Is science set up...

[FSTDT]

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.

So far, we've never been able to observe the "supernatural", nor been able to define what it precisely means.

We could toy around with the idea of something creating the universe, but those kinds of hypothesizations dont mean much, because they are largely unfalsifyable. In science, if something is unfalsifyable, then no amount of studying it will produce any information that you didnt already know, nor produce any new information - thats why unfalsifyable hypotheses are meaningless.

But, for what its worth, allowing for generous speculation for just a moment, I should say that we can only study supernatural events if they affect the real world. But, because we dont know what rules non-physical objects operate by, even if we could conclusively show that supernatural events occur, we could never distinguish which of any competing supernatural actually occurred (i.e. "invisible gnomes" hypothesis is just as likely as "unconscious telekinesis" which is just as likely as "God"). There is no good reason why any particular supernatural explanation should be favored about any other supernatural explanation, so you easily find yourself in a situation where you can add no more knowledge to the world beyond the words "I've ruled out known natural explanations".

 

[futzman]

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.

1) Science strives to explain phenomena we can't explain.
2) Phenomena we can't explain is a superset of supernatural phenomena.
3) God is in the subset supernatural phenomena.
3) Therefore, science could be used to try and explain God.
Q.E.D.

Now, all you theistic scientists -- get 'er done!

Richard (still wondering about those 4400 genera of brachiopods...)

 

[ebia]

1) Science strives to explain phenomena we can't explain.
2) Phenomena we can't explain is a superset of supernatural phenomena.
3) God is in the subset supernatural phenomena.
3) Therefore, science could be used to try and explain God.
Q.E.D.

Now, all you theistic scientists -- get 'er done!

Richard (still wondering about those 4400 genera of brachiopods...)

Ok, we've chosen a phenomena. Now we need some observations and data about it.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Is science set up so that if God did create the universe science could arrive at that conclusion?

Yes. 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.

I'm not distinguishing old/new earth. It just seems that science only deals with the natural world, and doesn't involve the supernatural.

This is a no-brainer. Scientific study demands evidence. Without evidence then any explanation posited would simply be an unsubstantiated guess.

So, if in fact the supernatural is involved it will never be scientific.

If “the supernatural” affected the physical universe then it would leave behind physical evidence. The danger comes when we try to explain natural phenomena by positing a supernatural cause. This is referred to as arguing for god of the gaps. Just because science can’t yet explain something does mean that the something necessitates a supernatural explanation. Mankind has often been premature in positing a god to explain something they didn’t understand. Once science advances and a natural explanation is found then the goalposts are moved to something else that science can’t yet explain. Eventually this will pigeonhole the theist into arguing first cause as rationale for belief in god.


"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today."


- Isaac Asimov

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.

Science seeks natural explanations because natural explanations are supported by empirical evidence. The underlying problem is that theists like yourself don’t like science’s natural explanation because it does not fit a current supernatural explanation. Why should a supernatural explanation hold more weight than another explanation that is supported by empirical evidence?

It’s hard to take a step back and look at the big picture sometimes but it is necessary. Throughout history man has posited supernatural explanations for this or that. When a scientist came around and challenged the accepted supernatural explanation then there was controversy (to put it mildly in some cases). Eventually science can no longer be denied and religion is reinterpreted in light of scientific knowledge.

 

[nvxplorer]

If we observe the supernatural operating on the natural, the suspension of gravity, for example, what could we determine from such events?

If we find a way to test and reproduce it, it ceases to be supernatural. If we cannot do this, all such events appear to be randomly defying the laws of physics. We can make no predictions, we can explain nothing, and we are back at square one: We don't know.

 

[jillyjam]

Some would argue that science was created by God as a means to "keep us on our feet", to say the least. Or as a set of guidelines to what we could and couldn't do. A set of limits if you will. And so anything outside nature would only apply to him. He would be the only one outside of nature.

 

[nvxplorer]

Some would argue that science was created by God as a means to "keep us on our feet", to say the least. Or as a set of guidelines to what we could and couldn't do. A set of limits if you will. And so anything outside nature would only apply to him. He would be the only one outside of nature.

The essence of science is a logical thought process. It is not an entity unto itself, so claiming it is a creation of God is redundant. God creating mankind is all that need be said.

 

[A4C]

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.

But you could climb up the mountain , look at the evidence of where the rock came from and therefore conclude that intelligence was involved in getting it from where it was to where it went. It would be foolish to assume that because the rock had been there for 4.5 billion years it had been evolving itself into a rolling version and had decided to make the journey on its own

 

[Caphi]

God is a possible hypothesis for any given observation. However, scientists put him low on the list of likely hypotheses because almost always, the other ones ring better with Ockham's Razor. There's also the matter of testing: a hypothesis must be tested before being accepted as a valid theory, or even as a possible model, and you just can't empirically test Goddidit.

