Is science interested in finding God ?

[gnostic]

Then why were you suggesting that we must use scientific methodology to explore and discuss the idea?

Nevertheless, the questions stand, because the mystery (source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is) is real. And science isn't going to resolve it. Neither will religion, philosophy, or art. Though each can contribute to our better understanding of the mystery.

Natural Sciences only deal with nature - that would WHAT the natural phenomena are and HOW the phenomena work. It doesn’t explore anything supernatural, because supernatural would meet the requirements of Falsifiability and of Scientific Method, in which any model of Natural Sciences must meet.

You cannot test the supernatural any more than you can test God, or spirits or fairies. God would fall under the supernatural category. Supernatural are untestable.

The question is why do YOU insist that the “mystery” of nature should be attributed to “God”?

To me, attributing “God” to anything to nature, is mere superstition, and it doesn’t help in any way to understand nature. It is a false attribution or false equivalence. Why complicate understanding nature with God?

btw, how do you define “god”?

 

[Bthoth]

Is science interested in finding God ?

which god?
pan died!

Which god needs to be found?

 

[blü 2]

Even chance is limited to a very small number of possible outcomes. Limited by what? By the ways energy can and can't be expressed, mostly. Existence as we know of and experience it is following a 'blueprint' of possibility and impossibility. How, why, and from what source those are being imposed is a complete mystery to us.

Chance is not imposed, and the value of its outcome is largely a matter of hindsight, surely?

The source and the 'blueprint' precede all that. Those are all expression of what was possible, and what was not possible.

I don't accept the 'blueprint' idea of chance, the idea of 'destiny', of a supernatural purpose or goal. Humans do that, nature doesn't.

They 'point back' to a great mystery. Purpose and intelligence are our presumed assessments of it. The reality of it is far beyond our comprehension.

We're working on it though. Reasoned enquiry, and in this field not least scientific method, continue to serve us well.

 

[Audie]

Who would dare go to town without their rabbit's foot?

Can it be mere chance that the Christian cross resembles the four-leaf clover?

Fout is most inauspicious number

 

[PureX]

Natural Sciences only deal with nature - that would WHAT the natural phenomena are and HOW the phenomena work. It doesn’t explore anything supernatural, because supernatural would meet the requirements of Falsifiability and of Scientific Method, in which any model of Natural Sciences must meet.

You cannot test the supernatural any more than you can test God, or spirits or fairies. God would fall under the supernatural category. Supernatural are untestable.

I agree. If God were hovering in the air in some blaze of glory I would have no way of verifying that what I was experiencing is God. Nor would have any way of determining that it was natural or "supernatural".

And yet the experience would remain. Just as does the question of source, sustenance, and purpose of existence itself.

The question is why do YOU insist that the “mystery” of nature should be attributed to “God”?

"God" is just the term most humans use to refer to that mystery (when they're speaking English).

To me, attributing “God” to anything to nature, is mere superstition,

That's your bias. But the truth is that you have no idea what the limits of "nature" are. Nor the nature or limits of "God". So you really have no way of knowng that God is not the source of that nature realm, and is therefor by definition "supernatural".

Why complicate understanding nature with God?

Why assume they are not aspects of the same phenomenon? A human being is both a physical biological mechanism, and a metaphysical cognitive phenomenon. Why couldn't God be both the physical realm of existence AND the supernatural/metaphysical realm of existence?

btw, how do you define “god”?

As a mystery.

The great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is.

 

[Little Dragon]

Is science interested in finding God ?

God wouldn't really explain anything though. Unless the nature and origin of God could be known, and how God interacts with the physical universe, is explained. Since currently, the explanations given by theists, for God powers of creation etc, are interchangeable with the logically irreducible concept of magic.

 

[PureX]

Chance is not imposed, and the value of its outcome is largely a matter of hindsight, surely?

There is no chance without two different, simultaneous, yet equally likely possibilities. And there are no possibilities without the background of impossibility to define them. So creating an environment for chance to occur is not that easy or commonplace.

