Does science encompass God?

[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.

[Thanatos]

The only way for a statement to be outside science is for it to be unprovable. The overwhelming, and highly annoying, majority of theists are of the opinion that their beliefs are already proven.

However, if a person believes in an unproven god then they are doing to logic what creationists do to science...

[gallo]

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.

The answer is no. Science is, by nature and by definition, naturalistic. I don't mean by that the science operates by philosophical naturalism but rather by methodological naturalism. In spite of the efforts of some spiritualists to confuse the two they are different.

What I mean is that it doesn't matter what the Bible is or tries to do, it is irrelevant to science. Science works by empirical observations of natural events. There is no magic or supernatural forces at work. Just because some events happened in the past that weren't understood, and because someone ignorant of the causes attributed that event to a magical being, doesn't mean that such a being exists. So far, no one has been able to offer any natural evidence that a supernatural being exists. If one responds, "We don't know the cause for that so it must be my god." isn't really an answer. It is giving up.

[Vacuum]

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.

Science does not answer these questions: When did time start? or How was the first atom in the universe created?

I'm not sure if science has a choice.

Note: I'm not sure if the explanation of these things involves God, but it does involve something we don't understand.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: gallo The answer is no. Science is, by nature and by definition, naturalistic. I don't mean by that the science operates by philosophical naturalism but rather by methodological naturalism. In spite of the efforts of some spiritualists to confuse the two they are different. What I mean is that it doesn't matter what the Bible is or tries to do, it is irrelevant to science. Science works by empirical observations of natural events. There is no magic or supernatural forces at work. Just because some events happened in the past that weren't understood, and because someone ignorant of the causes attributed that event to a magical being, doesn't mean that such a being exists. So far, no one has been able to offer any natural evidence that a supernatural being exists. If one responds, "We don't know the cause for that so it must be my god." isn't really an answer. It is giving up.

So, if a basic claim made by a religion is that the god in question affects the natural world.. science still does not encompass the search for this god?

A basic claim made by a religion has to do with how things were in the past. Archeology is a science, is it not?

[smartcode]

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.

" The super Scientist is the one who knows very much in a very small thing " A proverb.

"As much we know the nature as much we know that we know very little"

I hope the above statements are clear.
you will find

125th Anniversary Issue: Science Online Special Feature

The Top 25 QUESTIONS that we dont know.

Essays by our news staff on 25 big questions facing science over the next quarter-century.

> What Is the Universe Made Of?
> What is the Biological Basis of Consciousness?
> Why Do Humans Have So Few Genes?
> To What Extent Are Genetic Variation and Personal Health Linked?
> Can the Laws of Physics Be Unified?
> How Much Can Human Life Span Be Extended?
> What Controls Organ Regeneration?
> How Can a Skin Cell Become a Nerve Cell?
> How Does a Single Somatic Cell Become a Whole Plant?
> How Does Earth's Interior Work?
> Are We Alone in the Universe?
> How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise?
> What Determines Species Diversity?
> What Genetic Changes Made Us Uniquely Human?
> How Are Memories Stored and Retrieved?
> How Did Cooperative Behavior Evolve?
> How Will Big Pictures Emerge from a Sea of Biological Data?
> How Far Can We Push Chemical Self-Assembly?
> What Are the Limits of Conventional Computing?
> Can We Selectively Shut Off Immune Responses?
> Do Deeper Principles Underlie Quantum Uncertainty and Nonlocality?
> Is an Effective HIV Vaccine Feasible?
> How Hot Will the Greenhouse World Be?
> What Can Replace Cheap Oil -- and When?
> Will Malthus Continue to Be Wrong?

So Much More to Know . . .
A roundup of 100 additional problems that should keep researchers busy for years to come.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: smartcode " The super Scientist is the one who knows very much in a very small thing " A proverb. "As much we know the nature as much we know that we know very little" I hope the above statements are clear. you will find 125th Anniversary Issue: Science Online Special Feature The Top 25 QUESTIONS that we dont know. Essays by our news staff on 25 big questions facing science over the next quarter-century. > What Is the Universe Made Of? > What is the Biological Basis of Consciousness? > Why Do Humans Have So Few Genes? > To What Extent Are Genetic Variation and Personal Health Linked? > Can the Laws of Physics Be Unified? > How Much Can Human Life Span Be Extended? > What Controls Organ Regeneration? > How Can a Skin Cell Become a Nerve Cell? > How Does a Single Somatic Cell Become a Whole Plant? > How Does Earth's Interior Work? > Are We Alone in the Universe? > How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise? > What Determines Species Diversity? > What Genetic Changes Made Us Uniquely Human? > How Are Memories Stored and Retrieved? > How Did Cooperative Behavior Evolve? > How Will Big Pictures Emerge from a Sea of Biological Data? > How Far Can We Push Chemical Self-Assembly? > What Are the Limits of Conventional Computing? > Can We Selectively Shut Off Immune Responses? > Do Deeper Principles Underlie Quantum Uncertainty and Nonlocality? > Is an Effective HIV Vaccine Feasible? > How Hot Will the Greenhouse World Be? > What Can Replace Cheap Oil -- and When? > Will Malthus Continue to Be Wrong? So Much More to Know . . . A roundup of 100 additional problems that should keep researchers busy for years to come.

