The "Two Causes" Solution to the Religion and Science Conflict

[Gambit]

So, just what is the assumption of Science (a.k.a. "methodological naturalism") in regard to the genesis of nature?

Science doesn't address it because is beyond its purview.

Methodological naturalism concerns itself not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what nature is. It is strictly the idea that all scientific endeavors—all hypotheses and events—are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. The genesis of nature (for example, by an act of God) is not addressed. (source: Naturalism (philosophy))

 

[Bunyip]

[/QUOTE]

Science doesn't address it because is beyond its purview.

What a silly thing to say. Of course science can research the genesis of nature and the universe - the scientific fields of abiogenesis and cosmology for example. You are not making sense.

 

[Gambit]

What a silly thing to say. Of course science can research the genesis of nature and the universe - the scientific fields of abiogenesis and cosmology for example. You are not making sense.

Merriam-Webster defines "genesis" as "the origin or coming into being of something." Science cannot explain the origin of nature or how it came into being. That's beyond the purview of science.

 

[outhouse]

Science cannot explain the origin of nature or how it came into being.

That's not true.

They have great educated hypothesis using chemistry.


Unlike mythology that is going no where at all. less being pushed back into gaps of scientific knowledge.

 

[outhouse]

God's interaction in the world is through mental causes

unsubstantiated rhetoric

 

[outhouse]

That's beyond the purview of science.

Factually incorrect. They are always trying to work forward, and have been making great leaps in recent years.

Just because they don't have something you accept, does not mean they are not working on a scientific hypothesis that will not be in dispute.

 

[Gambit]

Factually incorrect. They are always trying to work forward, and have been making great leaps in recent years.

Just because they don't have something you accept, does not mean they are not working on a scientific hypothesis that will not be in dispute.

Science cannot explain why there is something rather nothing. And it certainly cannot explain how something spontaneously emerged from nothing.

 

[outhouse]

Science cannot explain why there is something rather nothing.

One fallacy after another with you.


Who said there was nothing?

And it certainly cannot explain how something spontaneously emerged from nothing.

One fallacy after another with you.

No one states something emerged from nothing. NO ONE.

 

[Gambit]

No one states something emerged from nothing. NO ONE.

Actually, there is.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing...Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God" - physicist, Stephen Hawking (source: pg. 180, "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking)

 

[outhouse]

Actually, there is.

Your purposely perverting it out of context. You quote mined it, and the paragraph before and after place this into context much better then your literal interpretation.

Your now also moving goal post from abiogenesis to the BB.

If we go with the BB, we can easily say a supermassive black hole expanded and created the universe, as a black hole is a singularity. WHICH is something.

 

[outhouse]

Watch how quote mining doesn't work.

Here this is at your boy WLC site, on this exact quote of yours.

Stephen Hawking and God | Reasonable Faith


Of course Hawking does not believe that the universe really came from nothing since gravity was there to do the creating.

 

[Gambit]

Your purposely perverting it out of context.

And Lawrence Krauss recently wrote a book entitled "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing." (The title says it all.)

By the way, I don't know why you are bringing up "abiogenesis." I never mentioned it in this thread.

 

[Gambit]

Of course Hawking does not believe that the universe really came from nothing since gravity was there to do the creating.

To reiterate: Science cannot explain why there is something rather nothing. And it certainly cannot explain how something spontaneously emerged from nothing.

 

[Bunyip]

Merriam-Webster defines "genesis" as "the origin or coming into being of something." Science cannot explain the origin of nature or how it came into being. That's beyond the purview of science.

Don't be absurd - it is the point of science. Looking into the unknown is not beyond the purview of science, it is the PURPOSE of science.

 

[Bunyip]

To reiterate: Science cannot explain why there is something rather nothing. And it certainly cannot explain how something spontaneously emerged from nothing.

So what? That is precisely why science studies these things - trying to figure out explanations is what science is all about.

 

[outhouse]

And Lawrence Krauss recently wrote a book entitled "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing." (The title says it all.)

By the way, I don't know why you are bringing up "abiogenesis." I never mentioned it in this thread.

And if you actually stopped quote mining and read something for a change, you would understand his 3 different types of classification for "nothing", are actually something.


Example.


Put a lid on a shoe box, you would claim nothing is in the box. The box has plenty in it. Nitrogen, Oxygen, and other elements, without even getting into the quantum mechanic.

 

[outhouse]

To reiterate: Science cannot explain why there is something rather nothing.

To reiterate, you don't know what your talking about.

We exist from the expansion of a singularity. A black hole is a singularity. That is a an accepted hypothesis.


And its much better then man made deity that was plagiarized from previous deities created the earth as described in mythology, because ancient writers of mythology had no idea what a universe was.

And it certainly cannot explain how something spontaneously emerged from nothing

I just did. Its not nothing.

A singularity expanded, and our knowledge of exactly what the mechanics of a black hole are, does not mean nothing is there. As we see them eating suns and planets, and by their gravity we know they are dense and have matter.


Sorry your fallacy may fly in your imagination, but your not going anywhere in public. You have no traction at all comparing known mythology to what science doesn't know about nature in full.

 

[shawn001]

What Is Nothing? Physicists Debate

What Is Nothing? Physicists Debate | The Existence of Nothing