Wanted: Christian scientists to explain to me what is God.

[Pachomius]

I live very much to exchange thoughts with Christian scientists who are good in math and in philosophy for us to exchange thoughts on what is God.

Here is my concept of God: the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

Tell me, Christian scientists, do you think that concept of God is scientific or not?

 

[lesliedellow]

A scientist is unlikely to call that scientific, any more than he would call it geographical, or musical, but by that he wouldn't necessarily mean that it was untrue. He would just mean that it was theological, and to call it scientific is a category error.

 

[juvenissun]

I live very much to exchange thoughts with Christian scientists who are good in math and in philosophy for us to exchange thoughts on what is God.

Here is my concept of God: the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

Tell me, Christian scientists, do you think that concept of God is scientific or not?

To science, the idea of a creator and the idea of a beginning are critical. The operator is optional.
Of course, the complete God needs to be much more than that.

 

[lesliedellow]

To science, the idea of a creator and the idea of a beginning are critical. The operator is optional.
Of course, the complete God needs to be much more than that.

Science per se has nothing to say about whether there is a creator God or not. That is not its concern.

 

[juvenissun]

Science per se has nothing to say about whether there is a creator God or not. That is not its concern.

You do not understand the concern of the OP.
Of course, to a limited scope of science, the idea of God is not needed after all.
But if we want to put God in, then God would be meaningful to science in the creation (origin) and the beginning (processes).

 

[Pachomius]

Thanks for your replies.

May we now just exchange thoughts on what is scientific thinking?

II the thought that there is a creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning, that is not scientific thinking?

What about this thought from an eminent scientist, Carl Sagan:

"The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be."

 

[lesliedellow]

You do not understand the concern of the OP.

The concern of the OP is that typical of conservative American evangelicals, and that is the idea that science is out to "get" Christianity. Maybe some atheists, who happen to be scientists, are, but science is not.

Of But if we want to put God in, then God would be meaningful to science in the creation (origin) and the beginning (processes).

Even if it could be absolutely 100% proven that God exists, that would still be of no relevance to science whatsoever. The PHYSICAL sciences are concerned only with physical processes, and a miraculous creation is, by definition, not a physical process.

 

[OliviaMay]

Thanks for your replies.

May we now just exchange thoughts on what is scientific thinking?

II the thought that there is a creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning, that is not scientific thinking?

What about this thought from an eminent scientist, Carl Sagan:

"The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be."

Scientific thinking is it observable and testable and falsifiable.

So can we test your definition of God, and is it possible to prove your God doesn't exist? The definition that you provided isn't scientific given the criteria I laid out.

 

[lesliedellow]

II the thought that there is a creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning, that is not scientific thinking?

No, it is not scientific thinking; it is theological thinking. Conservative evangelicals really have swallowed the new atheist propaganda, if they think it is necessary to hang the label "scientific" off of everything in order to make it respectable.

What about this thought from an eminent scientist, Carl Sagan:

"The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be."

He is entitled to his opinion, but it is a philosophical/theological opinion. It is not "scientific".

 

[juvenissun]

The concern of the OP is that typical of conservative American evangelicals, and that is the idea that science is out to "get" Christianity. Maybe some atheists, who happen to be scientists, are, but science is not.

Even if it could be absolutely 100% proven that God exists, that would still be of no relevance to science whatsoever. The PHYSICAL sciences are concerned only with physical processes, and a miraculous creation is, by definition, not a physical process.

The ultimate goal of scientific study is: the origin of everything.
The reason most scientific work do not not address the concern of ultimate origin is not it does want, but can not reach.

If a scientist wanted to explore the origin problem, there are two, and only two, consequences: Look upon God, or get lost.

 

[Pachomius]

Scientific thinking is it observable and testable and falsifiable.

So can we test your definition of God, and is it possible to prove your God doesn't exist? The definition that you provided isn't scientific given the criteria I laid out.

May we now all exchange thoughts on what it is to prove that something exists or is true or is a fact, in science?


