Can Science see God or acknowledge the possibility of God?

@secondson said
God spoke creation into existence. That's how.

No long drawn out scientific explanation necessary.

Magic. Belief in fairies. Got it.

@moonbus said
@creationists

How does a diesel engine work? Air and fuel are pumped into a chamber, a piston moves up reducing the volume inside the chamber, the reduced volume generates pressure working on the air and fuel mixture, increasing pressure increases the temperature of the air and fuel mixture, when the temperature reaches a certain threshold spontaneous combustion occurs, sp ...[text shortened]... t, it just happened. It's not an explanation at all, it is simply a mental terminus: ask no further.

This is only a small part of it, the working parts can be seen and studied,
that ends there, if we didn't know that man built them would we assume that all
the parts just came together and so it could function? Seeing parts that are all
working together forming a system also sparks some discussion, as well as the
various shapes in the parts. All the little things in the engine matter, could the
battery do the job if the posts connecting it to the engine were never there? The
laws of physics and chemistry can explain the function they fall short when it
comes to the creation or the how all these things arise and fall into place. They
fall short when it comes to why things came together to do the things they do,
a creative new piece in a later model would not just occur any more than a new
piece of technology could ever simply be hooked up to your computer and
function without the proper instructions (code) that sees the input of one and the
output of the other than turns them into something useful. New pieces don't
just occur with new forms, new instructions, and the whole piece being able to
share all the right resources of manage the needs of the whole too.

@moonbus said
Magic. Belief in fairies. Got it.

So you agree it isn't that God or proof of God isn't real, its just that science will not
acknowledge Him?

@kellyjay said
So you agree it isn't that God or proof of God isn't real, its just that science will not
acknowledge Him?

Why does it matter to you that you cannot prove the things you have "faith" in to be true using "science"?

@fmf said
Why does it matter to you that you cannot prove the things you have "faith" in to be true using "science"?

Just because something is a matter of faith doesn't make it untrue. Seeing it
acknowledged wouldn't change much anything other than the arguments would
be different. There are people who deny we went to the moon, or that the
holocaust didn't occur, Mason followers thought they were getting directions from
the Beatles White album. The truth should be acknowledged, it does set us free
from lies.

@kellyjay said
So you agree it isn't that God or proof of God isn't real, its just that science will not
acknowledge Him?

Yes.

There are more proofs of God than you can shake a stick at. And just as many refutations of them. But they are not based on empirical evidence (which is the sort of thing science deals with).

Science deals with physical / natural phenomena, not supernatural or metaphysical ones. Science might acknowledge the possibility of some sort of unmoved mover, behind or beyond the big bang, but this need not be an Intelligent Designer with an ethical message for mankind; it could be just another mindless force which happens to be transcendent to this universe, like a match igniting a fire. Science might leave open the possibility of what is called 'the God of the philosophers' (see, for example, Spinoza, who postulated a completely impersonal, non-anthropomorphic made-in-our-image, all-present and all-powerful, necessarily-existing, "substance" ), but, again, there is no evidence for the existence such a thing; that is only speculation.

As soon as you entertain the idea of a personal-salvational God with an ethical intention and a purpose for mankind, you are out of the universe of discourse wherein scientific methods can provide any sort of evidence, either for or against. Science discovers patterns and regularities, not purposes or intentions.

@kellyjay said
This is only a small part of it, the working parts can be seen and studied,
that ends there, if we didn't know that man built them would we assume that all
the parts just came together and so it could function? Seeing parts that are all
working together forming a system also sparks some discussion, as well as the
various shapes in the parts. All the little things in the ...[text shortened]... d the whole piece being able to
share all the right resources of manage the needs of the whole too.

Yes. What's your point? The world is not a machine. A machine was designed; we know this because we designed it. We do not know that the world was designed. Yes, it's complicated, but complication alone is not proof of design.

@kellyjay said
Just because something is a matter of faith doesn't make it untrue. Seeing it
acknowledged wouldn't change much anything other than the arguments would
be different. There are people who deny we went to the moon, or that the
holocaust didn't occur, Mason followers thought they were getting directions from
the Beatles White album. The truth should be acknowledged, it does set us free
from lies.

Yes, yes KellyJay, I know you believe the things you have "faith" in are "true". That wasn't what my question was asking you. This was the question: Why does it matter to you that you cannot prove the things you have "faith" in to be true using "science"? The operative words here are "using science".

@caissad4 said
You probably are referring to the Abrahamic god.
Science has proven your creation story is a fairy tale.
Science has proven the earth is 4.5 billion years old not 6,000 years.
Science has proven Noah's ark story is a fairy tale also.
If there is a god, it is certainly not yours'.

