Is science set up...

[:æ:]

The easiest solution is often the one avoided

You owe me a new irony meter. Mine just exploded.

I have to wonder how explanations that require the invocation of miraculous intervention by beings of unlimited power and inscrutible motives can be conherently described as "easier." The sheer ignorance behind such a characterization is, frankly, baffling.

:æ:

 

[A4C]

You owe me a new irony meter. Mine just exploded.

I have to wonder how explanations that require the invocation of miraculous intervention by beings of unlimited power and inscrutible motives can be conherently described as "easier." The sheer ignorance behind such a characterization is, frankly, baffling.

:æ:

I have no difficulty in speaking to the weather. I don't think Jesus had either

 

[Beastt]

You owe me a new irony meter. Mine just exploded.

I have to wonder how explanations that require the invocation of miraculous intervention by beings of unlimited power and inscrutible motives can be conherently described as "easier." The sheer ignorance behind such a characterization is, frankly, baffling.

:æ:

Not to mention that fact that the "Goddidit" conclusion is actually a conclusion devoid of an answer. Science seeks to see how things happened. Saying "Goddidit", doesn't tell us anything about how things were done. It only offers who did it.

If God created the universe, tell us how he created the universe. God isn't physical and the universe is physical. So how did the total lack of matter result in the existence of all the matter in the universe? It's the same "something from nothing" argument believers often like to thrust at atheists. Putting God in the picture doesn't solve the something from nothing issue. It only puts a label on it.

For example;

Question: How did that occur on the computer?

Non-Answer: I did it.

Answer: I wrote a short program with a single instruction to terminate program execution.

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

Science should never tell us how God never did it though.

well, not specifically... it will tell us how something occurred (a force of attraction between bodies with mass drew the ball to the floor), and if oyu choose to believe that god did it, that is fine... gravity would then explain the method that he used

 

[philadiddle]

so, it seems to me that the answer to this question "Is science set up so that if God did create the universe science could arrive at that conclusion?" is this "No, science cannot come to that conclusion." With one exception (i'll get to in a minute) everybody is saying that, they just feel the need to justify the answer by giving a longer explanation. Why can't anyone just say "No, science can't conclude it if God did it."?

i'll touch on a couple things now.

Yes (in response to the above question). If there is empirical evidence of what (if anything) created the universe then the evidence can be studied scientifically to postulate a scientific theory about it.

then 'AnEmpircalAgnostic' spends the rest of his post explaining why science can't conclude Goddidit, which to me sounds like a contradiction;

The danger comes when we try to explain natural phenomena by positing a supernatural cause.

Science seeks natural explanations because natural explanations are supported by empirical evidence.

Eventually science can no longer be denied and religion is reinterpreted in light of scientific knowledge.

what has been reinterpreted about Christianity? you must not understand it.

Following this argument we could say that God only deals with the supernatural world, not the natural world....

why does that follow the argument? I don't say God only deals with the supernatural, He deals with the supernatural and He created the natural.

Science has never yet found this fingerprint...

if you look at a house you KNOW that it was created by man. you don't even study it just to make sure, you just know. I'd say the beauty of the world, the evenly balanced laws of physics, and the complexity of life is a pretty big fingerprint. What kind of a fingerprint are u looking for? answer me that!

Scientific discovery of the supernatural world isn't possible without establishing the existence of a supernatural world. We can't study something if we can't prove it, or evidence of it, exists.

that's my point, u can't prove the supernatural because the only evidence you'll accept is the natural.

Creation scientists use your example, wherein a possible explanation is arrived at, (usually through the Bible), and then they seek a way to explain it in scientific terms. This isn't true science. Science allows the observation to bring the scientist to the explanation, even if it isn't where the scientist expected or wanted the explanation to be found.

the above is simply not true. evolution was around long before there was any "proof" for it, and scientists apply what they find to the theory. it's always the latest discoveries that are proof of evolution. but now we're getting off topic, i'll leave it at that.

