Science cannot understand God

Well said. "Nothing more than speculation" indeed. Someone who is so deeply, intensely ignorant of the simplest, most basic tenets of science in its entirety, would be best advised to avoid actually debating science in public.

 

Even should I concede to the proposition that "scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeated confirmed through observation and experiment", there still remains the 2.c. definition of 'fact'. Oh what a dilemma. "2.c. Something believed to be true or real:" Even in the case of "mistaken facts" (which so many on this forum clamor about in a futile attempt to refute this definition) clearly shows that a hypothesis that requires change has been found to contain at a minimum of one mistaken fact, else the change would not be necessary. So, with the issue of 'fact' having been brought into the subject of discussion, let it be known that there remains the fact that many people believe in the existence of God, and the naysayers cannot disprove that claim which is based on 'fact' (per the 2.c. definition of 'fact').

 

If they did that, there wouldn't be any debate on this subforum

 

Using your quotation from wiki, it would be best that some other people not engage themselves in religious debate by using scientific argument. Why? Look see:

"A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

So, take all of your scientific theory and remove them to the science section of the PF... would be my suggestion and don't try to use science to argue against that which is not a part of the "natural world". And for the prof sarcastic... you should learn the language you use on this forum... specifically 'fact'.... the very basic tenet of science in its entirety... now look at that 2.c. definition of "fact".

 

OK, so you're saying that religion does not apply to the natural world?

Maybe we can see eye to eye yet.

 

I am saying that the teachings of religion go beyond the natural world and relate to matters of which science and those practitioners of science (most of them) have little or no understanding. Theists and or practitioners of religion are in the natural world ..... but .... read the scriptures pertaining to that subject matter.

See eye to eye? If we were to stand before one another facing each other, then perhaps there would be that physical 'eye to eye' seeing, but the differences in our beliefs would not permit such a subjective meeting of the minds or seeing 'eye to eye'.

 

You mean that religion goes beyond reality and into the realm of pure fantasy. This is why religion is silly.

 

So does science when it speaks of theories... remember... theories are not proven and therefore are as much fantasy as the religion that you protest about. So if you want to twist what I have stated to mean what you want it to mean, then consider also, that whatever you say about religion, can be equally stated about science and its theories. As you would say... fantasy.

 

No, I am not saying any such thing. Stop putting words in my mouth. But I guess that is the best you have to offer.

 

'Proof' can be found in the science of mathematics and logic, and no other science. No other field of science even accepts that 'proof' is actually possible. Previously I thought you were merely ignorant of science, which, while unfortunate if you want to discuss science, is quite understandable. But when you equate 'scientific theory' with 'pure fantasy' this goes beyond simple ignorance. What is your motivation for making this equivocation, that no sane, sensible person could actually believe to be true?

 

In response to this thread title, science cannot understand God, I think science can never fully understand God, but it can help us to come to a better understanding of God. Science and faith should not be at loggerheads, they both should compliment each other. I think the belief in God is completely logical, and the laws established go some way to show evidence that a higher power (God) is more likely then not.

 

that is cute


basically, reality is what is real and the liars are lying about make believe.

it's stupid easy to understand that!

 

does science assist in defining natures 'higher power'?

Have you ever wondered if nature itself is 'god'?

 

Even Einstein has stated that mathematics do not relate to reality.... so are you smarter than Einstein? As for logic... you have to remember that according to Plato and Aristotle who professed to having been taught by the mythological creature called Socrates, there is no need to expound on such fairy tales and fantasies.

Is theory a 'fact'? If it is not a fact, then it is fantasy. No motivation other than looking at reality for the benefits offered by reality. Now please answer the question honestly... Is theory a 'fact'?

 

Since when is asking question the equivalent of 'putting words in your mouth'? I have not quoted you as having said anything other than what the auto-quote function brings forward from a previous posting.

 

he knew the existing paradigm was wrong (EPR itself assists with that)

right now? my dog is. He's in the dirt but his work still lives and some cool material, wow!

I believe that he understood that 'god' was nature itself and mankind is trying to understand 'how it works'.

no one is, You brought it up.

The lessons and wisdom from the stories of curious george have value, why wouldnt jesus' and soc's stories also be of equal value?

theories are descriptions, just like religious theology

scientific theories evolve over time, much of theology dont

one enables lives to live longer as it evolves in learning of itself, and that fact of life does exists, while morons hold incorporeal beliefs as being true.

nO

 

Here we go folks.. Bishadi is now admitting to having beliefs about people that he never met... as most of you non-theists realize.... beliefs are not necessarily founded upon fact. But then when we look at the definition of 'belief' we find the following:
"be·lief (b-lf)
n.
1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons."

