12 Dec 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasThat's what I was getting at. Whether "miracle" is defined as a violation of physics, or as merely an extremely unlikely, but fortuitous, event. If the definition of "miracle" cannot be made precise, then it could not be studied due to its incoherence.
I define 'miracle' as something that happens despite the laws of physics. Therefore its existance cannot be proven by science.
Miracle is a religious phenomenon. Religion and science cannot be mixed.
12 Dec 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasAre you saying that science is limited in its scope?
True. Religion only. Nothing more.
It seems to me that if the universe was created, it should be within science to discover whatever clues there may be to prove it.
"Religion", isn't just about the miraculous or the spiritual. It is about all creation of which science is a part.
I don't think we should think in terms of the separation of science and religion. Instead they both are integral. If they contradict each other, then one of them is wrong.
12 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwTo prove anything religious is outside the domain of science.
Are you saying that science is limited in its scope?
It seems to me that if the universe was created, it should be within science to discover whatever clues there may be to prove it.
"Religion", isn't just about the miraculous or the spiritual. It is about all creation of which science is a part.
I don't think we should think in terms of the separa ...[text shortened]... n. Instead they both are integral. If they contradict each other, then one of them is wrong.
The existence of a creator is not necessary to understand the beginning of the Universe. There is no possible method to scientifically confirm a god. It's simply outside the domain of science.
"If they [religion and science] contradict each other, then one of them is wrong." Agreed. And that is what I've said all the time. Religion and science cannot be mixed. If science is correct, then religion must be wrong.
Edit: I back on the last remark. Religion can exist and be correct under its own domain at the same time as science can be correct under its own domain. Religion can stipulate that there is a god at the same time as science don't. Religion can coexist if they reside in different domains. But when a creationist says that creaion is scientifically true, then he does a mistake. He tries to mix science with religion - it cannot be done.
13 Dec 10
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasIts true, atheistic science has thrown God out of the equation of life.
To prove anything religious is outside the domain of science.
The existence of a creator is not necessary to understand the beginning of the Universe. There is no possible method to scientifically confirm a god. It's simply outside the domain of science.
"If they [religion and science] contradict each other, then one of them is wrong." Agreed. And t ly true, then he does a mistake. He tries to mix science with religion - it cannot be done.
But true science which you dont subscribe to, actually recognizes the spiritual factor in life, which with out there is no life at all.
Vedanta Sutra is the highest science....the science of life.
You are a pseudo science person, because you reject the spiritual factor, which you cannot do, because science must take into account all factors and not be biased in their investigative approach. (that is dishonest)