Science is limited

[livingwordlabels]

Science, by definition, can only accept something which can be proven or tested in some way. It is therefore limited to making conclusions about physical things.
I'm not saying this limitation undermines science as a valid and extremely useful source of knowledge. However, what does undermine its reliability is when people use it to make assumptions and conclusions without acknowledging this limitation.

For example, when people try to use their scientific way of thinking to decide whether God exists or not. God is spiritual, not physical - a concept completely alien to science.

Also when people use only what they can observe to explain how mankind was created. This inevitably fails, as they have to limit life to something physical and we get the absurd idea of life evolving out of matter. The Bible offers us a more plausible explanation - that God created man from the dust of the ground and breathed into him the breath of life. If we believe the Bible, we can see that humans are spiritual as well as physical.

My conclusion? If you want to understand God, how we were made, our purpose for living, our relationship with God and even our future, then you need something more than science.

[livingwordlabels]

[Replying to post 1 by livingwordlabels]
Does God or Doesn't God interact within our reality from time to time? If he does, this should be testable using the framework of science. If he doesn't how could you possibly know he exists?

I agree He does interact within our reality from time to time, and therefore people will notice and conclude He exists, but I disagree it will be testable. The furthest science could go is to say the results are inconclusive.

The only limitation of science - and I will add logic as well - is that it can't disprove the possibility of Gods existence. But possibility does not lie within the realm of reason, it only lies in the realm of hope and emotion.

I would argue that it is reasonable to assume God does exist, even though you cannot prove it using science, especially when you consider that science limits itself to the physical dimension, and rejects anything else by assumption.

I think the better question is how probable is the specific God as defined by the Christianity or any other religion for that matter - this I think science can speak to quite effectively.

The problem is that people rely on science to explain everything, even though it is limited in its scope. I would argue science is not at all reliable for making any statements concerning religion.

[livingwordlabels]

My conclusion? If you want to understand God, how we were made, our purpose for living, our relationship with God and even our future, then you need something more than science.

I totally agree with this. However, having said this, the realization that science is limited in this regard does not justify believing in just anything.

Agreed 100% too with this point.

For example, we have come to the rational conclusion that the Greek myths of personified Gods were false. They are false for many reasons. Some can be recognized to be false for reasons of pure rational logic and common sense. Other reasons are indeed related to observational evidence (i.e. science). For example, there are no Gods living on Mt. Olympus. This is an observational fact that pretty much gives Greek mythology the final boot (although there were already many common sense reason to dismiss it anyway).

The very same thing applies to Hebrew mythology. We can see from just pure common sense that no supreme all-wise deity would behave in such an immature and foolish fashion as the God of the Bible. No science required to dismiss these myths as being utterly absurd.

This is a separate question- maybe we could consider this on another thread some time.

Of course, to these particular myths we can apply observational knowledge of the real world too (i.e. science). For example, the Bible has mankind's "Fall from Grace" as being the reason their is death and sin in the world. That's clearly false. We know that there was death, disease, and all manner of imperfections and horrible things happening long before mankind ever showed up on the planet. So just as we were able to toss Greek mythology out because there are no Gods living on Mt. Olympus we can also toss out Hebrew mythology because mankind cannot possibly be blamed for the fact that life is a natural dog-eat-dog world filled with disease, etc.

Again, controversial points, one for a separate thread.

So, yes, science may not be able to tell us the true nature of reality, but that doesn't mean that we should then believe in just any absurd superstitious fables either.

Agreed.

If we want to believe in a "Creator" or a "God", one of the wisest thing we can do in that regard is to toss Hebrew Mythology onto the pile of already known false mythologies. It's just more of the same actually. In fact, it even uses many of the very same ideas; a God who is appease by blood sacrifices, has a demigod son to a human female, etc. These were all totally worn-out superstitions long before the Hebrews ever made up their God myth.

So if we want to believe in some spiritual essence to reality we need to look toward spiritual philosophies that actually describe a potentially intelligent God.

It makes no sense to proclaim that God is "All Wise" and then try to support something as utterly stupid as Hebrew mythology as being a realistic picture of a God.

So science isn't even required to recognize that something like Hebrew superstitions can't be true.

