Could science one day explain everything including the non- existence of God

[LimbicLoser]

I understand. There are times when bits and pieces of information may somehow manage to escape notice, or/and at the same moment fail to strike up neural connections which amount to eposodic memory recall. KJ are the initials used by a number, back then, to save having to fully write out 'KaseiJin.' Now that, should without doubt send potentials firing and draw out enough activity to 'pull' the spotlight of attention to that memory formulation. I look forward, ever so cautiously, to any serious and good discussion on the facts, and as-good-as-facts,' on the matter. Thanks, Alan.

Edited September 25, 2012 by LimbicLoser

[Alan McDougall]

I understand. There are times when bits and pieces of information may somehow manage to escape notice, or/and at the same moment fail to strike up neural connections which amount to eposodic memory recall. KJ are the initials used by a number, back then, to save having to fully write out 'KaseiJin.' Now that, should without doubt send potentials firing and draw out enough activity to 'pull' the spotlight of attention to that memory formulation. I look forward, ever so cautiously, to any serious and good discussion on the facts, and as-good-as-facts,' on the matter. Thanks, Alan.

 

Hi KJ, I remember you now, if we have to dismiss the use of the term god or almighty god from the question of this thread, what should we replace it with? Non- existence of a creator of all existence, maybe? Thanks KJ

 

 

I just had another thought, thus the edit, we know from physics that there is an ultimate overall everlasting one way flow of entropy, (In a total system) from the very beginning (if there were a beginning) whenever, that was, which must have been then at "absolute lowest possible zero state of entropy" or "total order". Entropy continuing all the way down into the eternal future, finally ending up at "absolute total maximum state of entropy" or "total chaos or disorder". If this were the case we would reach a stage where nothing more could happen for all eternity and existence would stop.

 

 

Thus is the energy in all of existence infinite and how can this be? This means that either nature is eternal or there might be a creator as of yet we dont really know the answer?

Edited September 25, 2012 by Alan McDougall

[rigney]

Hi KJ, I remember you now, if we have to dismiss the use of the term god or almighty god from the question of this thread, what should we replace it with? Non- existence of a creator of all existence, maybe? Thanks KJ

 

 

I just had another thought, thus the edit, we know from physics that there is an ultimate overall everlasting one way flow of entropy, (In a total system) from the very beginning (if there were a beginning) whenever, that was, which must have been then at "absolute lowest possible zero state of entropy" or "total order". Entropy continuing all the way down into the eternal future, finally ending up at "absolute total maximum state of entropy" or "total chaos or disorder". If this were the case we would reach a stage where nothing more could happen for all eternity and existence would stop.

 

 

Thus is the energy in all of existence infinite and how can this be? This means that either nature is eternal or there might be a creator as of yet we dont really know the answer?

Since I am an agnostic Alan, you may not wish to hear my inquiry at all. But then, I’m not much of a scientist either. So, let’s just say for instance that man continues advocating: “There is no God”, until all religious belief is stamped out. What then? Do we simply continue striving for perfection in a world without an eventual goal? On the other hand, “What if there is a Supreme Entity, or God ”? But after pondering whether knowledge without direction is wise, He, Her or It; decides to atomize all life forms throughout the universe. Oh S--t! What then? Edited September 25, 2012 by rigney

[LimbicLoser]

Hi KJ, I remember you now, if we have to dismiss the use of the term god or almighty god from the question of this thread, what should we replace it with? Non- existence of a creator of all existence, maybe? Thanks KJ

Please allow me a quicky here, Alan; and I will try to explain more on the words god, goddess, and God. (but possibly in another thread to supplement?) As I had hoped to have made clear enough in a post above (I think, at least... I'll have to recheck that myself too), there is nothing wrong with the wording of the title, per se, but simply that it is out of date. It has already been demonstrated soundly and validly enough, that YHWH is not an external-fact-of-nature-being, as he is made up to be in the Tanakh. When we use the English word "God," we are (in better accuracy and standard usage originally) talking primarily about YHWH (יהוה). (By extension, post late 3rd century Christianity's god model, the biblical god, can be identified by that stand-in proper noun, "God.")

 

I just had another thought, thus the edit, we know from physics that there is an ultimate overall everlasting one way flow of entropy, (In a total system) from the very beginning (if there were a beginning) whenever, that was, which must have been then at "absolute lowest possible zero state of entropy" or "total order". Entropy continuing all the way down into the eternal future, finally ending up at "absolute total maximum state of entropy" or "total chaos or disorder". If this were the case we would reach a stage where nothing more could happen for all eternity and existence would stop.