Something 'accepted as true' does not necessarily make it true. Such a lack of certainty. Are all of your beliefs based upon that/those same conditions... uncertainty? Hopefully not.

So theory is just like theology. Glad to see that you put the two of them on equal footing. But then you go and show that uncertainty again by adding a distinction that exists between the two... so they are not 'just like' one another. You really do need to be more careful of what you are attempting to express. Your writing gives the impression that you might be suffering from some sort of confusion.

Your closing comment "n0" is presumably your own rendering of "no" meaning a negative response. So with the admission that theory is not 'fact', then that leaves only one alternative... theory is equal to fantasy....

 

Alright, I’m going to argue the way you do:

So, you want to make the gibberish religious loons sprout when they roll around on the floor more valid than unbiased scientific research, is that what you are saying? You want to make evidence that goes counter to your belief invalid if it comes from someone who doesn’t share your kind of superstition, is that what you want?

 

That is a load of rubbish in itself. The sciences are very much biased. The sciences will not even attempt to entertain any religious research into spiritual matters. My "kind of superstition"? What kind of superstition is my "kind of superstition"? Can you prove that I have any 'superstitions'?

 

It isnt,

The word "admission" suggests a reluctance to state an uncomfortable fact.
Everyone who knows anything about science knows that a theory cannot ever be proven.

The theory may of course, be wrong, half wrong, or completely correct. One may be able to prove it wrong, it just cant be proven right even if it is.

"Theory is equal to fantasy" may be your personal fantasy, or it may be just a cheap shot that you dont mean. Either way, it is not a reasonable statement.

As for "only one alternative", we often notice this kind of absolutist yes / no
black / white thinking on the part of "theists". Any idea why that is so characteristic of the group you seem to represent?

 

Prrease exprain how to do "religious research" in, say, chemistry.

And how it is "bias" to not do such.

 

I like newtons words, "standing on the shoulders of giants"

it's just too humble to even second guess.

They heros left us knowledge to learn of. No matter the discipline. Contributing knowledge to the word is what enables new generations to comprehend more points of view. Sure we trust that a 'wall' is ooosually hard. tap tap,, yep, hard surfaced, divides.. etc..

You're being a rock wall, between the incorporeal and reality.

nice.

both are opinion

today, i can witness far more opinion than any of the previous combined.

Just like you can.

Keep the evolving process as a part of reality. ie... knowledge is evolving: we are far more capable then any before, because of them

many of the arguments you post are fantasy.

it's been a resounding theme within the pages


.

 

First of all, and just for the record... I am not the one who suggested that theory was just the same as theology.

Not necessarily. Some people are often very comfortable with making admissions.

Tell that to some of the wannabe scientists who constantly publish on this forum.

Should a theory not have the capacity of being proven 'right', then the only logical presumption to make regarding theory, is that they are all wrong. There can be no gray areas between 'right' and 'wrong'.

Perhaps not reasonable to soothe the discomfort that is placed against your beliefs. I have a degree in computer electronics dealing with microcomputers and microprocessors. I deal in theory all the time when dealing with computers and electronics. I have been doing computer work since they were made available to the open public back in the 80's. I am quite aware of the difference between fantasy and reality. So, when I make the statement regarding theory being nothing more than fantasy, it is not stated in a demeaning manner, nor is it stated in a humorous manner.

Particular things in our language do not allow for 'shades of gray'. Such as 'right' or 'wrong'. When someone tells a lie, they tell a lie. Regardless of the degree of or measurable harshness of the lie, the lie is a lie. When scientists indicate that a mathematical model is 'correct' or 'incorrect', does either of those statements mean that the mathematical model is partly correct or partly incorrect? Well of course they do. Electronic models (on paper) will work, but when put into application in real time circuitry, they sometimes don't work and modifications have to be made to make them work. You see, only in science is there a possibility of gray areas. Outside of science, there is no gray area in determining whether or not your spouse has cheated on you. Either the spouse has cheated or the spouse has not cheated.... get the drift?

 

I'm not aware of that particular quote from Einstein so I don't know if it's taken out of context, or if it was one of his more glib moments (he was quite humorous on occasion), of if he really did get something so simple so wrong, but clearly many branches of mathematics do indeed relate directly to reality.

I don't see any point to what you just said.

Long story short: some theories are factual, some are not. Usually, you can't tell beforehand. And usually, even the ones that turn out not to be factual, have some basis in reality, in which case no sensible person would call them 'fantasy'.

In other words, 'fantasy' is a stupid term for 'theory' and equating the two shows clear ignorance.

 

This kind of absolutism is just another example of why debating science may not be your strong suit.

You deal with theories all the time? Isn't is weird how all these things you consider fantasy, non-factual things still work so often? Almost, just almost like they were actually facts?

If you think science is the only field of life that has grey areas, I despair for you, I truly do.