Science Vs. Christ

[Species8472]

Science seeks to prove or disprove the existence of God through observational facts and measures; as if God is a number or a formula or a statistic. This is absurd that science, which is a branch of philosophy, could prove or disprove the existence of God through a ‘magic’ formula.
Here we go, thinking man is god, through science. God is a spirit and a spirit is an essence, just as you have an essence; therefore, why not treat the matter of God, who Jesus says must be worshipped in spirit and in Truth, as a Spiritual matter, rather—than a scientific endeavor.
An essence consists of the very nature of the matter. For example, the essence of water is that it is water. The essence of me is that I am. An essence can neither be created nor destroyed; it always is and was predetermined, from the foundation of the world or a scientific ‘big bang’, concerning concept and experience—of those whose conditions have already been laid forth from the beginning unto the end. Sure, we can say that water consists of parts, atoms, hydrogen and oxygen, quarks, whatever: but you are not describing the essence of water, but rather, the essence of hydrogen and oxygen(the qualities of water)…of which consists in the physical nature of water. However, you fail to recognize that the spirit or nature of water is that it is water—in concept and the knowing through experience of. Just because you have broken down what water consists of does not mean that you have created or destroyed, water. Water exists because the essence of water is separated from the physics of water.
Science cannot even come close to touching the nature of God; it cannot even utter one syllable concerning this nature. Instead, science is perplexed when it comes to God.
But show me the stone that the builders rejected. It is the cornerstone.

1Peter: 2
"1": Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,
"2": As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
"3": If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
"4": To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
"5": Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
"6": Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
"7": Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
"8": And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
"9": But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

The words of Christ are the essence of the nature of God. Humble. Merciful. Love. Patient…what have you…Only those who are pure of heart may see the essence of God within the words of Christ. Those who internally dialogue between themselves and the words of Christ, experience the presence of God, in Spirit and in Truth.
What does God need with Science, when surely, the essence of God exceeds that of science; whereas, science is a concept of the imperfect will of man, flawed through the imperfections of the scientist, whom believe that science is objective in nature; but do not see that—according to our flaws, science becomes subjective due to the imperfect will of the scientist; and their lack of philosophical understanding.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Science seeks to prove or disprove the existence of God through observational facts and measures; as if God is a number or a formula or a statistic. [...]
Here we go, thinking man is god, through science.

Who is "we"? Scientists I have known typically say that the question of God's existence is out of Science's reach to answer.

An essence consists of the very nature of the matter. For example, the essence of water is that it is water. The essence of me is that I am.

Existence is not essence. Your essence, if anything, is that you are a human being, not that you exist.

An essence can neither be created nor destroyed

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that you can't be created or destroyed. Only that "humanness" can't be created or destroyed.

 

[Species8472]

Who is "we"? Scientists I have known typically say that the question of God's existence is out of Science's reach to answer.



Existence is not essence. Your essence, if anything, is that you are a human being, not that you exist.



Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that you can't be created or destroyed. Only that "humanness" can't be created or destroyed.

"We" is whoever believes science is the answer to everything. You say that scientists have known typically that the question of God's existence is out of sciences' reach to answer; however, according to scientists, science can explain everything(or has the potential of); but what they lack in understanding is that science is a perception of the world and not the world itself. For instance, thought can't me measured by science and neither can these words be measured; for if thought were to be measured then it would have to have some scientific value.
I like to refer to Immanuel Kant when it comes to science and thought. Kant made a proposition that goes as follows; Which are in necessary agreement? that concept makes experience possible or that experience makes concept possible?"
Are not both of equal measure through logic?
Does not experience produce concept; and does not concept produce experience? Therefore, are not both in necessary agreement?
And what is the science of thought and with what measurements can science mete with thought?
God, just as thought, will always be out of reach of science because science seeks external things to explain the world, while spirituality seeks internal things to explain the world; and it was Jesus who said, Heaven is within you and all around you (but the only way anyone is going to find God is by seeking within the self). Jesus' words, for the most part, are supposed to be internalized and not merely externalized. Like He said, Why wash the outside of the cup; don't you know who made the outside is the same that made the inside?
God will always be out of the reach of science because God has No scientific value or measurement. God is not X or Y or mass or volume or what have you...
Concerning essence, existence is not essence, however, existence is a quality of any essence; for it exists or it doesn't. Water exists or it doesn't.
I like these definitions of essence:
1. the properties or attributes by means of which something can be placed in its proper class or identified as being what it is
2. something that exists
Looking at two: something(being the essence) and that exists(being the overwhelming quality of any essence). It exists or it doesn't.
No. My essence is not that I am human. My essence is that I am, I be-me--that is my essence, of what consists of me. Being human is a quality of my essence or a part that makes up me. Human being in itself is an essence.
An essence can neither be created nor destroyed. The physical body may perish but my essence or my spirit will live on; because an essence has nothing to do with physical matter.
You can take water and create oxygen and hydrogen from it; and thereby say, I have done it...I have created water. But No you haven't. The essence of water is that it is water and will always be water. Just like the essence of me is that I am, me.
An essence may consist of more than one essence, however, by this, an essence cannot destroy an essence--or that which one consists of. Like water consists of hydrogen and oxygen(for example); and just because you have created water, in the physical world, does not mean you have destroyed the essence of hydrogen or oxygen; but, rather have you demonstrated that an essence consists of other essences; such as the essence of hydrogen and oxygen. Therefore, 'human being' may be an essence but its' essence consist of every individual, of which, each, possess their own essence.