 

Thus is the energy in all of existence infinite and how can this be? This means that either nature is eternal or there might be a creator as of yet we dont really know the answer?

While this is quite scholastic, and hardly a pragmatic concern at all (and almost not relevant towards the OP, or the title), we still do not have sound and valid enough reason to apply the word 'creator' to whatever kind of energy, or energy source, may be at root where and whenever in our known, or unknown, universe. It simple is a non-functioning, non-toolable, and non-conclusive imaginative dream of a concern. In the real world, we have much more down-to-earth, pragmatic concerns to place on our philosophical (even) thinking tables in front of us. Nature is grand !

[Denise Yeo]

Well, what I think the objective of Science is is to give intelligent life forms, us, a greater and more specific understanding of the Universe.

 

What religion and God presents contradicts the Big Bang Theory, Darwin's Theory of Evolution and many others. I personally do not believe in religion and the existence of God, because I feel that religion impedes our curiosity of the Universe by allowing us to accept 'because God made it that way' as an answer to unknowns. What religion does here is to substitute an unknown in an equation with the 'because God made it that way' argument. This argument is difficult to prove otherwise when you are trying to convince a strong believer of God that God does not exist.

 

However, what I feel is that if you are someone who is agnostic or believes in both God but does not let religion affect your acceptance of more than likely true theories like the Big Bang theory, you would think of Science and religion as true and accept that Science and religion just have not come to a common ground where both may be true.

If you are an atheist, you would probably think of religion as complete bullshit [pardon my language]. However, you could think of religion as something that provides hope to someone. Perhaps you may find it unbelievable, but many religious people do think of the 'because God made it that way' and 'God did it for the better' argument as valid and take it as consolation which helps them move on from emotional stress. Not everyone who is religious is out to go against Science.

If you are a devout religious, no one is blaming you for having your own faith and beliefs. But I suggest that you accept the logical reasoning of Science and not impose your views unto others. This goes the same to all atheists as well.

 

What everyone in this forum has to accept is that different people have different views. Yes, I believe that Science could eventually explain everything without having God in the equation. But then again, I believe that the existence of God cannot be proven right or wrong with Science unless Science is able to reach out to what happens before and after life and death, heaven and hell. Even so, Science will only be able to prove what is said in religious scriptures and believed events or phenomenons wrong, but as for the existence of God or a creator, it is not likely.

 

What I am saying is merely my own view, so please do not take offence.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Denise Yeo

[John Cuthber]

"But then again, I believe that the existence of God cannot be proven right or wrong with Science unless Science is able to reach out to what happens before and after life and death, heaven and hell."

But that doesn't make sense.

Unless and until there is some evidence for an afterlife, heaven or hell, there's no way to study it.

It's like saying the existence of unicorns can't be proven right or wrong until science has explained whether the horn spirals to the right or to the left.

 

It's a logical fallacy called "begging the question".

[Alan McDougall]

"But then again, I believe that the existence of God cannot be proven right or wrong with Science unless Science is able to reach out to what happens before and after life and death, heaven and hell."

But that doesn't make sense.

Unless and until there is some evidence for an afterlife, heaven or hell, there's no way to study it.

It's like saying the existence of unicorns can't be proven right or wrong until science has explained whether the horn spirals to the right or to the left.

 

It's a logical fallacy called "begging the question".

 

 

In my opinion,science will never explain everything; many things in science such as quantum physics just make no sense. Reality can be and is sometimes completely irrational to our limited minds. Existence or nature is infinite and eternal to suppose that a mere little entity living on a tiny spec on a very small galaxy,within and unmanageably vast universe could explain everything is just nonsense. Take the case of a frog; it is only programmed by evolution to notice only what it needs to notice to survive. For example, its eyes only reacts if something moves near it, such as an insect it needs to catch to eat and sustain itself. Other than that, it takes no notice of what is going on around it other than what it needs in order to survive. Thus, it has a very dim andvague almost non-existence view or understanding of the total reality around it..

 

Likewise we humans are programmed by nature to only observe what is essential to our survival (This has been proved) and this is but tiny portion of the total reality in the universe. Think! of the human eye it sends massages to our brains from a very tiny part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Yes it is true that we have made tools to look into areas our five senses cannot observe , but I can give you many other examples of how these senses are fooled and how we often fill in the gaps or blanks with false information.

