Does science encompass God?

[HelioPrime]

1. The Bible tries to convince us that God does affect the natural realm. If God affects the natural realm, then this CAN be measured by science.

That assumes any impact would be measurable and visible.

If the statement was God is so powerful he created life knowing it would lead to humanity then science can't answer the question because all it can prove within our scope of understanding is evolution likely happened.

2. The Bible tries to convince us of certain things that have happened in our natural realm. Things that have happened in our natural realm CAN be measured by science.

Again: Assumes any projection of power must be visible. If God is assumed to have created an earthquake your trying to define God as a force that must use natural and visible powers. So without even believing in God your making an example of what YOU think he should be and then what his abilities are.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: HelioPrime That assumes any impact would be measurable and visible.

An impact so small that isn't measurable... is that what God is doing?

Quote by: HelioPrime Again: Assumes any projection of power must be visible. If God is assumed to have created an earthquake your trying to define God as a force that must use natural and visible powers. So without even believing in God your making an example of what YOU think he should be and then what his abilities are.

So, in the past.. God affected the world so insignificantly it can't even be measured?

I've never heard of this form of Christianity. I'm failing to see the point of the Bible telling us God affects the world and has done so in the past as well...

[Tycoon]

If the statement was God is so powerful he created life knowing it would lead to humanity then science can't answer the question because all it can prove within our scope of understanding is evolution likely happened.

Again: Assumes any projection of power must be visible. If God is assumed to have created an earthquake your trying to define God as a force that must use natural and visible powers. So without even believing in God your making an example of what YOU think he should be and then what his abilities are.

Okay, I'm going to take your thinking a step further.

1. God is said to have caused an earthquake.
2. That earthquake can be explained scientifically by natural causes.
3. Those natural causes can be explained by yet again more natural causes, leading back to the Big Bang.
4. According to Christianity, God created the Big Bang.
5. Therefore, God created all of the natural and scientific results of the Big Bang.
6. Therefore, those natural and scientific forces that run our lives were created by God.
7. Therefore, we do not have free will.

I consider that a well made proof that either God does not exist or we do not have free will.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer An impact so small that isn't measurable... is that what God is doing?

You've just answered your own topic. Your no longer asking scientific questions instead using questions based on personal opinions.

So no, science can't answer or encompass God unless were taking about the personal opinions projected by an individual.

If a man says his God lives under my bed then yes, I can say its within science to show thats false. But I can't use science to answer to make a general viewing of God as a question then attempt to apply it in every case.

[HelioPrime]

1. God is said to have caused an earthquake.
2. That earthquake can be explained scientifically by natural causes.
3. Those natural causes can be explained by yet again more natural causes, leading back to the Big Bang.
4. According to Christianity, God created the Big Bang.
5. Therefore, God created all of the natural and scientific results of the Big Bang. Alongside he allowed for the creation of vast human mental capacity.
6. Therefore, those natural and scientific forces that run our lives were created by God.
7. Therefore, we do have free will.

Look how when viewed from another angle the no free will idea as evidence against God falls apart. And even if your defining genetic predisposition for certain things as "no free will" then if that's what God intended then how is that evidence against?

[Tycoon]

Alongside he allowed for the creation of vast human mental capacity.

It doesn't matter what our mental capacity is. Let me explain why.

1. A human makes a decision.
2. That decision is simply a change in the chemicals in his brain.
3. That change in chemicals was caused by nerve impulses.
4. Those nerve impulses were caused by that human's five sense.
5. Those senses were detecting natural forces.
6. Those natural forces were created by other natural forces.
7. Those natural forces stretch back to the Big Bang.
8. The Big Bang was created by God, according to Christianity.
9. Therefore, the human did not make that choice.
10. That choice was the result of God's design of the Big Bang.

See, it doesn't matter how much intellectual capacity we have. We will still be slaves to our five sense. Our intellectual capacity only changes how we process these natural forces.

Look how when viewed from another angle the no free will idea as evidence against God falls apart. And even if your defining genetic predisposition for certain things as "no free will" then if that's what God intended then how is that evidence against?

There are other angles, but only one angle can be correct.

If God did not give us free will, then God is the most extremely immoral being there is. All suffering is created by God's design of the Big Bang. No religion would portray God as an immoral being. This proof is at least proof that Christianity is wrong, as Christianity preaches free will.

You are simply making excuses now.

[Vacuum]

Again, I don't see how anyone can come to a logical conclusion using a database that contains .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of all there is to know about the universe. And that's being extremely generous.

[rez]

Quote by: HelioPrime If the statement was

No HelioPrime, the statements can be found in the Bible. Your hypothetical statements do not count.