According to OliviaMay, scientific thinking is directed into things that are observable and testable and falsifiable.

Can you prove, OliviaMay, that scientific thinking is directed into things that are observable and testable and falsifiable?

Take notice that you require three conditions for a thought to be an example of scientific thinking, otherwise it is not, namely: it must be directed into things that are 1. obseevable, 2. testable, and 2. falsifiable.

 

[juvenissun]

Thanks for your replies.

May we now just exchange thoughts on what is scientific thinking?

II the thought that there is a creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning, that is not scientific thinking?

It is a beginning and is not complete.

There is .... (you gave this part)
So that .... (?)

 

[lesliedellow]

The ultimate goal of scientific study is: the origin of everything.
The reason most scientific work do not not address the concern of ultimate origin is not it does want, but can not reach.

The goal of scientific thinking is not to study the origin of everything. The goal of scientific thinking is to discover how physical systems operate, and to uncover the physical laws which are responsible for the regularity we see around us.

If a scientist wanted to explore the origin problem, there are two, and only two, consequences: Look upon God, or get lost.

I am quite sure there are atheist scientists who think they can do without God in coming up with unverifiable and unfalsifiable speculations about what caused the big bang.

 

[juvenissun]

The goal of scientific thinking is not to study the origin of everything. The goal of scientific thinking is to discover how physical systems operate, and to uncover the physical laws which are responsible for the regularity we see around us.

That is a typical view to an engineer, not to a scientist.
No wonder.

 

[lesliedellow]

May we now all exchange thoughts on what it is to prove that something exists or is true or is a fact, in science?

Science doesn't deal in proofs. It only deals in theories which account for what can be observed. If any given theory can do that, then its truth is treated as an established fact, until some inconvenient data comes along to cause a rethink.

According to OliviaMay, scientific thinking is directed into things that are observable and testable and falsifiable.

It is the criterion scientists themselves use, and therefore it is true by definition. The existence of God is not a falsifiable hypothesis, and therefore his existence or non existence is not a question for science to settle.

 

[sfs]

That is a typical view to an engineer, not to a scientist.
No wonder.

It was a good, concise statement of what scientists do.

 

[juvenissun]

It was a good, concise statement of what scientists do.

No. That limited practical view is typically engineering. No imagination at all.

 

[Pachomius]

If I may, I seem to notice that there are folks here who hold to the thought that science is not about proofs as to what is existing, or true, or a fact, but only into coming to the conviction that an event will occur again and again in the actual circumstances of a human's observation; but the same event might not occur in changed circumstances: so, science is today concerned only with the circumstances binding man in his here and now situation.

That idea of science will satisfy the criteria of scientific thinking as to be exclusively founded on the criteria of it's being directed exclusively into things that are observable, testable, and falsifiable(?).

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I live very much to exchange thoughts with Christian scientists who are good in math and in philosophy for us to exchange thoughts on what is God.

Here is my concept of God: the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

Tell me, Christian scientists, do you think that concept of God is scientific or not?

All what we call "creation" is a great thought in the mind of God. Creation is probably infinite.

But to consider "God" scientifically is a category error. It would be like looking for evidence of my computer in the way the pieces of the chess game I'm playing on it happen to move. There's no way to translate from the chess moves to the nature of the computer handling the chess playing game.

Only revelation "God to us" can give us evidence of God. And its up to Him to decide when, where, how, why . . .

 

[OliviaMay]

May we now all exchange thoughts on what it is to prove that something exists or is true or is a fact, in science?


According to OliviaMay, scientific thinking is directed into things that are observable and testable and falsifiable.

Can you prove, OliviaMay, that scientific thinking is directed into things that are observable and testable and falsifiable?

Take notice that you require three conditions for a thought to be an example of scientific thinking, otherwise it is not, namely: it must be directed into things that are 1. obseevable, 2. testable, and 2. falsifiable.

I am sorry you must be more clear. What do you want?