Are God and scientists incompatible?

[oslove]

I am a rational theist.

What is a rational theist? A rational theist according to my self definition as a rational theist is a person who maintains that God can be known with certainty from reason, and I do know God exists for certainty.

What is God for myself? God is the maker of everything in the whole universe of existence, this whole universe of existence includes the physical universe.

If anyone is not sure what I mean by the words I have used and I am using in this post and thread, please just let me know and I will explain to you what I mean.

What is my position on the question "Are God and scientists incompatible?"

My position and I know for certain is that God and scientists are not incompatible, meaning that they are compatible.

What do the scientists here and what do the atheists here say?

And what does everyone else here say?

Oslove

[aquatus1]

Being that one is a belief system and the other a problem-solving system, I don't see any incompatibility. That said, I don't see any compatibility either. God and scientists go together like Santa and toymakers. Just because people choose to make a comparison between the two doesn't make one actually appear.

[+HerNibs]

I think they are able to be as compatible as they want to be.

All of it on paper doesn't present a problem. Seems to become a problem when a belief is forced into science without the actual scientific process taking place or being used appropriately.

I also believe that too many believers tend to take it personally if science causes the text to be re-examined.

One requires faith, one requires facts.

Nibs

[oslove]

Before anything else, would you people contributing to this thread be interested in setting up a working glossary of the terms which you have brought up here, like faith system, facts, belief system, problem-solving system, God, scientists, Santa, toymakers, belief, science, scientific process, believe, believers, science, causes, faith, etc. etc. etc.

I say working glossary, meaning the terms included in such a glossary will be revised as necessary in the process of our discussion, even excluded from the glossary or replaced by other terms as better suited for the discussion.

Oslove

[+HerNibs]

Go for it. It's your thread.

Nibs

[+susieice]

I see no reason why they can't be compatible. There are scientists that admit to a belief in God. What you need is an open mind and the willingness to examine the evidence presented.

[+HerNibs]

fact

  /fækt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fakt] Show IPA

Use fact in a Sentence

–noun

1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.

2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.

3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.

5. Law. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.

faith

Pronunciation:

\ˈfāth\

Function:

noun

Inflected Form(s):

plural faiths Listen to the pronunciation of faiths \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\

Etymology:

Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide

Date:

13th century

1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions

2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

Nibs

[Virtual Particle]

Incompatibility between God and science would exist if science by some means (evidence) presented that God does not exist. The Universe is a big place, much larger then we thought of in the past so the reality of the situation is disproving the existence of God is very complicated. Science works with probabilities like in the case of isolating a new medications, scientist have a chemical. They test them on living subjects and observe the results. Science cannot really disprove God its really is not set up to do that it is designed as a way to understand reality which is much more complicated than we imagined (that seems to keep on happening)

My feeling is that God is also much more complicated than any of us today imagine.

Any thoughts?

[drakonwick]

The universe could be infinite, with infinite possibilities and it still would not change the fact that there is no evidence thus far of an omnipotent entity

creating everything as we know it.

[IamsSon]

I believe God's "nature" places Him outside of the scope of science. Science is necessarily limited to what can be observed through our five senses (aided through mechanical or other means) and fully existing in the universe. God, as creator of the universe, cannot be part of the universe, and therefore, falls outside the bounds of science. The evidence of His interaction with the universe may lie within the scope of science, but not God Himself.

[Paranormalcy]

Categorization is the heart of Man's intellectual response to threats or indeed, any stimulus which our senses apprehend, anything we perceive - we need to place it somewhere, in a logical scheme of organization which allows us to address and examine it from various angles, thus by defining it for ourselves, in our own words and concepts which we ascribe to it or associate it with, we have power over it, we have recreated this thing in our own image of what it is - we think.

Truly, while cosmology and religion and philosophy all have various names and titles and delineations and terminology for every human concept under the sun, none of it is truly "accurate" - an idea can't be pigeonholed like that because it, like us, is dynamic, changing, refining, questioning, so the terms atheist, satanist, wiccan, theist, agnostic, rational, deist, etc. all are each person's personal interpretations or self-classifications of the accepted "common wisdom" of the world, but all are really far more than the sum of two words - the world isn't binary, or even quadr..ary, it too is fluid and dynamic, infinite possibilities and choices and intensities exist.

