Can Science see God or acknowledge the possibility of God?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
You have never answered the simple question 'Do you believe in God' and are apparently too simple to realize that by answering it just once you will prevent it being asked of you in perpetuity.

If that's not the definition of a 'simp' I don't know what is.

If that's not the definition of a 'simp' I don't know what is.

Evidently GoaD doesn't know what a simp is.

A simp is a troll like GoaD that repeatedly asks the same question and variations thereof across multiple threads for months on end.

GoaD can't seem to wrap his mind around the fact that it's basically an example of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

GoaD is such a simp.

@thinkofone said
If that's not the definition of a 'simp' I don't know what is.

Evidently GoaD doesn't know what a simp is.

A simp is a troll like GoaD that repeatedly asks the same question and variations thereof across multiple threads for months on end.

GoaD can't seem to wrap his mind around the fact that it's basically an example of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

GoaD is such a simp.

Trademark spamming of the same old deflection. Try and answer this question as if you were a grown up:

"Why do you think you can credibly challenge people about what they believe when you refuse completely to share your own theological position?"

Textbook simp. Your weediness is palpable.

@wolfgang59 said
Cute.

Yes, sorry that was me being a smart a$$, my bad it wasn't a good idea.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Trademark spamming of the same old deflection. Try and answer this question as if you were a grown up:

"Why do you think you can credibly challenge people about what they believe when you refuse completely to share your own theological position?"

Textbook simp. Your weediness is palpable.

Evidently GoaD still doesn't know what a simp is.

A simp is a troll like GoaD that repeatedly asks the same question and variations thereof across multiple threads for months on end.

GoaD can't seem to wrap his mind around the fact that it's basically an example of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

GoaD also can't seem to wrap his mind around the fact that he keeps SPAMming the forum with all those posts.

GoaD is such a simp.

@wolfgang59 said
Do you think it logical for science to accept the possibility of all things?

Minus my moronic earlier verbiage.

Science should go where the evidence leads no matter where that is and what we
think the evidence is saying. That said, if we are not careful, we can cut off enquiry
due to dogma in either the realm of spiritual faith ideology, or even a materialistic
ideology. Getting locked in blinds us to somethings that could be right in front of
us.

I don't know if you watched the link on page one, someone was questioning the
constants of the speed of light, and gravity. It was something I have never heard
someone do before, interesting.

@ThinkOfOne

I think you inadvertently missed the pertinent question:

"Why do you think you can credibly challenge people about what they believe when you refuse completely to share your own theological position?"

@ghost-of-a-duke said
@ThinkOfOne

I think you inadvertently missed the pertinent question:

"Why do you think you can credibly challenge people about what they believe when you refuse completely to share your own theological position?"

Evidently GoaD still doesn't know what a simp is.

A simp is a troll like GoaD that repeatedly asks the same question and variations thereof across multiple threads for months on end.

GoaD can't seem to wrap his mind around the fact that it's basically an example of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

GoaD also can't seem to wrap his mind around the fact that he keeps SPAMming the forum with all those posts.

GoaD is such a simp.

@thinkofone said
If that's not the definition of a 'simp' I don't know what is.

Evidently GoaD doesn't know what a simp is.

A simp is a troll like GoaD that repeatedly asks the same question and variations thereof across multiple threads for months on end.

GoaD can't seem to wrap his mind around the fact that it's basically an example of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

GoaD is such a simp.

You are a fake and a coward old chap. You came to these forums with a pretence and that pretence has been exposed. If you fessed up, showed your hand etc, you could move on from this embarrassment you are experiencing.

@KellyJay

Can science acknowledge the possibility of God? Strange question.

Science can postulate the possibility of an as-yet unobserved planet which would account for observed perturbations in the orbits of known planets, and then set about training telescopes on the portion of sky where such a hypothetical body would have to be to exert the observed effect on the other planets. Science can postulate the possibility of a vaccine against some known pathogen, and then set about testing samples against a control. Science can postulate the possibility of gravitational waves, and then set about engineering a detector to try to verify the hypothesis. Etc. However, we have no 'control universe' which would allow us to compare what one universe would look like with a God and another one without a God; nor is there any such thing as a God detector which would indicate the difference (if there were any).

Can science see God?

If you mean literally, with some kind of apparatus (like a telescope), no.

@wolfgang59 said
Science really has no limits as to its scope.
If gods exist they would be a legitimate field of enquiry for science.

