Dear Chemistry,
1)
Prove to me that all of this is real.
You can't?
I don't remember signing up for science to study god.
So I really enjoy this idea for many of the reasons I'm sure others will hate it. For instance:
a) It's all completely relative. Proof, real, science, study, god - None of it really means anything, meaning it could mean anything.
b) No matter how stupid you think this is, you can find a way for this to relate to you and your views.
But anyways, I suppose I view science as an invisible entity (force, whatever) which governs all aspects of life (seriously, everything from technology to emotions). And right now, I'm really having a lot of trouble differentiating between god and science. I have brainstormed for, well, maybe 15 minutes and could not find one trait which one of the two solely posesses. Granted, this is all perception, but now I'm steering away from seiously trying to figure out religion and what not, and moving more into an experimental "assuming this is true, what could it mean?" sort of idealogy.
So for this particular scenario, assuming that science and god are similar or identical entities, then:
If math dictates the rules of science, could math be a higher power than god? Blasphemous, I know. That's why its so interesting.
2) Once again, assuming that god is science, then what is life? A product of god's tinkering, yes? In the metaphorical world of science, this could most closely be related to a chemical reaction, perhaps. Therefore, what is the point of life? Running off this unusual assumption, I have arrived at the conclusion that science as a religion very closely supports buddhist beliefs of reincarntaion.
So, in any given chemical reaction, reactants are neither created created nor destroyed, usually only changed into different substances or compounds. If the reaction is life, then life cannot end, it only reincarnates in another form. And then the new compound goes through countless more reactions, for all eternity.
Furethermore, a great deal of intermediate steps in chemical reactions remain a mystery to humans, explained mainly through theories and assumptions about what must happen given the initial reactants and the final products. This means that the meaning of life is unknown and largely irrelevant, the only importance should be given to the creation of new life (reproduction) and the ending of life (the fact that everybody will die). This idea strays from eastern reincarnation beliefs into a more existential point of view.
Yeah, the whoel aspect of Nirvana is ignored in these idea because, frankly, it doesn't fit. I acknowledge it as an omitted reference to buddhism, but since it is realistically unexplainable (someone cannot prove to you they have obtained Nirvana, no matter how much they believe it), i will compare it to the idea that if a scientist claimed to have created matter from nothing or to have destroyed matter into nothing, it could not be proven (easily, at least) and there would be countless sceptics, undoubtedly.
And naturally, "god" refers to a higher entity, not necessairly a tradtitional god of any sort. And equally as naturally, it's all perception.