Does science encompass God?

[gallo]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer So science isn't used to examine our world? That's all I implied.. why do you disagree?

Stop moving the goal posts. It's just a bit disingenuous, when your errors in logic are pointed out, to pretend that you asked a different question.

[oracle13]

I'm so lost, I don't understand how this question hasn't been resolved yet.

Someone could postulate a hypothesis of God as an explanation of how the world was created or to numerous other questions that science attempts to answer.

But there is no evidence for God.

So the hypothesis is immediately discarded by science as a legitimate answer.

So our scientific analysis of the hypothesis: 'God created the world' is completely unfounded.

The only difference that the two of you have is that the original poster believes that science does encompass the question in that it can address whether God exists by looking at evidence and basing its likelihood on empirical observation.

But if this is truly the case then we could bombard scientists with huge numbers of ridiculous hypotheses with no evidence. There are 2 reasons why God appears to be taken seriously in this case:

1. There is a tradition of belief in God which began centuries ago and still exerts influence today.
2. God, or the concept of God (ie: a Prime Mover) seemingly provides an answer to the questions that science has yet to answer.

I am referring mainly to the cosmological argument here.

The God hypothesis here, however, is still a 'god-of-the-gaps' and there is no reason for us to postulate a supremely powerful and all-knowing deity as the necessary existent, when we can just leave it an open question, assuming that when we have the means we will discover the faculty that allowed a purely physical system to create itself. And this is assuming that you accept the 2 premises of the cosmological argument in the first place, which can be disputed.

So my answer would still be no, the Christian idea of God is not encompassed within scientific study, though the idea of a necessary existant may need an explanatory theory depending on how you view the cosmological argument.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: gallo Stop moving the goal posts. It's just a bit disingenuous, when your errors in logic are pointed out, to pretend that you asked a different question.

Actually, like I said, you misunderstood the post.

This is what I said:

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer By examining the world? Science.

Now you're saying I WASN'T implying that science is used to examine our world? Are you sure?

[Ken Carman]

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.

To me, Science attempts to discover: reveal, the mechanics of how something happened. Faith attempts to show/reveal who did it. I think they will always be different in this way. I don't think "who" is a question Science could... or even should... try to answer. The mechanics of what happened are pretty much unimportant when it comes to faith... unless you believe that how the divine arrived at this conclusion (or ongoing event is a better term, IMO) is crucial to belief. In fact, if you absolutely have to have some specific way for this to have happened I believe your faith is very weak. Who cares? Isn't enough to believe either your God did it, or had a "hand" in it? Plus, for those who have faith, there are far more important questions: like how we treat each other, ourselves and pass on our respect to the divine.

[gallo]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Actually, like I said, you misunderstood the post. This is what I said: Now you're saying I WASN'T implying that science is used to examine our world? Are you sure?

Why do you find it necessary to misrepresent what others have said?

[gallo]

Quote by: oracle13 I'm so lost, I don't understand how this question hasn't been resolved yet. Someone could postulate a hypothesis of God as an explanation of how the world was created or to numerous other questions that science attempts to answer. But there is no evidence for God. So the hypothesis is immediately discarded by science as a legitimate answer. So our scientific analysis of the hypothesis: 'God created the world' is completely unfounded. The only difference that the two of you have is that the original poster believes that science does encompass the question in that it can address whether God exists by looking at evidence and basing its likelihood on empirical observation. But if this is truly the case then we could bombard scientists with huge numbers of ridiculous hypotheses with no evidence. There are 2 reasons why God appears to be taken seriously in this case: 1. There is a tradition of belief in God which began centuries ago and still exerts influence today. 2. God, or the concept of God (ie: a Prime Mover) seemingly provides an answer to the questions that science has yet to answer. I am referring mainly to the cosmological argument here. The God hypothesis here, however, is still a 'god-of-the-gaps' and there is no reason for us to postulate a supremely powerful and all-knowing deity as the necessary existent, when we can just leave it an open question, assuming that when we have the means we will discover the faculty that allowed a purely physical system to create itself. And this is assuming that you accept the 2 premises of the cosmological argument in the first place, which can be disputed. So my answer would still be no, the Christian idea of God is not encompassed within scientific study, though the idea of a necessary existant may need an explanatory theory depending on how you view the cosmological argument.

Funny. You don't seem lost.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: gallo Why do you find it necessary to misrepresent what others have said?

I haven't, and you haven't shown where I've done so and on the other hand, I've clearly shown why you misread the post.

[EnragedParrot]

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.

Your argument shows that science can address specific claims about the natural world made in the Bible, it doesn't show that science encompasses God.

[gallo]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer ...I've clearly shown why you misread the post.

