Are God and scientists incompatible?

[oslove]

I am a rational theist,

meaning a person who holds that God's existence

can be and is known to people by reason.*

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

[...]

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.

[...]

Nibs

That is not exactly what I would consider a scientifically correct statement.

Do you see anything wrong with it?

You get things mixed up pretty badly.

Suppose you are a teacher of correct exposition, what is wrong with your text in the quoted excerpt?

Oslove

*I am going to repeat that preamble at the beginning of every post I write in this thread, if you get annoyed I can understand that, just be patient because I just want anyone new and old even to be informed or reminded that

I am a rational theist,

meaning a person who holds that God's existence

can be and is known to people by reason.*

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

So that everyone posters and readers of this thread will not be in doubt about the identity of yours truly in regard to knowing God's existence or denying God's existence, and thus the premises of my thoughts.

[Virtual Particle]

HerNibs those are for chronic pain and I recommend then if ever or whenever a doctor prescribes codeine, morphine or above, for long term use.

Science cannot be incompatible with God because science has nothing to do with it. There would have to be developed some new and improved science (Or "Science the Next Generation"), that can prove they know everything about the Universe in order for the investigation into the supernatural can begin.

With out this new and improved science, one cannot apply modern science in any way towards the goal of proving God.

Any thoughts?

PS: Science is very important but it is in its infancy.

Edited July 31, 2009 by Triad

[oslove]

I am a rational theist,

meaning a person who holds that God's existence

can be and is known to people by reason.*

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

QUOTE (HerNibs @ Jul 31 2009, 10:44 AM)

[...]

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.

[...]

Nibs

That is not exactly what I would consider a scientifically correct statement.

Do you see anything wrong with it?

You get things mixed up pretty badly.

Suppose you are a teacher of correct exposition, what is wrong with your text in the quoted excerpt?

Oslove

[...]

Nibs, you appear to be an enthusiast of science, are you a scientist also; because a person can be an enthusiast of science but not a scientist.

For myself an enthusiast of science can be very unscientific in writing his messages.

Take the excerpt from your earlier post reproduced above, do you even just notice that the topic of this thread is "Are God and scientists incompatible?"

You are instead into God and science whether they are incompatible; that is not the topic of the thread; for missing the topic of the thread you have not been scientific in reading carefully the title of this thread.

Another example of your not being scientific is in saying things which are not true because I presume you did not take the care to check on what you were going to say before saying it, or checked afterwards and correct your words once someone pointed out to you that you were mistaken with your own words.

I refer to your earlier post #16 where you said that you had defined in your very first post in this thread what is fact and what is faith in your own words.

I looked up your very first post here, and as I informed you earlier in my post, #19, no, you never gave any definitions of the words fact and faith in your own words.

Here is again your very first post in this thread, read it below and tell me whether there is any definition at all (much less in your own words) of fact and faith.

QUOTE (HerNibs_post #3 @ Jul 30 2009, 02:16 AM)

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

What are you? a science enthusiast but not accustomed to write carefully and faithfully to be truthful to your previous statements?

That kind of a careless habit of mind is not at all scientific.

Oslove

[oslove]

[...]

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.

Dear Triad:

I am not into proving the existence of God, but into an inquiry whether God and scientists are incompatible. See the title of this thread, it reads "Are God and scientists incompatible?"

What do you say about the title and topic of the thread?

Oslove

[Mattshark]

Dear Triad:

I am not into proving the existence of God, but into an inquiry whether God and scientists are incompatible. See the title of this thread, it reads "Are God and scientists incompatible?"

What do you say about the title and topic of the thread?

Oslove

They are perfectly compatible as long ad you do not let belief affect your work as a scientist.

[oslove]

They are perfectly compatible as long ad you do not let belief affect your work as a scientist.

Suppose you give some beliefs about God that affect your work as a scientist.

Oslove

[Mattshark]

Suppose you give some beliefs about God that affect your work as a scientist.

