Are God and scientists incompatible?

[drakonwick]

Sure I felt that was obvious.

Any thoughts?

Then we are done on this subject.

[Virtual Particle]

Then we are done on this subject.

Agreed

Any thoughts?

[Mattshark]

Agreed

Any thoughts?

Yes, you desperately need a scientific education still.

[DrawingPics]

Yes, you desperately need a scientific education still.

No he does not.

[Mattshark]

No he does not.

No seriously, he is.

[oslove]

Points previous to this understood, and thank you for the clarifications.

QUOTE (oslove @ Aug 2 2009, 07:59 AM)

Now we can examine together how the concept of God and the concept of a scientist are compatible or incompatible.

I say God and a scientist, that means God and any scientist worth his salt as a scientist.

In the process we might have to correct ourselves or at least myself as regards my concept of God in particular, and also my concept of scientist in particular.

What do we say, shall we first determine what domain or territory of discourse the concept of God prevails in and what the concept of a scientist.

And I look forward to an enriching and enjoyable experience exchanging views with you, as I hope you have the same expectation.

Oslove

I'm not sure exactly of your question Oslove...

I think we agree about the existence of God, and what a scientist is and does...

Could you be more specific?

I am referring to this question from the above post from myself:

What do we say, shall we first determine what domain or territory of discourse the concept of God prevails in and what the concept of a scientist.

If you cannot understand that question, please tell me what you don't understand in the question, what word, what phrase, or what thought in it.

You see, my concept of God is the maker of everything in the whole totality of existence which includes the physical universe, and author of order and intelligence thereof.

So, the domain of discourse about God from my part as also from the part of others who know God as I do is His roles as maker of the whole totality of existence and as the author of order and intelligence thereof.

What about my idea about the domain of discourse on the the roles of a scientist in the whole totality of existence including the physical universe?

For myself and I would like to think as for people who are like myself in my idea of the roles of scientists, it is that scientists are after the facts in the physical universe, to find the order and the intelligence prevailing therein, but not exclusively, they are also concerned with the ultimate origin of the whole totality of existence including of course and in particular the physical universe.

On the basis of their respective domain of discourse I submit that there is no incompatibility between God and scientists.

Oslove

[Mattshark]

I am referring to this question from the above post from myself:

What do we say, shall we first determine what domain or territory of discourse the concept of God prevails in and what the concept of a scientist.

If you cannot understand that question, please tell me what you don't understand in the question, what word, what phrase, or what thought in it.

You see, my concept of God is the maker of everything in the whole totality of existence which includes the physical universe, and author of order and intelligence thereof.

So, the domain of discourse about God from my part as also from the part of others who know God as I do is His roles as maker of the whole totality of existence and as the author of order and intelligence thereof.

What about my idea about the domain of discourse on the the roles of a scientist in the whole totality of existence including the physical universe?

For myself and I would like to think as for people who are like myself in my idea of the roles of scientists, it is that scientists are after the facts in the physical universe, to find the order and the intelligence prevailing therein, but not exclusively, they are also concerned with the ultimate origin of the whole totality of existence including of course and in particular the physical universe.

On the basis of their respective domain of discourse I submit that there is no incompatibility between God and scientists.

Oslove

Well the thing is that, that is simply your opinion on it. Which is in general scheme of things pretty meaningless because it is what you have conjectured as you belief.

Are god and scientists compatible, yes, but that is because scientists are entitled to belief but they cannot let it affect their work. Don't know how many times this has to be explained to you.

[oslove]

Well the thing is that, that is simply your opinion on it. Which is in general scheme of things pretty meaningless because it is what you have conjectured as you belief.

Are god and scientists compatible, yes, but that is because scientists are entitled to belief but they cannot let it affect their work. Don't know how many times this has to be explained to you.

And I have to tell you that you have no business telling scientists in their work as scientists to not have anything to do with the whole totality of existence with God as the maker of everything including the physical universe and the author of order and intelligence thereof.

Oslove

[+HerNibs]

And I have to tell you that you have no business telling scientists in their work as scientists to not have anything to do with the whole totality of existence with God as the maker of everything including the physical universe and the author of order and intelligence thereof.

Oslove

I believe Matt is saying that a scientist can't let his belief system over ride or influence the evidence.