 

 

 

We notice only what we have been programmed by nature to notice only what we need to notice to survive, so to suggest that a tiny almost quantumly small entity, like humans, who are in reality a mere ordered water bag of protoplasm and chemicals will ultimately scientifically explain all of reality is simply nonsense.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Alan McDougall

[LimbicLoser]

As John Cuthber has pointed out, there is a fatal error on what Denise Yeo has in part, posited. (Or expressed in the form of opinion.) I think I would like to get back with some points within that, a bit later--if the need proves to yet be after the following. I will touch base with Alan firstly; as I think it may cover those portions of post #30 which stand to be corrected.

 

 

In my opinion,science will never explain everything; many things in science such as quantum physics just make no sense. Reality can be and is sometimes completely irrational to our limited minds.

This particular line is very, very, oh too very commonly thrown out by many who long for something else emotionally. While I can understand the circumstances of the emotional longing for something else, I cannot stand what amounts of the laziness (not charging you here, Alan, with that quality) I find in such statements. I do appreciate, Alan your tone, and your expression of what you think; I do. I wish to help clarify the muddled part (which is nothing of yours, I can accept, but just what you have surely adopted from others) and correct some things. As I will have been saying slightly for some while now, on even this forum, it is not 'science,' that is to be compared with other disciplines or academic (or professional) inquiries, but rather 'scientific method' that we should focus on for clarity's sake in understanding the world we are in and are part of. It is most realistic, reasonable, logically soundly and validly accurate and correct to assert that humankind, as a species, will far most likely never understand everything. We can set that as a fact. What follows is what we must be careful about.

 

The most common error in following up on that, is to assert that variant bits and pieces of expressed, or held, understandings of those who lived in ages of ignorance--relative to the sound knowledge that we have now--which bits and pieces are written in he texts, and remain in other forms of evidence, compiled by the theist-involved religious belief systems of those uninformed peoples, or the philosophical pondering of theirs, represents sound knowledge of facts of nature at large. This is completely incorrect; and has been fully enough demonstrated to be so. Scientific method is the way those people learned the world about them in their daily fight to survive--to that degree. Their rampant emotional imagination (which climbed above their day to day living and in-group efforts to bond into a social unity) had been fueled by the empty space where sound knowledge and experience were absent. Superstition was the trump card of the day, but all that could be acknowledged and known, was so because of brain, and the brain was not so different at all, from ours today.

 

Again, one must be careful not misconstruct and thereby think that everything they said was mistaken; for it is not. What holds up under testing through multiple instance, with a high degree of consistency, over as long a period of time as possible, is what is kept. It amounts to sound knowledge.

 

 

Take the case of a frog; it is only programmed by evolution to notice only what it needs to notice to survive. For example, its eyes only reacts if something moves near it, such as an insect it needs to catch to eat and sustain itself. Other than that, it takes no notice of what is going on around it other than what it needs in order to survive. Thus, it has a very dim andvague almost non-existence view or understanding of the total reality around it..

The frog, we can say, will have absolutely no idea of what the thing is that runs over it as it is simply out catching insects which fly close to the pavement after a rainy evening. NO IDEA AT ALL !! Therefore, what we humans have no idea of at all, we have no idea of at all, period. We can say nothing further on it, nor should we even try to imagine, and then present our imagined figments, as claims to know of a certain factuality of nature at large. This is also an error in the attempt to follow up from the 'there are surely things which we do not know and understand, and never will know of and understand' statement. (Which statement, again, is correct enough to hold as fact.)

 

What we do know that is without brain, there is no consciousness. Tononi's IIT is something which deals with consciousness, but as for non-biological systems which integrate information, I have been (and am) arguing that we should not apply the word consciousness due to the confusion that will surely result. AI at that level is waaaaay off. Without the ascending reticular activating system, for example, we know that we have no consciousness. Studies underway, in light of results from connected studies, clearly appear to be moving ever so slowing into understanding at the module connectivity level, some of the reentry processes which build to amount to the state of having consciousness. Again, brain is the factor, and not just that (for most brain activity is pre-conscious), but the connectivity and activity levels.