Oslove

Then you are not a scientist any more you are a pseudo-scientist and your lack of judgement would be terminal to your reputation and career.

[+HerNibs]

HerNibs those are for chronic pain and I recommend then if ever or whenever a doctor prescribes codeine, morphine or above, for long term use.

Science cannot be incompatible with God because science has nothing to do with it. There would have to be developed some new and improved science (Or "Science the Next Generation"), that can prove they know everything about the Universe in order for the investigation into the supernatural can begin.

With out this new and improved science, one cannot apply modern science in any way towards the goal of proving God.

Any thoughts?

PS: Science is very important but it is in its infancy.

Triad,

I think the amazing has happened. I agree with you. The two are NOT incompatible. I think it may be some of the followers that are incompatible.

Nibs

______________________________________

I'm only on the meds short term.

Nibs

[oslove]

Triad,

I think the amazing has happened. I agree with you. The two are NOT incompatible. I think it may be some of the followers that are incompatible.

Nibs

______________________________________

I'm only on the meds short term.

Nibs

Nibs, the thread topic is an inquiry on "Are God and scientists incompatible?"

Right from the start of my acquaintance with you, you have shown yourself to be a careless thinker, no system whatever, neither discipline.

Now, suppose you just tell me what is your concept of God, and what is your concept of a scientist, and then examine to discern whether the concepts, your concepts of God as of a scientist are incompatible or compatible.

And don't go to any published reference works again to bring up their definitions of God and scientist.

If you can't think up and verbalize in your own words what to you is your concept of God and your concept of a scientist, please excuse yourself from this thread, to save the time and effort of readers and the forum's bandwidth.

Oslove

[beale947]

My concept of God is that its not here now, but eventually if our race last long enough, we will evolve into beings that we could class as gods. Something like the human race subliming, a few billion years down the line, and it will be more of a communal entity. Or if these artifical brains work, we all download into a giant super computer (here comes AM!!!)

I class myself as a scientist and a skeptic and the two are not incompatible, mainly because if the 'scientist' lets his religion or belief in god affect how he works/ views science then they are no longer a scientist. So really they are never incompatible ebcause there is no such thing as a scientist who allows his/her beliefes to affect their work.

[oslove]

My concept of God is that its not here now, but eventually if our race last long enough, we will evolve into beings that we could class as gods. Something like the human race subliming, a few billion years down the line, and it will be more of a communal entity. Or if these artifical brains work, we all download into a giant super computer (here comes AM!!!)

I class myself as a scientist and a skeptic and the two are not incompatible, mainly because if the 'scientist' lets his religion or belief in god affect how he works/ views science then they are no longer a scientist. So really they are never incompatible ebcause there is no such thing as a scientist who allows his/her beliefes to affect their work.

Your God is still not around.

Just the same you do have a concept of the God that for you will come around later.

Now just tell readers what is your response to the inquiry "Are God and scientists incompatible?"

Understanding by God that one that for you will come around later whenever.

Here, do it this way:

First, state thus: "The God that for me will come about later whenever and scientists are incompatible (or compatible),

Second, because (and here gives your reasons why, like in this manner 1. 2. 3. 4. ...

So think carefully now and put your response in your own words.

Oslove

Oslove

[Lilly]

Right from the start of my acquaintance with you, you have shown yourself to be a careless thinker, no system whatever, neither discipline.

Now, suppose you just tell me what is your concept of God, and what is your concept of a scientist, and then examine to discern whether the concepts, your concepts of God as of a scientist are incompatible or compatible.

And don't go to any published reference works again to bring up their definitions of God and scientist.

If you can't think up and verbalize in your own words what to you is your concept of God and your concept of a scientist, please excuse yourself from this thread, to save the time and effort of readers and the forum's bandwidth.

And "right from the start" I will tell you that anyone can hold as truth their own personal opinions of the divine (ie, God), based on as little as a subjective *feeling*. Now, it's another thing entirely to state that one has scientific proof of God based on factual evidence. However, when the subject is that of God personal faith based feelings/opinions are all anyone really has. Most scientists understand this implicitly. Faith and scientific inquiry are very different concepts.

