Is science set up...

[philadiddle]

Is science set up so that if God did create the universe science could arrive at that conclusion? I'm not distinguishing old/new earth. It just seems that science only deals with the natural world, and doesn't involve the supernatural. So, if in fact the supernatural is involved it will never be scientific. Scientists will always seek a different explanation. It's like explaining how a car was made, but only talking about the car. You can't explain a car's creation without talking about the designer who planned it out and the factory it was made in.

Just a late night thought.

 

[Grengor]

Science is agnostic to the existance of God, give proof of God, and he becomes a factor.

 

[nitesco]

Science explains the unknown. You can't just resort to 'well God did it', then we wouldn't even need science. Well in my opinion anyways. To your car analogy, we know who makes cars, man makes them, no debate, with the universe we are still uncertain, we only know it came into existance 4.5 bya. Science can't really go further then that, even if god did it. So I would say there is no room for god in science. Am I wrong?

 

[philadiddle]

Science is agnostic to the existance of God, give proof of God, and he becomes a factor.

how could u prove the supernatural using the natural. it's a contradiction.

you must ask yourself, what proof is acceptable and what isn't?

God exists within the realm of REASONABLE possibility. I'm not gonna go on a crazy conspiracy rant like others, but physics do show the possibility of other dimentions, stuff we don't even know about yet. Why exclude God as a factor so soon in the game? We have so much more to learn.

You didn't directly answer my question, it sounds like your answer is "no, science can't conclude God did anything"

 

[philadiddle]

Science explains the unknown. You can't just resort to 'well God did it', then we wouldn't even need science. Well in my opinion anyways. To your car analogy, we know who makes cars, man makes them, no debate, with the universe we are still uncertain, we only know it came into existance 4.5 bya. Science can't really go further then that, even if god did it. So I would say there is no room for god in science. Am I wrong?

so you admit that it's possible that God did it but you aren't willing to accept it because it's not a natural explanation? is that what you're saying?

 

[MartinM]

how could u prove the supernatural using the natural. it's a contradiction.

Before we can determine what evidence would point to the supernatural, we have to know what exactly this 'supernatural' stuff is. What does it mean?

 

[Nightson]

There are two things I want to say... One, the god-of-the-gaps explanation must be avoided, just saying goddidit in place of reaserching and discovering the natural cause behind it is worthless. Two, science cannot prove or disprove God.

 

[Grengor]

how could u prove the supernatural using the natural. it's a contradiction.

you must ask yourself, what proof is acceptable and what isn't?

God exists within the realm of REASONABLE possibility. I'm not gonna go on a crazy conspiracy rant like others, but physics do show the possibility of other dimentions, stuff we don't even know about yet. Why exclude God as a factor so soon in the game? We have so much more to learn.

You didn't directly answer my question, it sounds like your answer is "no, science can't conclude God did anything"

Well, if you have proof of God, then he's natural. But if he exists, he is natural anyways . I meant, science doesn't exclude/include the existance of God automatically.

 

[philadiddle]

Before we can determine what evidence would point to the supernatural, we have to know what exactly this 'supernatural' stuff is. What does it mean?

exactly, science cannot include anything outside of nature

There are two things I want to say... One, the god-of-the-gaps explanation must be avoided, just saying goddidit in place of reaserching and discovering the natural cause behind it is worthless. Two, science cannot prove or disprove God.

i love these kind of replies. first you say you can't count God as a possibility, then you say He is a possibility.
for the record, i agree to some extent, it we still bled ppl to get rid of disease that would be no good.

Well, if you have proof of God, then he's natural. But if he exists, he is natural anyways . I meant, science doesn't exclude/include the existance of God automatically.

If He exists He is natural? you seem to misunderstand this concept completely

 

[MartinM]

exactly, science cannot include anything outside of nature

But what exactly does 'outside nature' mean?

 

[philadiddle]

But what exactly does 'outside nature' mean?

God, spirits, souls etc...

Interesting fact for u, i read in the new york times online ( a while back) that said small particals with a 1/3 electron charge seem to appear between molecules as they drift apart. I just searched nytimes.com but you have to pay to view old articles, i'm looking on the web right now but i haven't found it yet, if anyone is familiar with this please put up a link.

 

[Nightson]

i love these kind of replies. first you say you can't count God as a possibility, then you say He is a possibility.
for the record, i agree to some extent, it we still bled ppl to get rid of disease that would be no good.

That's right, you simply can't count God as a possibility because humans don't know everything and as such often don't know the naturalistic causes of an event. And the god-of-the-gaps certainly has a bad track record, along with the annoyance of naturalististic explanations being found for the gap, and thereby diminishing the little god-of-the-gaps someone's set up.

 

[philadiddle]

That's right, you simply can't count God as a possibility because humans don't know everything and as such often don't know the naturalistic causes of an event. And the god-of-the-gaps certainly has a bad track record, along with the annoyance of naturalististic explanations being found for the gap, and thereby diminishing the little god-of-the-gaps someone's set up.

so your answer is, "if God created the universe, science will never know"
interesting...

 

[MartinM]

God, spirits, souls etc...

That's not a definition, though.

 

[philadiddle]

That's not a definition, though.

they are examples, maybe science should work on a definition.

how about dictionary.com for "supernatural"

1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

 

[nitesco]

so you admit that it's possible that God did it but you aren't willing to accept it because it's not a natural explanation? is that what you're saying?

No, I am saying that god is outside science, we can't resort to 'since we don't know, god did it'. However, I do believe that god, if he wanted to, make it known that he exists. But he hasn't so that is why I do not believe in him. He could have written 'God created you' in the stars, but did he? No.

 

[nitesco]

Or given us any kind of evidence to show that the earth is young and therefore evolution can not explain the complexity of life, but did he do that? No. He could do a miracle now and then... ah I am getting a little off topic, but it really seems this was where you wanted to go.

 

[philadiddle]

No, I am saying that god is outside science, we can't resort to 'since we don't know, god did it'.

but does that mean He didn't do anything?

However, I do believe that god, if he wanted to, make it known that he exists.

He did make it known, read the Bible.

But he hasn't so that is why I do not believe in him. He could have written 'God created you' in the stars, but did he? No.

no, because He wrote it in the Bible

Or given us any kind of evidence to show that the earth is young and therefore evolution can not explain the complexity of life, but did he do that? No. He could do a miracle now and then... ah I am getting a little off topic, but it really seems this was where you wanted to go.

k, that seemed to be parts of several ideas put into a run on sentece. The earth being young has nothing to do with this discussion. You say FOR CERTAIN that God didn't create life (i think you said that) but then you say he can do miracles. that doesn't make sence to me.

 

[Nightson]

so your answer is, "if God created the universe, science will never know"
interesting...

Yep, it's like, to use a rather weird example, if a rock falls on somebody at the bottom of a cliff, the other people at the bottom of the cliff can't see whether someone pushed the rock or it fell by itself. The can find out what kind of rock it is, how fast it fell, and stuff like that, but it can't say whether someone pushed it because they can't see there.

 

[raphael_aa]

Science is a tool for finding naturalistic explanations. Looking for God is not in its job description. The right tool for that job might be theology or mysticism.

When water is boiling on a stove we can scientifically explain why it is doing so referring to molecular motion etc. We can also say the water is boiling because I want a cup of tea. Both explanations are true. It isn't an either/or proposition.