Is science interested in finding God ?

[cladking]

If there is no evidence for existence of any God, then why is it illogical?

Because there is also no evidence to suggest reality can arise of its own.

As I said believers in science take reality as proof that reality arose spontaneously and there is no God.

 

[McBell]

Why would God go through all the trouble to create the laws of nature and genetic codes etc. just to throw them all in the dumpster anytime he wants to do something?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Science has no idea, as yet, how nature is being organized.

No idea ha?

How's that internet device working out for you? Any clue as to how many science went into that?
It requires advanced knowledge of
- physics
- chemistry
- quantum mechanics
- wear and tear of materials
- electro magnetism
- ....

But sure, science "has no idea" how nature is organized.

We don't know the medium nor the mechanisms controlling that medium.

No idea what you mean by that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We don't know. Existence is possible. But only within limited confines. Yet we have no idea by what means those possibilities and limitations are being imposed. We observe "laws" that control what is possible and not possible, physically. But we have no idea by what means those laws have been determined, or by what means they are being enforced.

WE determined those laws.
Laws of nature are descriptive, not proscriptive.

Laws are a description of how nature works.

That is the unknown "medium" I was referring to.

Sounds like you are inventing an entity and then saying we don't know anything about it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Any of us can name it whatever we like. As it remains a mystery. And any of us can imagine it to be anything we like, because it remains a mystery. Meaning that any imagined characterization of the mystery is possible.

So why does this bother you?

It bothers me because people take those fantasticaly "characterizations" of those invented "mysteries" and then pretend it gives them to authority to tell others what they can and can't do while naked (for example)

No one is right, here, and no one is wrong.

Then keep it to yourself.

 

[lukethethird]

Is science interested in finding God ?

There are no known Gods to study so science studies people's belief in God. See the behavioural sciences.

 

[cladking]

- physics
- chemistry
- quantum mechanics
- wear and tear of materials
- electro magnetism
- ....

Breaking a dish into a million pieces might provide ample evidence about how it was made or of what it is composed but it certainly won't tell you much about the design on it.

 

[cladking]

Breaking a dish into a million pieces might provide ample evidence about how it was made or of what it is composed but it certainly won't tell you much about the design on it.

The problem is not nearly so much that we know so little as it is that so many believe they know so much.

 

[cladking]

Breaking a dish into a million pieces might provide ample evidence about how it was made or of what it is composed but it certainly won't tell you much about the design on it.

Break it in ever more pieces and you can't even tell if if was a cup or a saucer or maybe a mobius strip.

 

[viole]

Well we are far closer to an ant then we will ever be to God.

Therefore, an ant is also in the image of God. By transitivity.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Eli G]

Funny ... the way some talk about science as an intelligent entity that makes decisions and decides what others should accept.

Science is not a specific entity or group of people, nor does it dictate what humanity in general should believe or accept.

Some think that science is an entity that somehow takes the place of God for humanity. And that idea is laughable, because human nature is flawed from root to top. This must be why those who trust a certain group of people with certain philosophical thinking fail to solve human problems effectively... they give too much credit to human reasoning.

 

[gnostic]

I suppose, in a way, science is already looking for God.

If I were a scientist, and I asked myself how and where one would look for some observable indication of the existence of God, I would have to presume it would be in the organization of nature, itself. Perhaps something in the way nature is organized could provide a clue to the origin of that order. Something that could be recognized as uniquely intentional.

That’s simply superstitions, it has nothing to do with understanding nature, nor understanding the mechanisms of nature.

Attributing something natural to God, require no understanding whatsoever. It is simply you applying your ignorance to what you don’t understand. You are only implying the existence of God, but there are no such indications of connection between nature and god.

The source to ignorance is superstition. The “God did it”, is simply that, superstition.

You are not scientist, if you are already going to let your belief (belief in God) rules over understanding how nature works, because you have already jumped to the conclusion that “God did it”, without ever testing it with observations of evidence.

If you were really a scientist, PureX, then you have to follow the Scientific Method.

The Scientific Method always start with “ideas” that come from preliminary observations (or preliminary evidence) of the phenomena. Those ideas are what you are trying to understand:

• To understand WHAT the phenomena are
• To understand HOW such phenomena work

So whatever the ideas are, you do research on those ideas, trying to formulate possible explanations that you have derived from the preliminary evidence, and proposing possible solutions from what you have derived from the evidence.