But like I say, if you would like to use science to verify the fallacy of Hebrew mythology just recognize that humans cannot be held responsible for the death, disease, and other ills of the world. Those things were a natural part of the world long before humans ever came to be. So any myths that try to pin the blame for this on humans are clearly false. This is something that science can tell us.

The point I am trying to make is that science is limited in its scope and people from time to time mistakenly rely on it to explain everything. The other material you mention is probably best considered in another thread.

[Goose]

Goose definitely contradicts himself.

You say stuff like this. Just like how you said I commit non-sequiturs galore. But you can't seem to actually show where I have.

I have a few times. In fact, you deliberately edited out my latest explanation in the post you quoted.

No you haven't. What you've done is you've manufactured arguments I haven't made and then assigned them to me. Then stood back and declared, voila non-sequitur! I stated you haven't been able to show where I've either contradicted myself or committed a non-sequitur. In other words, quote the post where I have. This shouldn't be too hard for you since you think you know what a non-sequitur is and have asserted I commit a non-sequitur in virtually every post. So either pony it up or stop saying things you can't back.

Another thing you need to consider, a fallacy isn't necessarily wrong.

True. A fallacious argument can still yield a true result. But in the case where we don't already know the result is true tell me how we can be assured the result is true if the argument is invalid?

The problem is when they're used as proof, or as a sole piece of evidence. Science doesn't do this, either. Theories are built from a wide-range of methodologies, and aren't just a one-time pass through three-step process to evaluate only one piece of evidence as proof, as you've suggested.

What I've clearly argued is that the scientific method commits a fallacy whenever it attempts to prove anything. I have no issue with valid reasoning when used in the sciences.

This is all just a silly technicality, anyway. Science can't prove gravity exists either, but we all know it does.

You're confusing certain knowledge with justified belief.

[livingwordlabels]

[Replying to post 1 by livingwordlabels]

If you want to understand God, how we were made, our purpose for living, our relationship with God and even our future, then you need something more than science.

You're making a conclusion you can back up and stinks of bias. You say "God" when in fact, there may be no God but a god.
We know how we are made. It's biology. No need for God or a god for that.

But is that all there is? Biology? Many people believe there is a spiritual side to man as well as the physical. My point is that if you use science only as a source of truth, you will end up with this conclusion but without realising that science is limited in its scope to the physical.

Our purpose for living is highly subjective. Again, if you believe in God it may be one way, or if you believe in a god, it could be another way.
The relationship we may have with any god can only be the individual, as religion is individual.
You are aware that you can't prove your god to exists either, right?

I accept you can't prove God exists using scientific evidence alone. You can however provide much more evidence, such as the changes He makes to people's lives when they believe on His Son Jesus Christ. But this type of evidence is only persuasive rather than conclusive from a scientific point of view.

You are aware that your god may not exist; there may be another god, yes?

No and no. I accept this is my personal belief and is not shared by everyone, in the same way your statements are your own personal belief, again not agreed by everyone.[/quote]

The point is that, you're claiming that the only way to meet these needs is by your god (which is arrogant), not science. In part, you're right: science can't show some things. Though, science doesn't make a claim to show such things. It's silly to think so.
You're picking a fight that doesn't need to happen.

I'm glad you can see that science is limited in what it can show. From my experience, it would seem not everyone can see this.

That happens a lot when people are threatened by something they don't understand. Clearly, you don't understand science in any fashion

I accept my knowledge of science is extremely limited, especially when put alongside people such as Professor Hawkings. However, I do feel it is important for scientists to accept that science can only make valid conclusions and assumptions within the sphere it operates - ie the physical dimension. It is therefore a limited source of truth.

[Goose]

Correct, you did answer, but you did not answer my question. You merely answered a fictitious question grounded in wishful thinking.

No, I answered your question. You only think I didn't because I didn't give you the answer you wanted.

To say your answer was not exactly the way I wanted you to answer is very relevant.

No it isn't. You haven't shown the logical connection between me not answering your question the way you'd like and my argument failing despite your feet stomping to the contrary.

If you claim X is fallacious, then surely need to say what X is?

Here's what I've argued. Now, pay attention so I don't have to keep repeating myself.

