Science is Dead:Hawking(Stephen) says and other renowned scientists ag

[alphaparticle]

 

 

Science died when they removed God from it.

I don't think I understand this assertion. How is science 'dead'? And I am not sure how it matters if God is *explicitly* 'in it' or not. It works pretty well at what it is meant to do- understand the workings of the physical universe.

 

 

 

If one doesn't believe that God created and sustains His creation, one can't have a right understanding of science. 

 

For example: If you remove God from creation, you must explain how it (the universe/life) created itself in violation of scientific laws. By attempting to do so, scientific understanding gets convoluted. 

 

It's "dead" science. 

 

Does one have to explicitly acknowledge the role of God as ultimate creator of everything that exists to be a master mechanic? I think it is clear you do not. Likewise, for the *vast majority* of scientific enterprises it is unnecessary for its practitioners to explicitly acknowledge that God is the ultimate foundation of reality. The *vast majority* of scientific inquiry has nothing to do with origins questions at all.

[alphaparticle]

The LORD

 

I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. Isaiah 42:8

 

And Then There Was All The Rest

 

For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Matthew 24:24

 

~

 

As far as the latter half, the field of Car Repair would be intact even if the majority of mechanics were nonbelievers.

 

So why would the field of science (an enormous field to start!) be declared dead because the majority of its practitioners are nonbelievers?

 

The fact that we wouldn't exist without God isn't relevant to this issue.

 

 

Beloved, The Clear Fact That Current Automobile Manuals Are Filled Up With Mechanical Science

 

Them hath he filled with wisdom of heart, to work all manner of work, of the engraver, and of the cunning workman, and of the embroiderer, in blue, and in purple, in scarlet, and in fine linen, and of the weaver, even of them that do any work, and of those that devise cunning work. Exodus 35:35

 

And That Current New Age Science Manuals Are Riddled With Anti-Christ Dogma

 

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Colossians 1:16-17

 

Should Alert The Thinking Man That All 'Knowledge"

 

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

 

Is Neither Science Nor Knowledge

 

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 1 Timothy 6:20

 

This Should Be Reverent

 

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

 

Don't You Think

 

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelations 4:11

 

~

 

Be Blessed Beloved

 

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

 

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

 

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John 1:10-14

 

Love, Joe

 

~

 

PS: Dear One, It Is Very Telling

 

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

 

That The Whole Word Of God Speaks Against Those Dogmas Of Men

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

The same was in the beginning with God.

 

All things were made by him;

 

and without him

 

was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1-3

 

And That

 

But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

 

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

 

For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Romans 10:8-10

 

Without The Biblical Christ

 

Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. 1 Corinthians 12:3

 

His Holy Book Will Judge

 

And if any man hear my words,

 

and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

 

He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him:

 

the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. John 12:47-48

 

Even The Scientist

 

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:

 

Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

 

For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. Ecclesiastes 12:13-14

 

~

 

Beloved, Please Don't Sell Your Birthright

 

Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen. 1 John 5:21

Hey Joe,

 

I think saying that science textbooks are filled with stuff you'd disagree with is inaccurate. If you pick up your standard quantum mechanics textbooks, I very much doubt you'd find anything you'd object to on theological grounds. This is what I mean. There is a hidden assumption on this subforum that science = big bang cosmology, evolution, ignoring what the vast majority of scientific investigation is about in reality. THis thread is an excellent example of this. How could someone with a straight face claim that science is dead based onits lack of explicit acknowledgement as GOd as Creator, as though all of science is intimately about origins questions? That is just one of the many reasons this subforum bothers me so much.

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Science died when they removed God from it.

I don't think I understand this assertion. How is science 'dead'? And I am not sure how it matters if God is *explicitly* 'in it' or not. It works pretty well at what it is meant to do- understand the workings of the physical universe.

 

 

Rationally speaking... if God IS, than is He not in everything already?

He would have to be in any study or thought process.

 

"It" would not work pretty well at what it was meant to do because understanding

any part of the physical universe would have to concede to it's Creator at some

point or other, no?

 

If the majority of car mechanics don't believe in God would that make the Car Repair field 'dead'? I can't see how that would follow!

 

The reality of science is, the vast majority of it does not directly, or even one or two stepped removed, deal with origins questions. The vast majority of it deals with very specific questions about how some physical phenomenon works. Therefore, whether or not the researcher acknowledges God or not in their work doesn't affect how the vast majority of science is actually done at all.

 

(also the above is partially a response to Enoch also... the vast majority of research is done with concerete, specific, particular matters)

 

 

I understand that many (perhaps most) scientific studies don't deal with Origins... however, the OP definitely

implies that to be the thrust of topic.

And while your analogy is poignant it lacks acknowledgement of the vehicle (pardon the pun) that brought

automobiles into being... that being many other scientific endeavors such as physics; particularly gravity, motion

kinetics etc., etc and their affects on mechanics. So while a mechanic need not believe in God, He is the author

of all the sciences that drives (more puns) the industry. No God, no physics, no wrecked vehicles to work on, see? 