 

[Casstranquility]

Science cannot even come close to touching the nature of God; it cannot even utter one syllable concerning this nature. Instead, science is perplexed when it comes to God.

Well, actually, some sciences are coming close to touching the nature of God. Such as Quantum Physics...this science has discovered that life is a miracle, we are made of energy, nothing is as it seems, things can exist and not exist at the same time-these come close to touching God.

What does God need with Science, when surely, the essence of God exceeds that of science

God doesn't need science, but science will eventually say, "Yes, God exists, for if not, Life itself couldn't have come into existence."

 

[Species8472]

Well, actually, some sciences are coming close to touching the nature of God. Such as Quantum Physics...this science has discovered that life is a miracle, we are made of energy, nothing is as it seems, things can exist and not exist at the same time-these come close to touching God.

[/size]

God doesn't need science, but science will eventually say, "Yes, God exists, for if not, Life itself couldn't have come into existence."

Here is my question about quantum physics: If God is a being and a being has thoughts then how could quantum physics touch the nature of God if the science can't touch the nature of God's own thoughts?
We are made of energy and so is God made of energy; but how are you going to touch the nature of God without a sample of Gods' own being or energy? It is quite easy for a supreme being to elude any scientific peon.
Jesus has said no one has seen Gods' form at anytime; so how is one to assume that God is corporeal when he is in fact a Spirit--of that which dwells in men. God is and exists and acts within man.
God is an essence, whose nature is infinitesimal in scope. Now if something is infinite in nature then how could quantum physics possibly measure even a portion of the infinite. How can you break an infinite nature (now I'm speaking from Spinoza); when the broken parts must be infinite of themselves--this is paradoxical because you can't have one infinite outweigh another infinite. There can only be one infinite; since if you were to break the infinite into two separate parts then you would have two infinites; but that is illogical because you can only have one infinite; for one infinite must outweigh the other infinite to maintain its quality of infinity; therefore they both must outweigh eachother.
By definition, the nature of God is indivisible and not subject to scientific measurements or calculations or theories

If science ever comes to an agreement that God exists then it wouldn't be by science but by philosophy and logical deduction..., for if not, then life itself could not have come into existence. That sounds more like a philosophical premise than a scientific theory.

The words of Christ reveal the nature of God; and I believe you are right, scientists will one day come to realize that the answer has been here all along and then they will curse their forefathers; for no one comes to the Father(or the living Light) but through the son, Jesus Christ.

Place an image in the place of an image. Replace that image of God from some white haired guy in a toga and sandals; and replace it with these kind of images: God is Light. God is Love. God is All good. God is everything I sense around me, however so acute. If God is infinite in nature then God must consist of all things, both physical and spiritual; because an infinity would fill up the entire universe--for whatever God consist of--that which is All.
And so God has filled up the universe; for I am a part of God and you are a part of God...and if you split the wood then I am there. Pick up the stone and you will find me there.
God is the All or the Whole--that of which everything that exists, did exist or is going to exist--hell, everything has already been pre-determined into existence, by God.

How does it feel to unknowingly be a puppet on strings? Your will is not your own but what has been predetermined by the All.

