1. Joined
    06 Jan '06
    Moves
    3711
    28 Jan '06 06:09
    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
  2. Colorado
    Joined
    11 May '04
    Moves
    11981
    28 Jan '06 06:571 edit
    Originally posted by DragonFriend
    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
    Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.
    -- 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
  3. Joined
    23 Sep '05
    Moves
    11774
    28 Jan '06 08:161 edit
    Originally posted by DragonFriend
    If science can accept the existence of something like dark matter, why can’t it accept the existence of 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 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.
  4. Colorado
    Joined
    11 May '04
    Moves
    11981
    28 Jan '06 09:24
    Originally posted by stocken
    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.
    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.

    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.
  5. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    28 Jan '06 09:291 edit
    Originally posted by The Chess Express
    [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.
    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"?
  6. Colorado
    Joined
    11 May '04
    Moves
    11981
    28 Jan '06 09:34
    Originally posted by Halitose
    [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]
    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.
  7. Joined
    23 Sep '05
    Moves
    11774
    28 Jan '06 09:36
    Originally posted by The Chess Express
    I think it’s more likely that he’s playing hard to get. He wants us to seek him.
    God must be very bored if it conceived creation to play hide and seek with it.
  8. Joined
    23 Sep '05
    Moves
    11774
    28 Jan '06 09:37
    Originally posted by The Chess Express
    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.
    That's more likely to me as well. If God exists, "He" is part of us now.
  9. Colorado
    Joined
    11 May '04
    Moves
    11981
    28 Jan '06 09:44
    Originally posted by stocken
    God must be very bored if it conceived creation to play hide and seek with it.
    I'm not sure why he makes himself so elusive. I intend to ask him about it when I see him. Quite honestly I’m left wondering about a great many things…
  10. Joined
    23 Sep '05
    Moves
    11774
    28 Jan '06 09:49
    Originally posted by Halitose
    Would an architect be part of the house they've built, or would they be seperate from their "creation"?
    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.

    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. 😉
  11. Standard memberdj2becker
    Tiger's ghost
    Shetland cemetery
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11829
    28 Jan '06 09:57
    Originally posted by stocken
    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. 😉
    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.
  12. Joined
    23 Sep '05
    Moves
    11774
    28 Jan '06 10:221 edit
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    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.
    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?.. :
  13. Standard memberdj2becker
    Tiger's ghost
    Shetland cemetery
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11829
    28 Jan '06 11:50
    Originally posted by stocken
    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?.. :
    Unless of course the houses are the inhabitants of his creation. Poor analogy, I know...

    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.
  14. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    28 Jan '06 12:10
    Originally posted by The Chess Express
    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.
    Some believe (as I am inclined to) that God became creation.

    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...
  15. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    28 Jan '06 13:311 edit
    Originally posted by The Chess Express
    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.
    Oh, 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.

    Yes. The spirit of God lives within us, but that is not a tangible exhibition of God, is it now?
Back to Top