Oh, and just because you start a thread doesn't mean you get to dictate what others can post regarding their personal opinions. Unexplained Mysteries is privately owned (and you're not the owner). It would be wise to keep this in mind when you choose to chastise others about "using the forum's bandwidth".

[beale947]

Your God is still not around.

Just the same you do have a concept of the God that for you will come around later.

Now just tell readers what is your response to the inquiry "Are God and scientists incompatible?"

Understanding by God that one that for you will come around later whenever.

Here, do it this way:

First, state thus: "The God that for me will come about later whenever and scientists are incompatible (or compatible),

Second, because (and here gives your reasons why, like in this manner 1. 2. 3. 4. ...

So think carefully now and put your response in your own words.

Oslove

Oslove

So you completely ignored what I said in the last paragraph then? Meh, don't stress at me if you arn't going to read properly.

Anyway my belief in God is more of a hope thing Plus I'm a huge sci-fi fan and subliming etc. would be so cool

Edited July 31, 2009 by beale947

[Virtual Particle]

They are perfectly compatible as long ad you do not let belief affect your work as a scientist.

If you keep saying inteligent things do you understand it is going to be dificult to make fun of you I am not responsible for that!!

Triad,

I think the amazing has happened. I agree with you. The two are NOT incompatible. I think it may be some of the followers that are incompatible.

Nibs

One can believe that there is no God but science cannot support that conclusion.

Nibs that has got to be the strangest avatar I have seen in my life so I know you could not be all bad

Any thoughts?

[+HerNibs]

If you keep saying inteligent things do you understand it is going to be dificult to make fun of you I am not responsible for that!!

One can believe that there is no God but science cannot support that conclusion.

Nope it can't. I don't think it should. Religion and belief in god/s should be faith based shouldn't it?

Nibs that has got to be the strangest avatar I have seen in my life so I know you could not be all bad

Any thoughts?

It's my happy spider. Nah, I'm not all bad. You either.

Nibs

[oslove]

And "right from the start" I will tell you that anyone can hold as truth their own personal opinions of the divine (ie, God), based on as little as a subjective *feeling*. Now, it's another thing entirely to state that one has scientific proof of God based on factual evidence. However, when the subject is that of God personal faith based feelings/opinions are all anyone really has. Most scientists understand this implicitly. Faith and scientific inquiry are very different concepts.

[...]

However, when the subject is that of God personal faith based feelings/opinions are all

anyone

really has.. ... -- Triad

That is where you and I differ, because I hold that human reason can arrive at the certainty of God's existence; for you "feelings/opinions are all anyone has."

Oslove

[Virtual Particle]

Nope it can't. I don't think it should. Religion and belief in god/s should be faith based shouldn't it?

It's my happy spider. Nah, I'm not all bad. You either.

Nibs

If "Science the Next Generation" can do it great, otherwise by the time Sol turns into a neutron star and Andromeda is close enough, for the two black holes at there respective centers to interact (about a light year). We are in deep trouble and hopefully by that time (another 5 billion years) we will have an answer that makes sense, which makes possible a way to get the (fill in the blank) out of here.

The alternative would be to find a way to move the Galaxy so as not to result in

Any thoughts?

[Mattshark]

If you keep saying inteligent things do you understand it is going to be dificult to make fun of you I am not responsible for that!!

One can believe that there is no God but science cannot support that conclusion.

Nibs that has got to be the strangest avatar I have seen in my life so I know you could not be all bad

Any thoughts?

Science by its very nature has to be secular, it takes no association with anything that cannot be measured and makes no claims regarding that in any way.

[Virtual Particle]

Science by its very nature has to be secular, it takes no association with anything that cannot be measured and makes no claims regarding that in any way.

Science is something that is beautiful. To imply that somehow only secularist have access to it is an invalid response.

Any thoughts?

[Godsnmbr1]

Science is something that is beautiful. To imply that somehow only secularist have access to it is an invalid response.

