science and miracles

Religion and science mix jusr fine:

I am a Christian + I believe the earth to be 4.5 billion years old " I believe Jesus is the Son of God + I do not believe dinosaurs ever existed at the same rime as humans.....= Science🙂Religion

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Religion and science mix jusr fine:

I am a Christian + I believe the earth to be 4.5 billion years old " I believe Jesus is the Son of God + I do not believe dinosaurs ever existed at the same rime as humans.....= Science🙂Religion

Yes, and here you don't mix religion and science, you hold them separate.

If you try to scientifically prove that Jesus is son of god, then you mix religion and science.
If you religiously believe that dinosaurs are extint and don't care about sientific proofs, then you mix science with religion.

So, I persist in saying that religion and science cannot ever be mixed.

But of course you can be a christian scientist at the same time, but when you play in both yards at the same time, then there is a problem.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Yes, and here you don't mix religion and science, you hold them separate.

If you try to scientifically prove that Jesus is son of god, then you mix religion and science.
If you religiously believe that dinosaurs are extint and don't care about sientific proofs, then you mix science with religion.

So, I persist in saying that religion and science ca ...[text shortened]... t at the same time, but when you play in both yards at the same time, then there is a problem.

Religion and science are mixed all the time in archeology. The two do inform each other in the study of ancient cultures.

Originally posted by Badwater
Religion and science are mixed all the time in archeology. The two do inform each other in the study of ancient cultures.

The science of religion, not religion in itself.
It's not unscientifically to studdy diverse religions, and how they are practiced, but scientifically study god himself, is impossible. Miracles, and other supernatural fenomena is by definition unscientific in its very nature.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
The science of religion, not religion in itself.
It's not unscientifically to studdy diverse religions, and how they are practiced, but scientifically study god himself, is impossible. Miracles, and other supernatural fenomena is by definition unscientific in its very nature.

True, but only because if God exists it would seem that such an existence
is beyond our means to experience or comprehend. Note that I said 'if'
God exists. That doesn't mean science doesn't have a place with the study
of God. That's like saying science doesn't have a place in studying pre-Big Bang
events. Just because science at present cannot prove what is going on before
the Big Bang doesn't mean that science doesn't have a place in trying to
narrow down an understanding of the possibilities.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Miracles, and other supernatural fenomena is by definition unscientific in its very nature.

I disagree. If God exists then it should be possible to study at least some of his properties through science. If he doesn't exist then certainly one cannot study his existent form scientifically though one could study religions etc.
I think that the definition of miracles and supernatural phenomena as being unscientific is either a claim that they do not exist, or constitutes a misunderstanding of what science is.
The whole concept of 'supernatural' is inherently flawed.

Originally posted by Badwater
True, but only because if God exists it would seem that such an existence
is beyond our means to experience or comprehend. Note that I said 'if'
God exists. That doesn't mean science doesn't have a place with the study
of God. That's like saying science doesn't have a place in studying pre-Big Bang
events. Just because science at present cannot prove wh ...[text shortened]... ce doesn't have a place in trying to
narrow down an understanding of the possibilities.

We know nothing about anything before the BigBang, at any time t < 0. We don't even know for sure that there is something before BB. So any discusions about this would be highly speculative. So far. But we can be sure of that the universe before BB is governed by physical laws, just not yet known. This is science.

In the future we perhaps will know more of an universe beofre BB. String theory sounds promising in this respect.

But we cannot ever get any scientific about god. I've set up some experiments about religious things:
(1) I dare anyone to prove scientificly his faith in the power of prayer by let him out of an aeroplane without parachute. He would survive if this power existed. I do the same thing with a parachute, relying that the power of physical laws will save me from the fall.
(2) I've repeatedly asked people to prove gods power by pray to him to rearrange the stars so a message appear in plain language. This has never happened.
(3) I've even asked god to prove his existance to hit me with a thunderbolt from a blue sky. He doesn't do that. Why? Because religion is an invention of man, nothing more.

Or, he doesn't want to be examined scientifically, which proves my point. Religion and science cannot ever intermix.

How would you, twhitehead, define 'supernatural'? Is god supernatural, or is he a part of our reality, in your opinion?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
How would you, twhitehead, define 'supernatural'? Is god supernatural, or is he a part of our reality, in your opinion?

God is imaginary.
I do not think there is a meaningful definition of 'supernatural'.
If there exists something that influences our universe then that influence is either entirely random or it follows a pattern. The study of that pattern would be scientific. The existent something would be 'natural'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
God is imaginary.
I do not think there is a meaningful definition of 'supernatural'.
If there exists something that influences our universe then that influence is either entirely random or it follows a pattern. The study of that pattern would be scientific. The existent something would be 'natural'.

How would you set up an scientific experiment that shows the existance of god, the ultimate supernatural phenomenon?
This would mean, if it is truly scientific, that every scientist would turn into being religious, if this scientific experiment would show that a god exist.

I've set up a few experiments of the existance of god and the power of prayers (see above), but they fail all the time. These experiments say that god does not exist, or prayer lacks power.

I say that religion is not provable, therefore religion is not scientific in its nature.