I can say I'm agnostic, generally meaning I think god might or might not exist, at it's very basic level. Added to that, commonly, is "but I don't think it will ever be possible to truly understand or explain him/her/it/them". From here it branches even further with people who lean toward existence, but don't believe in divine influence on Man at all, or that god is a natural force, misinterpreted by the world's religions, or those who find it unreasonable for god to exist but are not totally close minded to the idea, etc. While we can try to put a tag on these approaches as accurately as we can, we are creating a simple word, abstract to be sure, but simple, to represent an entire life's culmination of mental and spiritual conclusions and beliefs, but still the definitions will vary between people, even people of the *exact* same classification.

Not saying it's wrong to classify, yourself or other things or people, it is how we deal with the world, but that I recognize that I truly cannot wear the moniker of any particular term for my system of living my life, but I'd go with agnostic deism/theism, which to me means I think god is likely to exist but in a form or concept that we are generally unable to recognize or understand or be able to directly address or enjoy all the benefits of.

[Virtual Particle]

The most recent conclusion in relation to the demise of this Universe is in regards a deep freeze where all activity ceases as a result. Without taking into consideration the multiverse and so on what is the probability that in this same exact location we will be having this conversation? In other words another Universe forms with another earth and we are all posting at this forum and everything is basically the same. I am not suggesting that such an event could happen within time scales related to our largest number taken to the power of our largest number. But perhaps if one then multiplied by its equivalent and then to that response and solved for that number, to the power of the same amount (of even preformed the same calculations a million times for good measure). Then in regards to such time scales one can perhaps imagine that possibility and all these numbers have actually little to do, in relation to the time scales relegated to infinity.

Time scales related to infinity are often related to God.

Any thoughts?

[oslove]

I am a rational theist,

meaning a person who holds that God's existence

can be and is known to people by reason.

May I just ask also that everyone posting here place at the top of his message the fact that he is a science enthusiast, an atheist, a theist, or what have you.

In this way readers can know from what predominant background and on what premises you are writing your messages.

If you don't want people here to know what you are, then that is your right, but I will or people will take your resistance to that request into account to evaluate your opinion on this thread accordingly.

Now, if you say that telling people what you are could compromise your social, political, and whatever other possibilities for you in life, then that is the price you have to pay for the worldview you advocate in a democratic society if you live in one.

Because in a democratic society people care to know what are the worldviews of people who care to influence them in any manner, even getting to be in the government.

Oslove

[+HerNibs]

At the top of all of our posts? Don't you think our position would be evident?

*shrug*

Atheist - no evidence of god.

Nibs

[oslove]

I am a rational theist,

meaning a person who holds that God's existence

can be and is known to people by reason.

-------------

fact

  /fækt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fakt] Show IPA

Use fact in a Sentence

–noun

1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.

2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.

3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.

5. Law. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.

faith

Pronunciation:

\ˈfāth\

Function:

noun

Inflected Form(s):

plural faiths Listen to the pronunciation of faiths \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\

Etymology:

Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide

Date:

13th century

1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions

2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

Nibs

May I just ask you to write in your own words which meaning of fact and which meaning of faith you have in your mind and heart within the context of this thread, "Are God and scientists incompatible?"

I usually prefer that people give the definitions of the words they use in their own words; if they cannot do it or do not want to do it, then I will take their incapacity or resistance into account in judging their opinions.

People who refer readers here to some website, please if it is really so important to the development of this thread that the materials in the website should be read by people here, please just report in your own brief words the main thrust of the materials in that website relative to the topic of the thread here, and then just put the link to that website so that people can look it up, if they care to really read for themselves whether you get the main thrust of the writing in that website faithfully or not.

Above everything else, I much prefer that people who write here to use their own thoughts and words, not to repeat other peoples' thoughts and words, because if you do have an opinion then you should be able to expound it in your own words.

But you can allege for your own support links to websites; still if your exposition can make sense and can persuade people, that is enough; no tsunami of references is going to work for you if you can't expound your own thoughts in your own words.

