Being

[now faith]

Claiming something exists does not prove or deny its existence. A good scientists may try but always to promote sciences because science doesn't exist until the scientist believed their claim.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Claiming something exists does not prove or deny its existence.

Agreed.

A good scientists may try but always to promote sciences

What? "May try but always to"?

because science doesn't exist until the scientist believed their claim.

Science is a method for acquiring and testing claims - theories - about the world. It doesn't 'exist', it just 'is'.

 

[now faith]

You would not explore theory unless you thought of the need. A scientist only explores the realms of their own comprehension , each one with their own special blinders.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You would not explore theory unless you thought of the need. A scientist only explores the realms of their own comprehension , each one with their own special blinders.

I disagree. Science, the scientific method, and the scientific community, have the capacity to see beyond any one individual's 'blinders'. The theories of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity - which completely changed our understanding of the nature of matter and energy, space and time - did not come about from mere armchair philosophy. No one thought, "I wonder if this is true...". They arose from experiment and observation, the accruing of measurable facts and hard data, and from that are theories developed.

Scientists don't work with blinkers, they work from the facts. It is from those facts that new and fantastic ideas are born and borne. If you disagree, then I welcome your explanation for how QM came to the fore.

 

[now faith]

Strange Einstein was rare for a scientist to believe in intelligent design. And yet that creative mind is what made him the most recognized of all time

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Strange Einstein was rare for a scientist to believe in intelligent design. And yet that creative mind is what made him the most recognized of all time

Einstein didn't believe in intelligent design. There were a lot of rumours about his religious beliefs even when he was alive, and he went to great lengths to clarify and dispel those rumours:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

He did not believe in a personal, universe-creating, prayer-answering deity, but rather the god of Spinoza, a 'god' that isn't really a 'god', but merely a label for some ineffable substance. He certainly was awed by the universe and the structure he perceived within it, but he never asserted that this structure lead him to a belief in any sort of grand designer.

And, even if he did believe in intelligent design, so what? It is fallacious to say, "Oh, Einstein believed in God, therefore God exists" - it is entirely possible that Einstein was wrong. This is moot, of course, as Einstein didn't believe in God in the first place.

 

[now faith]

I agree with the start of this thread, that science and belief in God are in perfect harmony. One does not negate the other but the opposite , they confirm each other. Gods word holds many answers that scienst are looking for they just need to step out of their mind trap and realize that trying to understand curved space and time continuum requires information from the Creator of all things. The bible says the wisdom of men is foolishness to God. Just because we can't see God does not deny his existence , we cannot see gravity yet we feel it's power.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I agree with the start of this thread, that science and belief in God are in perfect harmony. One does not negate the other but the opposite , they confirm each other.

How does science confirm a belief in God? How does a belief in God confirm science?

Gods word holds many answers that scienst are looking for they just need to step out of their mind trap and realize that trying to understand curved space and time continuum requires information from the Creator of all things.

On the contrary, modern scientific understanding of the nature of space and time is entirely a result of human endeavour. It was a human discovery, not a divine revelation, that space and time are part of the same thing (the spacetime continuum), and that mass can warp this continuum. This is a fantastic discovery, born out of evidence and reason.

If God is the creator of all things, why is it that he's revealed nothing of use? Why is it no priest or bishop has ever come forth with actual, testable knowledge about the universe that hasn't been acquired through science? Why isn't there, say, a 5[sup]th[/sup] monk who wrote that, through divine revelation, he now knows that life on Earth is related by a common ancestor, or that space can be curved by mass, or that the Earth goes round the Sun?

In other words, I disagree with the assertion that we need God to uncover truth about the universe.

The bible says the wisdom of men is foolishness to God.

The Bible also mentions talking donkeys.

Just because we can't see God does not deny his existence , we cannot see gravity yet we feel it's power.

But we can test and confirm gravity's existence; the same cannot be said of God.

 

[now faith]

It's only from need do people test God. When their knowledge has failed their logic no longer makes sense,and they find themselves searching for a deeper understanding of life. Science is limited in knowlage do to mans limits. God has no limiters. Man cannot comprehend God with science. God transcends time space and matter. How would you teach physics to a new born? Religion has no better understanding of God than science,religion seeks to place God in its own context as well.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It's only from need do people test God. When their knowledge has failed their logic no longer makes sense,and they find themselves searching for a deeper understanding of life. Science is limited in knowlage do to mans limits. God has no limiters. Man cannot comprehend God with science. God transcends time space and matter. How would you teach physics to a new born? Religion has no better understanding of God than science,religion seeks to place God in its own context as well.

Regardless, human survival and quality of life has been vastly improved due to science, not religion. It is scepticism and empiricism, not dogma and faith, that have tripled lifespans and eradicated diseases, brought understanding of the finer workings of the universe to the fore, and put men on the Moon itself.

If science has limits, you're welcome to explain what they are. If humanity needs God, you're welcome to explain why.

 

[now faith]

Thank you! It's been educational.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Thank you! It's been educational.

Likewise. I'm always appreciative of civil discourse that, for once, doesn't devolve into name calling

 

[Eudaimonist]

Science is limited in knowlage do to mans limits. God has no limiters.

There is one capacity that man has to no limit at all: the capacity to accept comforting falsehoods. Coincidence? I think not.

We should praise the limited, for the truth is also limited, while falsehoods are unlimited. We should praise logic and science instead of abandoning them before ever really understanding them. We should accept the path of the philosopher, using logic and observation to pursue wisdom, instead of looking for a quick fix in religious experience.


eudaimonia,

Mark