If the scientific method employs the fallacy of affirming the consequent then the scientific method is limited in that it cannot prove anything true.

Now tell us again how my argument fails if I don't tell you which specific branch of science?

Failing to answer my question means that you have no argument because [the WHY] you have not lived up to your burden of proof. Surely you understand this Goose? Or are you new to debate?

I've already proven with logic that the scientific method commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent when it attempts to prove anything true. This is a limitation of the scientific method.

And no, I can assure you, I'm not new to debate. Not that that would matter even if I was. Why do ask anyway? We're you preparing to mount an ad hominem argument if I was new?

But the scientific method does not set out to prove or disprove anything!

You don't seem to grasp the logic behind the scientific method. It can't prove anything true because when it attempts to do so it commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent. It can, however, prove a hypothesis false via Modus Tollens.

This is basic philosophy of science. You should know this.

Then why do you refuse to answer my questions?

I did answer. Get over it.

Be clear, or run like you did refusing to answer my questions after I exposed your faulty reasoning.

You still haven't shown us why my argument fails if I don't answer your question the way you'd like. Repeatedly demanding that I answer your question or my argument fails isn't a refutation no matter how much you want it to be.

[Goat]

There is no such thing as a spirit. Therefore humans are not spiritual. God is not spiritual, he is imaginary. Humans have imaginations, therefore humans have gods.

Do you have any proof for saying there is no such thing as a spirit? If not, why be so certain?

Science does not have to understand God, it only has to understand those that believe in gods. That is entirely possible.

I would go further and say science can't understand God.

I would say that "Spirit is so poorly defined that there is no way to show the word has meaning'. And 'There is no evidence spirit exists except conceptually'.

I would further say that 'That which can not be properly defined' God' can not be shown to exist at all.

[bluethread]

Let's look at more neutral ground, the volcanos of the 1200's that are thought by some to have put into motion the Dark Ages.

So, you are talking about something that we , well, actually have physical evidence for then?

Yes, but the causal relationship is viewed as speculative and the effects are seen as self correcting. Yet, the causal relationship with regard to human activity and GW are viewed as factual and not self correcting.

[Goat]

Let's look at more neutral ground, the volcanos of the 1200's that are thought by some to have put into motion the Dark Ages.

So, you are talking about something that we , well, actually have physical evidence for then?

Yes, but the causal relationship is viewed as speculative and the effects are seen as self correcting. Yet, the causal relationship with regard to human activity and GW are viewed as factual and not self correcting.

You keep saying that. Idon't think you understand what it means.
It specifically is discussing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and how much CO2 that human activity provides.

It's not speculative at all. At least, scientists do not view it as speculative. That claim is brought up by the conservative think tanks funded by the oil industry.

[bluethread]

Let's look at more neutral ground, the volcanos of the 1200's that are thought by some to have put into motion the Dark Ages.

So, you are talking about something that we , well, actually have physical evidence for then?

Yes, but the causal relationship is viewed as speculative and the effects are seen as self correcting. Yet, the causal relationship with regard to human activity and GW are viewed as factual and not self correcting.

You keep saying that. Idon't think you understand what it means.
It specifically is discussing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and how much CO2 that human activity provides.

It's not speculative at all. At least, scientists do not view it as speculative. That claim is brought up by the conservative think tanks funded by the oil industry.

So, scientists do not see the causal relationship between the volcanic activity in the late 1200's and the whether patterns of early 1300's as speculative?

[Goat]

Let's look at more neutral ground, the volcanos of the 1200's that are thought by some to have put into motion the Dark Ages.

So, you are talking about something that we , well, actually have physical evidence for then?

Yes, but the causal relationship is viewed as speculative and the effects are seen as self correcting. Yet, the causal relationship with regard to human activity and GW are viewed as factual and not self correcting.

You keep saying that. Idon't think you understand what it means.
It specifically is discussing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and how much CO2 that human activity provides.

It's not speculative at all. At least, scientists do not view it as speculative. That claim is brought up by the conservative think tanks funded by the oil industry.

So, scientists do not see the causal relationship between the volcanic activity in the late 1200's and the whether patterns of early 1300's as speculative?

Straw man. We are discussing specifically the CO2 that is being put in the atmosphere, right today, and AGW,