 

[kedaman]

I like to refer to Immanuel Kant when it comes to science and thought. Kant made a proposition that goes as follows; Which are in necessary agreement? that concept makes experience possible or that experience makes concept possible?"
Are not both of equal measure through logic?
Does not experience produce concept; and does not concept produce experience? Therefore, are not both in necessary agreement?
And what is the science of thought and with what measurements can science mete with thought?

Experience does not produce concepts. Right after this famous quote, Kant says "The former supposition does not hold in respect of the categories (nor of pure sensible intuition); for since they are a priori concepts, and therefore independent of experience, the ascription to them of an empirical origin would be a sort of generatio aequivoca. There remains, therefore, only the second supposition -- a system, as it were, of the epigenesis of pure reason -- namely, that the categories contain, on the side of the understanding, the grounds of the possibility of all experience in general." Of course this does also mean we can have a transcendental proof of thought, since thought is a necessary condition for experience. According to Kant, God is beyond science, an unknowable noumenon. Who you should be directing your critisism is not scientists, but transcendental realists who Kant argues, will ultimately lead to empirical idealism.

 

[Species8472]

Experience does not produce concepts. Right after this famous quote, Kant says "The former supposition does not hold in respect of the categories (nor of pure sensible intuition); for since they are a priori concepts, and therefore independent of experience, the ascription to them of an empirical origin would be a sort of generatio aequivoca. There remains, therefore, only the second supposition -- a system, as it were, of the epigenesis of pure reason -- namely, that the categories contain, on the side of the understanding, the grounds of the possibility of all experience in general." Of course this does also mean we can have a transcendental proof of thought, since thought is a necessary condition for experience. According to Kant, God is beyond science, an unknowable noumenon. Who you should be directing your critisism is not scientists, but transcendental realists who Kant argues, will ultimately lead to empirical idealism.

Inquisition: Let us say I built the first wheel from the concept of wheel and I made it out of carved stone. When it was finished, I then tried it out and came to the conclusion that it rolls through experience; and I also discovered its flaws and its advantages. Now through my experience can I not produce the next generation of the concept of wheel; and thereby produce a totally new concept? Am I not taking my experience and thereby refining the concept of wheel?
So, how is it that experience does not produce concepts? And how is it that experience does not make concept possible?

 

[kedaman]

Inquisition: Let us say I built the first wheel from the concept of wheel and I made it out of carved stone. When it was finished, I then tried it out and came to the conclusion that it rolls through experience; and I also discovered its flaws and its advantages. Now through my experience can I not produce the next generation of the concept of wheel; and thereby produce a totally new concept? Am I not taking my experience and thereby refining the concept of wheel?
So, how is it that experience does not produce concepts? And how is it that experience does not make concept possible?

You are producing a wheel according to another concept, but the concept is not derived from experience but from the understanding, although it could be said that the choice of which concept to use could depend in part on experience, and in part on your motivation to perfect the wheel, however as you can see, if you had a different motivation you could well utilize any concept.

 

[Species8472]

You are producing a wheel according to another concept, but the concept is not derived from experience but from the understanding, although it could be said that the choice of which concept to use could depend in part on experience, and in part on your motivation to perfect the wheel, however as you can see, if you had a different motivation you could well utilize any concept.

Is not understanding derived from experience and concept?
Let me make another proposition.
Let us say there is a man named Adam and woman named Eve. Not the same as in Genesis. Adam and Eve were born naked by a tribe of naked people. Adam and Eve lived in Paradise and therefore needed no clothing. But one day it dawned on Adam that his curiousity led him to believe that he should explore the world; and so he did. He took his Eve and they began to travel out of paradise. Somewhere along their travels they began to experience elements of weather that were not in paradise. It became a little chilly and rainy in their travels; and through experience--that of which is through the senses, began to discomfort them. Now, I remind you that where they were born there was no clothing or any concept thereof because they weren't even ashamed of their bodies. So their senses and experience began to tell them that they had to do something about this; and as we are all born with reasoning skills--our senses would come to tell us that they intended to solve this dilema.
Soon after they came across a large animal, like a buffalo or something; and they noticed how the buffalo could endure the weather much better than they could. Through a series of reasoning they gathered that the buffalo was able to endure the elements by the coat it had on. They desparately wanted the coat but did not know how to get it; for they had no concept of murder because they were vegetarians.
But Adam had an experience earlier in his life where a dear friend of his was climbing a tree to gather fruit; but as tragedy would have it, he fell and was impaled by a branch. So Adam gathered this experience and by reasoning decided to break a branch off a tree. Then Adam went up to the buffalo and began to jab at the buffalo with a blunt stick. Adam didn't know other than what he experienced from the death of his friend.
But while he was jabbing the buffalo, he received a splinter and he noticed it and that it was sharp. So Adam walked away with the branch and through the experience of the splinter in his hand, he then reasoned, through experience, that something that is sharpened like a splinter will pierce the flesh. From that experience, he gathered the concept--that the branch needed to be sharp like the splinter; and so he sharpened it and slew the buffalo.
To make a long story short: he pelted the buffalo and wrapped him and his eve within the hide; and from that day forward, Adam and Eve had the concept of clothing, which was all made possible through experience and concept.

