Does science encompass God?

[90ogle]

What Is All Dust!. Bye Bye!
I Made My Point!
End Of!
Don't Twist My Words!
Love The Avatar!
Made Me Jump!
On Your Way And Pester Some Other!

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Rainbow Medal for you :-)

Your medal is just a myth. I did not see it.

[Tycoon]

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. ?

It's not like science is out on some sort of agenda to make sure there is no evidence of God. There simply isn't any. Science is after knowledge for knowledge's sake.

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

Science doesn't deny God, science doesn't care either way. If there were evidence of God, science would look at it scientifically. As it is, there isn't.

Christianity comes up with a nice excuse for this lack of evidence: they say that God is not of this universe. Science is the study of the universe and how it works. Therefore, God is not included.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Technosoul Your medal is just a myth. I did not see it.

Take your sunglasses off :-)

[Tycoon]

Medal for you :-)

Gracias señor.

Your medal is just a myth. I did not see it.

It's a virtual medal, silly.

[gallo]

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

What does that have to do with the question of whether science encompasses god? What does science have to do with theism or atheism? Why do you equate science with atheism?

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.

Well, good. No one denied that. If you wish to believe in a god then that is your business. The point is that it isn't a matter of science. It is quite true that science can't say that your god doesn't exist. By the same token, neither can science say that he does exist. Only when you present empirical data can science weigh in on the question. To date, no evidence that your god or any god exists has been presented.

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.

So you think that this question was prompted by a reading of Dawkins' book? I hadn't thought of that since I haven't read the book. Dawkins' militant atheism is a bit extreme for my taste. But, of course, theists have been trying to make themselves feel better about their blind faith by pretending to offer "scientific" evidence for years and years. So this debate is yet another poor example.

[Technosoul]

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.

Keep the fath. Perhaps in time they will break thorugh with a studied explanation ( some actural physical proof would be nice). But meanwhile enjoy your FAITH and your HOPE and your BELIEF that the theory will evolve into something more then a theory.

At least faith can encompass the theory. More then you give the other side credit for.

Is the universe evidence of something created? Hmm? One can develope a philosophy about that. God as an idea does exsist. Yet, we find no evidence that such an idea can exsist in the minds of animals (that I know of). How could the idea get created in the human mind only? And why did evolution produce such an idea and for what advantages? Or better put, why did evolution produce humans who could create such an idea if the idea has no dawinian advantage? And yet, we might have evidence because the idea would suggest a new goal post for us to evolve towards in our consciousness so that we can become better off then the other animals with such attempted perfectionism, translated into a civilized culture. By moving the goal post further back we must try harder to make that goal, which stresses us to do better. And likewise making us better pack animals because we can work better together in brotherly love then we can in a dog eat dog situation.

The idea can resolve conflicts about which wolf should lead the pack because we have a mythological leader of the pack, sort of like having a constitution based on inalienable truths to guide us instead of another human dictator. Why evolve if we cannot hope to become like an all knowing god? Why have science if we do not want to strive towards that goal post? Or for that matter philosophy, phychology, or some religious system for setting our goals higher then that of mere animal behaviorism? Using both the ability to create an idea as will as the ability to create supportive technology. technosoulism is what I am breaching about here.

Finding evidence can only teach us something about the past, finding a new idea can teach us something about the future relative to what potentials might await us in time. Why not grasp the best of both of those perspectives?

[gallo]

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.

Nice summary.

[Tycoon]

Keep the fath. Perhaps in time they will break thorugh with a studied explanation ( some actural physical proof would be nice). But meanwhile enjoy your FAITH and your HOPE and your BELIEF that the theory will evolve into something more then a theory.

It wasn't too long ago that humans traveled on horseback and in wooden ships. Now we have cars and televisions. We have traveled into space. We work with subatomic particles.

I don't understand your doubt.

God is and always will be an unsubstantiated theory, so trying to make science look like that would be very hypocritical of you.

[gallo]

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

How old are you?

[Vacuum]

Quote by: gallo How old are you?

Going on 18. And let me correct myself: every question is answerable, in theory; whether we have the knowledge as of now or not is not what I strive to answer.

[Vacuum]

Quote by: gallo How old are you?

Are you offended that someone as young as I am likes to think?

[Vacuum]

Quote by: HelioPrime Does God wear boxers or briefs.

Once you prove he exists, we'll discuss that.

[HelioPrime]

What does that have to do with the question of whether science encompasses god? What does science have to do with theism or atheism? Why do you equate science with atheism?

Because using science to attempt to answer any question is the same as atheism. Atheists themselves are most often the ones who don't even like the word atheist. What they desire is simply a world where every person is raised without any supernatural teachings and where evidence is the means of all teaching. What we don't know is assumed to have a perfectly natural explanation and call it a day.

In that way making any question into a scientific hypothesis is the support of an atheist view.

Well, good. No one denied that. If you wish to believe in a god then that is your business. The point is that it isn't a matter of science. It is quite true that science can't say that your god doesn't exist. By the same token, neither can science say that he does exist. Only when you present empirical data can science weigh in on the question. To date, no evidence that your god or any god exists has been presented.

That's the whole point...... Science can't answer if God exist or not so as far as I can see the thread is more of yet another non theist attempt to pose a question that uses only specific rules.

So you think that this question was prompted by a reading of Dawkins' book? I hadn't thought of that since I haven't read the book. Dawkins' militant atheism is a bit extreme for my taste. But, of course, theists have been trying to make themselves feel better about their blind faith by pretending to offer "scientific" evidence for years and years. So this debate is yet another poor example.

Ever read any of Zhavric's threads

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Vacuum Once you prove he exists, we'll discuss that.

But I thought any question can be answered?

Or do you admit there are stipulations?

So in the question of does God exist have you found a way to scientifically disprove every religions deity?

[Vacuum]

Quote by: HelioPrime But I thought any question can be answered? Or do you admit there are stipulations? So in the question of does God exist have you found a way to scientifically disprove every religions deity?

Anything that exists can be explained. If the answer to the question is that it doesn't exist, is that not a tangible answer?

[Vacuum]

Quote by: HelioPrime So in the question of does God exist have you found a way to scientifically disprove every religions deity?

Existence is not defined by the absence of disproof, but the attendance of proof.

[Tycoon]

So in the question of does God exist have you found a way to scientifically disprove every religions deity?

Existence is not defined by the absence of disproof, but the attendance of proof.

To assume that God exists simply because there isn't enough proof otherwise is terrible and ridiculous logic. It's just an excuse for theists to hide behind and there's no point discussing it as you will always hide behind your excuses and we will always point out their flaws.

[Vacuum]

Quote by: Tycoon To assume that God exists simply because there isn't enough proof otherwise is terrible and ridiculous logic. It's just an excuse for theists to hide behind and there's no point discussing it as you will always hide behind your excuses and we will always point out their flaws.

You're agreeing with me, right?

[gallo]

Quote by: Vacuum Going on 18. And let me correct myself: every question is answerable, in theory; whether we have the knowledge as of now or not is not what I strive to answer.

Then, do you have the knowledge to state, in theory, that your are almost 18? Can you actually count the years? Let me correct you. Every question is by no means answerable by any theory. You're still a bit confused about science and your ideas of religion.

How nice that you can move the goal posts so freely. Do you not understand that your answer means that some questions have an answer?

Quote by: Vacuum Are you offended that someone as young as I am likes to think?

Nonsense. I'm only trying to point out your errors in logic. I've been at this a lot longer than you. And while I don't reject what you say out of hand, you haven't presented anything original. It may seem original to you, and I encourage that, but so far you haven't presented anything new to anyone but you. I'm not saying that your are wrong, just naive.

As a consolation, I'm retired and never presented anything original in my life with one exception; an accounting algorithm that was still being used in several software programs today. How sad, since I am a wildlife biologist who spent decades programming computers