If supernatural and natural are continually and always separate, then science will find no evidence of God because God, being supernatural, could not have created or affected the natural.

again, you are assuming that God could not create the natural, my question was, "if He did, could science come to that conclusion?" you are fitting the evidence with a preconceived idea that God didn't do it.

it (science) will tell us how something occurred (a force of attraction between bodies with mass drew the ball to the floor), and if oyu choose to believe that god did it, that is fine... gravity would then explain the method that he used

wise words from an atheist. i applause your reason and logic. God is a possibility, but we can't prove it because He is supernatural

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

right, we can never detect any kind of supernatural influence per se... we can only see (if the supernatural does indeed exist) the effects that the supernatural influence has on the natural world... in other words, we can't PROVE that gravity isn't caused by angels pushing everything downwards, but we can know a lot about gravity itself.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

then 'AnEmpircalAgnostic' spends the rest of his post explaining why science can't conclude Goddidit, which to me sounds like a contradiction;

I never stated that science can’t conclude Goddidit. If your god™ does exist then he/she is apparently capable of interfering with the natural universe (killing people, wrestling people, etc.). So he/she (if he/she) exists is perfectly capable of performing miracles for science to observe and test. If every natural possibility is scientifically ruled out then one would have to postulate a supernatural cause. It would be constantly tested and reevaluated in light of new scientific knowledge just like every other scientific theory. If your god™ exists then we could possibly be given a bunch of physics to test. If your god™ is all powerful then why couldn’t he/she line up a bunch of stars to spell out “GODDIDITALL!” ?

what has been reinterpreted about Christianity? you must not understand it.

Stuff like the geocentric universe, literal 6 day creation, global flood (unless you actually still believe in that stuff still).

 

[TeddyKGB]

that's my point, u can't prove the supernatural because the only evidence you'll accept is the natural.

I think this is where your difficulty lies. Evidence, by definition, is empirical and empirical, by definition, is naturalistic. If the "supernatural" does not require interaction of matter and energy, and if it supercedes causation, then it seems unlikely, at best, that there can be evidence of one supernatural entity to the exclusion of all others.

 

[John16:2]

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.

Science VALIDATES the Bible repeatedly. Pole reversals or axis shifts are described in Job 38:13 and Isaiah 24:1. Black holes are described in Isaiah 34:4, Job 38:37-38, Rev 6:14 & possibly 2 Peter 3:10-13. 2 Kings KJV or 4 Kings other versions speaks of making water drinkable by salting it, & now dentists advise rinsing with salty water after extractions to kill bacteria.

The Bible throughout predicts the effects of a major meteoric & impact event accurately, as science now proves. Revelations predicted "red tide" killing the seas, and now it's happening, according to the UN Environmental Program report of 150 GROWING dead zones...earthchangestv.com.

The Bible is also validated by the fulfilled predictions of the history of Jerusalem. Zechariah & David predicted the crucifixion before Rome was crucifying.

Calling the Bible a fairy tale is ignorance. Even modern physicists validate the Bible by speaking of extra dimensions & time travel...mkaku.org...Google "time warps" for physicist views on the possibilities. Daniel 5:5, 2 Peter 3:8, 2 Corinthians 12:2-4, etc. Even UFOs are confirmed, as the Bible says; ufoevidence.org/NASA STS48 film, for most credible example.

I will hound the enemies of God that infest this Christian site about all this.

 

[futzman]

Science VALIDATES the Bible repeatedly. Pole reversals or axis shifts are described in Job 38:13 and Isaiah 24:1. Black holes are described in Isaiah 34:4, Job 38:37-38, Rev 6:14 & possibly 2 Peter 3:10-13. 2 Kings KJV or 4 Kings other versions speaks of making water drinkable by salting it, & now dentists advise rinsing with salty water after extractions to kill bacteria.

Salted water is not drinkable. Please read "The Albatross" again. "Rinsing" and "drinking" are entirely different.

The Bible throughout predicts the effects of a major meteoric & impact event accurately, as science now proves. Revelations predicted "red tide" killing the seas, and now it's happening, according to the UN Environmental Program report of 150 GROWING dead zones...earthchangestv.com.

I'd like to read about this. Please provide a link.

The Bible is also validated by the fulfilled predictions of the history of Jerusalem. Zechariah & David predicted the crucifixion before Rome was crucifying.

Maybe. But validation of one story in the Bible does no make the entire thing a fact. Some stories in the "National Enquirer" turn out to be true, some not. Some urban legends on snopes.com are true, some not.

