To honor your request, I have removed the science tag, but I think that it is applicable. True science is testable, observable, and repeatable, so DNA testing fits into this category. That which has been termed "historical science" does not actually adhere to the scientific method, yet the assumptions of it are stated as fact in an attempt to dismiss the existence of God.
I am completely with you on that, but I am willing to honor the request of another. It may prevent the type of answers that I hoping for, but at least some discussion is going on about this subject.
Thanks, your discussion is one which pertains to religious thoughts. Its a totally fine discussion to have IMO, but it's really not science (just as posts about DNA replication don't belong with a religion tag!). I don't really want to dive into the science vs. religion debate. However I wish you luck on your quest for understanding.
I understand where you are coming from now, and I thank you for your kind response and interaction. I think that "faith" is the matter at hand, not "religion" or "science." If someone does not have faith in God as the Creator, they often will have faith over millions of years new genetic information can spontaneously appear and that in the un-observable past, many things that we do not observe occurring now somehow happened then. I could that view up by stating it as, given enough time, the impossible becomes possible. I originally tagged it in "science" because many from the common mindset in that area would not consider themselves to be religious and therefore not view posts in that tag, though they are still a people of faith. Their faith just happens to be in evolutionism instead of in God. That was where I was coming from. Thanks for the tact in your interaction.
I am a strong believer in respectful interactions with all people until they illustrate through personal attacks that they don't share that view. Thank you also for your maturity and also for sharing your thoughts with me. I always find it interesting to see how other people think, and how their thoughts differ from how I observe things.
It's really subjective.
If God created everything, then all science is the study of God. This was the stance of most scientists until the last century or so. Even Darwin struggled with the fact that his hypotheses could be in opposition to God.
There's no real objective reason to pit science against theism. They would only mutually exclusive if atheists were right.
Well stated. To the atheist, "science" is equivalent with reality and "theism" or "religion" is equivalent with fantasy or make-believe. The two would be polar opposites if their worldview was accurate. Thank you, @anotherjoe.
The concept of "god" can not be empirically proven. Therefore I reject your proposal (all science is the study of "god"), as the scientific method is a means for empirically proving natural observation (for me to accept your proposal it would require you to relinquish the idea of "free will" and us to be working in a universe where all actions are pre-determined by the higher power (IE every molecular movement is scripted and the decisions are made by the higher power, in that world view then the empirical study of natural phenomenon would be the study of "god")).
Its not so much that the two concepts are mutually exclusive as the study of science has nothing at all to do with the concepts of "god." For me (and I think many others) Science is not about proving or disproving theist ideology, but rather purely for explaining naturally observing phenomenon with empirically testable methods.
Note: I use "god" in quotation marks so as not to define my self to specifically the Judaeo-Christian God, but rather any "higher being." As the message remains the same irrespective of the belief system.
I have created many simulations where I worked hard to ensure the outcome was not predetermined. Any universe you can conceive of can have it's total state documented in a (perhaps infinite) state vector "snapshot" at any point in time. A Creator could reconstruct that universe using that snapshot as a "spec" and subsequently science couldn't tell the difference. In that case, both would be equally pre-determined from that point on.
The key point is that science can't tell the difference between a universe created by a random big bang 13.8 billion years ago and one created from a pre-designed state vector 6000 years ago.
If God were to intervene a little more often, would He become a subject of Science? How often would he need to intervene? Once an hour? Once a decade? How often does a volcano need to erupt before you can use science to study its eruptions? How observable does dark matter need to be for science to deign to study it?
Thanks for the gracious response.
I stuck with theism, in order to avoid a specific religious context.
I wasn't claiming that science proves creation. My point was that if you are studying something that was indeed created, then you are by default studying the creator. One cannot claim to be studying Beethoven's Fifth and yet deny that they're studying Beethoven. How much more so can one study laws of physics without, by default and regardless of intent, studying the writer of those laws?
We'll disagree on most of this. My contention was that claiming that "science" should be removed as a topic for this discussion was, IMO, purely subjective and perhaps prejudiced.
By using the term "natural" above, you have already ruled out the supernatural. This is why museums of "natural" history are evolutionary and atheistic. Personally, I do not believe in "nature." There is nothing natural about it.
@stan, it's not about intervention, it's about predetermination. All occurrences, all motions of even the smallest molecules would have to be subject to the predetermined script of a higher power. Then I suppose it could be empirically studied to understand the functioning of said power. Science (aka the hypothesis driven scientific method) requires reproducibility. Its difficult to conclusively model how something works if there is only intermittent influence. If that makes any sense.
@stan precisely, and this is exactly the reason why I state with out pre-determination science can not study "god." I think we are on 100% the same page.
To honor your request, I have removed the science tag, but I think that it is applicable. True science is testable, observable, and repeatable, so DNA testing fits into this category. That which has been termed "historical science" does not actually adhere to the scientific method, yet the assumptions of it are stated as fact in an attempt to dismiss the existence of God.
