science supports God's existence

[jerryR34]

 

 

 

 

"We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture"

Hannes Alfven PhD, Noble Prize Physics 1970

 

 

 Contact with experiments...that is the problem I have with trying to in inject any gods into science.  Can you name any science experiment that has contact with God?  We can do science while leaving God out of the experiment.  I'm pretty sure he won't mind.  Can you, Enoch, do a science experiment using the scientific method of observation of nature that proves the God of the Bible to someone who does not know the Bible?

 

 

 

==============================================================================

 

Contact with experiments...that is the problem I have with trying to in inject any gods into science

 

There is only "ONE" CREATOR.  Two or More is Logical Absurdity...just by definition of "CREATOR".

 

Can you name any science experiment that has contact with God?

 

Not off the Top of my Head.  Historical Science...that's a different story

 

 

Can you, Enoch, do a science experiment using the scientific method of observation of nature that proves the God of the Bible to someone who does not know the Bible?

 

No, Impossible.  Can't get by Step 1:  Observe a Phenomenon.  The only way that can be done is for HIM to manifest HIMSELF, AGAIN.  Unfortunately, the next time HE does that...HE'S gonna be a bit BUSY, IMHO.

 

More importantly, There are other techniques employed to ascertain TRUTH besides the Scientific Method:  Intellect (Logic, Deductive/Inductive Reasoning, Critical Thinking/Problem Solving, and good ole fashioned Common Sense).  Combine these with Sound "Scientific Principles"....it's a pretty powerful combination.

 

As I said in the past, two very simple Proofs for Empirical Minded Folks are:  Prophecy and "Specific Complexity"

 

Very forthright and honest replies - thanks.

 

I think a turning point in my life is when I started going to a Baptist church (I was raised Catholic) and their Church charter said they took the Bible literally which meant that they believed the earth was ~6K years old.  I Googled "scientific proof of God", and the first article I read was that we need to "redefine" science to mean what it meant 300+ years ago (which you seem to espouse) instead of the scientific observation of today that has helped us understand our universe – immediate red flags..

 

I went to a couple "science" lectures put on by the church with my oldest daughter, and they brought in people to try to convince the youth to believe that "scientifically" the earth is 6-10k years old.  I saw my daughter's once bright interest in science wane...one of the saddest periods of my life.  She did not feel allowed to believe in God and believe her own eyes - the cognitive dissonance was palpable.    Science is not about philosophy and logic anymore.  We are turning off some of our brightest minds to science because in certain areas they are not allowed to believe what observation tells us.  They should know there is the natural world that is observed by science, and the spiritual world that is faith.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

===========================================================================

 

(I was raised Catholic)

 

I also

 

 

I went to a couple "science" lectures put on by the church with my oldest daughter, and they brought in people to try to convince the youth to believe that "scientifically" the earth is 6-10k years old.  I saw my daughter's once bright interest in science wane...one of the saddest periods of my life

 

That's not all that surprising.  Depending on your daughter ages, she was INUNDATED from diapers from every conceivable direction that the Earth is Old. Then seeing "evidence" to the contrary and the feelings associated with that, is ripe and a Textbook definition of Cognitive Dissonance....and subsequent issues.

 

believe her own eyes........they are not allowed to believe what observation tells us.

 

Not following?  What from her "Own Eyes" would leave her to believe of an Old Earth?

 

You're equivocating Observation (of something??) with the Scientific Method.  I'm gonna turned this back on you Jerry.  There is not ONE SCIENTIFIC Experiment that proves an OLD Earth.  Name ONE that gets by STEP: 1 of the Scientific Method?

 

They should know there is the natural world that is observed by science, and the spiritual world that is faith

 

 

as I've said to you many times......Science is on a quest for Knowledge (Only through) natural processes.   It's an Oxymoron.  Knowledge by definition is Supernatural.

 

It's tantamount to trying to discover what we breathe...... but, "a priori" excluding AIR from the choices....and breathing it all while refusing to acknowledge its Existence!!!!!

 

Biblical Faith is not some Whimsical Term that is drenched in a cloak of Spiritual smoke and mirrors. 

 

(Hebrews 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

 

Just because it may be unseen doesn't mean it's not TRUTH or Real?  For example....

 

You're walking down a country road nobody around for miles and you come across a BMW. "MOST" intuitively know that nature didn't create the car there had to be an Engineer (Designer). Even though you will most likely never see the (Designer)....you know HE'S out there.

 

Kapish?

[jerryR34]

 

 

as I've said to you many times......Science is on a quest for Knowledge (Only through) natural processes.   It's an Oxymoron.  Knowledge by definition is Supernatural.

 

...and, I have disagreed often  Science is the quest for knowledge by natural means only.  Injecting God into it makes it something else, and does not advance science at all.  Can you tell me how adding God to molecular biology, physics, electrical theory, gravitational theory, etc advances those fields at all?  What is your view of Occam's razor?

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

as I've said to you many times......Science is on a quest for Knowledge (Only through) natural processes.   It's an Oxymoron.  Knowledge by definition is Supernatural.

 

...and, I have disagreed often  Science is the quest for knowledge by natural means only.  Injecting God into it makes it something else, and does not advance science at all.  Can you tell me how adding God to molecular biology, physics, electrical theory, gravitational theory, etc advances those fields at all?  What is your view of Occam's razor?

 

 

 

=====================================================================

 

 

...and, I have disagreed often  Science is the quest for knowledge by natural means only.

