• 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!

Do We Really Have To Choose?

U

UnTheist

Well-Known Member
Storm said:
We can't. I didn't mean to argue otherwise.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm not excluding the possibility I guess, but since we agree that we can't know when God was interfering and whether God can be measured at all, "opening up" to the possibility doesn't seem like something useful to science itself.
 
Last edited:
U

UnTheist

Well-Known Member
.lava said:
i am unsure if this answers your question but i think without science religion would make you bigot and without religion science would be like a body without soul.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't believe in souls, so that's not a problem for me :D
 
Storm

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
UnTheist said:
Well, I'm not excluding the possibility I guess, but since we agree that we can't know when God was interfering and whether God can be measured at all, "opening up" to the possibility doesn't seem like something useful to science itself.
Click to expand...
I think science should be open to all possibilities. What's more, I think it already is. That's the point of the thread, that science doesn't tell us anything about God one way or the other. It neither assumes nor excludes the possibility.

I just get sick of the whole idea of science vs. religion.
 
U

UnTheist

Well-Known Member
Storm said:
...that science doesn't tell us anything about God one way or the other. It neither assumes nor excludes the possibility.
Click to expand...
This is what I'm talking about, though.

If science were to solve a puzzle about anything, the possibility of God seems irrelevant since it doesn't give science anything to work on. That's not to say that God didn't do it.
 
Runlikethewind

Runlikethewind

Monk in Training
UnTheist said:
Yes, it absolutely must exclude "God"
Click to expand...

UnTheist said:
If "God" is a supernatural agent that cannot be tested in any way.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean it that way! I think that you have cleared up the misunderstanding though. What I meant was that no matter what science discovers about the natural world the possibility that God still somehow exits is still open. Science cannot disprove the existence of God because as you said God cannot be tested or measured.

I would certainly agree with the idea the science must exclude God in doing the work of science. Scientist would not be doing science as we know it if they used God in their explanations of the natural world.

I will still assert that no matter what science discovers it will never rule out the possibility of God entirely.
 
rojse

rojse

RF Addict
Storm said:
Can anyone think of a single scientific theory that excludes God?

If you can, please explain why you think it does. :)
Click to expand...

Not quite sure, but some versions of the Anthropic principle seem to do so, although the principle seems to have been borrowed by any second-rate scientist to describe their own theories about the Universe.
 
Storm

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
rojse said:
Not quite sure, but some versions of the Anthropic principle seem to do so, although the principle seems to have been borrowed by any second-rate scientist to describe their own theories about the Universe.
Click to expand...
At the risk of showing my ignorance, I thought the Anthropic Principle was philosophy of science, not actual science. :confused:

At any rate, would you mind elaborating?
 
rojse

rojse

RF Addict
Storm said:
At the risk of showing my ignorance, I thought the Anthropic Principle was philosophy of science, not actual science. :confused:

At any rate, would you mind elaborating?
Click to expand...

The Anthropic principle, from what little I understand of it, is an attempt to explain why humans are able to live when the universe seems so hostile.

It seems to me to be more scientific philosophy than science, but that was all I could think of worth contribution and discussion.
 
rojse

rojse

RF Addict
.lava said:
i can't think of a science without God

Harun Yahya - THE ISLAMIC ORIGINS OF MODERN SCIENCE - Download Page

Harun Yahya - Matter: The Other Name For Illusion
Click to expand...

I much prefer wiki:

William Whewell coined the term scientist in 1833 to describe an expert in the study of nature, but this term did not gain wide acceptance until the turn of the 20th century.[7][8] By the twentieth century, the modern notion of science as a special brand of information about the world, practiced by a distinct group [as opposed to natural philosophy] and pursued through a unique method, was essentially in place.

EDIT: Although one of the first books to encourage experimentation was written by an Islamic person by the name of Ibn al-Haytham, this does not make science of Islamic origin - was science as a practice officially endorsed and encouraged by the Islamic church at the time or not?
 
Last edited:
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
rojse said:
The Anthropic principle, from what little I understand of it, is an attempt to explain why humans are able to live when the universe seems so hostile.

It seems to me to be more scientific philosophy than science, but that was all I could think of worth contribution and discussion.
Click to expand...

The weak anthropic principle is scientific. Effectively, it just states that because humanity can be shown to exist, any hypotheses for what happened before us (e.g. the formation of the universe, galaxies, etc.) must take this fact into account, or at least allow for it.
 
tumbleweed41

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
Hard science, (by that I am excluding the social sciences) has nothing to do with either the super-natural or the supra-natural. If science can explain it, it is of nature.
God is not of nature. By most definitions, god, or gods, are either outside of nature, or above nature. In other words, not bound by the rules that apply to the rest of the universe. Thus the concept of god can only be dealt with in a philosophical or theological manner.

The only thing that hard science has to do with God is explaining the natural means of phenomena that were once thought to be supernatural.
 
Alceste

Alceste

Vagabond
tumbleweed41 said:
Hard science, (by that I am excluding the social sciences) has nothing to do with either the super-natural or the supra-natural. If science can explain it, it is of nature.
God is not of nature. By most definitions, god, or gods, are either outside of nature, or above nature. In other words, not bound by the rules that apply to the rest of the universe. Thus the concept of god can only be dealt with in a philosophical or theological manner.

The only thing that hard science has to do with God is explaining the natural means of phenomena that were once thought to be supernatural.
Click to expand...

What he said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top