shawn001
Well-Known Member
"Can it be used to understand the Supernatural Universe?"
What supernatural universe, the only universe we know about period is the natural one.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can science prove or disprove the existence of a Spiritual existence? God?
- Thread starter Road Warrior
- Start date
"Can it be used to understand the Supernatural Universe?"
What supernatural universe, the only universe we know about period is the natural one.
A Troubled Man
Active Member
First of all, the physical sciences deal with physics, chemistry, geology, etc, hence they really don't have much to do withe economics and sociology.
Spirituality can only be viewed as a field of baloney because there doesn't exist a shred of evidence to support a field of anything else.
work in progress
Well-Known Member
The underlined is an example of your over-active agency detection unit that looks for God in examples of complexity. You don't know, because no one knows exactly how the early Earth natural processes led to an abundance of organic chemistry, in which at least some of them led to self-replicating RNA molecules, and at least one...but likely many more, continued the evolutionary path towards developing the DNA molecule -- the durable self-replicating molecule that made sustainable lifeforms possible.
A lot of creationist literature written on the subject of abiogenesis advances a case of impossible odds of getting to a DNA molecule from simple amino acids. But, just like other bad creationist arguments of irreducible complexity, they ignore any and all possible examples of intermediate steps taken along the way, that have since disappeared. We've seen this same tactic used in the past to contend that: the human eye is an example of irreducible complexity, the flagella propellers of bacteria, the blood-clotting cascade etc.. Sky high numbers that 'it would be impossible to get from a to b' fall apart as soon as biologists find intermediate examples, or in the case of flagella - that the original early purpose for development changed before leading to their modern usages.
When it comes to origins of life on Earth, all we know for sure is that there were simple bacteria living as far back as 3.7 billion years ago, based on the findings of micro-fossil tubules found in ancient rock strata in Western Australia several years ago. This would have been very soon after that Hadean Era when the Earth would have been uninhabitable. Even 3.5 billion years ago, the solar system still hadn't completely come to order, and there was a steady bombardment of asteroids hitting the Earth....and that's why one of the popular theories of abiogenesis proposes that first life started in hydrothermal vents, that would not have been impacted by extraterrestrial bombardment.
So, whatever the exact combination was that led to at least one form of life, we know it happened early. But we also know that Earth was the realm of microbial life for billions of years before it became ready to support plants and animals. And to me, that is biggest evidence against predetermined design of life that there is! An omnipotent creator is needed to put the first DNA molecule together, and then it takes another three billion years before he can figure out how to make the planet support complex life!
cablescavenger
Well-Known Member
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Can science prove or disprove the existence of a Spiritual existence? God?
Science has no tools to ascertain the Creator God.
The Creator God is attributive; He is everywhere with His attributes. Quran does not state that the Creator God is physical; hence He is out of the physical phenomenon and is out of the scope of the science; science has no tools to ascertain the Creator God; the truthful religion never claimed that He is physical or spiritual; the Creator God is only attributive.
I think those who claim that science can prove or disprove the Creator God have blind faith in science.
Science has no tools to ascertain the Creator God.
The Creator God is attributive; He is everywhere with His attributes. Quran does not state that the Creator God is physical; hence He is out of the physical phenomenon and is out of the scope of the science; science has no tools to ascertain the Creator God; the truthful religion never claimed that He is physical or spiritual; the Creator God is only attributive.
I think those who claim that science can prove or disprove the Creator God have blind faith in science.
Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
It's not 'blind' faith when all the evidence is in its favor 
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
No but it remains 'faith' it is merely a logical, rational belief or faith that a position is true.
The main problem being that faith in metaphysical concepts is usually unverifiable and often unfalsifiable... to have any position other than 'I do not know if it is true or not' requires belief that the position is sound (for whatever reasons you ascribe to - such as logical and empirical evidence, or non logical and experiential evidence). Personally I think 'I don't know' to be the most logically sound position, particularly when faced with a simultaneously unverifiable and unfalsifiable metaphysical concept. So long as the concept remains unfalsifiable (based upon the characterisation of the ideas associated with it) science can never disprove it's existence.
