Spirituality
10 Jun 10
14 Jun 10
Originally posted by SwissGambitAnd 'metaphysical' generally means nothing more than 'does not play by your rules so leave me alone'.
Science study God? Most consider God to be a [b]metaphysical being. Does it make sense for science to study the metaphysical?[/b]
Of course science can study God. If God exists then he can be observed. If he exists and can be observed then he can be studied by science.
Seeking truth is great, but it's totally impractical for one group to seek truth in all disciplines, both physical and metaphysical. Better to specialize in a certain area suited to the group's aptitude.
Science is a methodology, not a group. Science can be used to study anything that exists and can be observed.
And who is to say that religion has any aptitude at all in anything? As stated before, religion isn't a method of study anyway. There are things like theology, but that is an attempt to use science, logic or philosophy to study religious claims, it is not religion itself.
Religion in general has to make claims about the physical universe. A God that does not interact with the universe in any way is of no use to anyone and can be considered to not exist.
14 Jun 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadOf course science can not study God, I would rather say. Science doesn't deal with god at all.
And 'metaphysical' generally means nothing more than 'does not play by your rules so leave me alone'.
Of course science can study God. If God exists then he can be observed. If he exists and can be observed then he can be studied by science.
"If God exists then he can be observed.", you say. But science haven't observed god. Does this mean that god does not exist? Not at all. But it is not within the domain of science to find out such an entity.
If you say god can be studied by science, then we must prove that god exist. If not, we don't know what to study. Can you propose a scientific experiment that can show with certainty weather or not god exists? No? Neither can anyone else. Those who have tried has failed.
I have to say it agan: Science and religion cannot be mixed.
14 Jun 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasI disagree. If God is totally disconnected from the universe ie he has no influence on it whatsoever, then for all intents and purposes, he does not exist.
But science haven't observed god. Does this mean that god does not exist? Not at all. But it is not within the domain of science to find out such an entity.
If on the other hand he does have an influence, then those influences - and thus him - can be studied through science.
If you say god can be studied by science, then we must prove that god exist.
Not at all. We don't have to prove the moon exists before we can study it. It is more of an assumption.
If not, we don't know what to study.
So you must prove God exists before you know anything about him? Surely that eliminates all religions doesn't it?
14 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou say "If god exists..." and some more. Good. Let's prove his existance before we do anything else.
I disagree. If God is totally disconnected from the universe ie he has no influence on it whatsoever, then for all intents and purposes, he does not exist.
If on the other hand he does have an influence, then those influences - and thus him - can be studied through science.
If you say god can be studied by science, then we must prove that god exi d exists before you know anything about him? Surely that eliminates all religions doesn't it?[/b]
We can see the moon. We have always seen the moon. We have always known that something we call moon is up there. As long that everyone can see the moon, then we can be pretty sure that there is a moon up there somewhere. But if only a minority can see the moon, then we have to be very careful to say that there is a moon.
We don't all of us say that there is a god. The majority of us haven't seen it, and the minority left do not agree what it is. Unless we do agree, then there are many interpretations about what it is some is calling god. That's why we call it religion.
So until science knows what to study, it cannot be studied. If it does it will fail.
We can always theorize about what it is, but we cannot do any research, other than pholosophical ones. That is what theologicans are doing. They are not scientists, they don't do science.
"So you must prove God exists before you know anything about him? Surely that eliminates all religions doesn't it?" If your faith is low enough, yes. The only source of god is to be found in the bible. However, other religious scriptures says other things about the non-christian god. So there are a lot of theories about god, many of them don't agree with eachother.
If you propose a scientific method to prove god, and we follow your instructuions, than it would be an easy thing to show the existance, or non-existance of god. That cannot be done. You cannot apply scientific methods of religious things. Religion and science cannot mix.
14 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadGod also performs miracles which defy the laws of physics, according to many religions. I don't envy the scientist who happens to observe one and then must explain how there can be exceptions to the "laws" of physics. 😵
And 'metaphysical' generally means nothing more than 'does not play by your rules so leave me alone'.
Of course science can study God. If God exists then he can be observed. If he exists and can be observed then he can be studied by science.
[b]Seeking truth is great, but it's totally impractical for one group to seek truth in all disciplines, both ph ...[text shortened]... with the universe in any way is of no use to anyone and can be considered to not exist.[/b]
14 Jun 10
Originally posted by SwissGambitA scientist can never explain how there can be exceptions to the laws of physics, because such exceptions cannot exist by definition. Anyone who claims that such exceptions exist, simply doesn't understand science.
God also performs miracles which defy the laws of physics, according to many religions. I don't envy the scientist who happens to observe one and then must explain how there can be exceptions to the "laws" of physics. 😵
The laws of physics are the rules by which things operate. If things operate differently from what we believe the laws of physics dictate then it is our understanding of those laws that is wrong and not the actual laws themselves.
As I pointed out earlier, any reference to 'metaphysics' or 'supernatural' is really a claim that the events operate via some separate set of laws completely independent of the laws of physics but this is really a misunderstanding of physics and science in general.