 

[Silent Bob]

Science seeks to prove or disprove the existence of God through observational facts and measures;

I stopped reading right after that, science doesn't give a rat's behind about God. Science deals with natural, God is supernatural end of story.

 

[Species8472]

I stopped reading right after that, science doesn't give a rat's behind about God. Science deals with natural, God is supernatural end of story.

Ignorance is bliss. What about your sciences' Supernatural Big Bang! If you read further you would find this in the argument. But like I said, ignorance is bliss.

In the beginning...there was nothing; but then a scientist said let there be a Big Bang!...and there was. Thus the scientists created the heavens and the earth.

 

[Silent Bob]

Ignorance is bliss. What about your sciences' Supernatural Big Bang! If you read further you would find this in the argument. But like I said, ignorance is bliss.

The Big Bang is a singularity. It has nothing to do with the supernatural. Many take the Big Bang as a creation event. Nobody can blame them, according to current established theories there was no before the BB since we take BB to be t=0.

In physics if there where events before the BB they have no connection to our current universe and hence cannot be seen or felt during our universe. Cause and effect no longer applies along with every other theory we have including space-time (which makes talking about event before the BB kinda meaningless).

There are other views however with the no-boundary view solving mathematically the singularity problem and showing the possibility that even though real time had an origin imaginary time (a quantum physics concept) doesn't. It says that if imaginary time is like a sphere then it can be finite yet have no boundary (singularity).

In the beginning...there was nothing; but then a scientist said let there be a Big Bang!...and there was. Thus the scientists created the heavens and the earth.

They did nothing of the sort. The BB arises from solving Einstein's equations which have been tested in practice and are used in real life applications (like GPS systems). It has made predictions and they have been verified with COBE.

If anything the BB was formulated by a Catholic priest so to assume that it is against God is ill-informed. In fact the name BB comes from an Sir Fred Hoyle who was an atheist and hated the philosophical implications of the BB theory.

 

[Species8472]

The Big Bang is a singularity. It has nothing to do with the supernatural. Many take the Big Bang as a creation event. Nobody can blame them, according to current established theories there was no before the BB since we take BB to be t=0.

In physics if there where events before the BB they have no connection to our current universe and hence cannot be seen or felt during our universe. Cause and effect no longer applies along with every other theory we have including space-time (which makes talking about event before the BB kinda meaningless).

There are other views however with the no-boundary view solving mathematically the singularity problem and showing the possibility that even though real time had an origin imaginary time (a quantum physics concept) doesn't. It says that if imaginary time is like a sphere then it can be finite yet have no boundary (singularity).



They did nothing of the sort. The BB arises from solving Einstein's equations which have been tested in practice and are used in real life applications (like GPS systems). It has made predictions and they have been verified with COBE.

If anything the BB was formulated by a Catholic priest so to assume that it is against God is ill-informed. In fact the name BB comes from an Sir Fred Hoyle who was an atheist and hated the philosophical implications of the BB theory.

You know I find it funny that we haven't even began to explore space, yet we're drawn to the conclusion that we know the ends of the universe; as the ends being the beginning. So now man is given the supernatural power of omniscience because he can 'prove' that such an event is a singularity of a point that is derivative in a function that does not exist but through--that the current state of the universe contains points for which the derivative exists; as if a point of infinite mass density at which space and time are infinitely distorted by gravitational forces and which is held to be the first state of matter, as the same--as a singularity found in a black hole.
But you have yet to see a mini 'big bang' proceed from a black hole, itself. Now you are the one comparing the Magical 'Big Bang' to a singularity--then why is it that no other black hole has produced a mini big bang? For surely if it did then such an explosion of energy, from even a single black hole would consume the heavens in fire and dissolve all the elements. I ask you what has and is preventing this from happening?
The All is an illusion.
Isn't all time imaginary since time is a concept and not a reality, other than to Life that experiences it through observation.