Calling the Bible a fairy tale is ignorance. Even modern physicists validate the Bible by speaking of extra dimensions & time travel...mkaku.org...Google "time warps" for physicist views on the possibilities. Daniel 5:5, 2 Peter 3:8, 2 Corinthians 12:2-4, etc. Even UFOs are confirmed, as the Bible says; ufoevidence.org/NASA STS48 film, for most credible example.

I'll agree calling the Bible a fairy tale is ignorance. Calling it partly myth is just a fact.

UFOs do exist, however, because "UFO" stands for "Unidentified Flying Object" and those certainly exist.

I will hound the enemies of God that infest this Christian site about all this.

I'm an agnostic, John. I'm not an "enemy" of something I don't even know exists. Would you please identify the enemies so they will know where they stand with you.

Richard (still wondering why God didn't like those 4400 genera of brachiopods...)

 

[TeddyKGB]

Science VALIDATES the Bible repeatedly. Pole reversals or axis shifts are described in Job 38:13 and Isaiah 24:1. Black holes are described in Isaiah 34:4, Job 38:37-38, Rev 6:14 & possibly 2 Peter 3:10-13. 2 Kings KJV or 4 Kings other versions speaks of making water drinkable by salting it, & now dentists advise rinsing with salty water after extractions to kill bacteria.

The Bible throughout predicts the effects of a major meteoric & impact event accurately, as science now proves. Revelations predicted "red tide" killing the seas, and now it's happening, according to the UN Environmental Program report of 150 GROWING dead zones...earthchangestv.com.

The Bible is also validated by the fulfilled predictions of the history of Jerusalem. Zechariah & David predicted the crucifixion before Rome was crucifying.

Calling the Bible a fairy tale is ignorance. Even modern physicists validate the Bible by speaking of extra dimensions & time travel...mkaku.org...Google "time warps" for physicist views on the possibilities. Daniel 5:5, 2 Peter 3:8, 2 Corinthians 12:2-4, etc. Even UFOs are confirmed, as the Bible says; ufoevidence.org/NASA STS48 film, for most credible example.

What is really amazing about all this is that, despite the accuracy and profundity we are constantly assured the Bible contains, it took a decidely secular methodology to discover the aforementioned facts.

Reinterpreting Scripture consistent with modern scientific understanding might make you feel better about your religion, but it makes for a rather pathetic argument.

I will hound the enemies of God that infest this Christian site about all this.

Go for it. I assure you your bluff will be called loudly and often.

 

[philadiddle]

I never stated that science can’t conclude Goddidit.

yes you did, your exact words were "Science seeks natural explanations because natural explanations are supported by empirical evidence." which means, since God is not natural, that He cannot be an answer for anything scientific. Do you understand what u wrote?

If every natural possibility is scientifically ruled out then one would have to postulate a supernatural cause. It would be constantly tested and reevaluated in light of new scientific knowledge just like every other scientific theory.

But God will never be a scientific explanation, because He is not part of the natural world. The above quote, of you saying the supernatural could be an explanation, is false.

If your god™ exists then we could possibly be given a bunch of physics to test. If your god™ is all powerful then why couldn’t he/she line up a bunch of stars to spell out “GODDIDITALL!” ?

what physics apply to the supernatural? i'm not sure what your point is here. And God did spell out that He created everything, read Genesis (the Bible, page 1).

Stuff like the geocentric universe, literal 6 day creation, global flood (unless you actually still believe in that stuff still).

reinterpretted? you don't know what the Bible is about do you? the Bible is about God's plan to send His one and only Son, Jesus, to die for your sins so that u don't have to. Genesis is a poem (hymn) about culture at that time. it explains that God created everything, unlike every other religion around that believed in many gods creating different things. Genesis is just an insight into what God has done, it's not the meat and potatoes of scripture. Being in a personal relationship with Jesus is the point of the Bible's existence.

 

[philadiddle]

What is really amazing about all this is that, despite the accuracy and profundity we are constantly assured the Bible contains, it took a decidely secular methodology to discover the aforementioned facts.

just so you know Teddy, John 16:2 doesn't share the accepted interpretation of the Bible, he mixes some good points with some bad ones, i'm not gonna get into it with him in this post, there are other threads for that.