 

For this reason, we can clearly state with sound knowledge that life--in the sense of having a state of consciousness--does not exist as an external event in nature without the living, processing, biological cellular structures which substrate consciousness through the above mentioned manners and structures. Thus, in layman's terms, there is no life (in that sense) when there is no living organ which amounts to it. By extension, a dead cell is a cell which is not alive, and thus the processing which is life, is not a fact entailed by such a cell. The bulk of a human body which is the total cellular build (and water and fabric within that), when all those cells are dead, is not a living body, and in this sense too, after all cells have died, there are no living cells by which we could say that there is life in the cells after they have all died. With the full death of all neuronal and glia cells, there is absolutely no consciousness--and no content of consciousness (memory recall, inner speech, etc.). With the full death of all the cells of the body, there is absolutely no life which those same cells are partaking of. In short, therefore, and overall, there is no life after death. This is a fact, and we need not entertain it any longer.

 

In summation on this much, scientific method is the only method of gaining sound knowledge about the factuality of nature at large. Science is an academic/professional field of activity, and is not some collective unity per se--we need to be careful with how we use it. It is through the brain that we know, and in the final analysis, the brain alone (meaning we may use tools to better our sensory input, but in the end, it is the brain that allows the perception and knowing). We surely cannot know all there is to know about our universe, but that fact does not deny, nor does it cancel out or negate, the sound knowledge that we do have to date. There is no life after death. God is not an external factuality of nature at large. (Now this last one, I know I did not touch on above, but just threw it in here. It is sound, however, as I will later present (I am pretty sure) somewhere on the sub-forum.)

[Alan McDougall]

As John Cuthber has pointed out, there is a fatal error on what Denise Yeo has in part, posited. (Or expressed in the form of opinion.) I think I would like to get back with some points within that, a bit later--if the need proves to yet be after the following. I will touch base with Alan firstly; as I think it may cover those portions of post #30 which stand to be corrected.

 

 

This particular line is very, very, oh too very commonly thrown out by many who long for something else emotionally. While I can understand the circumstances of the emotional longing for something else, I cannot stand what amounts of the laziness (not charging you here, Alan, with that quality) I find in such statements. I do appreciate, Alan your tone, and your expression of what you think; I do. I wish to help clarify the muddled part (which is nothing of yours, I can accept, but just what you have surely adopted from others) and correct some things. As I will have been saying slightly for some while now, on even this forum, it is not 'science,' that is to be compared with other disciplines or academic (or professional) inquiries, but rather 'scientific method' that we should focus on for clarity's sake in understanding the world we are in and are part of. It is most realistic, reasonable, logically soundly and validly accurate and correct to assert that humankind, as a species, will far most likely never understand everything. We can set that as a fact. What follows is what we must be careful about.

 

The most common error in following up on that, is to assert that variant bits and pieces of expressed, or held, understandings of those who lived in ages of ignorance--relative to the sound knowledge that we have now--which bits and pieces are written in he texts, and remain in other forms of evidence, compiled by the theist-involved religious belief systems of those uninformed peoples, or the philosophical pondering of theirs, represents sound knowledge of facts of nature at large. This is completely incorrect; and has been fully enough demonstrated to be so. Scientific method is the way those people learned the world about them in their daily fight to survive--to that degree. Their rampant emotional imagination (which climbed above their day to day living and in-group efforts to bond into a social unity) had been fueled by the empty space where sound knowledge and experience were absent. Superstition was the trump card of the day, but all that could be acknowledged and known, was so because of brain, and the brain was not so different at all, from ours today.

 

Again, one must be careful not misconstruct and thereby think that everything they said was mistaken; for it is not. What holds up under testing through multiple instance, with a high degree of consistency, over as long a period of time as possible, is what is kept. It amounts to sound knowledge.

 

 

The frog, we can say, will have absolutely no idea of what the thing is that runs over it as it is simply out catching insects which fly close to the pavement after a rainy evening. NO IDEA AT ALL !! Therefore, what we humans have no idea of at all, we have no idea of at all, period. We can say nothing further on it, nor should we even try to imagine, and then present our imagined figments, as claims to know of a certain factuality of nature at large. This is also an error in the attempt to follow up from the 'there are surely things which we do not know and understand, and never will know of and understand' statement. (Which statement, again, is correct enough to hold as fact.)