You say "God is imaginary", then prove it.

Actually, I found a verse in Kings 1 18:20 and following, where an actual experiment was set up to show that the god Baal didn't exist, but the god Jahve did. Well, this is actually an scientific experiment that gave them a proof of gods existance.

So why not set it up again. If it worked in the biblical days, then it should work now too.
Any scientific experiment should work again and again, if it is set up in a the same way. The laws of nature doesn't change from time to time, arbitrarily, so it is very much possible to do it again.

(Cant we just trust the word of the bible?) No, we cannot, because it is written in a particular agenda. And for us it is only hearsay that is written down, nothing more.

If someone says that the Earth is 4600 million of years old, I can do the same experiment and come up with the same result, that's how experimental science work. Ir religious science work the same way, then it's very easy to do the same experiment as described in the bible, with the same result.

So who want to do the same experiment again, and thus prove the existance of god, and at the same time prove the power of prayers?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
How would you set up an scientific experiment that shows the existance of god, the ultimate supernatural phenomenon?

That would depend on how you define 'God' and whether or not we have the tools or knowledge to set up such an experiment. I suspect that the easiest target would be Gods supposed interaction with the universe but again there are widely differing views as to what that interaction is so at best we could investigate particular phenomena but probably not rule out Gods that did not provide such phenomena.
Further it might be hard to conclusively attribute confirmed phenomena to God.

I say that religion is not provable, therefore religion is not scientific in its nature.
I disagree. Why should it be unprovable? Or do you mean 'not yet proven' or possibly 'disproved'?

You say "God is imaginary", then prove it.
I cannot disprove all possible gods. If he is a little green man that lives on the far side of Jupiter then I cannot disprove him. The best I could possibly do is disprove the existence of certain phenomena that have historically been attributed to God, or prove that there are other more parsimonious explanations for the phenomena. But without a strict definition of God and his attributes it can be quite hard to get anywhere with regards to a rigorous scientific proof.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That would depend on how you define 'God' and whether or not we have the tools or knowledge to set up such an experiment. I suspect that the easiest target would be Gods supposed interaction with the universe but again there are widely differing views as to what that interaction is so at best we could investigate particular phenomena but probably not rule ...[text shortened]... ibutes it can be quite hard to get anywhere with regards to a rigorous scientific proof.

It's okay to first define god and then with the aid of a scientific experiment prove his existance under this definition. Then it's my and others turn to critisize your experiment. If I cannot find any flaw with your experiment, then we are agreed on the outcome.

So how do you define god?

My hopothesis is that religion is not science, therefore scientificly not provable. You say that it is provable, then you can suggest an experiment that can prove his existance.

You don't have to prove every gods existance. Just chose one god and prove his existance. Then you have proved that one god can exist. Then with the same kind of experiment we can prove more than one gods existance.

What I'm trying to do here is to show that it is impossible to prove any gods existance, becase god is supernatural (i.e. he stands above nature) and therefore a religious phenomenum. And religion cannot be proven scientifically. Prove me wrong and I change my view.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
[b]We know nothing about anything before the BigBang, at any time t < 0. We don't even know for sure that there is something before BB. So any discusions about this would be highly speculative. So far. But we can be sure of that the universe before BB is governed by physical laws, just not yet known. This is science.

If we "know nothing about anything before the Big Bang", how an we be sure "that the universe before BB (is) governed by physical laws,...not yet known."? 😉

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
If we "know nothing about anything before the Big Bang", how an we be sure "that the universe before BB (is) governed by physical laws,...not yet known."? 😉

Well, everything in universe is governed by physical laws, known or unknown, but they are the same everywhere.
Example: The constance of gravitation, it doesn't fluctuate, not even in the most extreem places, like at neutron stars where the gravitational field are very strong.

So there is no doubt that there are laws of natures that governs even at the pre-Bangian era of the universe, constant in its own evironment, with our universe as a special case. When we know more about the subject, we also know more about these loaws of nature, but still we know too little to know for sure, so we can only speculate.

And to bring back the topic to the title of this thread: Miracles doesn't obay the laws of nature, therefore they cannot be scientific in its nature. to believe in miracles you have to be religious, and not scientific.

Example. The laws of gravitation (amongst others) must be violated in order to walk on water. Everyone trying and succeding this special kind of promenade must bend these laws. Science says that the laws apply everywhere, even under the soles of feet of the water-walker, therefore this miracle cannot be any part of science.

Therefore my conclusion that miracle cannot be scientific, have to be religious. And the two cannot be mixed.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Well, everything in universe is governed by physical laws, known or unknown, but they are the same everywhere.
Example: The constance of gravitation, it doesn't fluctuate, not even in the most extreem places, like at neutron stars where the gravitational field are very strong.

So there is no doubt that there are laws of natures that governs even at t ...[text shortened]... nclusion that miracle cannot be scientific, have to be religious. And the two cannot be mixed.

The gravitation al constant may have been different than before the BB. The speed of light may have been different. Atoms may not have been the building blocks of elements. All of these would be "miraculous" by our standards, just like a person who survives 40 years a disease that a doctor (read: scientist) says will kill them in 6 months.