28 Jan 06
How does science find something new?
As I understand it, the process goes something like this:
- scientists gather information about something
- they then examine the info to see what they can learn from it
- if the info suggests something they hadn't expected, they hypothesize about it
- they then go back and look for more info in hopes of proving/disproving the hypothesis
Take Dark Matter as an example. “In cosmology, dark matter refers to hypothetical matter particles, of unknown composition, that do not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation to be detected directly, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter such as stars and galaxies.” (Wikipedia)
This substance is thought to comprise 23% (up to 99% depending on the article you read) of the universe, and yet we have never seen it, never measured it, and thus have no direct evidence of its existence at all.
How can science possible accept the existence of something like this? The same way it accepts the existence of anything new to it, by admitting it’s a possibility and looking for evidence supporting or disproving that position.
If science can accept the existence of something like dark matter, why can’t it accept the existence of God?
DF
28 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by DragonFriendScience without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.
How does science find something new?
As I understand it, the process goes something like this:
- scientists gather information about something
- they then examine the info to see what they can learn from it
- if the info suggests something they hadn't expected, they hypothesize about it
- they then go back and look for more info in hopes of pro ...[text shortened]... pt the existence of something like dark matter, why can’t it accept the existence of God?
DF
-- Albert Einstein
The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.
-- Albert Einstein
28 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by DragonFriendScience can accept the existence of God as a hypothesis to be proved/disproved. So far, no evidence speaks for or against the existence of God.
If science can accept the existence of something like dark matter, why can’t it accept the existence of God?
Accept the existence of God as a hypothesis and then try to prove it using scientific methods. It should be interesting enough. If you could find methods that will allow us to perceive God in one way or the other, then that should be good enough for most scientists and philosophers to act on. The problem is this.
If God exists and created mankind and all the wonders around us, yet won't allow us to see or hear him, it probably doesn't want to be seen or heard. And since it created us, the universe and everything it should be no problem for it to disguise itself so that we cannot detect it using scientific methods. Only through spirituality can we get in contact with God. And spirituality is many different things to different people (even illusionary to some), so that won't work in a scientific study.
28 Jan 06
Originally posted by stockenIf God exists and created mankind and all the wonders around us, yet won't allow us to see or hear him, it probably doesn't want to be seen or heard. And since it created us, the universe and everything it should be no problem for it to disguise itself so that we cannot detect it using scientific methods. Only through spirituality can we get in contact with God.
Science can accept the existence of God as a hypothesis to be proved/disproved. So far, no evidence speaks for or against the existence of God.
Accept the existence of God as a hypothesis and then try to prove it using scientific methods. It should be interesting enough. If you could find methods that will allow us to perceive God in one way or the ot ...[text shortened]... things to different people (even illusionary to some), so that won't work in a scientific study.
I'm not quite sure I follow you. If there is a God then spirituality is more powerful than him? I think it’s more likely that he’s playing hard to get. He wants us to seek him.
28 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressI think it’s more likely that he’s playing hard to get. He wants us to seek him.[/b][/b]
[b]If God exists and created mankind and all the wonders around us, yet won't allow us to see or hear him, it probably doesn't want to be seen or heard. And since it created us, the universe and everything it should be no problem for it to disguise itself so that we cannot detect it using scientific methods. Only through spirituality can we get in ul than him? I think it’s more likely that he’s playing hard to get. He wants us to seek him.
Or perhaps its got a more logical answer. Would an architect be part of the house they've built, or would they be seperate from their "creation"?
28 Jan 06
Originally posted by HalitoseA human architect cannot be part of a building. Some believe (as I am inclined to) that God became creation. At any rate, I think that he’s in all of us.
[b]I think it’s more likely that he’s playing hard to get. He wants us to seek him.[/b][/b]
Or perhaps its got a more logical answer. Would an architect be part of the house they've built, or would they be seperate from their "creation"?[/b]
28 Jan 06
Originally posted by HalitoseThis, of course, also makes sense. Whatever reason we were created for, it's possible that we're not actually supposed to "find" the creator. The creator may not actually know about us. We're part of something bigger and just like an architect doesn't quite know what molecular material a brick is made of, God doesn't know what the universe is made of.
Would an architect be part of the house they've built, or would they be seperate from their "creation"?
Makes sense to me. We'll never meet him then. And I think that's for the better, cause I would have a lot "bashing" for him if I ever do meet him/her/it. 😉
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
28 Jan 06
Originally posted by stockenIts more like the architect built a room in the house that could only be occupied by Himself. Seeing the architect designed the house he would know what is best for the house. Whoever dwells in the house would have the liberty to chase the architect away if he came knocking at the door.
This, of course, also makes sense. Whatever reason we were created for, it's possible that we're not actually supposed to "find" the creator. The creator may not actually know about us. We're part of something bigger and just like an architect doesn't quite know what molecular material a brick is made of, God doesn't know what the universe is made of.
Mak ...[text shortened]... e better, cause I would have a lot "bashing" for him if I ever do meet him/her/it. 😉
28 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerFlawed analogy warning. I repeat. Flawed analogy warning.
Its more like the architect built a room in the house that could only be occupied by Himself. Seeing the architect designed the house he would know what is best for the house. Whoever dwells in the house would have the liberty to chase the architect away if he came knocking at the door.
If God is an architect like the ones creating houses, then he did not create the inhabitants of his creation and therefore we are free to kick him out.
[Edit]
Or is that what you're actually saying?.. :
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
28 Jan 06
Originally posted by stockenUnless of course the houses are the inhabitants of his creation. Poor analogy, I know...
Flawed analogy warning. I repeat. Flawed analogy warning.
If God is an architect like the ones creating houses, then he did not create the inhabitants of his creation and therefore we are free to kick him out.
[Edit]
Or is that what you're actually saying?.. :
Maybe think of it in this way:
God is like a car manufacturer. We are the cars. He created us and knows better than everyone else how to drive us. He would like to drive the cars but the cars have the decision who gets to drive them. Either the car can try to drive itself, kinda like Herbie, just worse. Or the car can decide to let the manufacturer drive instead.
28 Jan 06
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressSome believe (as I am inclined to) that God became creation.
A human architect cannot be part of a building. Some believe (as I am inclined to) that God became creation. At any rate, I think that he’s in all of us.
I am closer to this view as well—though yours, I think, is more panentheistic, and mine is more monistic. It is also close to kabbalistic* theo-cosmology, based on emanation, and Hasidic Judaism.
Either way, I think it renders problematic all “inorganic” analogies—watches, buildings, cars... One of the most powerful features of Christianity (though I’m speaking here from outside the fold) is that the incarnation offers an “organic” analogy (though, in itself, anthropocentric)—whether you see that as an actual historical event or in symbolic terms.
* Note: When I refer to Kabbalah, I mean the mystical theology that Aiden Steinsaltz said has become the main stream of Jewish theology across the board (at least since the 12th or 13th century); I am not referring to new-age, magical stuff...
28 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressOh, I think you got me wrong. I don't deny the incarnation of Christ by any means -- I was merely asserting that this would be the exception rather than the rule.
A human architect cannot be part of a building. Some believe (as I am inclined to) that God became creation. At any rate, I think that he’s in all of us.
Yes. The spirit of God lives within us, but that is not a tangible exhibition of God, is it now?