Can Science see God or acknowledge the possibility of God?

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

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

Yet another post with completely vacuous accusations from secondson. What a surprise.

@divegeester said
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.

"Pretence"? What "pretence" is that exactly? Go ahead DG. See if you can formulate a cogent argument. You've got about as much chance of that as GoaD.

@suzianne said
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. T ...[text shortened]... n time. They're hired because of their qualifications in science, not for their opinions about God.

If there is no evidence for God, it becomes evidence for no God by the lack of it. You can not have it both ways! It would be just true as those who get confronted with evidence for a designer, it gives rise to doubts about their world view of a undirected natural process destroyed.

This highlights the difficulty for people going into any study, there are people who are very invested in all findings.

@kellyjay said
If there is no evidence for God, it becomes evidence for no God by the lack of it. You can not have it both ways! It would be just true as those who get confronted with evidence for a designer, it gives rise to doubts about their world view of a undirected natural process destroyed.

This highlights the difficulty for people going into any study, there are people who are very invested in all findings.

I don't see that.

Science should look only at the evidence. That is what the scientific method does, it is dependent on gathering the facts, regardless of where they lead, without reference to opinion.

Again, there is no evidence of God, there is no evidence of no God. You cannot prove anything through lack of evidence. No evidence does not become evidence. Science cannot draw a conclusion on something not seen or measured. "World view" doesn't enter into it. And neither does God, given there is no evidence to be examined.

This is how it should be, KJ. Atheists are perfectly free to come to their own opinion about God. This is why we have Free Will, which evidence would destroy. This is so "they have no excuse". No one decided what they will believe except them. Same for us, we must come to God through our own choice. We must choose... wisely.

You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears
And kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that’s clear
I will choose free will.
-- Rush, "Freewill", Permanent Waves, 1980

@kellyjay said
If there is no evidence for God, it becomes evidence for no God by the lack of it. You can not have it both ways! It would be just true as those who get confronted with evidence for a designer, it gives rise to doubts about their world view of a undirected natural process destroyed.

You are coming across as insecure in your faith and evidently feel the need to try to hijack the idea of "science" to bolster your assertions about supernatural causality.

@kellyjay said
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
l ...[text shortened]... there is a price for such an
acknowledgement that can cost someone dearly. This reaction justified?

Science discovers patterns in nature, but no purpose — only mechanism; therefore, science imputes no purpose to a Somebody whose purpose it might be.

Regarding snowflakes and design. The word "design" in English conceals a pregnant vagueness: it can mean "regularity," "pattern", or it can mean "intention," "purpose" (e.g., 'he has designs on the White House,' meaning he intends to run for office).

It is essential to grasp the principles a) that regularity can exist without design, that is to say, there can be pattern without purpose, intention, or goal, and b) that pattern can come about by simple repetition of natural law, that is to say by mindless causes. Think, for example, of the pattern of ripples on the surface of water caused when a leaf or stone falls into the water. There you have pattern without design, purpose, or goal. Snowflakes exhibit regular patterns, but no purpose.

Some people fall into the sophistry of arguing that wherever there is pattern (i.e., regularity), there must be design (in the sense of purpose, intention, goal), and then think that design implies a Designer. This is faulty logic.

@KellyJay

"If there is no evidence for God, it becomes evidence for no God by the lack of it."

The above statement embodies an elementary logical blunder. Correct is: Lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack.

@fmf said
You are coming across as insecure in your faith and evidently feel the need to try to hijack the idea of "science" to bolster your assertions about supernatural causality.

Hijack science? Someone own that?

@moonbus said
@KellyJay

"If there is no evidence for God, it becomes evidence for no God by the lack of it."

The above statement embodies an elementary logical blunder. Correct is: Lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack.

Since I believe the whole universe is evidence for God I see no lack of it.

@moonbus said
Science discovers patterns in nature, but no purpose — only mechanism; therefore, science imputes no purpose to a Somebody whose purpose it might be.

Regarding snowflakes and design. The word "design" in English conceals a pregnant vagueness: it can mean "regularity," "pattern", or it can mean "intention," "purpose" (e.g., 'he has designs on the White House,' ...[text shortened]... e of purpose, intention, goal), and then think that design implies a Designer. This is faulty logic.

When you see instructions guiding process you think this is mindless?

@kellyjay said
Hijack science? Someone own that?

You are clearly wanting to take the word "science" and apply it to the assertions and notions you have about unprovable, untestable supernatural phenomena that are a product of your superstition and faith.

@kellyjay said
Since I believe the whole universe is evidence for God I see no lack of it.

How does this address the logical blunder of yours that moonbus pointed out?

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

It does.
Science is interested in the phenomenon of religion (for instance).
It is studied.

You seem to think science is "anti-religion" .. it is not.
It is "anti-nonsense".
If religious claims (after study) are shown to be nonsense then so be it.
But nothing is hidden.
There is no scientific agenda.

@kellyjay said
When you see instructions guiding process you think this is mindless?

"Instructions"?

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

Thank you for your apology.