And I've clearly shown why you have failed to understand the very simple answer. Any question about any god is outside the domain of science. After that, your pretense that your Bible is in any way meaningful to the question or that you have stated additional considerations is meaningless babble.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: gallo And I've clearly shown why you have failed to understand the very simple answer. Any question about any god is outside the domain of science. After that, your pretense that your Bible is in any way meaningful to the question or that you have stated additional considerations is meaningless babble.

My Bible? I'm not a Christian.

And I've already replied to you, you chose to pick out a select unrelated point in my post and declare it as it as "misrepresentation." I showed you why it wasn't, and now you jump back to the real topic as if you're responding to your own mix up..? I've already responded to this, it's your turn to reply. Sound good?

[Tycoon]

Break it up ladies! Yeesh!

Science does not encompass God, because:

1. There is no evidence of God.
2. There is no evidence of God's effect on anything.
3. Christians themselves believe God to be out of this universe.
4. Science is the study of the universe and how it works.

When theists say that God must have designed the Big Bang, that is not science, that is the absence of science. In time, science will hopefully come up with a more thorough and well studied explanation and elaboration of the Big Bang.

[Lullaby Chainer]

"There's no evidence"

Was the ruling of "there is no evidence of God affecting our natural world" not a statement we've come across due to the sciences of archeology, biology, etc. ?

[HelioPrime]

I think the better question is: "Does any statement made by non theists matter?"

Since religion is a matter of belief then as long as people believe in God, and believe that science can't say he doesn't exist, then God exists in the minds of the people the question is being posed to.

Asking if science can encompass the god question is just another color on an age old question probably thrown around long before Dawkins wrote the god hypothesis.

[Vacuum]

Quote by: HelioPrime I think the better question is: "Does any statement made by non theists matter?" Since religion is a matter of belief then as long as people believe in God, and believe that science can't say he doesn't exist, then God exists in the minds of the people the question is being posed to. Asking if science can encompass the god question is just another color on an age old question probably thrown around long before Dawkins wrote the god hypothesis.

Why can't we ponder it? Every question is answerable.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Vacuum Why can't we ponder it? Every question is answerable.

Does God wear boxers or briefs.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Why's that? God is undetectable by science because he is defined as absolute? Why?

No. You changed the context of the wording. God would represent what is an absolute truth and such a concept is not acceptable in the current thinking of science which views science as an on-going process of learnig more truisms, and even changing their mind as new evidence so determines a contradictive perspective. The absolute truth is still not detectable in the science arena because they believe that we have not yet gathered all the facts and all the evidence and have not yet learned everything that is possible to learn about the universe, or life on earth for that matter. The areas yet to be detected, known as the unknowns, cannot encompass a notion of a God if that was, for example, a Creator. Because they have no absolutes to counter act that notion as being an absolute. The theory that the absolute truth is that there are not yet any absolute truths still stands as a standard. Even if that standard is a paradox and seems to be self-defeating, it none the less makes sense if we use detectable data as evidence that this is all we now know, which knowing is yet incomplete. Without physical evidence as proof science cannot encompass the idea of a god, nor any other theory as being absolute unless testable using physical properties for the purposes of such experimentation. And even a theory must be more then just an idea based only on faith or belief, or as a feeling. Because to encompass a theory you must present some simi-absolutes which give evidence of a potential reality. Such as mathimatical patterns that can be repeated to arrive at the same conclusion, or patterns in nature that appear to be linked together such that we can vision how something evolved.

For example. If you look at a car you will notice the front wheels can turn right and left and that is because the roadways have random turns for many reasons and the pathway is not going in just one direct line all the time. Random events then can cause turning points in the processes of evolution because other wise you would smash into a big rock or something like that. (sorry about the poor anology).

Time for me to shut up before I put my foot in my own mouth. But any momentum must adapt to random obstuctions because we cannot see any direct purpose between point a and point b. Point B depends on if any random events ocur or not. And point B is often unpredictable without foreknowledge of all the random twist and turns that might be possible due to multable causes or conficting forces. No one can encompass an unknown unless it first become a known.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Tycoon Break it up ladies! Yeesh! Science does not encompass God, because: There is no evidence of God. There is no evidence of God's effect on anything. Christians themselves believe God to be out of this universe. Science is the study of the universe and how it works. When theists say that God must have designed the Big Bang, that is not science, that is the absence of science. In time, science will hopefully come up with a more thorough and well studied explanation and elaboration of the Big Bang.

Medal for you :-)

[90ogle]

okay! Not much of a debate then.
Does science encompass God?
YES!
UNLESS THE SCIENCE DENIES GOD!

simplicity is bliss.

[gallo]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer I've already responded to this, it's your turn to reply. Sound good?

And your response was tantamount to saying, "Yeah, but, what if science isn't science and god isn't god." No matter how long your hold your breath, your god is not a matter of science and your Bible is irrelevant.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: HelioPrime Does God wear boxers or briefs.

What is a judge really wearing under that long robe?

Answer, none of your bizzwax.