Reinterpreting Scripture consistent with modern scientific understanding might make you feel better about your religion, but it makes for a rather pathetic argument.

makes me feel better about my religion? on the contrary, it makes u feel better about not believing my religion, to think that it's being reinterpretted. read the last paragraph of the last post i made for more on that.

 

[Theophilus01]

we only know it came into existance 4.5 bya.

actually, the earth is about 4.5 bya. the universe is about 14 bya. however, that is assuming that this universe isn't the product of another universe collapsing into itself and then reexpanding into our universe. that puts the origin of the universe into the unknown. however, the fact remains that something had to start the first universe so that it could expand, collapse into itself, reexpand, recollapse, etc...

science is all cause and effect. God cannot be explained by science because God is "The Uncaused Cause." this is what faith is all about. instead of trying to prove His existance, live your lives to His law so that when you die and go to heaven, you can ask Him, then spend eternity with Him. thank you and God bless you all.

 

[Beastt]

actually, the earth is about 4.5 bya. the universe is about 14 bya. however, that is assuming that this universe isn't the product of another universe collapsing into itself and then reexpanding into our universe. that puts the origin of the universe into the unknown. however, the fact remains that something had to start the first universe so that it could expand, collapse into itself, reexpand, recollapse, etc...

science is all cause and effect. God cannot be explained by science because God is "The Uncaused Cause." this is what faith is all about. instead of trying to prove His existance, live your lives to His law so that when you die and go to heaven, you can ask Him, then spend eternity with Him. thank you and God bless you all.

This is a classic double-standard. If the universe had to have been created, then so did your God. If God could have just existed forever, without any beginning, then so could the universe.

Christians often want to exclude God from the same requirements they place on the universe but this is always done without explanation as to why God is excluded from the requirements of the universe or why the universe is included with requirements not applicable to God. It's a weak argument. If you can claim it for God, then it can also be claimed for the universe.

 

[philadiddle]

This is a classic double-standard.

no it's not

If the universe had to have been created, then so did your God.

no, just because the universe had to have been created doesn't mean that God had to have been created. the universe is the natural, and God is supernatural, what applies to one doesn't apply to the other.

If God could have just existed forever, without any beginning, then so could the universe.

it's possible the universe existed forever, but i believe it was created. i also believe time was created. if there is no time (previous to the creation of time) then God wouldn't need a "beginning".

Christians often want to exclude God from the same requirements they place on the universe but this is always done without explanation as to why God is excluded from the requirements of the universe or why the universe is included with requirements not applicable to God. It's a weak argument. If you can claim it for God, then it can also be claimed for the universe.

we exclude God from these conditions for the reasons mentioned previously. He is supernatural and the universe is natural. Are u seriously saying that what applies to one applies to the other? it's not a weak argument. You are the first i've ever heard say that.

and yes, i do agree that in theory you could apply "no beginning" to the universe, i just don't believe it.

 

[John16:2]

What is really amazing about all this is that, despite the accuracy and profundity we are constantly assured the Bible contains, it took a decidely secular methodology to discover the aforementioned facts.

Reinterpreting Scripture consistent with modern scientific understanding might make you feel better about your religion, but it makes for a rather pathetic argument.

Go for it. I assure you your bluff will be called loudly and often.

That's a poor debate, an attack without basis. Isaiah 34:4 is very clearly about something in the sky pulling in the host (many planets, stars, moons) of the heavens. Gravity is referred to, and it's undeniably about Black holes. You'll ignore it, but the silent majority of readers will see.

 

[philadiddle]

That's a poor debate, an attack without basis. Isaiah 34:4 is very clearly about something in the sky pulling in the host (many planets, stars, moons) of the heavens. Gravity is referred to, and it's undeniably about Black holes. You'll ignore it, but the silent majority of readers will see.

it's poor debate to assume that the majority of silent readers will agree with you. Read the verse in context. It is talking about the power of the lord. What point would it serve to talk about black holes in this passage?

 

[Beastt]

Following this argument we could say that God only deals with the supernatural world, not the natural world....

why does that follow the argument? I don't say God only deals with the supernatural, He deals with the supernatural and He created the natural.

If the natural was created by God, then certainly God has affected that which science is equipped to study. Once the supernatural affects the natural, that affect leaves natural evidence to be followed. That's what science is designed to do. So the only way to maintain that science is not designed in such a way that it would be able to detect the work of God is if one also maintains that God has never affected what we call the "natural world", which science is designed to study.