If humans managed to prove every conceivable step of the process whereby matter and energy obtained their current configuration in the universe, it would still not disprove a God concept which is described as being undetectable and the outcomes of its actions unpredictable, it is not possible to prove that it does not exist - because theoretically it could have caused everything and continue to be involved according to the laws of nature controlling events in a manner impossible to predict (perhaps according to some unknowable divine master plan).
At the same time however, there is never any possibility of verifiability of any 'supernatural' concepts because anything that is perceived to contradict the understood laws of nature can be considered an error of perception either of the event or of the laws of nature. If a one hundred foot tall Jesus walked down the street and everyone who was sick regained their health and everyone who was dead came back to life... that would still not prove that Jesus was God or indeed that there was a God, because it may be a sustained delusion or an entity capable of utilising a much more advanced form of technology.
The main problem being that faith in metaphysical concepts is usually unverifiable and often unfalsifiable... to have any position other than 'I do not know if it is true or not' requires belief that the position is sound (for whatever reasons you ascribe to - such as logical and empirical evidence, or non logical and experiential evidence). Personally I think 'I don't know' to be the most logically sound position, particularly when faced with a simultaneously unverifiable and unfalsifiable metaphysical concept. So long as the concept remains unfalsifiable (based upon the characterisation of the ideas associated with it) science can never disprove it's existence.
If humans managed to prove every conceivable step of the process whereby matter and energy obtained their current configuration in the universe, it would still not disprove a God concept which is described as being undetectable and the outcomes of its actions unpredictable, it is not possible to prove that it does not exist - because theoretically it could have caused everything and continue to be involved according to the laws of nature controlling events in a manner impossible to predict (perhaps according to some unknowable divine master plan).
At the same time however, there is never any possibility of verifiability of any 'supernatural' concepts because anything that is perceived to contradict the understood laws of nature can be considered an error of perception either of the event or of the laws of nature. If a one hundred foot tall Jesus walked down the street and everyone who was sick regained their health and everyone who was dead came back to life... that would still not prove that Jesus was God or indeed that there was a God, because it may be a sustained delusion or an entity capable of utilising a much more advanced form of technology.
lunakilo
Well-Known Member
And how do you define 'purpose'?
What if you come back to the rats after 24 hours and find they have made a knot.
You look at the knot and think "wow, this looks pretty. I think I will hang this 'rat-art' up on the wall".
Or you look at the knot and think "this is a nice ball, I think I will give it to the kids out side who just lost their ball". The kids are happy and start playing with it.
Now you have something which was not designed but can be used sucessfully for something. Does that mean that it has a purpose?
Is the ball now 1) designed with a purpose, 2) not designed with a purpose, 3) designed with no purpose or 4) not designed with no purpose?
There you go again: object A (for example the space shuttle) is designed, therefore object B (the human body) is designed.
You have absolutely no logical reason to make that jump.
I happen to agree with you that the human body is not an accident though. It is a result of fine tuning over many generations of adapting to the environment in which humans live.
You haven't defined what you mean by 'having a purpose' yet.
As I understand the word purpose something can only have a purpose if it was produced by some intelligent mind with a purpose in mind. That is if an object has a purpose then it was designed.
So you are correct that I can't name anything that has a purpose (as I understand the word) behind it that wasn't the product of an intelligent mind.
But I don't see how that is relevant. Rats don't build string houses, but they might make a string ball that can be used for several things even if it was not designed for it.
Imagine a stick lying on the ground. It is just lying there, it has no purpose. If I need a walking stick I can pick it up and use it as such. If I need a weapon I can pick it up and use it as such. Many things which were not designed can be used with a purpose.
Last edited:
lunakilo
Well-Known Member
And when is that explanation comming?
lunakilo
Well-Known Member
When? where? Which post?
All you have said is that Roger Penrose says so.
Well my dady says he is wrong
Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
A good point. Since there is zero evidence of a supernatural universe, it's absurd to propose one, at the moment.
