if scientists accept God in science, is science destroyed?

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think "observance of God" means. It isn't like it's ambiguous. -percythe 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

quote:

---

Since you're offering a different definition of God than creationists use, what makes you think your argument has any relevancy to the creation/evolution debate?

---

good question.creationists define all that is in science by the text of Noah. science define it by observation. I'm not sure how to place ID, since some say that its the same thing as creationists just a new name, yet others claim that its just recognizing God under scientific law.no science has said that life cannot include God eventually given proof, and God has not been shown in science to not exist.I'm here to assert that God does exist in science (and in harmony of it). and wish to argue the logic.

quote:

---

When you're typing into the reply box, if you look to your left you'll see the help link for dBCodes. Click on it and you'll see how to do quotes.

---

thanks..attempting it now..hope it worked.Edited by tesla, : spelling

---

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

proof is established after evidence.science has to ask the right questions before "evidence" can be found. because we are not aware of it does not mean we wont be.

---

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

proof is only a math definition?prove it?did you go to the bank today?
yes.
proof?
here's the receipt.proof: the establishment of a fact by evidence.tentatively: because science considers that it can only be considered such now, does not mean that it could not become assertive with evidence.for example: God stands before you and all the rest of the world in undeniable evidence= proof. asserted.a reason for debate is because science claims it is a tentative. others say it is not.it would not be fair in a forum that boast a debate between the issues of evolution and creationism, to deny beleivers of either issue, the ability to debate "God" in their own language.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

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

i just realized your point.I'm basing assertion on tentative science. withhold any action for the moment i wish to better think the argument.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

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

quote:

---

Not necessarily. For me, I don't think so much that God exists, as much as I believe that He is the existence. Does that make any sense?

---

exactly my point. if the law is a law that states: energy cannot be created or destroyed, the fact anything exists at all would , by all logic, lead to one thing.one thing being timeless. and because of the scale and complexity of the universe that was spawned from this one thing that was first would show intelligence as a necessity since order cannot be established from chaos and exist. (logically).this would mean that the term God could be used to this first thing, which would have to be existence. since nothing can exist unless existence first was.the problem is establishing this in science. despite all logic points to it as true. (IF the law : energy cannot be created or destroyed is not tentative)if science does not observe the law of existence then science will be too tentative and misdirected in enquiry.a marvelous problem. I'm not sure i alone have the intelligence to bring the topic to a acceptable tentative probability given the fact existence is not a tentative subject.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.Edited by tesla, : connot=can

---

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

statement: in the begging there was only God(as an intelligent all powerful force and the beginning of all things)in the beginning there was only existence (as an intelligent entity from which all things came)my "theory" of this as law is how God and existence are concluded as one.if anyone was to truly attempt to define existence with or without science in the equation, and could admit that the creation of all that is is much to grand in scale and perfection of its harmony to be without intelligence, will arrive to a similar if not same conclusion. "logically".if i put rocks and metal and oil in a box, whats the chances of it becoming a computer given time and chance?if i take all the elements of the universe, and stuck it in a box..this is my logic. if you disagree, and science refuses to even explore it, then so let it be so.on a side note: the law of thermodynamics is tentative.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

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

quote:

---

First of all, God transcends existence, as existence is a purely physical aspect. If God is truly a supernatural all powerful force, he is not restricted to the physical world. Thusly, God envelopes existence, but they are not one and the same.

---

impossible. because if god was before existence, he would not "be"

quote:

---

Rocks and metals do not behave like elements and atoms and free radicals. The latter spontaneously react to form other compounds like lipids, carbohydrates, proteins and nucleic acids. They form our genetic code and are the basis of natural selection. Of course a box of rocks will never become a computer, but chemical reactions between compounds can lead to wondrous things.

---

is that tentative? from where did the atoms and elements and free radicals come into existence from?

---

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

by your definition of existence, it would be apparent that the possibility would remain to "not exist".that's impossible. whom should i say is asking?existence cannot be considered intangible and you honestly be existing at the same time.

---

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

it is possible for "some thing" to not exist, but it is impossible for existence to not exist.existence is tangible. we are all a part of it. therefore its not a concept that things are, its an assertion based on the fact things "are"

---

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