I agree, the science tag is relevant.
I am completely with you on that, but I am willing to honor the request of another. It may prevent the type of answers that I hoping for, but at least some discussion is going on about this subject.
Thanks, your discussion is one which pertains to religious thoughts. Its a totally fine discussion to have IMO, but it's really not science (just as posts about DNA replication don't belong with a religion tag!). I don't really want to dive into the science vs. religion debate. However I wish you luck on your quest for understanding.
I understand where you are coming from now, and I thank you for your kind response and interaction. I think that "faith" is the matter at hand, not "religion" or "science." If someone does not have faith in God as the Creator, they often will have faith over millions of years new genetic information can spontaneously appear and that in the un-observable past, many things that we do not observe occurring now somehow happened then. I could that view up by stating it as, given enough time, the impossible becomes possible. I originally tagged it in "science" because many from the common mindset in that area would not consider themselves to be religious and therefore not view posts in that tag, though they are still a people of faith. Their faith just happens to be in evolutionism instead of in God. That was where I was coming from. Thanks for the tact in your interaction.
I am a strong believer in respectful interactions with all people until they illustrate through personal attacks that they don't share that view. Thank you also for your maturity and also for sharing your thoughts with me. I always find it interesting to see how other people think, and how their thoughts differ from how I observe things.
It's really subjective.
If God created everything, then all science is the study of God. This was the stance of most scientists until the last century or so. Even Darwin struggled with the fact that his hypotheses could be in opposition to God.
There's no real objective reason to pit science against theism. They would only mutually exclusive if atheists were right.
Well stated. To the atheist, "science" is equivalent with reality and "theism" or "religion" is equivalent with fantasy or make-believe. The two would be polar opposites if their worldview was accurate. Thank you, @anotherjoe.
The concept of "god" can not be empirically proven. Therefore I reject your proposal (all science is the study of "god"), as the scientific method is a means for empirically proving natural observation (for me to accept your proposal it would require you to relinquish the idea of "free will" and us to be working in a universe where all actions are pre-determined by the higher power (IE every molecular movement is scripted and the decisions are made by the higher power, in that world view then the empirical study of natural phenomenon would be the study of "god")).
Its not so much that the two concepts are mutually exclusive as the study of science has nothing at all to do with the concepts of "god." For me (and I think many others) Science is not about proving or disproving theist ideology, but rather purely for explaining naturally observing phenomenon with empirically testable methods.
Note: I use "god" in quotation marks so as not to define my self to specifically the Judaeo-Christian God, but rather any "higher being." As the message remains the same irrespective of the belief system.
@justtryme
I have created many simulations where I worked hard to ensure the outcome was not predetermined. Any universe you can conceive of can have it's total state documented in a (perhaps infinite) state vector "snapshot" at any point in time. A Creator could reconstruct that universe using that snapshot as a "spec" and subsequently science couldn't tell the difference. In that case, both would be equally pre-determined from that point on.
The key point is that science can't tell the difference between a universe created by a random big bang 13.8 billion years ago and one created from a pre-designed state vector 6000 years ago.
If God were to intervene a little more often, would He become a subject of Science? How often would he need to intervene? Once an hour? Once a decade? How often does a volcano need to erupt before you can use science to study its eruptions? How observable does dark matter need to be for science to deign to study it?
Thanks for the gracious response.
I stuck with theism, in order to avoid a specific religious context.
I wasn't claiming that science proves creation. My point was that if you are studying something that was indeed created, then you are by default studying the creator. One cannot claim to be studying Beethoven's Fifth and yet deny that they're studying Beethoven. How much more so can one study laws of physics without, by default and regardless of intent, studying the writer of those laws?
We'll disagree on most of this. My contention was that claiming that "science" should be removed as a topic for this discussion was, IMO, purely subjective and perhaps prejudiced.
By using the term "natural" above, you have already ruled out the supernatural. This is why museums of "natural" history are evolutionary and atheistic. Personally, I do not believe in "nature." There is nothing natural about it.
@stan, it's not about intervention, it's about predetermination. All occurrences, all motions of even the smallest molecules would have to be subject to the predetermined script of a higher power. Then I suppose it could be empirically studied to understand the functioning of said power. Science (aka the hypothesis driven scientific method) requires reproducibility. Its difficult to conclusively model how something works if there is only intermittent influence. If that makes any sense.
@stan precisely, and this is exactly the reason why I state with out pre-determination science can not study "god." I think we are on 100% the same page.
2+2=5 ;)
I that was shared in jest, you have helped illustrate my point. If you are serious, your mind may have already been hunted. ;)
Tis' a mere Steemit tag mismatch according to the other comments. Tis' a mere scratch! I've felt the wrath MUCH worse myself 7000 posts later ;)