases, who or what is doing the simulation or imagining? That force. "

The argument is not on proving the measurement of the universe. So don't look for contention passed what is necessary to contend for and that's just the universe itself. Which throughout the exchange you have defined as something physical. Not non physical such as an illusion or simulation.

Ties back to my prior statement: "Something physical. It's physical reality you're affirming."

So keeping the goalpost where it is, you haven't proven the universe isn't a simulation. Now if you move the goalpost , ad hoc, shift all over with now interjecting saying "well even if it is a simulation, there's a force behind it", that's another claim yet to be substantiated.

"And yes, we are God. We all may not be aware of our nature, but we are God, removed from total awareness and experiencing ourself. "

The "we" would include babies, infant humans and everything else that has no ability to control certain things or has the power or authority over some things.

"We are a part of the "Rules" we are agents of God, just as much as anything else is. "

The conflict comes into place in how you're defining these things as such God/universe sets the processes or rules. Setting something is the cause, control, initiator, creator. You say we are agents of the universe, in other words representing the universe. Correct me if I'm wrong. 

We're being used as an agent to do something we're being ran by or processed by via the setup processes. This is total conflict. Either we're the agents or we have other entities representing us.

Either we as God are in control of all things or we're not .

I'm afraid your language use is tossing everything out of order, thus being not cohesive.

"We only have a limited sphere of influence based upon the amount of rules we can observe or impact."

More conflict in this statement. If we're all God that controls, sets up the motions and processes , the force of how all happens, there is no known limitation. No limited sphere of influence. We have all influence according to you granting us as this force.

You're going both ways on this because in one concept or premise you're making this all out force until you come to scenarios that actually do indeed limit us as the finite humans we are that would naturally separate us from THE God if we were talking about in a supernatural theology.

" A rock may not have the same choice or muscles to make changes in the way we do, but they are still enacting their existence on the world around, within the confines of their rules."

There's no evidence of rocks making choices. You haven't established the difference between animate and inanimate objects, non organic and organic things that fit into this totality of everything being "God".

"A rocks rules may be simpler than ours but that does not make them inferior."

With everything being"God" why is there even much distinction? All of one nature, all are interconnected using uniform functionality. 

You're jumping back and forth between this totality and individuality. The lack of cohesiveness track continues.

"Inferior is a social term that has no objective meaning. All is God, interacting with itself."

I think here you just caught yourself seeing no point in distinction according to your position. Exactly.

To exist is to be real, and to be real is to actually exist.

If one denies that the universe is real, they are literally denying that the universe actually exists.

And if the universe does not actually exist, then the any conclusions drawn from it are equal. All conclusions are equally verifiable if no information is taken as real, in which case this entire conversation is not real, doesn't exist, and is ultimately meaningless.

Now if you want to make the argument of if existence ought to be considered not real, there is no way to provide proof that existence is real or not real, other than the information already readily available.  In the same way, we can't prove if blue is blue. The words we use are just labels to discuss the qualia in our shared experience.

One cannot use non-existent information to argue for information's existence.

If the information available is seen as not real, or non-existent, then any information found can be denied on this basis with no need for further discussion.

And if that's the type of argumentation you want to do, it will be fruitless.

And my position currently is not to prove the existence of God, reality, or the universe, my position is that the existence of God is not contradictory to science. 

If you truly want someone to prove the realness of the universe, that is literally impossible if you do not trust the qualia used.

If the universe is seen as not real, then you can't use the qualia within it to prove it, one would have to access information outside of the universe, and then you could posit that the source of the exterior information also needs exterior proof, which would be an endless nesting doll.

And yes, humans do exist in a constant cycle of self-correction, until we can't find any understanding to correct, or we die. And if we can not find a necessary correction, we can not be certain that there isn't a correction to be made, we can only be certain that we are unaware of any necessary correction or further understanding to be gathered.

Yes you can say I'm "shifting the goalposts," but that is not my intention. I'm showing that the terms are very similar and apply in similar manners. I.e; you know your name. Your name is xyz. I know the galaxy moves through space. The galaxy is moving through space. One is an assertion of knowledge, the other is knowledge itself. The universe, God, is the knowledge which we gleam from. The Universe, God, does so, knows what to do without our assertion of knowledge of it, and doesn't need approval or for us to understand it for it to be how it is. It just is, it knows how to be. And we are a part of the process. 

Your presuppositions of what God is do not necessitate God to be supernatural, that's just your conception. 

