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.

[Ooberman]

In fact, I think that any story with the disclaimer 'based on a true story' will be, by narrative necessity, bad fiction.

Including the Bible? It claims to be based on a true story.

[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.

The theist position is untenable as you define it.

First, you claim that science can't detect something in the universe. Please demonstrate this is true.

It is possible that science can detect or comment on everything, we just don't know yet.

Second, If one can't detect it, how do you know it exists in the first place?

How can you claim something undetectable exists? If there is an invisible, undetectable coconut tree in your bedroom, how would you know?

Please explain how you know the spiritual exists if you can't detect it.

I think my answers to your questions are all in the op. I appreciate they are unsatisfactory to you and I am not asserting they are a convincing argument. I'm just trying to point out that if you want to know God, science won't help you as it is limited to the physical dimension. It rules out the existence of anything spiritual, by definition.

[livingwordlabels]

[Replying to post 1 by livingwordlabels]

I think that you just said we should scrap our scientific explorations and rely on the ouija board.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying science is a great subject to study but we just need to acknowledge it is limited in its scope. I don't know why this is so difficult for people to accept. I'm just saying why not keep an open mind to the existence of a spiritual dimension. I believe it is a mistake to assume it does not exist when you have no good reason to deny it. (For the record, I would not recommend gaining knowledge through an ouija board.)

[Joab]

To the Title.

Yes science is limited to REALITY. That is what is so scary to fundy's. Those who have a realistic view of religion are not frightened at all.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 203:

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying science is a great subject to study but we just need to acknowledge it is limited in its scope. I don't know why this is so difficult for people to accept. I'm just saying why not keep an open mind to the existence of a spiritual dimension. I believe it is a mistake to assume it does not exist when you have no good reason to deny it. (For the record, I would not recommend gaining knowledge through an ouija board.)

That whole "keep an open mind" deal is fine, best I can tell. Where it becomes a problem is after about that next thousandth year of open mind keeping, folks can't help but wonder what all the fuss is about.

There's an infinite amount of knowledge available in a ouija board. Its construction, its inventor, marketing, manufacturing processes. Impact on society, individuals and groups. Will it hold up to squirrel-skinnin'? Can the old lady beat me at strip ouija? Will the old lady run off if she catches her sister losing to me at strip ouija? How high can you bounce a biscuit off a ouija board? Will they loosen the lug nuts on that old beater out in the yard?

You indicate your own mind is closed to ouija boards, while asking others to keep theirs open to that which you find open-mind-worthy.

An open mind just as well close off those avenues of discovery that folks admit right up front to the we can't know. I see little value in looking for the very things we say can't be seen - supernatural, spirit-bodied minds upset about the human condition.

So in the case of the referenced post, an open mind and an open wound look a lot alike. They both allow for the introduction of new ideas and stuff, but they can also set to rot.

[McCulloch]

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.

Yes, science is limited to those things which can be shown to be real. Yup.

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.

What is it that you mean when you say that something is spiritual? Spiritual is a concept I do not understand. Please explain.

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.

We both agree that life somehow came from non-life. Scientists are seeking a rational explanation for this that is consistent with what we already know about chemistry, physics, geology and biology. Believers in the Genesis tale simply go with the absurd idea that a spiritual being formed a complex human body from dust and breathed life into it.

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.

What would that be? Faith?

I think that you just said we should scrap our scientific explorations and rely on the Ouija board.

I'm not saying that at all. [...] For the record, I would not recommend gaining knowledge through an Ouija board.

Why not? I mean if we are to abandon rationality, sound reasoning and objective evidence, why not go with the Ouija board? Any argument you have against the Ouija board, other than it is against your religion, can probably be used against your religion too.

I'm saying science is a great subject to study but we just need to acknowledge it is limited in its scope. I don't know why this is so difficult for people to accept. I'm just saying why not keep an open mind to the existence of a spiritual dimension. I believe it is a mistake to assume it does not exist when you have no good reason to deny it.

No, it would be a mistake to assume that it does exist when you have no coherent definition of what it means and you have no evidence that indicates that it does exist. I have an open mind. I am open to reason, logic and evidence. Show me why I should believe in this spiritual dimension and I will believe.

[livingwordlabels]

No, it would be a mistake to assume that it does exist when you have no coherent definition of what it means and you have no evidence that indicates that it does exist. I have an open mind. I am open to reason, logic and evidence. Show me why I should believe in this spiritual dimension and I will believe.

What evidence would satisfy you that the spiritual dimension exists? From the sound of it you are only open to physical evidence of some sort. Yet this is impossible because the spiritual dimension is not physical. Why not be open to persuasive evidence - such as people's accounts of their supernatural experiences? I'm not saying you have to accept everything people say - I certainly don't. And I am not saying you have to accept everyone's conclusions either. But why reject it all out of hand?

If you start with the idea of God, that He is infinite, all-powerful, holy, righteous, loving as the Bible states Him to be, then it stands to reason He cannot exist in the physical world as He is infinite. Where would He fit? What's wrong therefore with entertaining the possibility of a spiritual world? Why close out this possibility?

[Ooberman]

We know religion is limited, but is science limited? Aren't we waiting for the study to prove that?

[bluethread]

We know religion is limited, but is science limited? Aren't we waiting for the study to prove that?

There is no way for science to verify the unknown unknowns. Since we do not know that we do not know it, so we have no way test it. A known unknown can be tested to the extent that we know of a process to do that.

[Goat]

No, it would be a mistake to assume that it does exist when you have no coherent definition of what it means and you have no evidence that indicates that it does exist. I have an open mind. I am open to reason, logic and evidence. Show me why I should believe in this spiritual dimension and I will believe.

What evidence would satisfy you that the spiritual dimension exists? From the sound of it you are only open to physical evidence of some sort. Yet this is impossible because the spiritual dimension is not physical. Why not be open to persuasive evidence - such as people's accounts of their supernatural experiences? I'm not saying you have to accept everything people say - I certainly don't. And I am not saying you have to accept everyone's conclusions either. But why reject it all out of hand?

If you start with the idea of God, that He is infinite, all-powerful, holy, righteous, loving as the Bible states Him to be, then it stands to reason He cannot exist in the physical world as He is infinite. Where would He fit? What's wrong therefore with entertaining the possibility of a spiritual world? Why close out this possibility?

Can you show that the spiritual dimension exists at all?? I mean, how can you show it is something more than conceptual, and imaginary? Since you are the one claiming it exists ,can you come up with a way to distinguish it from 'a warm fuzzy feeling that I make things up about'?

If you have a way to do that, by all means, present it.