As to knowing all there is ... if it is possible it will be possible with science.

Quite definitively, science has limits. Science is capable of explaining generalities, such as how species h. saps evolved from other species. It does not explain individuals; there is no explaining Goethe or Bobby Fischer, for example. Statistics predicts very accurately how a nation will probably vote, but very poorly how you will probably vote; statistics predicts the exact odds of someone's winning the lottery, but not what you'd spend the money on if you won it. Psychology tracks very accurately the maturation stages from teenagers to adults; it explains nothing about why you become infatuated with one cheerleader rather than another. Economics predicts broadly how regulated free markets work; it explains nothing about why you buy one particular brand of soap and not another, or whether you're likely to buy a Ford or a Chevy next week. Nutrition explains very accurately what foods are healthful and necessary for humans in general; it explains nothing about why you like chocolate ice cream better than pistachio, or whether you are more likely to take water or wine or beer with dinner tomorrow night.

Examples could be multiplied endlessly.

The world consists of particulars; every sunset is absolutely unique. Science renders only generalities.

This is precisely the attraction of a personal saviour: it relates the individual man's uniqueness to a larger purpose.

@moonbus said
@KellyJay

Can science acknowledge the possibility of God? Strange question.

Science can postulate the possibility of an as-yet unobserved planet which would account for observed perturbations in the orbits of known planets, and then set about training telescopes on the portion of sky where such a hypothetical body would have to be to exert the observed effect on ...[text shortened]... ce see God?[/b]

If you mean literally, with some kind of apparatus (like a telescope), no.

I agree completely, a follow up questions if you don't mind.

Now one of the things debated here and else where, is that undirected natural
processes are the cause for some very complex things forming. You think it is
possible to tell the difference between an undirected natural process and a
directed one, when while looking at something so complex we don't grasp the
level of complexity involved, we are still learning all of the ins and outs?

I've been watching several debates on different topics and the discussions seem to
revolve around the two different starting points. Dawkins gives a good summary
in his book the "Blind Watch Maker" this means there are two main camps maybe
there are more those that think there is designed with no purpose it was and is
all undirected, than those that say it looks designed with a purpose, because it is.

Blind Watch Maker
"The difference is one of complexity of design. Biology is the study of complicated
things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

I've seen people point to snowflakes and claim they have a design, but there are
no stop and start mechanisms like those managing blood clotting, and a host of
other life saving operations within a living systems found in snowflakes. At least
those on of the level of that if they start to early, or late, it could end badly.

We all have bias and before we even start thinking about this, many of us have
our minds made up. Can people within science acknowledge the possibility that
within science the possibility of God is real by the evidence there is? Right now
with some of the testimonies I have seen and read, there is a price for such an
acknowledgement that can cost someone dearly. This reaction justified?

@thinkofone said
What's the matter with your reading comprehension ToO?

Absolutely nothing.

Having difficulty understanding Kelly's intent?

Not at all.

No. That's not it. You're just a troll. You don't feel relevant unless you're insulting and deriding someone, preferably a Christian.

Can't you see how blatantly obvious you are?


SecondSon continues his desperate attempt to defend KJ's nonsense.

I'm not defending kelly. Are you that dense?

I'm calling you out for the lying hypocrite you are.

@kellyjay said
Science should go where the evidence leads no matter where that is and what we
think the evidence is saying.

The opposite of this is assuming you know the answer before you begin and throwing out anything that doesn't support that assumption. Guess which one you're doing?

@suzianne said
The opposite of this is assuming you know the answer before you begin and throwing out anything that doesn't support that assumption. Guess which one you're doing?

Actually I am admitting that is the issue, being locked in.

@kellyjay said
We all have bias and before we even start thinking about this, many of us have
our minds made up. Can people within science acknowledge the possibility that
within science the possibility of God is real by the evidence there is? Right now
with some of the testimonies I have seen and read, there is a price for such an
acknowledgement that can cost someone dearly. This reaction justified?

No, science deals with evidence. There is no evidence for God, there is no evidence against God. (Personally, I'd rather have Free Will.) Scientists, on their own, away from work, have every right to believe in God or not to believe, just like everyone else. That belief has zero place in their work. I want people of science to follow the science in their work. They can follow God, or not follow God, on their own time. They're hired because of their qualifications in science, not for their opinions about God.