If time and space are illusions then it seems likely that there is a greater reality that those illusions are a reflection of which leads to the idea that we aren’t alone.
Well...I'm not really sure about religious doctrine anymore. But Time as I use it mathematically is very real. it is a measure between an areas distance and how long it takes to reach that distance at a given velocity. Now space-time, or other more advanced areas of science may have a different concept for time, as many words used scientifically may have different meanings and values associate4d with them.
I do not believe that science and religion need to merge. But I do believe scientists should stop using science facts as an excuse to force their anti-religious agendas on those who choose to follow a God. But I also believe that religious leaders, especially Christian ones, should not alienate science or downplay its importance. The religious leaders that are doing that many times are just trying to keep their jobs professing a faith they do not have, and a belief they do not believe for purely financial gain, and in order to do that they must teach their followers to endorse ignorance. That’s pretty easy to do and allows people a scapegoat for their personal decisions to be lazy and safely ignorant of the world around them.
But that is not the path of all religious peoples. Many religious are very intelligent, even wise, and are good problem solvers. Their faith does not need destroyed for them to be productive members if the science community. Science just needs to stop trying to destroy religions with their doctrine, and explain and report the data they have found more accurately, without throwing spins on why a religion is "wrong". if they were to do that, those religious can examine the data, and come to whatever conclusion they will personally develop within their capabilities of understanding.
God is rarely defined the same way by two people in idea, even if they use the same words to describe what God is to them in words. After examination of different religions and their versions, the definition that is most common has been that God is beyond comprehension, and his power is not possible to ascertain.
My take on that is that sure, I can fit that within the bounds of my definition of God, which is a physical definition and location of God, as the first energy that all has come from, and still exists inside of.
Where I differ with others definitions is that I do not believe that it is beyond our ability to connect with that energy on a conscious level if it does exists. But the path to being able to do that starts with accepting the possibility of it, and looking for ways to explore that potential through the understanding of the body we are in, namely: the greater body of space we call the 'universe', and the communication of greater species through consciousness.
I'm not a fighter for the left or the right concerning science and religion, I am the middle ground. I am the one that say's I know what I know, but I'll accept what I do not know.
The evidence of existing things and all science point to a beginning of sorts, a singularity beyond math’s description. Many religious texts agree with that. (i.e. in the beginning there was only God)
So I've drawn my conclusions to best fit what is most believable given the data we have been exposed to, and accepted. Be it religious, or scientific.
My final point here is that I believe when science has enough answers it will conclude that God is. And my hope is that in discovering that, we can open a door to communication, and get a little help with our foolish societies on how to manage the human species and our lives for greater fulfillment, and prosperities.
keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
™ Version 4.2