 

[nitesco]

but does that mean He didn't do anything?
He did make it known, read the Bible.

No, it doesn't mean that, it just means science really has no room for god, that doesn't mean that science precludes a god, it just means what I alraedy said. No real debate on that.

Well a book written full of errors isn't exactly good evidence for an all-knowing god.

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.

A bit of a run on, and off topic, I admit, my bad. I do not say for certain that god didn't create life, I just dont accept any evidence that suggests he did, so I call myself an atheist.

Well what do you think? Is god outside of science? Explain your answer.

 

[nvxplorer]

But you could climb up the mountain , look at the evidence of where the rock came from and therefore conclude that intelligence was involved in getting it from where it was to where it went. It would be foolish to assume that because the rock had been there for 4.5 billion years it had been was evolving itself into a rolling version and had decided to make the journey on its own

Without evidence of intelligent beings, we cannot conclude they were involved. Footprints, for example, would provide such evidence. Otherwise, other explanations are possible, like a minor earthquake.

The same holds true with God. Unless we find the footprints of the deity himself, we must look for other explanations.

 

[A4C]

Without evidence of intelligent beings, we cannot conclude they were involved. Footprints, for example, would provide such evidence. Otherwise, other explanations are possible, like a minor earthquake.

The same holds true with God. Unless we find the footprints of the deity himself, we must look for other explanations.

A scientific mindset is akin to a sailor trapped in a storm - any port will do -as long as we dont have to get out of the boat and walk on water.

Edit: ..or speak to the storm and tell it to be calm.

 

[nvxplorer]

A scientific mindset is akin to a sailor trapped in a storm - any port will do -as long as we dont have to get out of the boat and walk on water.

Edit: ..or speak to the storm and tell it to be calm.

This wild analogy doesn't make sense, A4C. Perhaps you would expand on it's meaning? And how does this relate to my reply?

 

[MartinM]

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

I think scientific method actually implies such a definition.

how about dictionary.com for "supernatural"

1 and 2 are something along the lines of 'not natural,' which doesn't much help unless we know what 'natural' means. The other three seem rather arbitrary to me.

 

[MSBS]

A scientific mindset is akin to a sailor trapped in a storm - any port will do -as long as we dont have to get out of the boat and walk on water.

Edit: ..or speak to the storm and tell it to be calm.

OK fine. Next time you are out in a boat trapped in a storm, instead of trying to get back to land, go ahead and get out of the boat and try to walk on water or beg the storm to leave you alone. Being a vetran of the US Coast Guard, I'd recomend resorting to purely earthly things like putting on a life vest and sending out a distress call. You know, things that are known to work in the real world.

 

[A4C]

OK fine. Next time you are out in a boat trapped in a storm, instead of trying to get back to land, go ahead and get out of the boat and try to walk on water or beg the storm to leave you alone. Being a vetran of the US Coast Guard, I'd recomend resorting to purely earthly things like putting on a life vest and sending out a distress call. You know, things that are known to work in the real world.

I also like to save lives -albiet on a different level.

 

[A4C]

This wild analogy doesn't make sense, A4C. Perhaps you would expand on it's meaning? And how does this relate to my reply?

The easiest solution is often the one avoided

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

the main point is this: you can draw your own conclusions about what science discovers... you can say that gravity is the result of god or not, you can say that evolution is the result of god or not, science doesn't say anything about god... if you believe in god, all science really does is tell you WHAT he did or HOW he did something... you can believe in creation, but science will tell you what happened in the big bang (whether god did it or not)

 

[A4C]

the main point is this: you can draw your own conclusions about what science discovers... you can say that gravity is the result of god or not, you can say that evolution is the result of god or not, science doesn't say anything about god... if you believe in god, all science really does is tell you WHAT he did or HOW he did something... you can believe in creation, but science will tell you what happened in the big bang (whether god did it or not)

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

 

[Beastt]

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.

Following this argument we could say that God only deals with the supernatural world, not the natural world. Of course this would rule out the idea that God created what we refer to as the natural world. If God did create the "natural world", then God extends to both natural and supernatural, and therefore should leave his fingerprint on the natural world which is what science studies. Science has never yet found this fingerprint yet they have found answers to many things once attributed to God, i.e. volcanos, earthquakes, seasons and the occassional eclipse.

So, if in fact the supernatural is involved it will never be scientific.

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.

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.

This would mean that you can't solve a murder based on the evidence left at the scene. Science isn't a process of looking for possible explanations as much as it is allowing the evidence, through observation, to take you to the explanations. 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.

So... if God bridged the gap between supernatural and natural to create and affect the natural, then evidence of that exists. We haven't found any.

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.