 

What we do know that is without brain, there is no consciousness. Tononi's IIT is something which deals with consciousness, but as for non-biological systems which integrate information, I have been (and am) arguing that we should not apply the word consciousness due to the confusion that will surely result. AI at that level is waaaaay off. Without the ascending reticular activating system, for example, we know that we have no consciousness. Studies underway, in light of results from connected studies, clearly appear to be moving ever so slowing into understanding at the module connectivity level, some of the reentry processes which build to amount to the state of having consciousness. Again, brain is the factor, and not just that (for most brain activity is pre-conscious), but the connectivity and activity levels.

 

For this reason, we can clearly state with sound knowledge that life--in the sense of having a state of consciousness--does not exist as an external event in nature without the living, processing, biological cellular structures which substrate consciousness through the above mentioned manners and structures. Thus, in layman's terms, there is no life (in that sense) when there is no living organ which amounts to it. By extension, a dead cell is a cell which is not alive, and thus the processing which is life, is not a fact entailed by such a cell. The bulk of a human body which is the total cellular build (and water and fabric within that), when all those cells are dead, is not a living body, and in this sense too, after all cells have died, there are no living cells by which we could say that there is life in the cells after they have all died. With the full death of all neuronal and glia cells, there is absolutely no consciousness--and no content of consciousness (memory recall, inner speech, etc.). With the full death of all the cells of the body, there is absolutely no life which those same cells are partaking of. In short, therefore, and overall, there is no life after death. This is a fact, and we need not entertain it any longer.

 

In summation on this much, scientific method is the only method of gaining sound knowledge about the factuality of nature at large. Science is an academic/professional field of activity, and is not some collective unity per se--we need to be careful with how we use it. It is through the brain that we know, and in the final analysis, the brain alone (meaning we may use tools to better our sensory input, but in the end, it is the brain that allows the perception and knowing). We surely cannot know all there is to know about our universe, but that fact does not deny, nor does it cancel out or negate, the sound knowledge that we do have to date. There is no life after death. God is not an external factuality of nature at large. (Now this last one, I know I did not touch on above, but just threw it in here. It is sound, however, as I will later present (I am pretty sure) somewhere on the sub-forum.)

 

 

I till insist we humans are never going to explain, with the very best scientific method "all of EXISTENCE" and how and when and where it came from , if indeed it came from anywhere. We will long be extinct before we could reach that point. We are as yet mere humans, not even mature in our existence, there might be beings somewhere out in the vastness of the cosmos that are billions of years in advance of us in all aspects of knowledge, wisdom and maturity than us. Could we separate such beings from our ideas of a god? Just think of beings using scientific method for billions of years as apposed to our mere five/six hundred years we have used this method?

[LimbicLoser]

Alan, it may not have served any purpose to have quoted my whole post, there. Just in case, I might add that there is a button at the bottom which reads 'Add Reply' which can be used for a short come-back; or just using the quick box at the bottom of the page. If a portion is need to be clearly identified, as having been answered to, or deal with, it would be of course better to quote that portion--and that portion only. Thanks for getting back, and please do allow me to point out, that what are saying in your sentence is something which I fully agree with--other than putting in slightly more precise wording. There are some problems, however what some further comments of yours.

 

We are as yet mere humans, not even mature in our existence,...

I feel that your intention is in line with the facts. It is the case, nevertheless, that the insertion of the word 'yet' insinuates that the writer holds claim to knowledge, or opinion, that it is knowable that there is anything we could evolved into beyond being H. sapiens. Actually, that would prove wrong by mere definition. It is through evolutionary process that the Homo genus came to be out previous geni. The class of H. sapiens will always be only that class by mere definition. Humans will always be only humans. Of course you probably did intend to insert that insinuation, I bet. I am just pointing this out for clarity, that's all.

 

there might be beings somewhere out in the vastness of the cosmos that are billions of years in advance of us in all aspects of knowledge, wisdom and maturity than us. Could we separate such beings from our ideas of a god? Just think of beings using scientific method for billions of years as apposed to our mere five/six hundred years we have used this method?

While the matter of brain-centered, human-like in intelligence and mental processing, etc., is possible, it is very dimmly so. In fact, it is so slight (perhaps unfortunately?) a possiblity, that we would be wasting our time to seriously consider it. As for the concept of gods, it would not fit at present. If we were to actually come face to face with some beings which were so overwhelmingly powerful mentally and physically, than us, we might want tend to re-apply that word (god) so as to go back to the simple idea of super strong beings. There would then be as many gods (and goddesses?) as there would be individuals in that society (world).

 

In the end, here and now, and most pragmatically, there is no reason at all to even consider it.

[Alan McDougall]

HI LimbicLoser,

 

It as a mistake the quoting your whole post I only intended to quote the last chapter but somehow that whole post of yours came out as a quote. It was very late over here in South Africa and I needed sleep so I just let it slide, sorry about that oversight I will return with a response a little later, I find this topic very interesting and you might have noticed I did not address it from a religious point of view I must add you have a really good grasp of the English Language, your writing skills are excellent in my opinion.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Alan McDougall

[LimbicLoser]

For the record, that positive credit is from myself (at least as of now it is just one). The reason for that is the candor and all. Yes, I understand the slip. I do make slips too. At times I cannot fully proof read my posts before posting--but I do make every effort to review and proof read before sending.

 

Thank you for the compliment, Alan. I will be the first to admit that I can quite wordy at times, quite detailed and loaded with embedded clauses which work to leave no stones unturned, and all relevant angles covered. It does make for hard reading at times, I am aware. While I have lived here in Japan for more than half my life, I am from the USA. Please do feel free to ask me to repeat and reword any section (in the future) which you may find hard to read through smoothly, or cannot understand. I cannot promise, but will always try, as oft as humanly possible, to respond.

[John Cuthber]

In my opinion,science will never explain everything; many things in science such as quantum physics just make no sense. Reality can be and is sometimes completely irrational to our limited minds. Existence or nature is infinite and eternal to suppose that a mere little entity living on a tiny spec on a very small galaxy,within and unmanageably vast universe could explain everything is just nonsense. Take the case of a frog; it is only programmed by evolution to notice only what it needs to notice to survive. For example, its eyes only reacts if something moves near it, such as an insect it needs to catch to eat and sustain itself. Other than that, it takes no notice of what is going on around it other than what it needs in order to survive. Thus, it has a very dim andvague almost non-existence view or understanding of the total reality around it..

 

Likewise we humans are programmed by nature to only observe what is essential to our survival (This has been proved) and this is but tiny portion of the total reality in the universe. Think! of the human eye it sends massages to our brains from a very tiny part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Yes it is true that we have made tools to look into areas our five senses cannot observe , but I can give you many other examples of how these senses are fooled and how we often fill in the gaps or blanks with false information.

 

 

 

We notice only what we have been programmed by nature to notice only what we need to notice to survive, so to suggest that a tiny almost quantumly small entity, like humans, who are in reality a mere ordered water bag of protoplasm and chemicals will ultimately scientifically explain all of reality is simply nonsense.

 

It's fair to say that, since we have finite brains and live in an infinite universe we won't ever learn everything about it.

 

However we might hope to learn all the rules.

 

I'm a chemist and a long time ago I learned that you can oxidise secondary alcohols to ketones.

That's pretty much general.

There are an infinite number of secondary alcohols so it's clear that nobody has tested all of them, but we still know that they can all be turned into ketones.

 

In the same way, there are an infinite (or at least very large) number of stars, planets and so on, but we may well be able to establish rules about all of them.

If we learn all the rules then we can work out what will happen next (down to the theoretical limits set by QM and the practical limits set by our ability to make the observations)

 

In that sense I think it's entirely possible that we will come to "know everything"

I think it was Confucius who said "true wisdom is not knowing everything, but knowing how to find everything out"

 

I can see a few things that might stop us doing that.

We simply might not be bright enough to find the rules.

There might be so many rules that we can't find them all.

We might give up looking because we think that it might be impossible.

 

I will be happy if we avoid the third option.

[Denise Yeo]

"But then again, I believe that the existence of God cannot be proven right or wrong with Science unless Science is able to reach out to what happens before and after life and death, heaven and hell."

But that doesn't make sense.

Unless and until there is some evidence for an afterlife, heaven or hell, there's no way to study it.

It's like saying the existence of unicorns can't be proven right or wrong until science has explained whether the horn spirals to the right or to the left.

 

It's a logical fallacy called "begging the question".

 

What I meant is that Science [so far, excluding the little progression of the GCN] is limited to what happens in the known physical Universe. Science cannot prove the existence or non-existence of God, and hence will not be able to explain "everything", since "everything" varies from person to person. "Everything" to a believer of faith may include the non-existence of God, and we cannot prove the non-existence of something. Just because you cannot prove the non-existence of something, does not mean something exists, and just because you cannot prove the existence of something, does not mean that something does not exist- since that would be a fallacy of ignorance. Science, in this case, takes up the stand that since God's existence has not been proven, God does not exist, and same goes to everything else which hasn't been proven to exist. Religion, on the other hand, takes up the stand that since God's non-existence cannot be proven, God exists. The conflict between science and religion lies between something like randomness vs divine intervention.

 

I correct what I have said before, that Science can eventually prove everything. Science can indeed prove everything, but "everything" would mean everything physical and known, rather than abstract ideas like consciousness.

 

 

 

In my opinion,science will never explain everything; many things in science such as quantum physics just make no sense. Reality can be and is sometimes completely irrational to our limited minds. Existence or nature is infinite and eternal to suppose that a mere little entity living on a tiny spec on a very small galaxy,within and unmanageably vast universe could explain everything is just nonsense. Take the case of a frog; it is only programmed by evolution to notice only what it needs to notice to survive. For example, its eyes only reacts if something moves near it, such as an insect it needs to catch to eat and sustain itself. Other than that, it takes no notice of what is going on around it other than what it needs in order to survive. Thus, it has a very dim andvague almost non-existence view or understanding of the total reality around it..

 

Likewise we humans are programmed by nature to only observe what is essential to our survival (This has been proved) and this is but tiny portion of the total reality in the universe. Think! of the human eye it sends massages to our brains from a very tiny part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Yes it is true that we have made tools to look into areas our five senses cannot observe , but I can give you many other examples of how these senses are fooled and how we often fill in the gaps or blanks with false information.

 

 

 

We notice only what we have been programmed by nature to notice only what we need to notice to survive, so to suggest that a tiny almost quantumly small entity, like humans, who are in reality a mere ordered water bag of protoplasm and chemicals will ultimately scientifically explain all of reality is simply nonsense.

 

It is indeed true, what you have said. It is like what happened when Niels Bohr was younger- he would stare into a pond and think about how fishes in the pond were oblivious to an observer out of the pond, and that sunlight came from outside the pond. However, I think that since we are aware of the Universe and things beyond our galaxy, we will be able to figure it out eventually.

 

On the other hand, I think that if we like the fish in the pond, unaware of observers from outside the Universe, or wherever they may be, then I do agree with you that Science will not be able to prove everything. As I said in my reply previously, I believe that Science will be able to prove everything known and physical but not abstract concepts.

 

Alan- I won't probably be on this forum for very much longer, but thank you for starting this topic It has got me to think a lot about what I believe life and Science has for us.

 

 

Edited October 6, 2012 by Denise Yeo

[LimbicLoser]

While I of course appreciate your sharing your thoughts and imaginations, Denise, I really wish to encourage your more careful and detailed thinking over sound and valid knowledge. You have mentioned that you feel you do not wish to come, read, or/and post here much more--for whatever reason that may be--yet you have signified that you wish to think about things further. Well, this is why I wish to encourage you, namely, because as one thinks, it is necessary to get the predicates of the thoughts as accurate and correct as possible. In you above post there is a high degree of error due to not having done so so far.

 

First of all, I would greatly suggest that you take more care not to simply sling the word 'science' around as though it were some collective blob of mass of a thing. Knowing of things through the brain is the only way of knowing of things, period. When you mention, or use, the very word 'god,' you are talking about a provided referent to which it identifies--which ever referent from among the thousands it may be. If you use the form 'God,' you are talking primarily about the Jewish theist-involved religious belief system's god model, YHWH, or, secondly, about the biblical god model of later Christianity, thirdly (and a greater error in my concerned opinion) the Islamic god model. If one wishes to find out about the particular models, it is good to do so through a chronologically flowing search, because time is essentially (to us) a one way flow-like thing. It is necessary to let the information source which developed, explained, described, and prescribed the model, to inform us on the model which is being presented by the information source.

 

What is the god said to be like, his (since a god is not a goddess, thus always a male being) personality, likes, dislikes, and so on. In what manner is the said god portrayed as having intervened in the affairs of human activity, in natural events, and so on. We can take the whole body of information, and test it against what we do know from empirically collected sound and valid knowledge. We can then test the model to see if it holds up against what we know. The god being tested will stand or fall with that testing.

 

Denise, it is totally meaningless to posit that there may be something which of you what is, that may exist (that is, may be a factuality of nature at large), but which is not known to you at all. This is true because you have claimed to know what it is. When the word 'god' is used, it is used as what it is defined as, therefore, it is claiming to know of the referent. (Perhaps checking the thread on the "Word God" might be informative.) The word 'god' says that there is a male being of superhuman, supernatural strength and being which controls certain elements of nature, and which requires certain degrees of obedience and worship. Simple using the word already posits this much, and already asserts knowledge of that referent. In other words, the user of the word is already saying that such is known by the word.

 

There are many, many gods, Denise, and a good number of goddesses as well. If one wants to single out any particular one of them, and investigate whether that particular god, or goddess, holds up under testing, one is required to go through the process mentioned above. However, it is obvious to me, Denise, that you are not talking about any particular god, or goddess. You simply wish to point out there may be some actuality of nature at large which we do not know of--and maybe cannot know of. I do not at all see how any reasonable and honest thinker could deny, or argue against, such a proposition. I recall one fairly recent article in Science on the discovery of a new species of bug. The main conclusive clinch on its being a yet unknown of species, is that no one, neither the locals, nor the classification catalogs of biology, knew of it. In other words, it was an unknown until known. Now, Denise, one could have posited that such a very species existed, before its having been found, but they could not soundly, nor validly, claim to know that that species existed before having found it--they could posit the possibility that such a specific species may exist.

 

The authors of the several gods and goddesses, never do that. They claim an actuality of nature at large a priori. In fact, many of the information sources of the several systems claim to know (as a matter of fact) that it is known that such a being as the particular god described by the information source, is known to have lived before the H. sapiens even came into being. Well, Denise, to make a super long story short, the several gods and goddess have all failed the tests. (see above) We do not need to posit them any longer.

 

Therefore, Denise, you are in need of finding a different word. You are absolutely not talking about 'YHWH' and if we were to stick to the information source of Christian thought, it would eventually work out that you are not talking about the biblical god either. Yes, Denise, there may be some force of a thing, or energy, or whatever it may be, that pervades though out all of nature, which we do not, and cannot know about. What we do know, however, is that that is not a god. My hope and wish is that you carefully consider the details and information which underlies what I have written here. My hope and wish is that you do think about it most carefully and fully.

[Alan McDougall]

What I meant is that Science [so far, excluding the little progression of the GCN] is limited to what happens in the known physical Universe. Science cannot prove the existence or non-existence of God, and hence will not be able to explain "everything", since "everything" varies from person to person. "Everything" to a believer of faith may include the non-existence of God, and we cannot prove the non-existence of something. Just because you cannot prove the non-existence of something, does not mean something exists, and just because you cannot prove the existence of something, does not mean that something does not exist- since that would be a fallacy of ignorance. Science, in this case, takes up the stand that since God's existence has not been proven, God does not exist, and same goes to everything else which hasn't been proven to exist. Religion, on the other hand, takes up the stand that since God's non-existence cannot be proven, God exists. The conflict between science and religion lies between something like randomness vs divine intervention.

 

I correct what I have said before, that Science can eventually prove everything. Science can indeed prove everything, but "everything" would mean everything physical and known, rather than abstract ideas like consciousness.

 

 

 

It is indeed true, what you have said. It is like what happened when Niels Bohr was younger- he would stare into a pond and think about how fishes in the pond were oblivious to an observer out of the pond, and that sunlight came from outside the pond. However, I think that since we are aware of the Universe and things beyond our galaxy, we will be able to figure it out eventually.

 

On the other hand, I think that if we like the fish in the pond, unaware of observers from outside the Universe, or wherever they may be, then I do agree with you that Science will not be able to prove everything. As I said in my reply previously, I believe that Science will be able to prove everything known and physical but not abstract concepts.

 

Alan- I won't probably be on this forum for very much longer, but thank you for starting this topic It has got me to think a lot about what I believe life and Science has for us.

 

 

 

Please dont leave Denise!, you make real sense with your comments, we humans are limited by nature to observe only that part of reality we need for our survival. A huge part of reality is simply beyond our comprehension, such as how did Existence come to be and exactly what is existence and exactly where is existence (question mark key wont work)

 

 

The noted atheistic philosopher Jean Paul Sarte conceded that this hope could never be achieved. Said Sarte, “A finite point without an infinite reference point is meaningless and absurd.” He realized that because human knowledge would forever be finite and limited humanity would never ever be in a position to have the ultimate big picture. And science has discovered that the further we push back the frontiers of scientific knowledge the more unanswered questions we have.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Alan McDougall