I concur. My comments above regarding a lack of scientific evidence for the existence of God notwithstanding, there are other issues about which science has something quite definite to say, not merely "lack of evidence."

For example, science takes issue with a number of details in the Book of Genesis and can render a quite definite judgment about the truth or falsity of some of those statements.

There is massively coherent evidence that the Earth is much older than a few thousand years. There is massively coherent evidence that all life forms did not appear on the planet at the same time, give or take a day. Irrespective of how life got started in the 1st place, there is massively coherent evidence that bacteria and giraffes did not appear on the planet at the same time, give or take a day. There is massively coherent evidence that not all of the people on the planet today are descended from Noah (a Semite) and his immediate family. There is massively coherent evidence that there was not a mass-extinction event due to a worldwide flood about 4000 years ago. There is massively coherent evidence that not all of the species on the planet today would have fit into a single boat, with enough food and water to feed them until the alleged floodwaters receded many months later. There is massively coherent evidence that lions were not vegetarians before the flood, and that the lions would've eaten all of the antelopes and zebras immediately upon the debarking the Ark, so there wouldn't be any antelopes or zebras today if the story of Noah and the flood were literally factually true. These are not metaphysical speculations beyond any possibility of empirical testing or falsifiability; these are matters which have been studied and confirmed by means of geology, genetics, biology, botany, physics, astronomy, etc. etc. etc. These are hard sciences, not mere speculation.

The Book of Genesis therefore cannot be read as literal, historical, factual, truth.

This does not rule out the possibility that some God (or mindless unmoved mover) created the primitive embryonic universe, allegorically at some time in the very remote past, but it does rule out the claim that God created the world and the rest of the cosmos and all life fully- formed about 6000 years ago over a period of six days of 24 hours each.

@moonbus said
Yes.

There are more proofs of God than you can shake a stick at. And just as many refutations of them. But they are not based on empirical evidence (which is the sort of thing science deals with).

Science deals with physical / natural phenomena, not supernatural or metaphysical ones. Science might acknowledge the possibility of some sort of unmoved mover, behind ...[text shortened]... nce, either for or against. Science discovers patterns and regularities, not purposes or intentions.

So, science has blind spots so if it is “the foundation” it follows those that find all truth there have setup themselves with blinders? No one is suggesting study a miracle; however, if probability suggests an unguided naturally occurring process is incapable of doing something, should it follow something else had to do it?

I know that people have looked at the good variations possible in living cells and compare them to the bad. I would have to look it up but the numbers are astronomical. Incase I not being clear think in the game of scrabble of all possible correct 7 letter words compared to all possible misspelled words using 7 letters. Going wrong is easier!

@KellyJay

Can Science see God or acknowledge the possibility of God?
Are these questions beyond the scope of science?
Can we know all there is only using science?

Science can see where Intelligent Design is the best explanation to something.

Revolutionary: Michael Behe and the Mystery of Molecular Machines
YouTube

@fmf said
Yes, yes KellyJay, I know you believe the things you have "faith" in are "true". That wasn't what my question was asking you. This was the question: Why does it matter to you that you cannot prove the things you have "faith" in to be true using "science"? The operative words here are "using science".

I don't believe I have to offer you a reason, science isn't limited to Atheist, unless
you think that is true, do you?

@kellyjay said
I don't believe I have to offer you a reason, science isn't limited to Atheist, unless
you think that is true, do you?

Well then, if you aren't trying to co-opt "science" to bolster your "faith", what are you on about on this thread and the "movement to atheism" thread?

@kellyjay said
So, science has blind spots so if it is “the foundation” it follows those that find all truth there have setup themselves with blinders? No one is suggesting study a miracle; however, if probability suggests an unguided naturally occurring process is incapable of doing something, should it follow something else had to do it?

I know that people have looked at the good var ...[text shortened]... ect 7 letter words compared to all possible misspelled words using 7 letters. Going wrong is easier!

"Blind spots" is misleading, at best. Science has limits. So long as we are aware of those limits and do not try to overstep them, for example by speculating on matters for which evidence is lacking, we are on safe ground. I can't make out what the rest of your 1st paragraph means though.

The genetic code is complicated; any numbers pertaining to genetic combinations are bound to be "astronomical." Is there a point to be made there?

@fmf said
Well then, if you aren't trying to co-opt "science" to bolster your "faith", what are you on about on this thread and the "movement to atheism" thread?

Atheist don’t? It is a seeking of truth nothing more.