 

I don't think the OP makes this distinction. Further, I think the issue is compounded by popular conceptions about science being about these lofty sorts of topics all of the time, when the reality is that is but a very small subset of it.

 

As far as the latter half, the field of Car REpair would be intact even if the majority of mechanics were nonbelievers. So why would the field of science (an enormous field to start!) be declared dead because the majority of its practitioners are nonbelievers? The fact that we wouldn't exist without God isn't relevant to this issue.

 

 

Well, let's try a different tack then... what if we did remove God from car repair?

We'll say "God  no longer exists as of today".

Will cars run tomorrow?

I say no... everything will collapse.

He upholds not only the science/study/research/testing... He is Science.

It would be like asking let's test the Theory of Gravity without mass.

 

Non believers have no effect on sciences other than how it's perceived, but

God being there effects all things.

 

So are you biting the bullet and claiming that if the majority of car mechanics were unbelievers that field would be 'dead'? I just want to be clear what it is you are arguing. Claiming tha if God didn't create anything we wouldn't be here to talk about this is an obvious and I'd say trivial point, so I assume it's not just that.

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

Science died when they removed God from it.

I don't think I understand this assertion. How is science 'dead'? And I am not sure how it matters if God is *explicitly* 'in it' or not. It works pretty well at what it is meant to do- understand the workings of the physical universe.

 

 

 

If one doesn't believe that God created and sustains His creation, one can't have a right understanding of science. 

 

For example: If you remove God from creation, you must explain how it (the universe/life) created itself in violation of scientific laws. By attempting to do so, scientific understanding gets convoluted. 

 

It's "dead" science. 

 

In reading up on this discussion, I can't help but find myself frequently agreeing with alphaparticle (although, we would likely differ on many other issues). Really this seems to be a matter of how one is looking at it. I tend to think of science with a little "s", meaning that it is simply knowledge gained through the scientific method. In this sense, I just don't see how it could ever be considered dead. The process of observation-hypothesis-experiment-results-conclusions-repeat is something all of us use on a continual basis and we will continue to use it until we're dead (or taken). On the other hand, when you look at Science with a capital "S", meaning the formal system of researchers, grants, publications, etc. that are in theory supposed to be using the scientific method to gain knowledge, you can spot fields (like those mentioned previously by Enoch) which have stepped beyond the realm of testable, repeatable, falsifiable science. If you wish to call these fields "dead," by all means, go right ahead. But don't equate them with little "s" science and say that the whole blessed thing is dead.

 

...science will always be utterly powerless and wrong in comprehending, and explaining the physical universe.

I think we all agree that knowledge gained through the use of the scientific method will be limited in comprehending the universe. Does this really mean that it is "utterly powerless and wrong"? If I find through repeated tests that defects in Gene A result in disease X, then probably that relationship is real and true. Does that explain the universe? No. But it will probably help to understand and cure disease X.

Hold the Fort,

Ehud

 

Yes, Ehud, I believe you hit the nail on the head as far as what I am trying to argue.

 

An aside on the topic..

In reality, I think part of the problem is with the scientific establishment. Too often fields like physics try to sell themselves to the public based on speculative and the most 'sexy' seeming sides of it, mutliverse speculations, cosmology, the spookier philosophical implications of certain theories etc. In so doing they do not give the public a very accurate idea about what the vast majority of people who are physicists are actually doing with their time (and here I use physics as an example because I am most familiar with it). Most are doing condensed matter research. This involves studying the properties of of matter in, well, condensed form. They establish the scientific foundation behind advances in stuff that allows, for instance, the rapid improvement of hardware in computers, imaging in medicine, and so on. When I consider some guy studying the properties of graphene, his conclusions will not depend on whether or not he acknowledges God as ultimate Creator of all that exists, and in particular the carbon atoms in his graphene sample.

 

It is bizarre to me that certain self proclaimed spokespersons of the scientific establishment have made religion an issue. It shouldn't be. It doesn't have an effect on whether or not someone is good at chemistry. Likewise, I hope the community of believers doesn't swallow that lie, either.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

Science died when they removed God from it.

I don't think I understand this assertion. How is science 'dead'? And I am not sure how it matters if God is *explicitly* 'in it' or not. It works pretty well at what it is meant to do- understand the workings of the physical universe.

 

 

 

If one doesn't believe that God created and sustains His creation, one can't have a right understanding of science. 

 

For example: If you remove God from creation, you must explain how it (the universe/life) created itself in violation of scientific laws. By attempting to do so, scientific understanding gets convoluted. 

 

It's "dead" science. 

 

Does one have to explicitly acknowledge the role of God as ultimate creator of everything that exists to be a master mechanic? I think it is clear you do not. Likewise, for the *vast majority* of scientific enterprises it is unnecessary for its practitioners to explicitly acknowledge that God is the ultimate foundation of reality. The *vast majority* of scientific inquiry has nothing to do with origins questions at all.

