science and God

Originally posted by KellyJay
No
Kelly

I'm with you Kelly.
What's with these inane questions linking science and god. There is not, and can never be, a scientific proof of a supernatural entity.
How many ways do you all need to ask and answer the same damned question?
God cannot be proved or disproved - you either believe it exists and see all the proof you need around you, or you don't believe it exists and can see no proof. There is no alternative - despite what some so called 'agnostics' might say.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As an atheist, I obviously think that no god will every be found by science.
Most theists claim that they have good reason to believe that God exists. Surely if their reasons are valid, they should stand up to scientific investigation and essentially be confirmed by science.

isn't that like saying time travel will never be possible?

Originally posted by pink floyd123
dose any one think or feel that sci will one day uncover the fact that there is a god and that the universe was created by him or will it find that there is no god what are your thoughts

Sceince is committed to methodological naturalism. It can do things like investigate truth claims involving the supposed action of supurnatural agents. For example, if it is claimed that Jones was healed by god, we can use scientific methods to investigate whether any healing has taken place.

Science is not committed to ontological naturalism. I'd argue that existential claims about supernatural agents do not express propositions. Science can look at how such claims function in a culture and things like that, logic can look at some issues of consistency in the narratives, but to try to prove the existence of god via science would be as untenable as trying to prove that the square root of two is irrational via the medium of dance.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Science can look at how such claims function in a culture and things like that, logic can look at some issues of consistency in the narratives, but to try to prove the existence of god via science would be as untenable as trying to prove that the square root of two is irrational via the medium of dance.

Here is an attempt in something akin to that direction:
http://www.ubu.com/film/beckett_quad.html

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Here is an attempt in something akin to that direction:
http://www.ubu.com/film/beckett_quad.html

Ha ha I see what you mean.

I wouldn't be surprised if we see a set of simple rules playing out in this dance, not unlike the game of life in your picture.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Ha ha I see what you mean.

I wouldn't be surprised if we see a set of simple rules playing out in this dance, not unlike the game of life in your picture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quad_%28play%29

To me it resembles some stereographic projection or other. The centre would appear to be a black hole.

Then there is the evocation of truth tables.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Sceince is committed to methodological naturalism. It can do things like investigate truth claims involving the supposed action of supurnatural agents. For example, if it is claimed that Jones was healed by god, we can use scientific methods to investigate whether any healing has taken place.

Science is not committed to ontological naturalism. I'd argu ...[text shortened]... untenable as trying to prove that the square root of two is irrational via the medium of dance.

If, as you say, science is committed to methodological naturalism, aren't you thereby setting parameters for all within the field: acting in sorts as the mouthpiece for the lot? If so, shouldn't you take it a step further and let every one know whether the scientists will be assuming an open or closed system? I mean, isn't it fair for us non-scientists to know what measure the scientists will be using?

If you're going to commit them to a system of thinking, you really need to be specific, don't you think?

Within your pronouncement, you have already established a conflict which must be rectified. First you are limiting scientists' investigation of supernatural agents strictly to their interruptions in the natural world while secondly invoking logic as somehow transcendent over all data. Which is it? Is the natural the end-all/be-all or are there things which are somehow outside of that system?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quad_%28play%29

To me it resembles some stereographic projection or other. The centre would appear to be a black hole.

Then there is the evocation of truth tables.

Thanks, I'd not seen that before. Very interesting.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If, as you say, science is committed to methodological naturalism, aren't you thereby setting parameters for all within the field: acting in sorts as the mouthpiece for the lot? If so, shouldn't you take it a step further and let every one know whether the scientists will be assuming an open or closed system? I mean, isn't it fair for us non-scientists t e natural the end-all/be-all or are there things which are somehow outside of that system?

Within your pronouncement, you have already established a conflict which must be rectified. First you are limiting scientists' investigation of supernatural agents strictly to their interruptions in the natural world while secondly invoking logic as somehow transcendent over all data. Which is it? Is the natural the end-all/be-all or are there things which are somehow outside of that system?

Exactly how does one pursue any investigation of such agents supposing we neglect natural world interactions?...a magic looking glass???

