StillLooking Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Thanks for your input BAA and SL. Look, I'll admit I'm having just a wee bit of fun with this, but I'm still being serious. What if there is a God of some sort in the universe that is a natural part of the universe just as we are and as dark matter is? Why couldn't scientists ask this question and then go looking? Why would that automatically be "not science"? What if this "God" is just as natural as anything else? Doesn't it seem that a wall between what science considers natural and supernatural is arbitrary and self limiting? If there is a supernatural component to the universe, then it must be a natural phenomena. What if the supernatural is natural? How would science ever know if it doesn't ask? Dude, If you're conflating God with the natural universe, then you're heading in the direction of Deism, Pantheism or even Panentheism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism I'm going out on a limb here, but it seems to me that the main reason why scientists don't trouble themselves with the kind of questions you mention is one of simple practicality. If God is indistinguishable from the natural universe, then no amount of questions or tests or experiments or observations will ever reveal his/her/it's presence. So why bother? So science has limits? Seems odd. Yes of course. Science is limited only to matter that can be tested via scientific method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Everybody, I should say before I go any further that I'm not wandering off towards Pantheism or any other ism. Like I said, I'm serious, but I'm also having a wee bit of fun with this. It helps me pick up on some of the nuances regarding science and debating. If I'm clogging up the thread unnecessarily, please forgive me. I was only joking when i said "going into pantheist territory." You're not clogging up anything. It's good to ask questions. You're still man dude. The good news is that we're all getting an education from BAA, and it's free of charge. Thanks BAA. And from StillLooking, Alien! Kudos to her too. Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 We can't rule out asking questions that are "not in the remit" of science because we don't have a true handle on what is natural/observable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 We can't rule out asking questions that are "not in the remit" of science because we don't have a true handle on what is natural/observable. Correct. Questions that do fall within the remit of science can be called scientific questions. Questions that don't fall within the remit of science aren't called scientific questions. Other disciplines ask religious, theological, philosophical or metaphysical questions. Keeping these disciplines separate is how personal bias is kept out of science's remit. . . . Changing science's remit on the basis of not knowing what is natural is putting the chicken before the egg. You first have to establish how you are going to observe the natural, before you can discover what is observable and what isn't Until you first have this 'how you are going to it', you cannot go ahead and make disciplined observations. The 'how' that has historically shown itself best able to perform these disciplined observations is science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 You first have to establish how you are going to observe the natural, before you can discover what is observable and what isn't Until you first have this 'how you are going to it', you cannot go ahead and make disciplined observations. The 'how' that has historically shown itself best able to perform these disciplined observations is science. I'm listening, but I don't see how there are not instances where scientists suspect a "what" before they choose a "how". I don't think the what is a result strictly by the discipline via the how. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 You first have to establish how you are going to observe the natural, before you can discover what is observable and what isn't Until you first have this 'how you are going to it', you cannot go ahead and make disciplined observations. The 'how' that has historically shown itself best able to perform these disciplined observations is science. I'm listening, but I don't see how there are not instances where scientists suspect a "what" before they choose a "how". I don't think the what is a result strictly by the discipline via the how. Of course scientists suspect a "what", End. That's why they're scientists. They are strongly motivated to find out just what these "whats" are. They have an insatiable hunger to seek and to discover and to know. But that hunger to know on it's own isn't enough. An illiterate man who wants answers must discipline himself in order to learn how to read. Otherwise he'll remain trapped in his own ignorance. The same principle applies to scientists. They can't find out the answers to their questions on their own terms. They have to discipline themselves and learn how to do science properly. Which is why they must commit themselves fully to the discipline of science. They give up wanting the answers on their own terms and use science to find the answers on it's terms. They commit to something bigger and better than themselves. To a proven system for discovering real answers about reality. . . . Now, before we go any further End, I need to ask you two key questions. 1. Do you understand why science can't be done on anything other than it's own terms? 2. Can you list some of the reasons why this is? . . . These two questions are mega-important and get right to the heart of this issue! So please do them justice. Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Of course scientists suspect a "what", End. BAA, I was never questioning the methods used. I was simply stating there might be a "what", i.e. God, out there because of the similar characteristics of the Moses vs. ICP theory. I have no problem recognizing the discipline(s) involved. Thanks, I think we understand each other better at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Of course scientists suspect a "what", End. BAA, I was never questioning the methods used. End, if you have no problem with science's methodology then you'll understand why it cannot address the "what" question you've written below. You should be able to clearly and concisely say why science cannot address such questions. I was simply stating there might be a "what", i.e. God, out there because of the similar characteristics of the Moses vs. ICP theory. I have no problem recognizing the discipline(s) involved. You might recognize them as distinct and separate, but do you really understand why this is so and why it must be so? Recognition and understanding are not the same. Which is why I asked you those two important questions. I need to see your understanding, not your recognition. How you answer them (or fail to do so) will demonstrate the quality (or lack) of your understanding of science's workings and limits. Which is why you should make the effort to answer them... so that your understanding can be seen in a worked example. Thanks, I think we understand each other better at this point. Perhaps. But with all due respect, I'm not going to accept that from you on faith. I'd like you to demonstrate that we understand each other by answering those two questions please. Yes, I know that such requests from me have been flashpoints for you, leading you to get angry very quickly. But you have the power and the opportunity in your hands right now to be rise above such behavior and to be better than that. Will you please do those two questions justice? Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 . . . But now let me ask you this. Why does it seem odd to you for science to have limits? Thanks, BAA. I understand science has its limits. What I was after is should scientists limit themselves by what they ask. I'm not being the most clear I guess. Thank you all for your answers. It's one of those little things that have nagging at me in the corner of my mind for a long time, and I thought this would be a good time to put it to rest. I think a lot of it has been answered through your answers here (and reading the links from Ficino's new thread about the deconverted professor to some extent). I wonder if I'm also mixing "the scientific method" with philosophical questions. I don't take any offence at what you said, BAA. I'm known for tripping over the obvious from time to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Of course scientists suspect a "what", End. BAA, I was never questioning the methods used. I was simply stating there might be a "what", i.e. God, out there because of the similar characteristics of the Moses vs. ICP theory. I have no problem recognizing the discipline(s) involved. Thanks, I think we understand each other better at this point. End, I obviously don't know much about science, its methods and etc. but I want to thank you too because some of your posts run along the same lines of thought as I've had. I do know enough though to know this... IF there is a "God", Intelligent Designer, creator, aliens that made this all happen, or whatever, it isn't Biblegod. We know because we have the Bible vs. everything we do know in history, geography, cosmology and so on. The Bible is grossly inaccurate in too many ways for it to be worth anything besides interesting ancient literature. IF it's humanly possible to find out what caused everything to begin, or even if everything 'began', science will eventually find the answer, because it looks for what makes things tick. It looks for explanations. Dang. I think I just answered my own question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 I understand science has its limits. What I was after is should scientists limit themselves by what they ask. I'm not being the most clear I guess. I was going to let this thread drop but then I feel compelled to answer this question / statement. Regardless of what duderonomy intended, the statement implies scientists are close minded so they don't want to consider other alternatives that don't align with their thoughts. I want to make clear that it isn't true. Scientists constantly look for new perspectives from available evidence and also constantly search for new evidence. This is why scientists pour over journals, even those that are not in their field in order to understand current research and find new ideas. Are there scientists with close mind? Of course but they would not stay relevant for long. Scientists have to follow scientific methods in doing research, otherwise it won't be science anymore. I will give an analogy. When we play soccer there is a rule of not using hands except for the goal keeper. Once we allow players to use their hands then it is not soccer anymore. It is the same with science. Once we let personal experience or we say God causes something, which both of course are not falsifiable, then it is not science anymore. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 I understand science has its limits. What I was after is should scientists limit themselves by what they ask. I'm not being the most clear I guess. I was going to let this thread drop but then I feel compelled to answer this question / statement. Regardless of what duderonomy intended, the statement implies scientists are close minded so they don't want to consider other alternatives that don't align with their thoughts. I want to make clear that it isn't true. Scientists constantly look for new perspectives from available evidence and also constantly search for new evidence. This is why scientists pour over journals, even those that are not in their field in order to understand current research and find new ideas. Are there scientists with close mind? Of course but they would not stay relevant for long. Scientists have to follow scientific methods in doing research, otherwise it won't be science anymore. I will give an analogy. When we play soccer there is a rule of not using hands except for the goal keeper. Once we allow players to use their hands then it is not soccer anymore. It is the same with science. Once we let personal experience or we say God causes something, which both of course are not falsifiable, then it is not science anymore. SL, your entire premise was you CAN'T conflate ideas.....and now this? Good heavens, we wouldn't want to do something so tragic as violate a definition. Good god ma'am. The definition of God will ALWAYS be something outside of our understanding. This does not mean that we can't ask questions when we see something that sparks a thought about a potential relationship. There might be something viable that comes from the inquiry.....that then pushes GOD further/outside of that new understanding. Per Florduh's statement a while back in this thread, many things had supernatural explanations....demons, gods, etc. If I were to use your party line for what science can and cannot ask, then we could have NEVER have asked the questions!!! And you can't tell me that science has always had available evidence to support some particular avenue of research before scientists moved forward. You really need to consider your perspective. Pump the brakes....let the thread go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 End3, this afternoon when