What is this spam?

[gallo]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer So, if a basic claim made by a religion is that the god in question affects the natural world.. science still does not encompass the search for this god?

True. It doesn't matter that some religion/all religions claim that their gods affect the natural world, there is no way to demonstrate that it is so. There is no evidence that a god exists except that people believe that it is true. By the same token, there is no evidence that some god does not exist. Since there is no evidence, science doesn't consider the matter.

A basic claim made by a religion has to do with how things were in the past. Archeology is a science, is it not?

It is. But like all other fields of science, it is the study of things that exist, specifically the remnants of past human habitation. It has nothing to do with the supernatural and there isn't any evidence that the actions of some god were involved. If that were true, then we should believe in Zeus and Athena.

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer What is this spam?

No. I think that his point is that science doesn't know everything. Along the same lines is the book, The Edge of the Unknown: 101 Things You Don't Know About Science and No One Else Does Either by James Trefil. But of course, science never claims to know everything.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: gallo There is no evidence that a god exists except that people believe that it is true. By the same token, there is no evidence that some god does not exist. Since there is no evidence, science doesn't consider the matter.

...but then why believe in it?

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Thanatos ...but then why believe in it?

IT? Do you mean god or science?

[Thanatos]

Quote by: SoylentGreen IT? Do you mean god or science?

God. It seems silly to throw God into things I don't know as an explanation when he's just one hypothesis, and I have no shortage of hypotheses.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Gallo,

This is about whether or not science encompasses the question of God, not where or not he exists.

[gallo]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Gallo, This is about whether or not science encompasses the question of God, not where or not he exists.

Yes. That's the question I addressed. If you didn't understand my answer, then there isn't anything I can do about it.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: gallo Yes. That's the question I addressed. If you didn't understand my answer, then there isn't anything I can do about it.

You say there's no evidence of God, that's why science doesn't deal with it.

"Since there is no evidence, science doesn't consider the matter."

Whether there is evidence is not up for questioning here.

THAT'S... what I'm talking about.

Not to mention, that statement is just simply false too. Things for which there is no evidence for is not immune from scientific exploration.

[Vacuum]

Quote by: gallo The answer is no. Science is, by nature and by definition, naturalistic. I don't mean by that the science operates by philosophical naturalism but rather by methodological naturalism. In spite of the efforts of some spiritualists to confuse the two they are different. What I mean is that it doesn't matter what the Bible is or tries to do, it is irrelevant to science. Science works by empirical observations of natural events. There is no magic or supernatural forces at work. Just because some events happened in the past that weren't understood, and because someone ignorant of the causes attributed that event to a magical being, doesn't mean that such a being exists. So far, no one has been able to offer any natural evidence that a supernatural being exists. If one responds, "We don't know the cause for that so it must be my god." isn't really an answer. It is giving up.

How can you define something that we as humans know so very little about?

[gallo]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer You say there's no evidence of God, that's why science doesn't deal with it. "Since there is no evidence, science doesn't consider the matter." Whether there is evidence is not up for questioning here. THAT'S... what I'm talking about.

But you asked in the title, "Does science encompass God?" Why don't you make up your mind? That's the question I answered. So now we are left wondering exactly what your point is. You seem as confused as anyone.

Not to mention, that statement is just simply false too. Things for which there is no evidence for is not immune from scientific exploration.

Perhaps if you bothered to learn what science is and how it works you wouldn't make such remarks. That's what science does. It explores the evidence. If there is no evidence, then the question is outside the domain of science.

[gallo]

Quote by: Vacuum How can you define something that we as humans know so very little about?

What are you talking about? Your statement makes no sense in the context of the discussion.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Thanatos The only way for a statement to be outside science is for it to be unprovable. The overwhelming, and highly annoying, majority of theists are of the opinion that their beliefs are already proven. However, if a person believes in an unproven god then they are doing to logic what creationists do to science...

Really? most theists I know don't see much in terms of scientific proof that their version of god exists. I might hang ou with high brow theists, but still.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Really? most theists I know don't see much in terms of scientific proof that their version of god exists. I might hang ou with high brow theists, but still.

Meh, it was my opinion. I never exactly conducted a study on this.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: gallo But you asked in the title, "Does science encompass God?" Why don't you make up your mind? That's the question I answered. So now we are left wondering exactly what your point is. You seem as confused as anyone.

Calm down bro. Read the OP again if you don't know what's happening.

Quote by: gallo Perhaps if you bothered to learn what science is and how it works you wouldn't make such remarks. That's what science does. It explores the evidence. If there is no evidence, then the question is outside the domain of science.

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

The very fact that religion claims that their god affects the natural world means that it is a question of science. Saying "yeah but there's no evidence of God" doesn't mean it's not a question of science, it means, if we take that statement into consideration, that science has ruled there is no evidence that God has or is affecting our natural world.

There is no good or acceptable evidence of Nessy. That does not mean a creature that supposedly lives in our natural world, in a effing lake, is not encompassed by the reaches of scientific inquiry. Come on, man.. lol