Our language, by its nature slices the universe into distinguishable parts. All of these parts are of a whole. 

I need not prove the existence of the universe nor the existence of God to assert that the study of science is not contradictory to the existence of God.

Sometimes new understandings seems contradictory to old world views.

"If one denies that the universe is real, they are literally denying that the universe actually exists."

I think I made a point of this. Denying is one thing. Not to confuse that with questioning or challenging. I'm challenging you to prove the universe is actually real as is which you call God.

"And if the universe does not actually exist, then the any conclusions drawn from it are equal. All conclusions are equally verifiable if no information is taken as real, in which case this entire conversation is not real, doesn't exist, and is ultimately meaningless."

 

You haven't proven one way or the other. I believe your whole basis was using something nominally known to be compatible with science. We know spirituality, spirits are not compatible. So you do the word salad on a slick tip but even that was not absolutely flawless.

"Now if you want to make the argument of if existence ought to be considered not real, there is no way to provide proof that existence is real or not real, other than the information already readily available. In the same way, we can't prove if blue is blue. The words we use are just labels to discuss the qualia in our shared experience."

Then we can't say the compatibility is true. It's according to your perception. But my perception can very well be something else or I can actually be the external catalyst outside yours and all perceptions and now just revealing it to you.

"If the information available is seen as not real, or non-existent, then any information found can be denied on this basis with no need for further discussion."

I think this is your conceding here .

"And if that's the type of argumentation you want to do, it will be fruitless."

Well you could give a rebuttal to what I've said to top it but it looks like you can't top it.

So we can call it right here.

"And my position currently is not to prove the existence of God, reality, or the universe, my position is that the existence of God is not contradictory to science. "

This is a nice try of a rebuttal from you but there's a problem even with this. Science is about proving things. If you can't even prove the universe is what it is with the scientific method or formula, you have no basis to credit the universe being compatible with it.

So you've taken on more than what you thought you did.

"If you truly want someone to prove the realness of the universe, that is literally impossible if you do not trust the qualia used."

I trust in evidence because it is what it is. It doesn't change on you. It's reliable, always the same, repeatable. Sounds like the scientific method. But the key is when it's actually provided see. But I think you do concede you can't prove the universe so called by you... God.

"If the universe is seen as not real, then you can't use the qualia within it to prove it, one would have to access information outside of the universe, and then you could posit that the source of the exterior information also needs exterior proof, which would be an endless nesting doll."

In other words you cannot overcome my challenge just putting it short and sweet.

 Just like with attempting to prove God in the nominal sense meaning the spirit of God according to sacred writings and religion. No one has been able to prove God scientifically. Now you can't even do it with your exclusive defined version of God to demonstrate what fits into science.

"And yes, humans do exist in a constant cycle of self-correction, until we can't find any understanding to correct, or we die. "

Seems like you're communicating facts don't truly exist. Facts are not really facts but a good figment of what we think is true and we really can't know otherwise is what I'm getting.

Which is pseudo science. You may have started this topic with a firm idea that science is real, facts are real without a question and that was your firm foundation.

I believe that because you gave so much detail on the physical leaving out anything else that could constitute reality, this was the totality of your position until I pushed the envelope further.

Now we've gone from just a straightforward idea of the universe existing and that's compatible to science to questioning the metaphysical changing the straightforward direction you were arguing for thinking that's all you had to defend.

"And if we can not find a necessary correction, we can not be certain that there isn't a correction to be made, we can only be certain that we are unaware of any necessary correction or further understanding to be gathered."

Well after having this exchange with you, I can't be certain. If I can't be certain about possible future corrections, I can't be certain what I understand now doesn't need correction even when I think there's no need according to this communication from you.

See it's just a continual loop of uncertainty purely. We send kids to school to learn facts. Teach history and math. Things that are rudimentary and factual. It's not educated that 2+2 might equal something else later possibly needing correction.

Facts are facts. What you're confusing is a hypothesis or theory that hasn't reached conclusion to fact but also hasn't been further developed until further developments come.

"Your presuppositions of what God is do not necessitate God to be supernatural, that's just your conception. "

I never made a presupposition statement. 

"I need not prove the existence of the universe nor the existence of God to assert that the study of science is not contradictory to the existence of God."

Do you agree that science explains the evidence of something via its formula or method?

Do you agree that science involves establishing facts or shows us how things exist and or what exists in the manner that it does?

If you answer no , then where did your explanation of atoms, mass, gravity , particles, substance, energy and everything else we learn about the natural universe come from ?

Is that not science? If it's not, then why is the word science relevant or anywhere in this topic?

You said yourself that science studies these processes. Well what we study is from we read if written from what we learn from what we observe (facts).

 

Once again you say "observe ". Although you're attributing alternative definitions and concepts to the truth including modifying corrections to some sense in getting to facts, nominally, observations in the science world are what confirms facts. They're used as a vehicle to report the facts.

What we can test and empirically witness is the standard and what we can correctly attest to saying according to what has been"seen", this is the case, that is the case.

If I am expected to meet the challenge of proving the existence of the Universe, then so must any one who opposes my ideology.

Because we are all drawing on the same source for our information, my claims are equally founded as one who disagrees. 

In the case of God, you challenge me to prove the existence of God/The Universe.

In the case of no God/Universe, one faces the same challenge in the opposite direction. 

Neither side can provide any proof that is not drawing on information from that which they are debating.

We see the qualia and assign labels. 

If the qualia itself is real, then it is existent and there is no way to prove it is not.

If the qualia is not real, then it would be not existent, and any attempts to prove so would draw on non-existent information, and potentially the non-existent information would appear to prove that it is real.

This is why the point of real vs. not real is useless. Any perception of realness can be said to be fundamentally flawed since there is no way to prove the perception of the alleged realness is real, while any perception of nonrealness can be said to be fundamentally flawed since there is no way to prove something using something that isn't real.

The point is moot.

The fundamental axiom that any operable person bases their worldview on is that they are in a world, and that the world is real. Even if they claim otherwise, they are still operating, therefore subconsciously they treat the world as real. 

If we do not accept the fundamental axiom that the world is real, then any information gleamed from it is useless.

But the majority does accept this axiom, at least subconsciously, and uses it to operate. Even those who claim otherwise, those who claim the world is not real, they attempt to interact with others and tell them it is not real. If it's not real, why would they tell others anything at all?

There is no such thing as a rebuttal to a challenge of reality. If the reality you're in is not proof enough, then any rebuttal to it would also be based on that reality, and therefore would hold no logical assertion.

What I can say is that the universe can be equally real and not real, since they are just labels we attribute. The labels themselves are abstractions that are used subjectively, and with the studies into the quantum nature of reality, things are not always so black and white, not so cut and dry. 

Science posits theories and then uses expirementation to either prove or disprove a theory. It establishes understandings of natural processes that are all a part of a greater universal interaction. The entirety of the universe and it's interactions are God, it's simply a label for that which is, isn't, was, and could be. Science doesn't show us, the Universe/God shows us, and science provides an explanation in human language.

Science observes the Universe/God and then reports what is has found. That which they study exists without being studied.

Science confirms understandings and intuitions. 

That which science studies is God. 

Science studies that which can be seen. All that can be seen, by the eyes or with specialized equipment, is the Universe/God. The whole is within the parts, and the parts are of the whole. 

"If I am expected to meet the challenge of proving the existence of the Universe, then so must any one who opposes my ideology."

You say "opposes" but if any person must meet the challenge of proving the universe as you , that be who is in agreement. Unless you're trying to say that those who are opposed to the universe existing must prove it doesn't.

Keep in mind once more, this doesn't apply to those that simply question your proof if you actually have it.

"Because we are all drawing on the same source for our information, my claims are equally founded as one who disagrees. "

I can't say this is true. Some rely on what others have written or said versus seeing it for themselves. They call what others have written as sources which is cited here on this site as a link to a "source" a.k.a. what somebody wrote.

"Neither side can provide any proof that is not drawing on information from that which they are debating."

Ok so you can't provide proof which is what science is linked to. This ideology as you call it of God is not linked to science. Making the topic statement not proven true of compatibility.

"This is why the point of real vs. not real is useless. Any perception of realness can be said to be fundamentally flawed since there is no way to prove the perception of the alleged realness is real, while any perception of nonrealness can be said to be fundamentally flawed since there is no way to prove something using something that isn't real."

Ok no way to prove it further solidifies the topic statement not proven true. If you're trying to make the case something is impossible to prove would be by default true or makes your case true and the topic statement true , that would be fallacious.

I don't know if you're just conceding indirectly but that's the only direction you're left to go in this topic. You moved from one aspect of the topic to another almost like you're feeling your way through it to see what can't be challenged .

"The fundamental axiom that any operable person bases their worldview on is that they are in a world, and that the world is real. Even if they claim otherwise, they are still operating, therefore subconsciously they treat the world as real. 

If we do not accept the fundamental axiom that the world is real, then any information gleamed from it is useless."

Isn't an axiom true? Fundamental axiom or fundamental truth. Well any truth is established, verified and evident, is it not?

If a person actually rejects what is actually reality, proven to be true, not a perception of it , they reject actual reality.

Now rejecting a perception of reality or accepting a perception or their own perception is something different. 

A perception can be true or false. But evidence is one way. It's true. Which would mean ALL perceptions of what is actually true are the same.

Now I'm leaving it there because this gets tangential. 

Bottomline, the topic statement was not verified true.

"But the majority does accept this axiom, at least subconsciously, and uses it to operate."

Question is does the majority have evidence of the universe that you somehow couldn't demonstrate in this topic?

Consider that. It's not that because you say it's impossible to prove the universe that makes the topic statement true and the majority is of the same stance. Perhaps they just have the evidence you missed to present.

"Even those who claim otherwise, those who claim the world is not real, they attempt to interact with others and tell them it is not real. If it's not real, why would they tell others anything at all?"

Can't speak on them. Those that challenge those such as you that make the claim that something is real simply are looking for you to substantiate. 

Those that challenge are not necessarily taking a stance of their own either way of it's real/it's not real. 

So they have no onus in either of those claims because they're neutral.

"If the reality you're in is not proof enough, then any rebuttal to it would also be based on that reality, and therefore would hold no logical assertion."

This is backpedaling isn't it? Are you conceding that you cannot prove the universe is real or are you going back to saying it is real and that it's self evident but you don't know how to demonstrate its self evident nature?

Otherwise there be no debate on this. There's no debate on self evident things.

To say "this should be self evident to you" is just evading out of your burden.

This topic has taken a shifting trajectory. Your initial argument was to prove God is compatible with the science. There was a sematic touch up if you will , to make it make logical sense. Then I questioned some things that wasn't consistent that you never responded to. So that was your conceding unless I missed counterpoints. Then I pointed out that it's the same characterization of proving a personal independent entity being real so that it fits with science, it's the same with characterizing the universe as God, defining the universe as God proving it is real so that it fits with science.

So now you've shifted into this kind of philosophical reasoning as a red herring.

But it's been an interesting journey on this topic.

"What I can say is that the universe can be equally real and not real, since they are just labels we attribute. "

Now you're just speculating. It can be this. It can be that. I guess what else can you do to fill up round space when you can't substantiate your case any further.

"The labels themselves are abstractions that are used subjectively, and with the studies into the quantum nature of reality, things are not always so black and white, not so cut and dry. "

Do you want a part 2 to this topic? Take some time, research. Perhaps find the actual evidence the majority has and present it here. We can do that. That's pretty cut and dry, nice and simple .

"Science posits theories and then uses expirementation to either prove or disprove a theory. "

Proves a theory to be what? Disproves a theory to be what ?

Now if you can't prove the universe with science, this contradicts what you just said.

Proving a theory to be a theory wouldn't be the case because we understand already when something is a theory. A theory either graduates to fact or it doesn't.

"It establishes understandings of natural processes that are all a part of a greater universal interaction. The entirety of the universe and it's interactions are God, it's simply a label for that which is, isn't, was, and could be. Science doesn't show us, the Universe/God shows us, and science provides an explanation in human language."

This is in conflict with the topic. Science being compatible according to the topic but here you say can't show the universe. True compatibility would include scientific observation. If something can't be shown, I can't observe it.

"Science observes the Universe/God and then reports what is has found. That which they study exists without being studied."

This adds more nonsense to what has not made sense the duration of the debate. Science isn't a person that observes and reports. Science is a formula we use from our observations and make reports of.

Let me reiterate this:

"Once again you say "observe ". Although you're attributing alternative definitions and concepts to the truth including modifying corrections to some sense in getting to facts, nominally, observations in the science world are what confirms facts. They're used as a vehicle to report the facts.

What we can test and empirically witness is the standard and what we can correctly attest to saying according to what has been"seen", this is the case, that is the case.

"Science studies that which can be seen. All that can be seen, by the eyes or with specialized equipment, is the Universe/God. The whole is within the parts, and the parts are of the whole. "

This is practically reiterating what I stated above. When you do that it's just conceding. You're not really rebutting or responding directly to my points. It's like you went off into a philosophical discussion. 

Nevertheless I still must counter you.

Too bad you couldn't prove what we see is that which we see to hold up scientific standard compatibility.