Oslove

[+HerNibs]

I am a rational theist,

meaning a person who holds that God's existence

can be and is known to people by reason.

-------------

May I just ask you to write in your own words which meaning of fact and which meaning of faith you have in your mind and heart within the context of this thread, "Are God and scientists incompatible?"

Did that in my first post.

I usually prefer that people give the definitions of the words they use in their own words; if they cannot do it or do not want to do it, then I will take their incapacity or resistance into account in judging their opinions.

You really need your own forum. You don't get to dictate how things are done in this forum. You seem to have put yourself into a position that some how makes you think you have the ability or right to judge another.

People who refer readers here to some website, please if it is really so important to the development of this thread that the materials in the website should be read by people here, please just report in your own brief words the main thrust of the materials in that website relative to the topic of the thread here, and then just put the link to that website so that people can look it up, if they care to really read for themselves whether you get the main thrust of the writing in that website faithfully or not.

I think your behavior is the most arrogant and nonproductive I have ever seen. *lol* What I linked to is what I think.

Above everything else, I much prefer that people who write here to use their own thoughts and words, not to repeat other peoples' thoughts and words, because if you do have an opinion then you should be able to expound it in your own words.

But you can allege for your own support links to websites; still if your exposition can make sense and can persuade people, that is enough; no tsunami of references is going to work for you if you can't expound your own thoughts in your own words.

You know what? Not that you will care or it matters but I will wait until some UM members who are more interested in discussing the topic show up. I don't have any urge to feed your insecure need for control any longer.

You have fun here.

I'm sure I just gave you all kinds of fun reading false information into my post.

Nibs

[Virtual Particle]

I am really taking a chance here because you know HerNibs and I we never agree on anything Except for today and only, with regards to the issue, specifically of the post presented immediately above this one.

We have enough rules already I mean I got banned once for something I said the last time I was in the forum

Oslove we can engage in conversation but its about the topic as far as the rest this medium is meant for entertainment.

For the sake of all concerned I feel that if a mathematical proof exists that infers the existence of God it should not be ignored.

Any thoughts?

PS: As to how I represent myself in this forum note the sig.

[+HerNibs]

I am really taking a chance here because you know HerNibs and I we never agree on anything Except for today and only, with regards to the issue, specifically of the post presented immediately above this one.

We have enough rules already I mean I got banned once for something I said the last time I was in the forum

Oslove we can engage in conversation but its about the topic as far as the rest this medium is meant for entertainment.

For the sake of all concerned I feel that if a mathematical proof exists that infers the existence of God it should not be ignored.

Any thoughts?

PS: As to how I represent myself in this forum note the sig.

I don't take a disagreement on ideas personally. I try to leave it in the thread. Never any hard feelings.

I agree, if there is mathematical proof it would be great. Even earth shattering.

Nibs

[oslove]

I am a rational theist,

meaning a person who holds that God's existence

can be and is known to people by reason.

-----------------

Dear Nibs, here is your first post in this thread, I don't find any definitions in your own words of what you understand in the context of the present thread topic of the word fact and the word faith.

I think they are able to be as compatible as they want to be.

All of it on paper doesn't present a problem. Seems to become a problem when a belief is forced into science without the actual scientific process taking place or being used appropriately.

I also believe that too many believers tend to take it personally if science causes the text to be re-examined.

One requires faith, one requires facts.

Nibs

Please just give the readers here in your own words your definitions of fact and faith in the context of the present thread topic, "Are God and scientists incompatible?"

If you cannot or will not, I will take your opinions accordingly to reflect your incapacity or resistance to give in your own words your definitions of fact and faith in the context of the present thread topic, etc. etc., etc.

And I am sure careful readers will also take your incapacity and resistance to reflect accordingly, etc. etc. etc.

And please put at the top of your messages the fact that you are an atheist in definitive words categorically, because we don't want you to later say that you are an agnostic, or a deist, or whatever, but not an atheist -- if indeed you are an atheist.

And also give the readers here what exactly is an atheist in the most barebone minimum features of an atheist -- yes, in your own words.

If you cannot be definitively categorical on your being an atheist and what is an atheist in the most minimum constitutive features of being atheist, then I will take that into account, your incapacity or your resistance to declare your being an atheist and also in very brief words what is the most crucial features of being an atheist.