Any thoughts?

He's simply working with the mindset that God must not exist and that therefore no true scientist could ever claim to be involved in a study of God. My only response is--since when did science ever involve foregone conclusions?

[oslove]

If "Science the Next Generation" can do it great, otherwise by the time Sol turns into a neutron star and Andromeda is close enough, for the two black holes at there respective centers to interact (about a light year). We are in deep trouble and hopefully by that time (another 5 billion years) we will have an answer that makes sense, which makes possible a way to get the (fill in the blank) out of here.

The alternative would be to find a way to move the Galaxy so as not to result in

Any thoughts?

By that time whenever "we [you] will have an answer that makes sense, which makes possible a way to get the (fill in the blank) out of here."

I am curious but serious, what is the question for which you will have an answer, please be precise and definite.

Oslove

[oslove]

QUOTE (oslove @ Jul 31 2009, 02:19 PM)

Suppose you give some beliefs about God that affect your work as a scientist.

Oslove

Then you are not a scientist any more you are a pseudo-scientist and your lack of judgement would be terminal to your reputation and career.

You seem to be unconnected with my question.

I am asking what beliefs about God affect your work as a scientist.

Please be patient, I am asking you what beliefs about God affect your work as a scientist, your answer should be to mention some beliefs or to admit that you can't think of any, or just keep quiet and don't write any post in reply to my question.

I know you will say that I am arrogant, but I will say that you are irrelevant.

Oslove

[oslove]

My concept of God is that its not here now, but eventually if our race last long enough, we will evolve into beings that we could class as gods. Something like the human race subliming, a few billion years down the line, and it will be more of a communal entity. Or if these artifical brains work, we all download into a giant super computer (here comes AM!!!)

I class myself as a scientist and a skeptic and the two are not incompatible, mainly because if the 'scientist' lets his religion or belief in god affect how he works/ views science then they are no longer a scientist. So really they are never incompatible ebcause there is no such thing as a scientist who allows his/her beliefes to affect their work.

You say that I did not give attention to your second paragraph above.

But I did attend to your second paragraph, and I decided not to react to it because it is very poorly written giving notice that you did not think out carefully what you wanted to write.

Here are the three sentences of the paragraph in question:

1. I class myself as a scientist and a skeptic and the two are not incompatible, mainly

2. because if the 'scientist' lets his religion or belief in god affect how he works/ views science then they are no longer a scientist.

3. So really they are never incompatible ebcause there is no such thing as a scientist who allows his/her beliefes to affect their work.

Sentence #1 is all right.

Sentence #2 seems to explain why being a scientist and being at the same time a skeptic is not being within oneself incompatible; but the way the sentence is drafted, scientist is still present but what about the skeptic?

Sentence #3 seems to be a conclusion to the first two sentences, but again where is the skeptic?

Why do you have to bring in your being a skeptic in sentence #1, indicating that you are going to reconcile your being a scientist and a skeptic so that you are not incompatible within yourself; but in your sentences #2 and #3, the skeptic is left out, but you launch into your personal discipline as a scientist which discipline requires that you not let your beliefs affect your work as a scientist.

I must tell you that you give the impression to careful readers that you do not know anything about logical sequence of sentences, that subsequent sentences must be connected to antecedent sentences so that there is unity and coherence of your thoughts.

Oslove

[Mattshark]

He's simply working with the mindset that God must not exist and that therefore no true scientist could ever claim to be involved in a study of God. My only response is--since when did science ever involve foregone conclusions?

By definition you can't. Science is a study of the material world, god isn't material, hence science remains secular. Scientists can believe what ever they want but you cannot scientifically study a deity.

[oslove]

Science by its very nature has to be secular, it takes no association with anything that cannot be measured and makes no claims regarding that in any way.

That is certainly not the ideology of all scientists, but only scientists who choose to cultivate an irremediable myopic view of the whole universe of existence, which whole universe of existence is bigger than the physical universe or empirical universe if you will.

Oslove