All the explanations that formed your models within the hypothesis, are just proposed explanations, proposed mathematical models, proposed predictions, so your hypothesis is just set of proposals, so far, because no conclusions have been reached, yet, since you haven’t started testing the hypothesis. Testing the hypothesis is the 2nd stage of the Scientific Method.

Scientific Method comes in two main phases:

1. Formulating the Hypothesis
2. Testing the Hypothesis

Conclusion(s) are only reached after testing and analysing the test results.

And the only way to test a hypothesis, is through observations. And observations come in the forms of evidence & experiment, plus whatever “information” you have acquired from the evidence & experiments.

These information are also observations, they often come in the forms of quantities, measurements, comparisons of one evidence from other, etc. We (“we” as in scientists & engineers) often referred to these observational information as “data”.

Data are vital for understanding the phenomena.

All observations (eg evidence, experiments & data) are then analysed, mainly to determine if the tests support or don’t support the explanations & predictions in the hypothesis.

1. If the tests support the models, then the hypothesis has been verified, and it is scientifically probable.
2. If the tests don’t support the models, then you have just refuted the hypothesis, and the hypothesis is improbable.

Those are the outcomes possible with falsifiable hypothesis, and you would reach your conclusion on the basis of the available evidence, experiments & data.

That when you reach your conclusion, after testing the models, and not before you have tested the models.

it is only verified hypothesis would be worthy of Peer Review.

Peer review is where independent scientists would review not just the hypothesis, but all evidence & data that come from testing the hypothesis. The evidence and data must be submitted with the hypothesis, otherwise any peers can reject the hypothesis as incomplete because of the lack of evidence & data.

Even if you passed the Scientific Method & Peer Review, it doesn’t guarantee that your hypothesis would be elevated to scientific theory. There are chances that another scientist have a stronger tested hypothesis.

For instance, Charles Darwin wasn’t the only naturalist to submit his work on Natural Selection. Darwin’s contemporary, Albert Russel Wallace, wrote The Malay Archipelago, having done his own field researches in Malaysia and the Amazon, just as Darwin did in South America and the Galapagos. Wallace was largely forgotten.

Likewise, Georges Lemaitre is considered the pioneer of the expanding universe model, but he wasn’t the only one with same idea, Alexander Friedmann & Howard Percy Robertson were the other 1920s pioneers.

The point is that there may be someone who can offer a better explanation, and sometimes you are forgotten.

There is 3rd outcome, and that’s where the whatever explanations to model or concept, are unfalsifiable. If your ideas and concepts were unfalsifiable, then they wouldn’t even qualify as being hypothesis.

All hypotheses have to be falsifiable.

An unfalsifiable explanation is untestable, unscientific and therefore deemed unsubstantiated opinions, pseudoscience.

When concepts are unfalsifiable, they cannot be tested in any way. If you want to include God in your idea, then in order to meet the testing phase of Scientific Method, then you must be able to observe, test & measure God…which isn’t even remotely possible.

That’s why some ideas, concepts or claims are deemed unfalsifiable, because they are untested and cannot be tested.

The problem with your post, is that you have already concluded that God is real and responsible for nature, without testing.

In scientific method, no new hypotheses are automatically true by default. All hypotheses have to be tested before any conclusions can be reached. But you want to skip that part.

 

[gnostic]

Funny ... the way some talk about science as an intelligent entity that makes decisions and decides what others should accept.

Science is not a specific entity or group of people, nor does it dictate what humanity in general should believe or accept.

Some think that science is an entity that somehow takes the place of God for humanity. And that idea is laughable, because human nature is flawed from root to top. This must be why those who trust a certain group of people with certain philosophical thinking fail to solve human problems effectively... they give too much credit to human reasoning.

science is a tool or methodology for acquiring and accumulating knowledge via testing the models (models include explanations & predictions).

No hypothesis and no theory is true, until they have been rigorously tested (through observations, eg experiments, evidence & data).

Science isn’t a religion, as there are no worshipping required for the belief in some mythological supernatural beings. Natural Sciences don’t deal in the supernatural, nor are there any worshipping.

it is you, who confusing science with religion. So all you are doing is laughing at your own ignorance.