No, I am not wasting time, but I just want to get your thoughts in a definitively categorical statement to the effect that you are an atheist, etc., etc., etc.

Why? because a lot of unnecessary investment of time and labor will be avoided if people will think carefully and say definitively what they are and what they mean by what they are.

Oslove

[Virtual Particle]

God as defined is supernatural he is above nature we barely understand nature, so first scientist would have to understand nature in its entirety then attempt to go beyond.

I have always Worked better with a large diversity of ideas HerNibs makes more sense that way.

Any thoughts?

Edited July 31, 2009 by Triad

[+HerNibs]

God as defined is supernatural he is above nature we barely understand nature, so first scientist would have to understand nature in its entirety then attempt to go beyond.

Ok. I really have no issue with your definition of god. (Other than not having the same belief.) Science works everyday to understand more and more. I have a hard time understanding why some feel that as science gathers evidence that doesn't coincide with a particular religious it some how invalidates the entire belief. I don't have issue with belief systems overall. I have issue with blind, unquestioning faith that doesn't allow any questions or changes. If someday a scientist pops up with "Hey! Here is an atomic particle that is spelling 'made by god' with no outside help. It must be god." that would be cool. Wouldn't change anything about my life other than I would no longer be an atheist. (This is just an example, not a requirement. ) I wouldn't worship anything or change the substance of who I am.

If someday science can explain nature/everything and many believers freak out then I think it would be sad and well...just stupid. It's faith that they should have right? Absolute evidence would negate sfaith. If there was a god, he would have to be outside of everything.

These two things god/science don't fight each other. One is a study of the universe around us and the other (god) is the the belief that there is a thinking, all powerful source for everything around us.

It's only when a belief is challenged do you hear the war cry of "sometimes science is wrong!!!" I think it's a bit hypocritical for unwavering believers to say this especially using a computer, taking medicine, etc.

I have always Worked better with a large diversity of ideas HerNibs makes more sense that way.

I like ideas. I try to have at least four a day.

Nibs

[Virtual Particle]

Infering the existence of God is not the same as proving the existence of God, but in relation to disproving the existence of God, one could potentially engage in the denial of the supernatural.

Controversy

Adherents of supernatural beliefs hold that such occurrences exist just as surely as does the natural world. Opponents argue that there are natural, scientific explanations for what is often perceived as the supernatural. Controversy has surrounded the issue for as long as there have been those who did not believe in the supernatural. One complicating factor is that there is no universal agreement about what the definition of “natural” is, and what the limits of naturalism might be. Concepts in the supernatural domain are closely related to concepts in religious spirituality and occultism or spiritualism. Additionally, by definition anything that exists naturally is not supernatural. The term "supernatural" is often used interchangeably with paranormal or preternatural — the latter typically limited to an adjective for describing abilities which appear to exceed the bounds of possibility (see the nature of God in Western theology, anthropology of religion, and Biblical cosmology). Likewise, legendary characters such as vampires, poltergeists and leprechauns are considered supernatural.

Rest of link

Not trying to harp on science but it cannot be used to deal with any of this, or as a basis to deny any of it

Any thoughts?

Edited July 31, 2009 by Triad

[+HerNibs]

Infering the existence of God is not the same as proving the existence of God, but in relation to disproving the existence of God, one could potentially engage in the denial of the supernatural.

Rest of link

Not trying to harp on science but it cannot be used to deal with any of this.

Any thoughts?

Ok. I have to thing about this. My pain meds are kicking in and I should stop posting so I don't get myself in trouble.

Nibs

[Virtual Particle]

Have you tried the new implants they could mean for you less medication. The electrical ones are kind of like being in those beds in hotels where one puts a coin in and it vibrates. except its going on inside your body and there really is nothing unsafe about it .

Any thoughts?

[+HerNibs]

Have you tried the new implants they could mean for you less medication. The electrical ones are kind of like being in those beds in hotels where one puts a coin in and it vibrates. except its going on inside your body and there really is nothing unsafe about it .

Any thoughts?

Thanks. Its temporrary. I'll be done in about 4 days. If I have to doit again I will ask about that.

Nibs