Quote by: HelioPrime God is so powerful he created life knowing it would lead to humanity

That is not what the bible said. Why quote Chainers exact words, but not actually address what he says?

then science can't answer the question because all it can prove within our scope of understanding is evolution likely happened.

That is right HelioPrime, but the Bible and your deism have nothing to do with each other. Stop trying to defend Christianity with deism.

Quote by: HelioPrime Again: Assumes any projection of power must be visible.

Again, stop trying to defend Christianity with your deism. Of course in your philosophy it would be impossible to determine a god and its power when everything seems like everything natural occured.

But we are talking about Christianity, where people claimed god worked these miracles here on earth. If they didn't know who performed these miracles, then how would they know god did it? These people were obviously informed about gods presence here in our natural world.

If God is assumed to have created an earthquake your trying to define God as a force that must use natural and visible powers.

If the powers are not visible and are the people are not informed someway about what is to come, then how do they know it is from god? Something has to be visible and something has to be known. Where else would the people get the information from?

So without even believing in God your making an example of what YOU think he should be and then what his abilities are.

First off no. The Bible makes these claims.
Second off yes. People give their own interpretations of what god does and does not do all the time. It is the only way god exists. If people did not have imaginations then god wouldn't exist. How else would the Bible be written?

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: HelioPrime You've just answered your own topic. Your no longer asking scientific questions instead using questions based on personal opinions.

No really, I'm asking you if you really think the Bible is claiming that God does affect the world but so immensely insignificantly there isn't any measurable change.

Quote by: HelioPrime So no, science can't answer or encompass God unless were taking about the personal opinions projected by an individual.

Projected by the Bible. Christianity.

Quote by: HelioPrime If a man says his God lives under my bed then yes, I can say its within science to show thats false. But I can't use science to answer to make a general viewing of God as a question then attempt to apply it in every case.

Unless the Bible says God lives under a bed, I don't know what the Hell you're talking about.

[rez]

Quote by: Vacuum Again, I don't see how anyone can come to a logical conclusion using a database that contains .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of all there is to know about the universe. And that's being extremely generous.

Well considering you said "anyone" I assume you are including atheists and tthiest alike.

Theists conclude that the universe was created with a purpose. The atheist concludes that the theist didn't base that claim on apparent facts. It doesn't matter how much information we have about the universe. The point is if you don't investigate properly, then the database will never be filled with information.

1) There is a universe.
2) We want to explain it.
3) There are many competing and conflicting explanations.
4) What criterion will we use to prefer one explanation over another?
5) When we have chosen an explanation should we stick with it?

We use the explanations that work. The explanations that actually lead to the discovery of new information that was previously unknown. We put those explanations in our database of knowledge. The point is that .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of information filled in that database was done through science and not religion. Religion has provided nothing useful. The atheists on this board are here to correct the theists and keep them honest in their philosophical discussions.

[gela]

If god was as influential and encompassing as the Bible makes him out to be, then he should be measurable by some form of science.

I would think he should show himself in statistical studies. These people are being looked after by god right? he is protecting them, and looking after their lives.
So one would expect that lives with god would have less tragedy and more miracles, then lives without god.
So, lets find the religion of every lethal cancer victim. There should be less christians and more atheists. If god isn't giving any special treatment to christians in life, then what makes them think he will give them special treatment in death?

God is suppose to be these peoples shepherd. You would think he would be telling all his sheep the same thing. So why do christians disagree? why all the seperate branches of christianity?
He sounds like a terrible shepherd to me.

[gallo]

Quote by: Vacuum Again, I don't see how anyone can come to a logical conclusion using a database that contains .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of all there is to know about the universe. And that's being extremely generous.

Again, what are you talking about?

[Tycoon]

1) There is a universe. 2) We want to explain it. 3) There are many competing and conflicting explanations. 4) What criterion will we use to prefer one explanation over another? 5) When we have chosen an explanation should we stick with it?

1) I believe we all agree on that one.
2) The answer may be more simple than people imagine, and we want and need a complex answer that makes us feel significant.
3) And only one of them is right.
4) Whichever one has the least contradictions with proven fact.
5) If new evidence arrises that conflicts with our explanation, our explanation should be adapted.


I think that we as humans feel a necessity to find a complex answer that makes us feel significant. The result is theism.

What if the answer simply is that the Big Bang occurs, the universe expands, we were created, eventually the universe will contract again, the universe will disappear, the Big Bang will occur again.

I think the simple answer is theists are not happy with that answer. They devote their religion to God to make themselves feel significant by claiming an omnipotent and omniscient being loves them.

[HelioPrime]

No HelioPrime, the statements can be found in the Bible. Your hypothetical statements do not count.

Is the bible the only source of religious thought? What about the thousands of variations and those who do not follow the literal word?

And after all as a fan of the "product of human" writing camp you can hardly point to the bible. God can can exist without the bible, of course perhaps being far different from the written word.