 

Nothing that science does makes sense apart from a creator.   I mean you "do" science and be an atheist.  The problem is that apart from a Creator, science has no explanation for the origin of life or the ultimate origin of the universe everything science proposes has to have a cause and none of those theories make sense apart from an all-knowing and all powerful Creator.   We already know that life cannot derive from non living matter.  Life had to be created.  There has to be an uncaused cause for life to exist.

 

The universe is simply too complex to have simply "happened" apart from a Creator.  It is too designed and ordered for their not to be a Creator. 

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

 

Science died when they removed God from it.

I don't think I understand this assertion. How is science 'dead'? And I am not sure how it matters if God is *explicitly* 'in it' or not. It works pretty well at what it is meant to do- understand the workings of the physical universe.

 

 

 

If one doesn't believe that God created and sustains His creation, one can't have a right understanding of science. 

 

For example: If you remove God from creation, you must explain how it (the universe/life) created itself in violation of scientific laws. By attempting to do so, scientific understanding gets convoluted. 

 

It's "dead" science. 

 

Does one have to explicitly acknowledge the role of God as ultimate creator of everything that exists to be a master mechanic? I think it is clear you do not. Likewise, for the *vast majority* of scientific enterprises it is unnecessary for its practitioners to explicitly acknowledge that God is the ultimate foundation of reality. The *vast majority* of scientific inquiry has nothing to do with origins questions at all.

 

Nothing that science does makes sense apart from a creator.   I mean you "do" science and be an atheist.  The problem is that apart from a Creator, science has no explanation for the origin of life or the ultimate origin of the universe everything science proposes has to have a cause and none of those theories make sense apart from an all-knowing and all powerful Creator.   We already know that life cannot derive from non living matter.  Life had to be created.  There has to be an uncaused cause for life to exist.

 

The universe is simply too complex to have simply "happened" apart from a Creator.  It is too designed and ordered for their not to be a Creator. 

 

I don't believe this commentary addresses what I said. The large majority of science is *not* about origins related issues and in view of that it is very much alive. If you want to discuss evolution and/or the viability of abiogenesis I'm game for that on another thread.

[Guest shiloh357]

I don't believe this commentary addresses what I said. The large majority of science is *not* about origins related issues and in view of that it is very much alive. If you want to discuss evolution and/or the viability of abiogenesis I'm game for that on another thread.

 

I understand that, but the point is that everything in science pertains to the material world whether it's astronomy, chemistry, physics, biology, geology, etc.  None of that makes any sense apart from an intelligent, all wise, all powerful creator.  

 

This is not about evolution.  The problem as I see it, is that science in its purest form should be able to provide an understanding of the scope of God's creation.  Science should be and can be a tool to glorify God.

 

One does not have to explicitly acknowledge the God of the Bible in order to do experiments.  But the order and complexity of our universe really can't be explained adequately apart from God. 

[alphaparticle]

 

I don't believe this commentary addresses what I said. The large majority of science is *not* about origins related issues and in view of that it is very much alive. If you want to discuss evolution and/or the viability of abiogenesis I'm game for that on another thread.

 

I understand that, but the point is that everything in science pertains to the material world whether it's astronomy, chemistry, physics, biology, geology, etc.  None of that makes any sense apart from an intelligent, all wise, all powerful creator.  

 

This is not about evolution.  The problem as I see it, is that science in its purest form should be able to provide an understanding of the scope of God's creation.  Science should be and can be a tool to glorify God.

 

One does not have to explicitly acknowledge the God of the Bible in order to do experiments.  But the order and complexity of our universe really can't be explained adequately apart from God. 

 

I don't disagree with the last sentiment you expressed. Sure, in terms of ultimate understanding, it will be God who is the source of all order, laws, mass energy, spacetime etc.

 

But, whether or not one acknowledges God as the ultimate source of natural order doesn't stop them from making discoveries (which you also seem to acknowledge). People are able to study the natural order even if they don't know where it comes from or why it is there. Insofar as science is about describing natural order though this isn't going to inhibit discovery. It is in view of that latter fact I don't see on what meaningful level the 'life' of science is predicated on whether or not its practitioners on the whole are believers.

[Guest shiloh357]

People are able to study the natural order even if they don't know where it comes from or why it is there. Insofar as science is about describing natural order though this isn't going to inhibit discovery.

 

Yes, and that shows the limitations of science.  Science really depends on God, ultimately.  Science is incomplete without God.  I guess that's point I am making.

 

It is in view of that latter fact I don't see on what meaningful level the 'life' of science is predicated on whether or not its practitioners on the whole are believers.

 

The complexity of our universe can be observed, but not explained adequately apart from God.   The order of everything, the overall uniformity the obvious design structure can't be explained any other way at least not in a way that is intellectually satisfying.

[Bonky]

It seems to me that "God" is simply used as an explanation for that which we can't grasp. What I'm hearing is that conveniently those things that are beyond of our microscopes and our telescopes etc are easily explained by an all powerful/all knowing creator. All the while supposedly this approach is labeled as "more adequate" than the "we don't know" approach.

I mean I get it, it's an attractive method to explain things, but I don't know that it really answers much.