Can Science see God or acknowledge the possibility of God?

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

Atheists don't have a religious faith to bolster. Superstition and science are opposites. Don't talk to me with your dreary wordplay as if I am a dimwitted prick. I know full well you know what "atheist" means.

@fmf said
Atheists don't have a religious faith to bolster. Superstition and science are opposites. Don't talk to me with your dreary wordplay as if I am a dimwitted prick. I know full well you know what "atheist" means.

Believe it or not Atheist don’t own science, and truth is truth regardless of how you choose to define it.

@moonbus said
"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?

I beg to differ blind spots and limitations are one and the same. Driving a car we have visual limitations which are blind spots. For all we know the most misleading areas could be those scientists believe are on the most solid ground, but due to human limitations we can completely fail to see them for what they are.

Speculation about giving credit to undirected processes and directed ones should looked at with the same skepticism instead of assuming one is more likely true. Biases before concussions could color everything in a light that hides truth.

@moonbus said
"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?

You think probability matters in complicated systems arising from undirected natural processes, that at some point the odds say no? I don’t really think it matters how old the universe and world are. Endless time will not overcome finite resources in limited space, if everything is not there that is required additional years will not add to the possibility of success!

@fmf said
Atheists don't have a religious faith to bolster. Superstition and science are opposites. Don't talk to me with your dreary wordplay as if I am a dimwitted prick. I know full well you know what "atheist" means.

We disagree truth is what matters you can arrive at it through religious notions or scientific notions. If our opinions don’t reflect reality we are outside of truth no matter what route we took to get there.

@kellyjay said
Believe it or not Atheist don’t own science, and truth is truth regardless of how you choose to define it.

Why do you feel the need to commandeer "science" to bolster your superstitions?

@kellyjay said
We disagree truth is what matters you can arrive at it through religious notions or scientific notions. If our opinions don’t reflect reality we are outside of truth no matter what route we took to get there.

Science doesn't support most of what you have faith in ~ and doesn't support your self-authorised "route". So just forget science. Just settle for your religious notions. Just keep referring to your conjecture about supernatural causality as "reality" and "truth". Don't worry about "science".

@fmf said
Science doesn't support most of what you have faith in ~ and doesn't support your self-authorised "route". So just forget science. Just settle for your religious notions. Just keep referring to your conjecture about supernatural causality as "reality" and "truth". Don't worry about "science".

So you acknowledge freely science is blind when it comes to God? God could be
right there in front of you doing things only God could do, and you'd remain just
as blind as ever?

@fmf said
Why do you feel the need to commandeer "science" to bolster your superstitions?

Who are you again, that you can tell other people what they can and cannot do?
What authority do you have?

@kellyjay said
Who are you again, that you can tell other people what they can and cannot do?
What authority do you have?

This is the question you are dodging: Why do you feel the need to commandeer "science" to bolster your superstitions? It makes you sound insecure in your faith.

@kellyjay said
God could be
right there in front of you doing things only God could do, and you'd remain just
as blind as ever?

I don't have the same belief in supernatural causality that you have, if that's what you are getting at. I see no credible reason to believe that a creator being has revealed himself to you. You can call what you perceive "reality", you can call your beliefs "truth", and you can you call me "blind" for not being a member of your religion ~ you can call things however you want.

@kellyjay said
So you acknowledge freely science is blind when it comes to God?

I think disciplines like anthropology and psychology give us insights.

@fmf said
I think disciplines like anthropology and psychology give us insights.

Into what?

@fmf said
I don't have the same belief in supernatural causality that you have, if that's what you are getting at. I see no credible reason to believe that a creator being has revealed himself to you. You can call what you perceive "reality", you can call your beliefs "truth", and you can you call me "blind" for not being a member of your religion ~ you can call things however you want.

I'm not calling you anything, merely asking can anyone through science acknowledge the possibility of God? If it is impossible than there are blind spots there that should be acknowledged. If you can than it isn't science that is the issue.

@kellyjay said
Into what?

Disciplines like anthropology and psychology give valuable insight into why humans feel the need to create Gods.

Taken simply, a cat or a horse doesn't hold a concept of the divine as they lack the required psychology to do so. A human however has the intelligence to look up at the stars and wonder how they got there, combined with the need for an answer. (Preferably one that instils hope and removes fear).