That is not what the bible said. Why quote Chainers exact words, but not actually address what he says?

Did you read the OP exact word? No mention of literal word of the bible. Sorry, try again. ( I suspect some editing of the OP is in order)

That is right HelioPrime, but the Bible and your deism have nothing to do with each other. Stop trying to defend Christianity with deism.

The question is does Science encompass God. For all we know the subject could be a deistic god and still fall under the OP. Try again unless you want LB to rewrite the OP and specify the literal written word of the christian bible.

Again, stop trying to defend Christianity with your deism. Of course in your philosophy it would be impossible to determine a god and its power when everything seems like everything natural occured.

^ see above

But we are talking about Christianity, where people claimed god worked these miracles here on earth. If they didn't know who performed these miracles, then how would they know god did it? These people were obviously informed about gods presence here in our natural world.

Ever read the bible?

Lets see a Bush bursts into flame and a voice comes out of nowhere. Sounds like something a little advanced for special effects a few thousand years ago.

Assume that it happened again today. If the Red Sea for no apparent reason just suddenly parted then what? No evidence of lasers or special interference, or energy fields, or any visible cause. Lacking any evidence that the sea could have moved what would you say then? Let me guess: Unexplainable action but no reason to suspect God since we have no evidence to point at God.

Very typical of the atheist view of God. If God exists he must come down and do actions fully visible within your view. If actions were to be done any other way of if you didn't agree with those actions God doesn't exist.

First off no. The Bible makes these claims. Second off yes. People give their own interpretations of what god does and does not do all the time. It is the only way god exists. If people did not have imaginations then god wouldn't exist. How else would the Bible be written?

Written from divine inspiration?

Ops oh wait can't prove that one so must not be it.... Back to basics in the inability of religious debate to get anywhere

[rez]

Quote by: HelioPrime Did you read the OP exact word? No mention of literal word of the bible. Sorry, try again. ( I suspect some editing of the OP is in order) The question is does Science encompass God. For all we know the subject could be a deistic god and still fall under the OP. Try again unless you want LB to rewrite the OP and specify the literal written word of the christian bible.

No. Here.

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer 1. The Bible tries to convince us that God does affect the natural realm. If God affects the natural realm, then this CAN be measured by science. 2. The Bible tries to convince us of certain things that have happened in our natural realm. Things that have happened in our natural realm CAN be measured by science. Discuss.

Quote by: HelioPrime Lets see a Bush bursts into flame and a voice comes out of nowhere. Sounds like something a little advanced for special effects a few thousand years ago.

Well considering that scientists can study particles popping in and out of existence, why not burning bushes that don't seem to burn to ash after 5 minutes? Of course, if a scientist is not there to preform tests, then it can't be encompassed by science.

Assume that it happened again today. If the Red Sea for no apparent reason just suddenly parted then what? No evidence of lasers or special interference, or energy fields, or any visible cause. Lacking any evidence that the sea could have moved what would you say then?

I would investigate it. I would use physics and chemistry to study how the water particales float in air.

If God exists he must come down and do actions fully visible within your view.

You are not reading. We already established that the Bible states that god does come down in the natural realm and fully reveals its powers. The Burning bush, the parting of the red sea, and the great flood are examples. People wrote down these events having the full knowledge of who was controlling these events.

Now if scientists were around during these events they would be able to be measured and understood and would indeed be encompassed by science. However, since the claims were made by primitive man who didnt understand the concept of zero, how the earth was shaped, and where rain came from...we have silly little debates...

[Tycoon]

Is the bible the only source of religious thought? What about the thousands of variations and those who do not follow the literal word?

The bible is the source of Christianity, the major world religion. Many people say they do not take the bible literally, but I don't know of a single church that does not teach the bible literally. Therefore, we will take it literally.

God can can exist without the bible, of course perhaps being far different from the written word.

Aaaah. but we are discussing the bible. You are a Christian, so if you're going to defend your religion then go ahead, but if you're not don't try to opt out with excuses.

Lets see a Bush bursts into flame and a voice comes out of nowhere. Sounds like something a little advanced for special effects a few thousand years ago. Assume that it happened again today. If the Red Sea for no apparent reason just suddenly parted then what? No evidence of lasers or special interference, or energy fields, or any visible cause. Lacking any evidence that the sea could have moved what would you say then? Let me guess: Unexplainable action but no reason to suspect God since we have no evidence to point at God.

So first you tell us that this isn't about the bible, then you go on to argue using the bible, which happens to be a document written a long time ago that remains completely unsupported by any other document.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer I think it does. 1. The Bible tries to convince us that God does affect the natural realm. If God affects the natural realm, then this CAN be measured by science. 2. The Bible tries to convince us of certain things that have happened in our natural realm. Things that have happened in our natural realm CAN be measured by science. Discuss.

[Theists] are apt to quote the late Stephen Jay Gould's 'NOMA' — 'non-overlapping magisteria'. Gould claimed that science and true religion never come into conflict because they exist in completely separate dimensions of discourse:

To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists.

This sounds terrific, right up until you give it a moment's thought. You then realize that the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science. A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. God could clinch the matter in his favour at any moment by staging a spectacular demonstration of his powers, one that would satisfy the exacting standards of science. Even the infamous Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific hypothesis — by funding double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients. It didn't, of course, although a control group who knew they had been prayed for tended to get worse (how about a class action suit against the Templeton Foundation?) Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God's existence has yet appeared.

To see the disingenuous hypocrisy of religious people who embrace NOMA, imagine that forensic archeologists, by some unlikely set of circumstances, discovered DNA evidence demonstrating that Jesus was born of a virgin mother and had no father. If NOMA enthusiasts were sincere, they should dismiss the archeologists' DNA out of hand: "Irrelevant. Scientific evidence has no bearing on theological questions. Wrong magisterium." Does anyone seriously imagine that they would say anything remotely like that? You can bet your boots that not just the fundamentalists but every professor of theology and every bishop in the land would trumpet the archeological evidence to the skies.

Either Jesus had a father or he didn't. The question is a scientific one, and scientific evidence, if any were available, would be used to settle it. The same is true of any miracle — and the deliberate and intentional creation of the universe would have to have been the mother and father of all miracles. Either it happened or it didn't. It is a fact, one way or the other, and in our state of uncertainty we can put a probability on it — an estimate that may change as more information comes in.

Edge: WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GOD By Richard Dawkins

That being said, the reason we have this debate is that theists have a disingenuous relationship with science. They want the sort of legitimacy that scientific proof delivers, but aren't willing to do their homework on the matter. In other words, they make truth claims as though they're scientifically proven ("Jesus literally died and was resurrected." or "God literally destroyed this or that city in the OT.") but then want to fall back on faith rather than support those claims.

To be sure, "God exists" is a scientific claim... one that has zero support and contradicts a lot of other scientificly proven laws and theories.

[HelioPrime]

Well considering that scientists can study particles popping in and out of existence, why not burning bushes that don't seem to burn to ash after 5 minutes? Of course, if a scientist is not there to preform tests, then it can't be encompassed by science.

Bingo. Science can't measure the past. Of course feel free to stand beside a bush and demand God put it to flame to prove himself.

You are not reading. We already established that the Bible states that god does come down in the natural realm and fully reveals its powers. The Burning bush, the parting of the red sea, and the great flood are examples. People wrote down these events having the full knowledge of who was controlling these events.

Powers that were once fully reveled. Those powers have not been used anytime in recent history it would appear thou. As far as the bible states the next big showing of such power would be the end of the world if such a day comes I doubt you'd even care to try and study the events.

Now if scientists were around during these events they would be able to be measured and understood and would indeed be encompassed by science. However, since the claims were made by primitive man who didnt understand the concept of zero, how the earth was shaped, and where rain came from...we have silly little debates...

So because there were no scientists in 32AD were supposed to just all laugh at every story and assume its all junk?


Of course this whole debate operated under the assumption atheists like to make about God being required to be all loving and prove his existence. If God was not all loving and did send people to hell then their is no reason for any evidence to be allowed since it would defeat the whole purpose of judgement if everyone knew God was real and hell a very real possibility.

[HelioPrime]

I doubt I need to ask but I'm guessing the underlying assumption on the non theists part is that IF there WERE scientists during these past event they would have found everything to be perfectly natural?

Let me guess, just a very hot day caused a sudden brush fire, and voices were really echoing sounds caused by rushing air?

I assume that the atheists stance is since everyone should know God doesn't exist then these past events must have had a natural cause.

[gallo]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Calm down bro. Read the OP again if you don't know what's happening.

Stop demonstrating your ignorance and put some thought into the matter. I addressed your OP, quite clearly. You are wrong and no matter how long you hold your breath or how hard you stamp your feet you will still be wrong. If you didn't mean to ask the question you asked, then think before you post in the future. So, does science encompass God? No. Simply because there is no evidence for a god.

An hypothesis can be made without evidence, and you pursue the question with science.

Learn before you speak. If you make an hypothesis without evidence, it is not a scientific hypothesis.

We had no evidence of the strings in String Theory (not sure if we have any now either) but whether or not these strings exist is encompassed by science.

Actually, if you had any idea of what you were talking about you would be aware that theoretical physicists are perfectly aware that they are not doing science by the traditional definition. They quite aware that they are applying the methods of science to math. They still have mathematical evidence for their mathematical hypotheses.