VERY NICE, i have read alot about the laws of physics and it seems to me that there is an inteligent desin its not just jumbo mumbo and i am not a religion freak but i can see the day when they at least come close to finding GOD

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If, as you say, science is committed to methodological naturalism, aren't you thereby setting parameters for all within the field: acting in sorts as the mouthpiece for the lot? If so, shouldn't you take it a step further and let every one know whether the scientists will be assuming an open or closed system? I mean, isn't it fair for us non-scientists t ...[text shortened]... e natural the end-all/be-all or are there things which are somehow outside of that system?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If, as you say, science is committed to methodological naturalism, aren't you thereby setting parameters for all within the field: acting in sorts as the mouthpiece for the lot?
No.

Within your pronouncement, you have already established a conflict which must be rectified. First you are limiting scientists' investigation of supernatural agents strictly to their interruptions in the natural world while secondly invoking logic as somehow transcendent over all data. Which is it?
Firstly, methodological naturalism is constitutive of 'science' as understood by competent speakers of English. That is to say, to be doing science is to be interrogating the natural world via a set of agreed protocols that do not admit supernatural elements. That is my claim. I see no evidence that my claim limits scientists in any way.

Secondly, I have not invoked logic as 'somehow transcendent over all data'. Logic just helps us proceed from premises to conclusion such that if our premises are true so is our conclusion. Sometimes parts of narratives, such as stipulations about supernatural agents, can be translated into formal language so that logic can be applied.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quad_%28play%29

To me it resembles some stereographic projection or other. The centre would appear to be a black hole.

Then there is the evocation of truth tables.

The quad diagram in that wiki...I can't reconcile it with the clip. What am I missing?

Originally posted by pink floyd123
VERY NICE, i have read alot about the laws of physics and it seems to me that there is an inteligent desin its not just jumbo mumbo and i am not a religion freak but i can see the day when they at least come close to finding GOD

But the 'seeming to you' that there is intelligent design is not part of science. At best, it is an argument by analogy, but a flawed one in my view.

It is not possible to rule out science finding evidence that would lead most reasonable people to conclude that the universe was designed by an intelligent agent. However, even if that happened, the inference that a supernatural designer did it would not, and could not be a scientific one.

Originally posted by Agerg
Within your pronouncement, you have already established a conflict which must be rectified. First you are limiting scientists' investigation of supernatural agents strictly to their interruptions in the natural world while secondly invoking logic as somehow transcendent over all data. Which is it? Is the natural the end-all/be-all or are there things whi tion of such agents supposing we neglect natural world interactions?...a magic looking glass???

See my response to LS below this one.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If, as you say, science is committed to methodological naturalism, aren't you thereby setting parameters for all within the field: acting in sorts as the mouthpiece for the lot?
No.

Within your pronouncement, you have already established a conflict which must be rectified. First you are limiting scientis ...[text shortened]... supernatural agents, can be translated into formal language so that logic can be applied.

No.
It sure sounds like you are when you say such things as "science is committed." Just saying.

Firstly, methodological naturalism is constitutive of 'science' as understood by competent speakers of English.
Well, of course it is, dear. Of course it is. However, if we wish to go beyond merely competently speaking the language to the level of understanding what the hell is being said, we'll have to do better than what you've offered. Methodological naturalism is either open or it is closed, flexible or rigid. When you start to spit out phrases that sound all sciencey and whatnot, you ought to take the extra step of knowing what it is that you're speaking about. It makes the inevitable back pedal a lot easier on the hamstrings.

That is to say, to be doing science is to be interrogating the natural world via a set of agreed protocols that do not admit supernatural elements. That is my claim. I see no evidence that my claim limits scientists in any way.
Can you see those three words nearly in the middle of this statement? "Do not admit" has a way of limiting things, don't you think?

Secondly, I have not invoked logic as 'somehow transcendent over all data'. Logic just helps us proceed from premises to conclusion such that if our premises are true so is our conclusion. Sometimes parts of narratives, such as stipulations about supernatural agents, can be translated into formal language so that logic can be applied.
Lessee... logic is not transcendent in your worldview, but it is applied to the data in order to draw conclusions about the data. Hmm. Part of the data, then?