 

[Silent Bob]

You know I find it funny that we haven't even began to explore space, yet we're drawn to the conclusion that we know the ends of the universe; as the ends being the beginning.

You don't have to be there to observe something you know. Telescopes do an excelent job at observing without exploration.

So now man is given the supernatural power of omniscience because he can 'prove' that such an event is a singularity of a point that is derivative in a function that does not exist but through--that the current state of the universe contains points for which the derivative exists;

No, science does not prove. Proof is for maths and alcohol. What happens is that we have a set of equations from Einstein that we know to work for a fact. Solving them for t=0 sometimes yields a singularity sometimes yields other things we take the solutions and see if they corespond to observations the ones that do at this time are the ones with the singularity so: BB theory. No omniscience, no supernatural powers, nothing just plain logic. Science could be wrong and the universe could have come into existence five minutes ago but we don't care for things like that cause it isn't science and science works.

But you have yet to see a mini 'big bang' proceed from a black hole, itself.

There are differences between black holes and the BB, mathematically speaking a black hole is a local event when the BB encompasses the entirety of our space-time. The entire universe we live in is the BB it hasn't stopped since time began.

For surely if it did then such an explosion of energy, from even a single black hole would consume the heavens in fire and dissolve all the elements.

The BB is an expansion not an explosion. It is not to be confused with supernovas. It is like blowing into a ballon.

Isn't all time imaginary since time is a concept and not a reality, other than to Life that experiences it through observation.

Our time is imaginary, the way we perceve it that is, we are constantly looking at time through a small delay but that is biology not physics. As Einstein said time goes faster if you are sitting next to a nice lady. Time in physics is anything but made up.

We know that space-time is related much like energy-mass is. Time is relevant to the observer but it is no illusion. We know for a fact that time keeping is affected by gravity and speed. GPS satellites which move at high speeds and different altitudes must take the effects of time dilation into account in order for them to keep time in the correct way.

You have to understand that a scientist is bound by natural laws. He cannot make up anything unless it agrees with what we can see and test. In fact the scientist has no power whatsoever, no licence to distort facts like a writter, no legal authority like a judge, no control over finances like politicians, nothing.

The scientist is our pioneer he embarks on the quest to find the city of gold and comes back with just another tiny island that we can put on our map. He is ofter ridiculed and laughed at by both his peers and laymen. But once in a while they discover something which alters the map of our knowledge completely. Only a tiny fraction of them have ever stumbled upon such a discovery and they are remembered the rest.... their contibutions gather dust in the basement of some library.

Do you have a problem with science? Take it up to the Guy who made our natural world the way it is. Don't hate the player hate the game.

 

[LVdesigns]

I could be remembering incorrectly, but wasn't science created initially by people who wanted to understand how god did it; to understand the creation process?

Science is basically the study of what the world is and what makes it "tick." Science can only deal with observable evidence. This is why science does not touch upon the existance of god: What would they test for?

There are people who base their dis-belief in god on science but that doesn't mean that it is the aim of science to prove or disprove god. It is simply impossible to find a conclusive scientific answer either way.

Ya, one of the main theories of origins in science is the big bang. However, even if you accept everything science says concerning the big bang, that does not rule out the possibility of god. It could just as easily been the tool he used for creation.

When it comes to proving or disproving god, that falls more into the realm of philosophy. There is a thin line between philosphy and science and sometimes the two overlap. However, since science deals with taking evidence from the natrual world, not that of the supernatural, then the question of god cannot be part of science. In fact, I have yet to meet a scientist who thinks that science alone can be used to prove or disprove god.

 

[Species8472]

You don't have to be there to observe something you know. Telescopes do an excelent job at observing without exploration.



No, science does not prove. Proof is for maths and alcohol. What happens is that we have a set of equations from Einstein that we know to work for a fact. Solving them for t=0 sometimes yields a singularity sometimes yields other things we take the solutions and see if they corespond to observations the ones that do at this time are the ones with the singularity so: BB theory. No omniscience, no supernatural powers, nothing just plain logic. Science could be wrong and the universe could have come into existence five minutes ago but we don't care for things like that cause it isn't science and science works.



There are differences between black holes and the BB, mathematically speaking a black hole is a local event when the BB encompasses the entirety of our space-time. The entire universe we live in is the BB it hasn't stopped since time began.



The BB is an expansion not an explosion. It is not to be confused with supernovas. It is like blowing into a ballon.



Our time is imaginary, the way we perceve it that is, we are constantly looking at time through a small delay but that is biology not physics. As Einstein said time goes faster if you are sitting next to a nice lady. Time in physics is anything but made up.

We know that space-time is related much like energy-mass is. Time is relevant to the observer but it is no illusion. We know for a fact that time keeping is affected by gravity and speed. GPS satellites which move at high speeds and different altitudes must take the effects of time dilation into account in order for them to keep time in the correct way.

You have to understand that a scientist is bound by natural laws. He cannot make up anything unless it agrees with what we can see and test. In fact the scientist has no power whatsoever, no licence to distort facts like a writter, no legal authority like a judge, no control over finances like politicians, nothing.

The scientist is our pioneer he embarks on the quest to find the city of gold and comes back with just another tiny island that we can put on our map. He is ofter ridiculed and laughed at by both his peers and laymen. But once in a while they discover something which alters the map of our knowledge completely. Only a tiny fraction of them have ever stumbled upon such a discovery and they are remembered the rest.... their contibutions gather dust in the basement of some library.

Do you have a problem with science? Take it up to the Guy who made our natural world the way it is. Don't hate the player hate the game.

It is true that telescopes reveal much about the heavens, however, they have yet to see the ends of the universe; rather, they can merely speculate, through scientific method, of what the universe consists. But do not forget that man, even through science, cannot comprehend the full spectrum of the All.
Using logic, there is what we know and there is what we do not know. That what we do not know correlates with that which we do know. Therefore, that which we know is shrouded by that which we do not know because that which we do know reveals the hidden things of that which we don't know when we discover the previously unknown; this of which is a possiblility; and therefore necessarily true.
The senses of man are limited(in this age), however, that which was hidden, was revealed by that which we know, hence we know that there is a broad spectrum of senses; of which we do not fully possess; but are able to synthesize through technology; such as red spectrum analysis.
However, any sort of interaction between 'un-natural' senses and a person become subjective because the person is able to disconnect from such a sense--to return to the senses five. Which means that one cannot fully understand, in objectivity, that portion of the spectrum of sense.
Man only sees a portion of reality and not the All. Likewise, man only sees a portion of the infinite and fancies that the whole.

And who inspired Einstein? If it were not for his belief in God.

Other than that, I concede to you; for you have enlightened my thought. It is I who is ignorant of you and it is you who is ignorant of me. I beseech you, as a favor to me; to read the entirety of this thread; and perhaps I could return the favor and enlighten your thought. Thank you for your input.

 

[Cleany]

Science seeks to prove or disprove the existence of God through observational facts and measures

i dont think that science exists in any kind of form that has any purpose, it is more a description of the search for knowledge.

i think it is more to do with curiosity than disproving the existence of god.

anyway i dont think science can prove or disprove the existence of god.

and what does "prove" mean anyway - prove by demonstration? by experimentation? by maths?

 

[Silent Bob]

It is true that telescopes reveal much about the heavens, however, they have yet to see the ends of the universe;

Not even close.

rather, they can merely speculate, through scientific method, of what the universe consists.

True but then again every piece of knowledge that we have comes from speculation. Science is both bound and freed with the assumption of naturalism, it is bound to never be able to comment on the supernatural but it is freed from superstition and religious bias.

When science sees a planet it does not declare that Goddidit, when it sees an insane person it does not blame invisible demons.

But do not forget that man, even through science, cannot comprehend the full spectrum of the All.

Never dissagreed. When you see a beautiful flower or an ugly one science will not tell you if it is beautiful or ugly it will tell you how it came to be, why it is as it and then it stops. It will not tell you who made it, it will not tell you if you should admire it or not.

Using logic, there is what we know and there is what we do not know.

And science like man is limited to this. It never goes beyond the limits, it always states it's assumptions and all conclusions it draws are conditional. IF natural phenomena are caused by natural causes, IF our data are accurate here is what we think is happening. It may not be right on both accounts but our faith in science is reinforced every time it makes a prediction and it turns out to work.

Current may well be carried by tiny fairies but they behave like what we call electrons and when we use our understanding to build devices they behave as we predicted. So the tiny fairies idea be it true or false is out of science. It is not needed to understand current so Occam's razor slices it to bits. If at some point our data enforce the idea of fairies we will look into it again.

However, any sort of interaction between 'un-natural' senses and a person become subjective because the person is able to disconnect from such a sense--to return to the senses five.

Un-natural or supernatural phenomena are by definition out of the scientific spectrum. Their very nature makes them defy cause and effect and they cannot be tested by objective measurments. If they are then they are no more supernatural. For instance "psychics" claim supernatural talents but in reality psychology has analysed their so called talents and can explain how they trick us into thinking they posses something that they clearly do not.

Man only sees a portion of reality and not the All. Likewise, man only sees a portion of the infinite and fancies that the whole.

This is true but who is to say with certainty (and objectivity) what is out there to be discovered? Limiting your worldview to one that agrees with the scientific assumptions is acceptable just as much as it is acceptable that you do not. Just don't expect doctors to treat tumors by faith healing.

And who inspired Einstein? If it were not for his belief in God.

Ahh but which God? Einstein was a Deist just like Hawking. And let us not forget that Einstein's religious bias of God not playing dice cost him much of his reputation later in life.

Science tries to be as objective as possible. Most people nowadays agree that a tornado is not an act of God so it accepts this assumption. A tornado could very well be an act of God but this is no basis to do any research or progress. Nobody stops you from praying that a tornado headed your way misses your house. All that a meteorologist would say is: Don't count on it to work. So for good measure run to the basement and pray there.

 

[Species8472]

I could be remembering incorrectly, but wasn't science created initially by people who wanted to understand how god did it; to understand the creation process?

Science is basically the study of what the world is and what makes it "tick." Science can only deal with observable evidence. This is why science does not touch upon the existance of god: What would they test for?

There are people who base their dis-belief in god on science but that doesn't mean that it is the aim of science to prove or disprove god. It is simply impossible to find a conclusive scientific answer either way.

Ya, one of the main theories of origins in science is the big bang. However, even if you accept everything science says concerning the big bang, that does not rule out the possibility of god. It could just as easily been the tool he used for creation.

When it comes to proving or disproving god, that falls more into the realm of philosophy. There is a thin line between philosphy and science and sometimes the two overlap. However, since science deals with taking evidence from the natrual world, not that of the supernatural, then the question of god cannot be part of science. In fact, I have yet to meet a scientist who thinks that science alone can be used to prove or disprove god.

Anyone ever see the discovery channels' Science of the bible. What do they intend to prove or disprove if it not be to support or debunk the life of Jesus Christ.
So there is an example of how scientists wish to prove or disprove the existence of God--that which they invoke so pathetically with such programming.
What is the Ultimate destination(or goal) of science. Is it to theorize blindly into the noth? Is it to peel the layers of the world like an onion? To leave life as a corpse? Is it to destroy religion and spirituality--to topple belief by sacrilege?
Exactly, my whole point is that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God; therefore, I have support for my premise. Yet for some reason religion has been mixing science with itself; and thereby causing impurities within Spiritual belief.
As a Christian, I am deeply offended that the church has mixed spirituality with science; as if they go hand in hand.
To clarify--this piece is not an attack on science; rather it is an attack on the church.
The church has excepted that the theory of evolution can be integrated into belief; but, by so doing, they fail to abide in the vine which is Jesus Christ and the Word.
Now, it may seem that I live in a backworld or am some sort of fundamentalist; but that is far from the case. The parables of Christ are what guide a Christian upon the spiritual path. What need does the church have of science if it abides not in the vine?
Ah...It just occured to me...anyone ever see the Bible Code and that equa distant line spacing(or whatever). Of this, what do they intend to prove if it be not the existence of God. Therefore, my premise has been further strenghtened.
Yet, those who read this post fail to render any of the Light within my argument unto themselves. My ignorance has subsided as we have argued this out; just as I had intended to--to run off of the tangent, and gain scientific input to come to strengthen my argument.
Now, let's get to the matter at hand and read further into my argument(that of which is posted at the beginning of this thread; and its subsequents).

Let your left hand know not what the right hand does.

 

[LVdesigns]

Science has basically become a pawn in the "battle" between beleif and dis-belief. Just because some people use it to prove or disprove god, doesn't mean that this is the ultimate aim of science. But, I guess that wasn't the point of this thread. The point is that science and religion shouldn't mix.

Well, I guess that's up to you. When I believed I saw science and the study of origins as a window into the workings of god, but that was just my opinion. Others are free to personally reject or accept whatever they want. I don't care as long as these beliefs are not forced on others.