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
No, it is not absurd to propose one - however it is NOT logical (nor illogical)... it does however render any discussion of such an existence nonsensical where it suggests the suspension of logic or rationality. In which case all you do is smile and back away, unless they move for some instrument of power (such as government) to enforce their nonsensical view on others. Whereupon by necessity, you must gird thyself for battle where the known struggles against the unknowable; reason against the unreasonable.
Last edited:
Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
Well, you say tomato
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
No YOU say tomato... I say liquid nitrogen frozen kitchener bun in a half eaten shoe!
Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
By that time I've eaten your tomato[e]!
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
It's not 'blind' faith when all the evidence is in its favor
Science is just like a tool for the things physical; and every tool has its limitations. When one insists that a tool can do everything; that is a blind faith in that tool.
Science or Scientific Method has not been designed to ascertain one true God which is neither physical nor a spirit; hence it is your blind faith that Science or Scientific Method can find .
Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
The idea of God also has it's limitations. The idea that it cannot ever be shown to be true, for one.
lunakilo
Well-Known Member
I think the OP itself does not claim that it would be possible to mathematically prove or disprove the existence of God, just that it is possible to use the scientific method to say something sensible about the existence or non-existence of God.
Even if the Creator God is not physical then he must have some influence on the physical world, or else he would not be much of a god.
If This Creator God interacts with the universe on a regular basis it is possible that you could detect that and work out that Gods existence is plausible.
But if the Creator God's only action was to create the universe, and then leave it alone then it would leave no evidence for God's existece.
It is as I said not mathematical prof that God does or does not exist, but it is evidence in the same way as the Yeti is generally considered not to exist because no one seem to be able to come up with evidence that they do exist, and one would expect someone to have come up with something by now.
Or the existence of aliens are generaly considered to be plausible, not because anyone can actually provide a living ET, but they can provide evidence of planets around other stars which look like they might be able to support life.
What does it mean that God is only attributive?
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
Science is less a tool and more a process, a way of doing things. It is certainly true that it can't be used to understand everything (at least not within the limitations of humans) but there is no logical reason why it can't be applied to literally anything, if only in theory.
It wasn't designed not to ascertain the true God either. It can be applied to your assertions that science is limited to "the physical", that a God exists and that it is not "physical". To date, zero evidence supporting any of these has been presented and so it can only be blind faith to hold to them as unquestionably true.
work in progress
Well-Known Member
This question about 'whether science can or cannot prove God' usually boils down to whether there is scientific evidence that the Universe is designed. And that question is hamstrung by gaps in our knowledge of the physical world.
So far in this thread, I think just about every god-in-the-gaps argument around has been floated up to prove that the Universe couldn't have just come together without pre-planning from some intelligent source. The problem for these arguments of irreducible complexities, is that there have been so many of them in the past that have been abandoned as the scientific process found solutions that did not require divine planning. As the gaps disappear, skeptics are going to begin assuming that the gaps still remaining are just gaps in human understanding, rather than irreducible complexities.
Who knows what the final answer might be! One of the most off-the-wall, but still theoretically possible solution to explain Fine Tuning of the Universal Laws, was advanced by a physicist - James Gardner a few years ago. I'm not sure how serious his proposal was, or maybe he just wanted to give everyone a jolt when he came up with "Biocosm," and unfortunately, it seems that he no longer maintains the domain that explained his basic hypothesis and advertised the book; but in brief: Biocosm used the framework of the 11 dimensional String Theory that is not fully developed, called M-Theory, and proposed that highly advanced life forms in a prototypical universe (creatures equivalent to Q on the Star Trek:Next Generation series) would be advanced enough to "seed" new universes and apply predetermined laws governing their new universes. These super-advanced extraterrestials would be constrained by the boundaries of the universe that they happened to be living in, and would therefore be unable to gain access to, or knowledge of what would happen in the new universes they were creating. In effect, these advanced extraterrestrials, would be like the god of Deism -- a creator who does not interact with its creation afterwards.
It would be an unusual, offbeat way to answer the question, but Gardner's Biocosm proposal would give us a creator...but not the sort of creator we have been expecting through all the religions and cultural traditions throughout history. It just shows that the theories advanced so far still people fumbling around in the dark trying to figure out the answers.