Science has never yet found this fingerprint...

if you look at a house you KNOW that it was created by man. you don't even study it just to make sure, you just know. I'd say the beauty of the world, the evenly balanced laws of physics, and the complexity of life is a pretty big fingerprint. What kind of a fingerprint are u looking for? answer me that!

Had you never seen a house before, you might not know that it was created by man. It would be a good assumption, but not a scientifically valid conclusion. It is only after you become aware that houses are made by men, through observation, that you may use the evidence born of that observation to assume that other houses as well, are made by men.

The complexity of life is no more a fingerprint of God that the complexity of the traces on the motherboard in your computer. Complexity does not equal God. Unfortunately, this seems to be a common misconception. People assume that if they don't understand something, it must have been the work of God. Man is slowly unraveling the complexity of life, therefore making it clear that it is within man's comprehension. Of course there are always those who attempt to block the discovery of such knowledge, claiming that to learn such things is "playing God". This assumes that it is possible for men to play God.

Try to imagine a universe where the laws of physics don't balance. Can you do it? Perhaps it should be obvious that the physical world is comprised of matter and energy -- two forms of the same thing, which compose 100%. When divisions of that 100% are poised against each other, the balance resulting is the only possible result. Otherwise you begin with 100% and through imbalance arrive at more or less than the original 100%. Since this can't happen, the balance in the laws of physics is not at all surprising as it is the only possibility.

As far as the fingerprint, a fairly reasonable thing to look for is that for which there is no natural explanation. And this has, in fact, been the fingerprint of God throughout man's history. The problem is that as man becomes more developed and more capable of observing that which used to be unobservable, we continue to find natural explanations for things once attributed to God. Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, droughts, floods and all other manner of natural disasters were at one time, thought to be caused by God. Through scientific observation, man has learned that all of these natural disasters have natural causes. This of course erases the fingerprint of God from these events. Perhaps this is why Christians are so fond of pondering the creation of the universe. Though science does have theories, the evidence is insufficient to say without doubt that it erases the supposed fingerprint of God. But when the pattern is, and always has been, that those things attributed to God eventually become understood to a degree to conclude that God was not involved, it isn't unreasonable to assume that this will continue to be the pattern for those things not yet fully understood.

Scientific discovery of the supernatural world isn't possible without establishing the existence of a supernatural world. We can't study something if we can't prove it, or evidence of it, exists.

that's my point, u can't prove the supernatural because the only evidence you'll accept is the natural.

Why would I want to prove the supernatural if there is no evidence of the supernatural?

Creation scientists use your example, wherein a possible explanation is arrived at, (usually through the Bible), and then they seek a way to explain it in scientific terms. This isn't true science. Science allows the observation to bring the scientist to the explanation, even if it isn't where the scientist expected or wanted the explanation to be found.

the above is simply not true. evolution was around long before there was any "proof" for it, and scientists apply what they find to the theory. it's always the latest discoveries that are proof of evolution. but now we're getting off topic, i'll leave it at that.

It would appear that your familiarity with the history of evolution is somewhat lacking. It was indeed founded on observation. And as far as proof goes, science doesn't function on the concept of proof. It works based on significant degrees of evidence, gathered through observation, which lead to and support a conclusion, while no credible evidence denying that conclusion is known.

If supernatural and natural are continually and always separate, then science will find no evidence of God because God, being supernatural, could not have created or affected the natural.

again, you are assuming that God could not create the natural, my question was, "if He did, could science come to that conclusion?" you are fitting the evidence with a preconceived idea that God didn't do it.

You misunderstand. I'm saying that once God has affected the natural, he ceases to be exclusively supernatural and becomes a part of the natural. That which is confined to the supernatural cannot affect the natural. That which affects the natural must, through that affect, leave natural evidence which is what science is designed to examine and explain.

 

[Norseman]

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.

Science, as in scientific method? Only if God were willing to cooperate and be consistant. For example, if God were to answer a specific prayer, such as "lord, please levitate my cup of cofee" every single time, even under strict testing conditions (to make sure there aren't any strings, magnets, whatever) you can bet that would pretty much be proof of his existance. But, if God exists and doesn't want us to know, there's not really much we could do to get around divine barriers.