I don't accept the 'blueprint' idea of chance, the idea of 'destiny', of a supernatural purpose or goal. Humans do that, nature doesn't.

"Nature" is the expression of that 'blueprint' that being written in the realm of what is possible against what is not possible. We have no idea how this is so, but we can see for ourselves that it is so.

We're working on it though. Reasoned inquiry, and in this field not least scientific method, continue to serve us well.

According to Neil Degrasse-Tyson, we have managed to "understand" 4% of the universal mystery. And that's just the material universe. Because that's all his field of inquiry can investigate.

 

[Little Dragon]

They're too busy looking for the Unified Field Theory for which no evidence exists.

Gravity is yet to be described quantum mechanically, since hypothetical graviton interactions, cascade exponentially, as they (gravitons) would all posses mass and thus interact with each other, as would all the graviton products of every new graviton interaction and so on, to infinity, meaning the theory including gravity is non-renormalizable. However, quantum gravity, string theory, and others, are all providing new avenues of investigation, into fundamental descriptions of matter and energy.

 

[Little Dragon]

According to Neil Degrasse-Tyson, we have managed to "understand" 4% of the universal mystery. And that's just the material universe. Because that's all his field of inquiry can investigate.

Dark matter and dark energy have physical parameters that are inferred indirectly. If that is what is being referred to.

 

[Little Dragon]

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

Stars are 'organised' from molecular clouds of hydrogen via gravitational interactions between the particles of the cloud. Gravity thus organizes clouds of gas into large nuclear fusion reactors.

 

[Trailblazer]

Is God lost?

No, God knows exactly where He is, which is not where anyone can locate Him with a GPS.

 

[Trailblazer]

Which god needs to be found?

The one true God, although He cannot be found the way many people want to find Him.

 

[gnostic]

I agree. If God were hovering in the air in some blaze of glory I would have no way of verifying that what I was experiencing is God. Nor would have any way of determining that it was natural or "supernatural".

And yet the experience would remain. Just as does the question of source, sustenance, and purpose of existence itself.

"God" is just the term most humans use to refer to that mystery (when they're speaking English).

That's your bias. But the truth is that you have no idea what the limits of "nature" are. Nor the nature or limits of "God". So you really have no way of knowng that God is not the source of that nature realm, and is therefor by definition "supernatural".

Why assume they are not aspects of the same phenomenon? A human being is both a physical biological mechanism, and a metaphysical cognitive phenomenon. Why couldn't God be both the physical realm of existence AND the supernatural/metaphysical realm of existence?

As a mystery.

The great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is.

sorry, but why not just called mystery, “mystery“?

calling it “god”, would only complicate everything, because of the religious & supernatural baggage that go with it.

Call it mystery or unknown. Leave out the spiritual or mystical nonsense.

I want to learn and I would like to understand, but nothing ever tributes to understanding when it comes to using or adding god into the picture.

I wouldn’t use fairy any more than I would use god in attempting to understand the nature. I don’t assign or attribute any “mystery” with fairy.

 

[Bthoth]

The one true God, although He cannot be found the way many people want to find Him.

Is there any evidence of a '1 true god'?

 

[Trailblazer]

Is there any evidence of a '1 true god'?

There is evidence but there is no proof.
The evidence is the Messengers of God.

 

[blü 2]

Fout is most inauspicious number

Then who was it said, "Four, he's a jolly good fellow"?

 

[F1fan]

Theists would say that as the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists,

Of course they claim this, they assume a God exists and they have adopted lore that feeds this assumption and behavior. Reason doesn't support these beliefs.

that God transcends the limits of existence. Atheists think nothing can do that. But something must have, or nothing could exist.

Atheists follow facts and use reason, that's why they don't accept religious concepts. Notice you never are able to demonstrate any religious concepts have any basis in fact.

You are assuming that God must comply with our definition of existence.

