2 edits
Originally posted by frogstomp"the unknown" is another name for the "spiritual realm"
"the unknown" is another name for the "spiritual realm"
the "unknowable" another term how God does His thing.
Science uses known laws ( like Coulombs Law, Ohm Law, Maxwell's Equations) to test data collected in an endeavor to support a hypothesis.
Most of the "evidence" for spirits ( of any kind ) are only "obs ...[text shortened]... d as The First LAW.
in earlier post I was asking if that was what you had meant.
the "unknowable" another term how God does His thing.
With those definitions I think that my answer to your previous question is no. Even if I assume they exist.
Science uses known laws ( like Coulombs Law, Ohm Law, Maxwell's Equations) to test data collected in an endeavor to support a hypothesis.
i can see some problems with this sentence, but I don't think they would contribute to the topic at hand. At least not now, so I'll accept it for the moment.
What I see in this and other threads from some religious people is their idea that science should use the existence of God as The First LAW.
in earlier post I was asking if that was what you had meant.
That problem is more present in the ID thread than this one. My point here is that the supernatural cannot be proven through science without ceasing to be interpreted as supernatural, and would be seen as natural and explainable through natural laws.
Even if theists want to assume there is such a thing as an unexplainable supernatural, then Science will not, by definition, be able to explain it.
That is, in my opinion, the paradox facing the theists that attempt to take a scientific approach on the supernatural.
I am a scientist. I do not know what "natural" and "supernatural" mean or what the difference between them is. I don't exclude "supernatural" explanations for things necessarily. I suspect this separation of "natural" and "supernatural" is something that was made up by or at least is talked about pretty much only by theists who want to bash science.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungBad suspicion. The thread has left science bashing into the possibility of science supporting or being able to test the supernatural.
I am a scientist. I do not know what "natural" and "supernatural" mean or what the difference between them is. I don't exclude "supernatural" explanations for things necessarily. I suspect this separation of "natural" and "supernatural" is something that was made up by or at least is talked about pretty much only by theists who want to bash science.
Originally posted by Palynka? Science uses known laws ( like Coulombs Law, Ohm Law, Maxwell's Equations) to test data collected in an endeavor to support a hypothesis.
[b]"the unknown" is another name for the "spiritual realm"
the "unknowable" another term how God does His thing.
With those definitions I think that my answer to your previous question is no. Even if I assume they exist.
Science uses known laws ( like Coulombs Law, Ohm Law, Maxwell's Equations) to test data collected in a ...[text shortened]... , the paradox facing the theists that attempt to take a scientific approach on the supernatural.
i can see some problems with this sentence, but I don't think they would contribute to the topic at hand. At least not now, so I'll accept it for the moment.
Where precisely is what you see as a problem?
Observation,,Hypothesis,, Data Collection ,,,Tests,,, Conclusion ,,is the scientific method, is it not?
Originally posted by dj2beckerdespite the 'questioning attitude', i think it's pretty obvious what you are trying to say.
Is Science neutral? Or is Science used as a vehicle to 'prove' presuppositions?
if i wanted to advance 'presuppositions', then i would just do what you do: continually and confidently repeat unfounded assertions as though they were absolute truths. wouldn't that be an easier way to peddle my wares, rather than going through the complicated charade of pretending to be a scientist?
that reminds me: i just made a big breakthrough in the lab. my testing clearly demonstrates that you are a satan worshipper and that you like to unwind at night by taking long bubble baths while listening to Kenny G.
Originally posted by ColettiAt the time that science started the presupposition was one of divine intervention. Testing these presuppositions is at the foundation of science. Failiure to prove divine intervention prepared the ground for the Enlightenment and the age of reason
Come on, take a bite at it!
Can "Science" be neutral? Theoretically, it can, but practically almost never. Most "science" today starts with the assumption that there is a natural explanation for all observations, and supernatural explanations must not be considered. Thus any action of a divine or supernatural being will always be attributed to natu ...[text shortened]... t neutral, but is antithetical to the reality of the divine - a critical (sometimes fatal) flaw.
Originally posted by frogstompThe problems could arise if someone questioned how far do we know about the accuracy of such "known laws" and how far do we understand the range of implications behind them. My point is that put it that way, they are similar to dogma if one sees them as the truth. A law that passes testing can still be incomplete (e.g. Newtonian physics) and improved.
? Science uses known laws ( like Coulombs Law, Ohm Law, Maxwell's Equations) to test data collected in an endeavor to support a hypothesis.
I don't think this is what you meant by "known" but I can see how someone could pick up on that point.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by echeceroI think you are confusing my 'presupposition' with 'hypothesis'.
Without a presupposition, there is nothing to test [b]or prove. Science works on the basis of making a presupposition, testing it for validity, and if it fails the test, try a new presupposition. When one succeeds sufficient testing, it becomes a theory, and worthy of teaching others.[/b]
Originally posted by dj2beckerAre you some sort of maniac?
I think you are confusing my 'presupposition' with 'hypothesis'.
You presuppose that science is based on presupposition. Fine. You may presuppose what you want. The mediaval church presupposed that the world was flat and was proven wrong by scientists testing their hypotheses.
Scientists Speak Up on Mix of God and Science
At a recent scientific conference at City College of New York, a student in the audience rose to ask the panelists an unexpected question: "Can you be a good scientist and believe in God?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html?ei=5065&en=3d2d2deaa8bcc24f&ex=1125460800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeTalk about spin.
Scientists Speak Up on Mix of God and Science
At a recent scientific conference at City College of New York, a student in the audience rose to ask the panelists an unexpected question: "Can you be a good scientist and believe in God?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html?ei=5065&en=3d2d2deaa8bcc24f&ex=1125460800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print