I read your last few posts I thought you were a bit more rational. Now I know you haven't changed. I can't let a misunderstanding about science go. I don't want lay people have misguided thought about science as you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 End3, this afternoon when I read your last few posts I thought you were a bit more rational. Now I know you haven't changed. I can't let a misunderstanding about science go. I don't want lay people have misguided thought about science as you do. Personally, I think because of your bias an inability to understand the definition of supernatural, you, as a scientist, would limit what science could do. This IS tragic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Don't you think it a little strange that Christianity places Jesus specifically for the express purpose of KNOWING God in light of our conversation? It's very very frustrating trying to have a conversation with you. You seem desperately to need your understanding to be correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 I stand by my comment you haven't changed. I hope you can take off your religion blinder in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 End3, this afternoon when I read your last few posts I thought you were a bit more rational. Now I know you haven't changed. I can't let a misunderstanding about science go. I don't want lay people have misguided thought about science as you do. Personally, I think . . . You think wrong. What you think is false, misguided, incorrect. You make willful ignorance the cornerstone of your world view and run everything else through that as a filter. That is why you get the wrong answer. And this will not improve because you are choosing to be ignorant. I don't say this to insult you. I say it so that lurkers will understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 I stand by my comment you haven't changed. I hope you can take off your religion blinder in the future. I rest my case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Don't you think it a little strange that Christianity places Jesus specifically for the express purpose of KNOWING God in light of our conversation? It's very very frustrating trying to have a conversation with you. You seem desperately to need your understanding to be correct. Lurkers, read this carefully. This is a prime example of why many of us are frustrated with end3. His unwillingness to be rational and logical is on display here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Don't you think it a little strange that Christianity places Jesus specifically for the express purpose of KNOWING God in light of our conversation? It's very very frustrating trying to have a conversation with you. You seem desperately to need your understanding to be correct. Lurkers, read this carefully. This is a prime example of why many of us are frustrated with end3. His unwillingness to be rational and logical is on display here. There is nothing irrational about this. Both science and Jesus have "knowing" in common. Both have a method involved regarding "knowing", but the scientist asks "is there a connection". Truthfully, science isn't even in the ballpark when it comes to answering this question. They can't even SEE the ballpark from where the bus is now. Again, the problem is you probably have made a god of science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Would like someone here to actually discuss the questions I have asked. What is the scientific definition of rational. The definition of logic uses the word "reasoning" You know, connections, relationships. Oh, end, like the "knowing" aspect of both Jesus and science? Yeah, that relationship I saw through reasoning. Jesus, I digress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Don't you think it a little strange that Christianity places Jesus specifically for the express purpose of KNOWING God in light of our conversation? It's very very frustrating trying to have a conversation with you. You seem desperately to need your understanding to be correct. Lurkers, read this carefully. This is a prime example of why many of us are frustrated with end3. His unwillingness to be rational and logical is on display here. There is nothing irrational about this. Both science and Jesus have "knowing" in common. Both have a method involved regarding "knowing", but the scientist asks "is there a connection". Truthfully, science isn't even in the ballpark when it comes to answering this question. They can't even SEE the ballpark from where the bus is now. Again, the problem is you probably have made a god of science. Both science and Jesus have "knowing" in common. Irrational! Both have a method involved regarding "knowing". Irrational! Truthfully, science isn't even in the ballpark . . . can't even SEE the ballpark . . . Irrational! Irrational! Irrational! Again, the problem is you probably have made a god of science. Irrational! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Don't you think it a little strange that Christianity places Jesus specifically for the express purpose of KNOWING God in light of our conversation? It's very very frustrating trying to have a conversation with you. You seem desperately to need your understanding to be correct. Lurkers, read this carefully. This is a prime example of why many of us are frustrated with end3. His unwillingness to be rational and logical is on display here. There is nothing irrational about this. Both science and Jesus have "knowing" in common. Both have a method involved regarding "knowing", but the scientist asks "is there a connection". Truthfully, science isn't even in the ballpark when it comes to answering this question. They can't even SEE the ballpark from where the bus is now. Again, the problem is you probably have made a god of science. Both science and Jesus have "knowing" in common. Irrational! Both have a method involved regarding "knowing". Irrational! Truthfully, science isn't even in the ballpark . . . can't even SEE the ballpark . . . Irrational! Irrational! Irrational! Again, the problem is you probably have made a god of science. Irrational! Don't just spout irrational, give your reasoning. That's all I ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rational : based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings : having the ability to reason or think about things clearly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rational : based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings : having the ability to reason or think about things clearly Jesus, define "reason", define "clearly". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts