|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: if scientists accept God in science, is science destroyed? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Read what I write!
You asked "name an instance in where science would stop inquiry based on the addition?" I named two instances of dead ends that resulted from inserting God into science. I'm sorry but I have explained my position, the readers can make their own decisions based on what I have posted. You are on your own. Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
ID and biblical creationism is not accepted science.
keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
the God you just proposed would be outside of the principles of proven science, and therefore, false. I was covering all bases. If you want to ask 'if an entity is proposed that doesn't get in the way of science - will it get in the way of science?" - then you are answering your own question.
within the observance of the initial assertions, would God effect science? I have already answered this.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I personally have no problem with a God that might sometimes adjust the parameters of his/her/its experiment. God thinks - "Well, this evolution experiment is interesting, but I wonder what would happen if I here influence the pathway a bit?" I have no problem with such a deity - but it still seems inferior to me over a God who says 'I want outcome X.' and outcome X happens (either through pinging or through a devilishly clever algorithm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Okay, I see better now the direction you wanted to take this thread. Let me try again.
I see two ways to approach your question. One is if we keep the definition of science we have today. Science only accepts the existence of things for which there is evidence, so if science accepted the existence of God it could only be because science had discovered evidence of God. In this scenario science's ability to provide answers about the natural world would be unaffected. The other way to approach your question is if we modify the definition of science to include the assumption that God exists. In the absence of natural evidence of God's existence this would be rather queer, but this is how many creationists think science should be defined, and the Discovery Institute has made making this change to science one of their explicit long-term goals. The degree to which this would affect scientific inquiry would depend upon how widely this definition became accepted. If it became broadly accepted then it would destroy scientific inquiry across all fields of science. Instead of the steady stream of new science we now see every year, research institutions would see their output reduced to that of, say, Liberty University, which is to say none. If you doubt this, just ask yourself how many scientific advances have come out of conservative Christian colleges over the last hundred years? Can you name even one? So yes, including God without evidence would destroy science. And it isn't just God that would destroy science if accepted without evidence. Anytime researchers go off the rails (temporarily, one hopes) and let their research follow a trail unsupported by evidence, they fail to generate new science. Science advances by paying the strictest possible attention to real-world evidence. Any deviation from this course, however slight, greatly increases the possibility of failure. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
And it isn't just God that would destroy science if accepted without evidence. Anytime researchers go off the rails (temporarily, one hopes) and let their research follow a trail unsupported by evidence, they fail to generate new science. Science advances by paying the strictest possible attention to real-world evidence. Any deviation from this course, however slight, greatly increases the possibility of failure. ~quote from percy~
agreed. my belief is that in the lack of observance of God in science is just that: scientific enquiry missing the link by observing science directed initially without intelligence, as opposed to looking at a science in the context one would do if examining a superior technology. in effect attempting to figure out how the intelligent being made the suggested technology. however, i do wish to prove God can be explained by science, and compliments scientific law. but so must i wait for my great debate.. i have not seen any arguments in this post that suggest that by introducing God in science, by proof of scientific law, that it would destroy science. so then do i recognize the statement: God in science, if proven by the logic of science, and accepted, would not hinder the sciences. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
tesla writes: so then do i recognize the statement: God in science, if proven by the logic of science... Nothing is "proven by the logic of science." Science examines the evidence, and hopefully if people think logically and rationally about the evidence they'll reach valid conclusions about the real world. So if you instead say, "God in science, if supported by real-world evidence, would not hinder science," then I agree because that is, in essence, what I already said in my first point. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So if you instead say, "God in science, if supported by real-world evidence, would not hinder science," then I agree because that is, in essence, what I already said in my first point. However a God that can be supported by real-world evidence is no longer supernatural. Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
what I'm proposing is that the lack of observance of God in science limits scientific enquiry.
that science is explanation of the "how" of God. this means that no law of science can contradict God, therefore, being science established truths, that science is in harmony of God and God in harmony of science, because one begets the other. therefore also: neither can any religion or law in religion contradict science which would be a contradiction of God, from whom science was established by. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
tesla writes: what I'm proposing is that the lack of observance of God in science limits scientific enquiry. Now you're making an inherently religious claim. What possible advantage could bowing toward Mecca three times daily in observance of God bring to science? Or to anything, for that matter, like gardening or cooking? Science is focused on the study of evidence from the real world. If there is real world evidence of God, then science can study it, if not then it can't.
that science is explanation of the "how" of God. The goal of science is figuring out how the real world works. Since science is focused on evidence that actually exists, why don't you start by suggesting something concrete about God that science could observe. For example, tell us where would we should look for evidence of God in Newtonian physics. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
I'm not making a religious claim, but rather a scientific enquiry.
but again, that's awaiting the "great debate". bowing to mecca three times daily is not an inquiry of the "how" of god. religion claims to explain "hows" and: "whys" i don't need to explain newton to you. but i can say that Newtonian physics is far from finished. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
tesla writes: I'm not making a religious claim, but rather a scientific enquiry. You said you wanted science to include "observance of God" - if you don't understand that that's an inherently religious claim then that's not my problem. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
that depends on how you define God?
from a scientific perspective? or a religious perspective? that again would trigger my great debate! would that cavediver would come on and finish that for the sake of your argument! however, that aside, I'm not suggesting that "buddha" is God defined. i believe i have proven the purpose of this topic, and that under the premise of God added based on scientific principles would not destroy science. granted God is proven. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
tesla writes: that depends on how you define God? What do you think "observance of God" means. It isn't like it's ambiguous. If your argument requires special definitions for common words like "God" and "observance," then any conclusions it reaches are only valid for those special definitions and wouldn't have any application to the creation/evolution debate where when creationists say "Observance of God" they mean praying to the Christian God.
i believe i have proven the purpose of this topic, and that under the premise of God added based on scientific principles would not destroy science. granted God is proven. Nothing is ever proven in science. What you should really conclude with is, "Assuming that science has uncovered real-world evidence of God." Science is based upon evidence from the real world. Science cannot study anything for which there is no real-world evidence, and it certainly cannot incorporate things with no evidence into the scientific canon. Cavediver's a cosmologist - I'd be surprised if he showed any interest in playing these kinds of word definition games with you. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
What do you think "observance of God" means. It isn't like it's ambiguous. -percy
the reason why their is so many religions is because there are so many different opinions on who or what God is. ______________________Nothing is ever proven in science. What you should really conclude with is, "Assuming that science has uncovered real-world evidence of God." -percy ___________________________________ i did. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024