Some scientists believe that God exists, some don't. Scientists have not proven that God exists or "not exists" via any applicable scientific method, except for one scientist who apparently proved the existence of God, but whose math was way beyond my ability to comprehend; it might have been Kurt Godel but don't quote that, it's too long ago, I can't remember who it was. Google it if you want to know.
NB: yes, it was Kurt Godel. I looked it up out of curiosity. See: Godel's ontological proof
Still, scientists love to argue with each other about the applicability of each other's methods and whatever else might help their own case, each doing their best to prove the improbability of each other's work.
However, the fact that nobody has conclusively used scientific method to prove the existence of God does not mean that God doesn't exist. It merely evokes the possibility the God lies beyod the scope of current scientific method.
I have a friend who's atheistic. He like the ideas of Spinoza who's modus operandi is to poo poo the existence of everything that is not scientifically proven (I wonder if Spinoza could prove his own existence). I tried to explain to my friend that God is not something/someone that can be understood with the mind. Whilst the mind can be useful, in part, to lead us to an understanding of God, ultimately, God can only be understood by the heart.
When the heart is included in scientific method, existence, knowledge and joy all exist within each other. Understanding existence gives one the platform required to understand knowledge (consciousness), and understanding knowledge permits the understanding (experience) of bliss.
Everything exists within bliss, or joy. Joy contains everything else, which exists as a subset, not different from joy, but included within it.
God is everything and God is love are not mutually exclusive statements, and love is so very personal.
Those who are not very aware of it take little notice of consciousness and joy, living as they do within a rather impersonal, materialistic mindset.
Thus we define the mentality of scientific method, which, excluding almost everything of value, needs to take a couple of quantam leaps itself and utilise ALL that's available, especially joy.
Otherwise, science can merely delve within the impersonal fraction of everything, merely a portion of the existence platform, and will never be able to conclusively understand anything since everything is personal.
I found it rather fascinating when I recently read that Stephen Hawking (theoretical physicist) recently mathematically proved that the universe has always existed, and that there never needed to be any original big bang.
Good one Stephen, I read that in the Bhagavad Gita more than 20 years ago. Still when scientists finally conclude their own limitations, God will give them the ability to understand.
Everything always exists because God always exists.
Some mind boggling, but not overly difficult physics from Nassim Haramein (theoretical physicist) also indicate that the smallest, scientifically conceviable distance, that of the wavelength of a photon, when cubed to form the smallest scientifically conceviable space (or volume) contains more energy than all of the mass in the entire universe.
It could be said that Nassim Haramein has defined the structure of the void. Amazing. And the void is impersonal. I can't wait till these guys get to analyzing the structure of joy.
After all, you are, yourself, a person, aren't you?
God is a person, you're a person. Hmmm!
Joy to all beings