 

[F1fan]

Because there is also no evidence to suggest reality can arise of its own.

We learned about the evidence in the 7th grade.

As I said believers in science take reality as proof that reality arose spontaneously and there is no God.

Oh, so you are against science. That's your problem. I'm not sure why you admit this in public, and why you have opinions that should require accepting science and facts.

 

[cladking]

We learned about the evidence in the 7th grade.

I suppose now days they teach kids that evidence is the final word on everything but the fact is the meaning of the word in science has changed since I was in 7th grade because experiment has shown that evidence is by definition interpreted and Kuhn has shown even experiment is interpreted in terms of a broader picture. Really EA Burtt et al showed that science is dependent on its definitions and axioms and if you don't understand these you understand neither science nor evidence.

A proper understanding of experimental science is just an understanding of the bits and pieces of reality as disclosed by experiment. "Evidence" is merely interpretation of physical reality in terms of a paradigm. "Evidence" is suitable for inventing hypothesis but has almost no other legitimate use in real science. What most people think is science simply is not.

With your knowledge of evidence perhaps you would care to posit how reality arose? Do you also believe reality includes an infinite number of pyramids built with an infinite number of ramps? Do you have an expert opinion on how (when) reality will cease?

That's your problem. I'm not sure why you admit this in public, and why you have opinions that should require accepting science and facts.

I "admitted" nothing. Rather I accused most of homo omnisciencis of reasoning in circles: Reality exists therefore it arose naturally without a God". Perhaps you should explain.

 

[McBell]

I "admitted" nothing. Rather I accused most of homo omnisciencis of reasoning in circles: Reality exists therefore it arose naturally without a God". Perhaps you should explain.

Simple really.
There is no evidence, real or visceral, to indicate that a deity was even present, let alone required.

 

[F1fan]

I suppose now days they teach kids that evidence is the final word on everything but the fact is the meaning of the word in science has changed since I was in 7th grade because experiment has shown that evidence is by definition interpreted and Kuhn has shown even experiment is interpreted in terms of a broader picture. Really EA Burtt et al showed that science is dependent on its definitions and axioms and if you don't understand these you understand neither science nor evidence.

A proper understanding of experimental science is just an understanding of the bits and pieces of reality as disclosed by experiment. "Evidence" is merely interpretation of physical reality in terms of a paradigm. "Evidence" is suitable for inventing hypothesis but has almost no other legitimate use in real science. What most people think is science simply is not.

With your knowledge of evidence perhaps you would care to posit how reality arose? Do you also believe reality includes an infinite number of pyramids built with an infinite number of ramps? Do you have an expert opinion on how (when) reality will cease?

My, what an overly emotional response. Can you show us on the doll where science hurt you?

I "admitted" nothing. Rather I accused most of homo omnisciencis of reasoning in circles: Reality exists therefore it arose naturally without a God". Perhaps you should explain.

You have contempt for science. You should ponder why.

 

[PureX]

That’s simply superstitions, it has nothing to do with understanding nature, nor understanding the mechanisms of nature.

And that's just a bias that you can't possibly back up. So I guess it's a stand-off.

Attributing something natural to God, require no understanding whatsoever.

It requires understanding that God is how we humans label the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. And the fact that you don't understand this certainly doesn't make you the judge of what it means to understand.

You are not scientist, if you are already going to let your belief (belief in God) rules over understanding how nature works, because you have already jumped to the conclusion that “God did it”, without ever testing it with observations of evidence.

God is not a scientific question, idea, or issue. So I don't know why you're even bringing science into it. If I were a scientist interested in unraveling the mystery of God, I'd become a philosopher.

 

[blü 2]

Is science interested in finding God ?

What's a "God" exactly?

If my field team and I load up our cameras and specimen boxes, bags and canisters, and go out looking for one, what is it that we're looking for?

 

[PureX]

What's a "God" exactly?

If my field team and I load up our cameras and specimen boxes, bags and canisters, and go out looking for one, what is it that we're looking for?

We don't know. Nor would we be able to tell if we thought we found it. God exists as a useful and apparently necessary possibility. Not as an identifiable phenomenon.