(correct me if I am wrong Mattshark )

Nibs

[oslove]

I believe Matt is saying that a scientist can't let his belief system over ride or influence the evidence.

(correct me if I am wrong Mattshark )

Nibs

And I think very strongly that you should not speak for him, unless you have been constituted by him to be his spokesman here.

Anyway, for you yourself do you know of any scientists of renown who let any particular items in "his belief system over ride or influence the evidence."

Oslove

[+HerNibs]

And I think very strongly that you should not speak for him, unless you have been constituted by him to be his spokesman here.

Anyway, for you yourself do you know of any scientists of renown who let any particular items in "his belief system over ride or influence the evidence."

Oslove

What do you mean by "renown". Some one that would be familiar to you?

I know several individuals that are in various scientific fields that don't let their beliefs influence their study. But I'll bet they aren't as well known as you require.

Oh, I may be totally wrong on what I think Mattshark (scientist) is saying. That's why I said the second part of my statement. I trust him to tell me if I am wrong and to explain what I am misunderstanding about his statements. He's a pretty good guy about that.

Nibs

Edited August 5, 2009 by HerNibs

[oslove]

What do you mean by "renown". Some one that would be familiar to you?

I know several individuals that are in various scientific fields that don't let their beliefs influence their study. But I'll bet they aren't as well known as you require.

Oh, I may be totally wrong on what I think Mattshark (scientist) is saying. That's why I said the second part of my statement. I trust him to tell me if I am wrong and to explain what I am misunderstanding about his statements. He's a pretty good guy about that.

Nibs

Right now I can name one philosopher of renown and one scientist of renown who were atheists formerly, but are now into showing how God and philosophers and scientists can be and are compatible.

Who?

Antony G. N. Flew for philosopher and Francis S. Collins for scientist.

And don't forget, Nibs, I am still waiting for some items in the belief system of any scientists of renown who let these belief items affect their work as scientists.

Oslove

[Hugh]

What about my idea about the domain of discourse on the the roles of a scientist in the whole totality of existence including the physical universe?

For myself and I would like to think as for people who are like myself in my idea of the roles of scientists, it is that scientists are after the facts in the physical universe, to find the order and the intelligence prevailing therein, but not exclusively, they are also concerned with the ultimate origin of the whole totality of existence including of course and in particular the physical universe.

On the basis of their respective domain of discourse I submit that there is no incompatibility between God and scientists.

We all face questions about not only how the universe works, but where it originally came from and what is its purpose - and our own purpose as well.

We're all in this together, trying to make sense of everything.

Some are only interested in what they can scientifically measure, others want to go deeper if possible, and are interested also in what they can experience through feeling or thinking.

There is a point at which science cannot currently go beyond, it has its limits, based on our current knowledge.

That is unsatisfactory for some, who yearn for more.

What is someone to do who has exhausted all current scientific means, yet is still in need of more?

Well, either that person invents new scientific means, or accepts that they are moving into the non-scientific realm of speculation.

If one would like God and scientists to be fully compatible, one would need to scientifically prove the existence of God.

Until that is done, God and scientists are compatible only if the scientists stay within the realm of scientific study, and realize that a belief in God is speculation.

[oslove]

[...]

Well, either that person invents new scientific means, or accepts that they are moving into the non-scientific realm of speculation.

If one would like God and scientists to be fully compatible, one would need to scientifically prove the existence of God.

Until that is done, God and scientists are compatible only if the scientists stay within the realm of scientific study, and realize that a belief in God is speculation.

Are you saying that scientists cannot come to the certainty of God from science?

Let's put it this way:

Can scientists come to the certainty of God from science?

Your answer is what, yes? no?

Oslove

[Mattshark]

Right now I can name one philosopher of renown and one scientist of renown who were atheists formerly, but are now into showing how God and philosophers and scientists can be and are compatible.

Who?

Antony G. N. Flew for philosopher and Francis S. Collins for scientist.

And don't forget, Nibs, I am still waiting for some items in the belief system of any scientists of renown who let these belief items affect their work as scientists.

Oslove

Can you actually read oslove, is what I said just too complex or something.

Scientists can believe what they like as long as it doesn't affect their work. There are lots of scientists who are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist etc. That is pretty much an irrelevancy. However if they let their belief interfere with their work they will be unemployed quite quickly.

