Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   if scientists accept God in science, is science destroyed?
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 1 of 7 (444421)
12-29-2007 11:57 AM


question: by admiting to "God" does science loose its grounds?
assertion: by scientific enquery, beleiving that the base of all things came from one intelligent scource only directs science to explore the science in observations of that law, which would assert that chaos is only apparent, and that purpose exists for items under scientific scrutiny.
question: so, if a scientist accepts that all things were based by an intelligent entity, he also asserts that everything was designed?
assertion: no. he only asserts that the basis was of intelligence and designed some, but sceintific data does not assert that all was designed. ie: a man takes a tank, fills it with water, and adds chemicals to see how they will react, the reaction was not controlled, but allowed freedom in a contained environment to "become"
question: so a scientist accepting that an intelligent entity was first may not be religios?
assertion: true. religion makes assertion based on devine inspirations. a man who eats magic mushrooms can beleive he had involvment with the devine. religion also has been targets of corruption, and nothing man mandated is tottally infallible.
the scientist in question, may find science in the religeons to be impressive, and perhapts even of devine assertion, yet aknoledge that flaws in overall religion and writtings of man were not written by the hand of the devine, and therefore, while aknoledged, may not be religios.
the acceptance that by scientific principle, that which was first had intelligence only directs the enquiry of science to the assertion of order within boundries, and chaos only apparent.
debate?
Edited by tesla, : my grand typing skills: typoes
Edited by tesla, : topic change
Edited by tesla, : spelling

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminModulous, posted 12-29-2007 2:32 PM tesla has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 3 of 7 (444474)
12-29-2007 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminModulous
12-29-2007 2:32 PM


eh?
so creationism only is relative as a science if one is admiting all life was designed?
what then is deistic science? ive never heard of any debate on it...
(which this is only suggesting creationism as a science, which if its a biblical understanding only, would mean its not.)
creationist assert that there was a suppreme being, by accepting this assertion does not mean that a scientist would have to have a religion in order to admit a supreme being..
if this is not creationism, then creationist dont even agree on what creationists are?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminModulous, posted 12-29-2007 2:32 PM AdminModulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminModulous, posted 12-29-2007 3:06 PM tesla has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 5 of 7 (444479)
12-29-2007 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by AdminModulous
12-29-2007 3:06 PM


Re: eh?
what im suggested is more in between.
a scientist who accepts that God "tweaks" or makes adjustments in the "created" world, but not on every level.
im suggesting a scientist that can accept creationism, without religeon to explain it, rather, to look for clues in science.
anomolies would not be accpted wholly as "God acted" but neither would it be dismissed as a probability.
am i describing here, a creationist, or a deitist?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AdminModulous, posted 12-29-2007 3:06 PM AdminModulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by tesla, posted 12-29-2007 3:23 PM tesla has not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 6 of 7 (444481)
12-29-2007 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by tesla
12-29-2007 3:14 PM


Re: eh?
i changed the topic, does that clarify?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by tesla, posted 12-29-2007 3:14 PM tesla has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024