Sorry but existence is described given what our senses and instruments can detect. Thus far nothing backs up what theists claim about their many gods. Since believers are just ordinary people, and can't show they have any special perception abilities, their claims are best explained as indoctrination and belief due to social experiences.

A theist assumes that God transcends oudefinitions of existence.

Sure they do, they have no evidence. So they make excuses. No evidence to justify the excuses, either.

Therefor God is not bound by our requirement to have been either created, or eternal.

So sayeth the fallible mortals that have no evidence. So we throw it out.

We have no idea of what energy even is. Measuring it and naming it is not understanding it.

So understanding how atomic bombs work is a huge fraud? Wow, thanks for the big reveal.

Explaining some of the ways that energy "behaves" is not understanding what it is, how it exists, or where it comes from.

Then you are being disengenuous about what understanding is. Scientists are doing quite well, but not to your secret standards. Yes, you must have secret standards that science doesn't know about. Or you are just falling back on your typical nonsense that being confused is the way to be in life.

 

[blü 2]

There is no chance without two different, simultaneous, yet equally likely possibilities.

Ahm, I'd say there's absolutely no requirement that they be equally possible. People win lotteries by chance at odds close to a billion to one, for example. Image what combinations a random bunch of elements and molecules might form given a billion years and a vast range of physical circumstances over time.

And there are no possibilities without the background of impossibility to define them. So creating an environment for chance to occur is not that easy or commonplace.

Impossibility, as distinct from improbability, is an absolute, and absolutes have proved to be fallible concepts over the years. Will we ever find, or devise, a faster than light phenomenon? Is (as it appears) quantum entanglement ─ spooky action at a distance ─ in fact faster than light, for example?

"Nature" is the expression of that 'blueprint' that being written in the realm of what is possible against what is not possible. We have no idea how this is so, but we can see for ourselves that it is so.

I can make sense of that statement if we delete "blueprint" with its suggestion of purposes and planners. I see no evidence for them, nor any requirement for them as an explanation of anything.

According to Neil Degrasse-Tyson, we have managed to "understand" 4% of the universal mystery. And that's just the material universe. Because that's all his field of inquiry can investigate.

And that may be optimistic too.

In my book there is no "immaterial universe" that is not entirely imaginary.

 

[F1fan]

Nonsense ANYONE can be making definitive claims about reality and science. Indeed, everyone does.

As long as they get the science right, and defer to experts, and avoid adding personal beliefs to it.

Every single homo omniscience models reality. It's what we do.

Well educated folks can understand what is reported if adequately informed.

I attempt to reject all beliefs and especially beliefs about science.

You attempt? What beliefs, do you mean how many misunderstand science?

I don't how to state this more clearly. I am not a believer nor am I religious.

Seems you are no longer spiritual now. Did you drop that given the similarity I pointed out to being religious?

I am not a joiner and do not make alliances with like minded people.

But you are spiritual, right? Where did you pick up that way of thinking?

The term "skeptic" used to mean one who doubts. I am the world's leading skeptic.

I'm sure you have medals and everything.

Now it is usually used to mean one who believes in science. In today's language I am no longer a skeptic. "Inflammable" used to mean highly combustible. Now it means something can't burn. The capital of China has changed many times in my lifetime but to my knowledge it is still in the exact same place and they are still laughing at the gullible Americans.

None of this is relevant.

Language is a wondrous thing.

Until it's abused with bad ideas.

I believe reality is digital and homo omnisciencis is analog and this gives rise to thought and confusion that doesn't exist in any other species.

See what I mean?

Religion is an attempt to present the conclusions of ancient science into modern abstractions. Hence my "beliefs" about religion are "undefined".

There was no ancient science.

Oh God, no!

So if facts and science isn't truth, what is?

 

[Bthoth]

There is evidence but there is no proof.

No evidence or proof

The evidence is the Messengers of God.

That's not evidence, just opinion.