I think you'll find everyone at the Discovery "also known as the lying frauds" Institute have all let their beliefs get in their way and received no support from Francis Collins for example.

[Mattshark]

Are you saying that scientists cannot come to the certainty of God from science?

Let's put it this way:

Can scientists come to the certainty of God from science?

Your answer is what, yes? no?

Oslove

No, you can't no because it is conjecture and that would stop it being science. Seriously, look up what scientific method is.

[Hugh]

Are you saying that scientists cannot come to the certainty of God from science?

Let's put it this way:

Can scientists come to the certainty of God from science?

Your answer is what, yes? no?

Oslove

Currently, the answer is no.

If you believe the answer is yes, then I would be very interested in the proof that science currently has of the existence of God.

[drakonwick]

Are you saying that scientists cannot come to the certainty of God from science?

Let's put it this way:

Can scientists come to the certainty of God from science?

Your answer is what, yes? no?

Oslove

At this current point in time, no, scientists cannot come to any kind of definitive conclusion on whether a god exists.

Current scientific work deals in studying the material universe around us, i.e. things that can be measured and studied

by current scientific methods.

[Lilly]

Let's put it this way:

Can scientists come to the certainty of God from science?

Your answer is what, yes? no?

No, because science does not deal with matters of faith. This is really a very simple concept.

BTW, I'm a Theist (ie, I believe in God). However, I acknowledge that I have no scientific evidence that supports my personal faith... and I have no problem with this (none at all).

[oslove]

Mattshark, please just read what I have been telling you, and understand.

Otherwise, I will just say that you and I have an impenetrable impasse between us preventing us from getting to comprehend what each of us is saying to the other.

Do we have an impasse in that respect, yes? no?

If yes, then I will not read your posts anymore.

If however you prefer that I stop reading your posts altogether, but you don't want to say so openly in this forum, then let me know by pm and I will comply with your request.

Because it is useless for us both to read each other and recriminate continuously that we are not getting each other's thoughts correctly.

Oslove

[oslove]

For you all who maintain that scientists do not have the proofs for the existence of God, you mean that they cannot come to the certainty from science for the existence of God, yes? no?

And you refer to all scientists so that all scientists according to you do not because they cannot come to the certainty of God's existence from science, yes? no?

Let's put it this way, so answer the question as follows:

Scientists have come to the certainty of God's existence from science, Yes? No?

Yes means: Some scientists have come to the certainty of God's existence from science.

No means: Some scientists have not come to the certainty of God's existence from science.

This is going to be a long thread and I as author of this thread will exert my efforts to keep it on track.

Oslove

[drakonwick]

For you all who maintain that scientists do not have the proofs for the existence of God, you mean that they cannot come to the certainty from science for the existence of God, yes? no?

And you refer to all scientists so that all scientists according to you do not because they cannot come to the certainty of God's existence from science, yes? no?

Let's put it this way, so answer the question as follows:

Scientists have come to the certainty of God's existence from science, Yes? No?

Yes means: Some scientists have come to the certainty of God's existence from science.

No means: Some scientists have not come to the certainty of God's existence from science.

This is going to be a long thread and I as author of this thread will exert my efforts to keep it on track.

Oslove

Scientists, (if they are following scientific procedures), have not come to a definitive conclusion on whether a God(s) exist. If a scientists is trying to

claim that god can be determined through current scientific procedures, then they are delving into psuedo-science and cannot be given any credence.

Science does not study the supernatural or faith based claims, as it is based on conjecture. But, scientists are free to believe what they want, as long

as it does not interfere with scientific methods.

[Mattshark]

Scientists, (if they are following scientific procedures), have not come to a definitive conclusion on whether a God(s) exist. If a scientists is trying to

claim that god can be determined through current scientific procedures, then they are delving into psuedo-science and cannot be given any credence.

Science does not study the supernatural or faith based claims, as it is based on conjecture. But, scientists are free to believe what they want, as long

as it does not interfere with scientific methods.

How many times has this been said now.

[drakonwick]

How many times has this been said now.

I thought the first time you explained it should have been enough. Obviously, Oslove likes circular reasoning.

[Hugh]

Oslove, if you have scientific proof of God's existence, please present it and I'd be happy to continue the discussion in this thread.

If not, I feel I've stated my answer to the original question adequately enough.

Thanks.