Do theists attribute to God things that are not explainable within our frame of reference?

Goes to the background so thank you so is it that now we have a particular frame of reference and what we cannot explain in that frame of reference that we attribute to God and if our frame of reference expands in future then we will see things differently yeah okay let me complete this I got your point example basically we are not first of all talking about beyond the frame of reference simply talking about within the frame of reference itself the explainability requires explanation that's the first point now within the if I assuming the frame of reference nature itself I assume is a closed system with nothing existing outside nature then as I said the correlation between why nature works in a particular way and the human brain works in a particular way and why are they too correlated that itself requires explanation the frame of reference itself is not a complete thing as I said the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible so in that sense the frame of reference itself is not an exhaustive explanation so we are not talking about explaining something which is not explainable within the frame of reference we are talking about explaining that which is explainable within the frame of reference itself why is it explainable that way that is the first point the second point is if at all we say that our frame of reference is expanding and we will get different conceptions at different times then the implication of that would be not only would it disprove or not only would challenge the existence of God or the validity of any knowledge about God it would challenge the validity of all knowledge including the knowledge of science because if our brain has evolved simply by unguided natural processes then that would mean that the brain has evolved simply for the purpose of survival survival of the fittest the brain has not evolved for the purpose of discerning ultimate truth so actually speaking science which involves observing certain patterns in nature and arriving at some conclusions the very validity of scientific knowledge rests on the presumption of the validity of sense perception now I may say future scientific findings will can science is open to understanding and future scientific understanding can scientific findings can disprove this theory but even when I am saying that future scientific findings will disprove the present theory I am assuming that the future scientific findings are correct in the whole process I am assuming that I with my senses can get valid knowledge so within my frame of reference this was the valid knowledge but my frame of reference expanded I got some more valid because this is not valid but even to assume that within my frame of reference the knowledge that I have got is valid that requires the assumption that we can get knowledge we can get knowledge in particular so basically if we had a purely naturalistic worldview then there is no question of any reliability of human perception because human perception is not meant for gaining ultimate knowledge naturalistic perspective it is meant simply get for existential knowledge how to eat how to sleep how to mate how to defend how to survive that's all so no scientific knowledge at all could be considered not just conclusive but at all authority anyway let me complete what I am saying so naturalism in that sense if you consider science as one body of knowledge and if you consider naturalism as a exhaustive philosophy that this frame of reference is all that exists and this frame of reference is what is evolving okay but this frame of reference when I said it is all that exists what I mean by that is that this frame of reference is what we are perceiving right now and within that frame of reference we are perceiving something but our very capacity to perceive something it assumes that I have reliability that my sense perceptions are reliable but there is no need for that within natural perspective in terms of ultimate knowledge in other words immediate knowledge that is fine so I will give an example to say what I am saying that if I consider that right now I am sitting on this chair this chair is on this wooden floor this wooden floor is on some basement foundation that foundation is on the earth so ultimately I am sitting on something which is stable foundation so our chain of skepticism it has to stop somewhere if if I am skeptical you know one of the thing which I found most striking is that we can be skeptical but often we are not we are skeptical about everything except skepticism are you stopping the questioning attitude no I am not stopping the questioning attitude I am saying that skepticism can tell me what is wrong skepticism can never tell me what is right because no matter what explanation I come to I can always be skeptical about that so I can I have a particular body of knowledge which I am skeptical about I have another body of knowledge which I am skeptical about I have another body of knowledge I am skeptical about but what about being skeptical about skepticism itself skepticism can never tell me what is right it can only tell me what is wrong and in that way it can only lead to negation of the knowledge that I have it cannot lead to affirmation of anything scientific inquiry or the questioning is what is progress science that's the hallmark of wait a minute I'm not disagreeing with that but every scientist takes a leap of faith it's a hypothesis but essentially at that particular point it is functioning today for example in the large hadron collider is millions and millions of dollars are spent over there so this is done based on the faith that it can give us some reliable finding what that finding is whether it proves a particular theory that's a different thing but the fact is that in science whenever we talk about science finding out knowledge there is a faith that the observations that we make are correct there is that we have the senses by which you can make correct observations then when I postulate a particular pattern a particular theory I have faith that this theory explains these observations then I set up an experiment by which I am going to evaluate the theory I have faith that that experiment is adequate enough to evaluate the theory tomorrow some other experiment might come up which the same theory we could find out that it is it doesn't work that way then from that experiment I come to a conclusion now from that experiment whatever I come to conclusion I have the faith that this conclusion is adequately derivable from this experiment the whole of science is based on the principle of induction at least as it operates now now the validity of induction itself is a matter of faith that I have seen hundred times object that is dropped falls down therefore I say that in future if the object is dropped it will fall down now I could say it's a reasonable idea there's no guarantee over there the Immanuel Kant one of the fundamental things he pointed out was that induction itself is a matter of faith so we had this Samsung phones which are exploding all the time you know only a few brands but the point is again the induction the induction today when I take up this phone you know I do have faith that is not going to explode it's a reasonable faith but it is faith so the point which I am making is that faith is not opposed to knowledge faith is the precondition for knowledge of any kind it is not just the knowledge of God but even knowledge of science skepticism itself is based on the faith that skepticism can lead to some knowledge and that's what the whole point of science is is inquiry spirituality is also about inquiry inquire about spirituality the Bhagavad Gita is a conversation which is full of inquiry in fact the whole of spirituality is actually meant to expand the scope of our inquiry expand the scope of our inquiry beyond the causal chain that we are looking at in science we accept the causal chain in science I said that there is a correct explanation there is a complete explanation so we are not denying the correctness why is this ball going to the hole yes there is an explanation for that this ball hit at this angle this angle this one but is it a complete explanation so often the conflict between science and religion comes when we get caught in this frame of reference and we start challenging no but this can be explained like this what we are talking about is that this frame of reference is not the complete reality whatever is explainable within this frame of reference that itself requires an explanation so science for its very validity of functioning requires nature to be working in an orderly way and the orderliness of nature requires an explanation beyond nature and that's where we are talking about expanding the scope of enquiry expanding the scope of enquiry to look at ultimate causes what happens in science is we look at causes but we look at intermediate causes we look at causes with the assumption that laws of nature are working but why are those laws of nature existing at all now it is not that the scientific explanations are necessarily wrong or necessarily right they are a matter of investigation and some theories are proven to be right some theories are proven to be wrong but the point is why is there today I found this is a proposal of the law of nature but I found this is not the law this is the law or this is a small law this is an expanded version of the law but why do those laws exist at all that is where we need an explanation so the very explainability of nature requires an explanation outside the scope of nature and that is where we need to expand the scope of our inquiry so science is not about God and spirituality we are not using that to reject inquiry we are rather using it to expand the scope of inquiry yeah yeah please thank you for sharing I would like to ask so if God is like nature in the business of isness of like our soul and nature being kind of one so like if I was to take that perspective of like being in homeostasis with nature like I've experienced that it's like the oneness and synchronicity and all that good stuff so like why would we need like a personal depiction such as Krishna or Jesus or Muhammad or whatever is that just so that we can like relate because we are people and they have a form or okay yeah.