 

How can you disagree when this is exactly what I said....

 

"Science is on a quest for Knowledge (Only through) natural processes."

 

??

 

Injecting God into it makes it something else, and does not advance science at all

 

Please review then comment on my "air" example

 

 

tell me how adding God to molecular biology, physics, electrical theory, gravitational theory, etc advances those fields at all?

 

It's not a matter of Injecting......  HE'S THE ANTECEDENT or CAUSE.  Without HIM you have none of those.

 

 

What is your view of Occam's razor?

 

Look @ Kinesin.....

 

 

Yes, it's Walking.  Are you saying Nature is the most obvious answer?? 

[jerryR34]

 

 

 

...and, I have disagreed often  Science is the quest for knowledge by natural means only.

 

How can you disagree when this is exactly what I said....

 

"Science is on a quest for Knowledge (Only through) natural processes."

 

??

 

Read closely... there is a not-so-subtle difference.  You said "science is ON a quest"...I sad "Science IS a quest".  You are trying to describe what, for lack of a better word, an entity is doing, while I am describing what that entity is.  Science IS the quest.  It's like saying a wrench is on a quest to loosen a bolt instead of saying the wrench is used to loosen the bolt.

Edited March 10, 2014 by jerryR34

[Enoch2021]

Read closely... there is a subtle difference.  You said "science is ON a quest"...I sad "Science IS a quest".  You are trying do describe what, for lack of a better word, an entity is doing, while I am describing what that entity is.  Science IS the quest.

 

 

===================================================================================================

 

No there is no difference Jerry.  Science is a concept or a descriptor we give to a Concept...Science doesn't "DO" anything....it's a Fallacy: Reification.

[jerryR34]

 

 

You're equivocating Observation (of something??) with the Scientific Method.  I'm gonna turned this back on you Jerry.  There is not ONE SCIENTIFIC Experiment that proves an OLD Earth.  Name ONE that gets by STEP: 1 of the Scientific Method?

 

There have been several ways to determine the age of the earth, and they generally support each other.  I think, however, asking for ONE as you did is moot, because you have a blanket statement that you think refutes them all as unscientific via the scientific method.  So, let's cut to the chase.  Why would none of the current theories pass muster for step 1?

[jerryR34]

 

Read closely... there is a subtle difference.  You said "science is ON a quest"...I sad "Science IS a quest".  You are trying do describe what, for lack of a better word, an entity is doing, while I am describing what that entity is.  Science IS the quest.

 

 

===================================================================================================

 

No there is no difference Jerry.  Science is a concept or a descriptor we give to a Concept...Science doesn't "DO" anything....it's a Fallacy: Reification.

 

I agree 100%, science does not do anything.  The scientific method is a tool to ascertain knowledge from the natural world...period.  Adding God makes the the knowledge gained not scientific anymore.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

You're equivocating Observation (of something??) with the Scientific Method.  I'm gonna turned this back on you Jerry.  There is not ONE SCIENTIFIC Experiment that proves an OLD Earth.  Name ONE that gets by STEP: 1 of the Scientific Method?

 

There have been several ways to determine the age of the earth, and they generally support each other.  I think, however, asking for ONE as you did is moot, because you have a blanket statement that you think refutes them all as unscientific via the scientific method.  So, let's cut to the chase.  Why would none of the current theories pass muster for step 1?

 

 

 

=================================================================================

 

There have been several ways to determine the age of the earth, and they generally support each other.

 

Each of those "ways" are outside the Scientific Method....by Definition.  And we don't do "Generally" in Science

 

I think, however, asking for ONE as you did is moot, because you have a blanket statement that you think refutes them all as unscientific via the scientific method

 

 

It's not that I think....it's I know....and I can support it.  It's real Simple, take anyone of your "Dating Methods" and place it in the "Scientific Method" and show me otherwise.

 

 

Why would none of the current theories pass muster for step 1?

 

Well Step 1 is Observe a Phenomenon......not just OBSERVE.  So for instance, "Radiometric Dating".  All You OBSERVE is a Rock....no Phenomenon.

 

So you're dead in the Water.  You could skip Step 1, this is what it would look like:

 

Step 1:  Skip

 

Step 2:  Background Research/Lit Review:   "there are Rocks"

 

Step 2:  Hypothesis:  "Is this a Rock?"

 

Step 3:  Experiment:   "this acts like Rock"

 

Step 4: Analyze Data:  "Yep, it's a Rock"

 

Step 5:  Report Results:  "We found more Rocks!!"

 

 

Good?

[jerryR34]

 

 

Why would none of the current theories pass muster for step 1?

 

Well Step 1 is Observe a Phenomenon......not just OBSERVE.  So for instance, "Radiometric Dating".  All You OBSERVE is a Rock....no Phenomenon.

 

So you're dead in the Water.  You could skip Step 1, this is what it would look like:

 

Step 1:  Skip

 

Step 2:  Background Research/Lit Review:   "there are Rocks"

 

Step 2:  Hypothesis:  "Is this a Rock?"

 

Step 3:  Experiment:   "this acts like Rock"

 

Step 4: Analyze Data:  "Yep, it's a Rock"

 

Step 5:  Report Results:  "We found more Rocks!!"

 

 

Good?

 

No, its not "Good".  It's an appeal to ridicule.  You seem to be referencing radiometric dating.  Step 1 would be to observewhat the acutal decay of the isotopes is.  Now, that known, tell me about step 2.