It is however a deliberate attempt to say to the listener "OK, so you know certain laws of physics, and I will concede that those laws are valid and no exceptions exist, but this miracle I am talking about, although it is a clear exception, must be given leeway because it operates under a different set of rules, so you aren't wrong about physics, but my miracle is still possible."
14 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnas"So until science knows what to study, it cannot be studied".
You say "If god exists..." and some more. Good. Let's prove his existance before we do anything else.
We can see the moon. We have always seen the moon. We have always known that something we call moon is up there. As long that everyone can see the moon, then we can be pretty sure that there is a moon up there somewhere. But if only a minority can see cannot apply scientific methods of religious things. Religion and science cannot mix.
My sentiments exactly. In the last few posts above from you and TW I have had no idea at all what you guys meant when using the term "God". You guys mean a christian version of God?
This is a reflection on mine on this forum in genral that even amongst the theists there is really not much agreement as to who or what god is.
I believe there are ways of approaching the problem of trying to define "God".
My lines of inquiry have lead me to believe that if we are going to make the word "God" mean something to the scientists then we have got to get our bearings right. The process of elimination rules out a lot of false notions of "God" starting with (one of) the christian notion(s) of God that engenders this "God" and gives an account of a "God" who is OUTSIDE of "His creation".
This does not fit in with the idea that God is one , is all things, etc.
15 Jun 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think it's certainly possible that there is a supernatural domain that plays by a different set of rules than our laws of physics in the natural domain. Not very likely, mind you, but possible.
It is however a deliberate attempt to say to the listener "OK, so you know certain laws of physics, and I will concede that those laws are valid and no exceptions exist, but this miracle I am talking about, although it is a clear exception, must be given leeway because it operates under a different set of rules, so you aren't wrong about physics, but my miracle is still possible."
If there really was such a domain, and they were able to somehow interact with us in ours, they might do things that appeared miraculous to us, despite the existence of some sort of supernatural laws that governed their domain.
16 Jun 10
Originally posted by SwissGambitThen you simply don't understand science.
I think it's certainly possible that there is a supernatural domain that plays by a different set of rules than our laws of physics in the natural domain. Not very likely, mind you, but possible.
If there really was such a domain, and they were able to somehow interact with us in ours, they might do things that appeared miraculous to us, despite the existence of some sort of supernatural laws that governed their domain.
When a scientist 'discovers' a 'natural law' he observes that the universe invariably follows a certain principle. If there ever is an exception (such as the influence of some supernatural law) then the principle is not universal, is not a natural law and the scientist must revise it to suit the new observation.
It is perfectly possible for things to appear miraculous because we simply don't yet understand the laws, but it is never possible for genuine natural laws to be violated. This is simply a fact by definition as the definition of 'natural law' is 'a rule that is never violated'.
There is also no reason whatsoever for dividing laws into 'natural' and 'supernatural' other than the one I have already presented ie the speaker wants to distance his claims from science and generally accepted observational facts in order to have his 'supernatural' laws accepted without question.
Person A: Jesus rose from the dead.
Person B: But thats impossible, we all know that nobody can possibly rise from the dead.
Person A: It was a miracle.
Person B: Oh, then its OK.
16 Jun 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadShrug.
Then you simply don't understand science.
When a scientist 'discovers' a 'natural law' he observes that the universe invariably follows a certain principle. If there ever is an exception (such as the influence of some supernatural law) then the principle is not universal, is not a natural law and the scientist must revise it to suit the new observation. ...[text shortened]... bly rise from the dead.
Person A: It was a miracle.
Person B: Oh, then its OK.
16 Jun 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadPerson A: I've made cold fusion to work.
Person A: Jesus rose from the dead.
Person B: But thats impossible, we all know that nobody can possibly rise from the dead.
Person A: It was a miracle.
Person B: Oh, then its OK.
Person B: But thats impossible, we all know that cold fusion is not possible.
Person A: It was a miracle.
Person B: Oh, then its OK.
With this kind of reasoning science would be meaingless. Every result could be a miracle, i.e. against the laws of physics and no further inverstigation or developement of theory is necessary, or a result of proper scientific experimenting and research.
Like "We don't have to build bridges anymore. But only those who believe in the miracle of walking/running/driving on water can benefit from it."
16 Jun 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadwhy can't anyone rise from the dead?
Then you simply don't understand science.
When a scientist 'discovers' a 'natural law' he observes that the universe invariably follows a certain principle. If there ever is an exception (such as the influence of some supernatural law) then the principle is not universal, is not a natural law and the scientist must revise it to suit the new observation. ...[text shortened]... bly rise from the dead.
Person A: It was a miracle.
Person B: Oh, then its OK.
16 Jun 10
Originally posted by ZahlanziNobody can rise from the dead because when an organism dies, at the level of the quantum states of the individual molecules of that organism there are cells that they are dieing at different rates during the death of the organism as a whole -and death has a major property: irreversibility. Death is irreversible because, although the quantum phenomena are reversible, the properties of both the alive and the the dead cells of an organism refer to thermodynamic properties, and these properties are putting them in the realm of the macroscopic regime. Well, for the time being we cannot change or overcome this condition
why can't anyone rise from the dead?
😵