Can Science explain everything in the universe without a God?

[ajb]

The point is that "beyond our comprehension" is a set that's shrinking all the time.

And it does not directly imply that we have to entertain the idea of 'supernatural' or 'god(s)'. It just implies that we have gaps in our knowledge.

[Strange]

And may I join the chorus of people asking you to show us something that actually is supernatural?

You don't seem to have done that.

 

And this should be the standard meaning of the word 'supernatural' not something you make up.

[Phi for All]

The way supernatural is defined here at SFN, it's more about whether an explanation is measurable by normal scientific processes. Many folks believe in ghosts, but there's no evidence that conclusively shows there's no natural explanation for each piece of "evidence" presented. None of the events are repeatable, so they have no predictive power. Science has no meat to sink its teeth into without those, and since we're interested in describing the natural world, these lacking explanations are deemed "supernatural", problems for which science is the wrong tool, or perhaps they're just... imagination.

 

As far as the circle being natural, I call stretching the definition into unrecognizability, or maybe the No True Scotsman fallacy. Circles certainly exist everywhere, but adding the word "perfect" to almost anything renders it suspect.

 

"Circles don't exist in nature."

"Sure they do, and here's a list of 100 of them off the top of my..."

"No PERFECT circles exist in nature."

[puppypower]

 

Do you have any evidence for that? Or did you make it up?

 

 

Good. Then you should be able provide some objective data to support your claim.

 

 

In what way is adoption unnatural? As far as I know all societies have done it since ancient times. Even animals do it.

 

So instead of objective data you rely on lies and misrepresentation. Please keep this sort of vile bigotry out of the forum.

 

 

In the quote above, I was saying that religion was more efficient in terms of resource usage. I brought up the example that a husband and wife having a child is as cheap as you can get, unless you start adding secular needs which then will make a natural thing more complicated and more expensive. The faith healer types hardly use any resources, just like animals do in nature. This efficiency is not allowed. Secular atheism moves us away from natural economy, using fear to move their herd and sheer the sheep.

 

I mentioned that gay couples can have children, but this needs science, such as test tube babies, adding cost and the need for extra resources. I was not dumping on gays, just pointing out an example of the claim that religious morality is resources effective; closer to how nature does it. No fake stuff is needed.

 

I was being misrepresented as attacking homosexuality. This atheist deception adds to the amount of resources I need to use to clarify the truth. This is a good example of secular waste. If we all told the truth and could be mature enough to listen to all POV and not get irrational, this would use the least mental resources to get the most bang for the buck.

Religious morality is about optimizing the team, so the team can become more than the sum of its parts. Morality is not about optimizing the individual, except in terms of the spin off from optimizing the team. Like a sports team, the coach will place limits on the players, with the hope he can form the best team. A good coach will not let the players do what they want, nor will he allow the players to manipulate him to play when and where they want. He is not a mother of spoiled children. That is liberalism.

 

He is acting more like a dad, with conditional love; moral laws. If they win the championship he will let his hair down. They need to act in such a way to earn his love, with the reward being a team that is more than the sum of its parts. You don't have to have all the best players to have the best team. While a team with the best players, who don't play together very well, will not be the best team.

 

In sports, if a team wins a championship, because all the players sacrifice for the team, one reward is each player is now a champion. This increases the value of all the players. All the free agents will make more money. It works similar to the free market in that value is added, which then trickles back to all the players. This team value added, is why you don't need as much resources. If there is no value added; losing team, you need to add resources to make up the difference.

 

If you look at marriage, this takes far less social resources than divorce. For one thing divorce requires two households or twice the living expenses. The demand for double the housing, increases the cost of housing for everyone, including the more economical married couples. This is due to laws of supply and demand. This is moving away from the resource efficiency of nature. It is simple math based on resources.

 

Back in the 1960's before liberalism took hold, any married couple could afford a house, even on a factory worker salary. Once liberalism broke up the family, adding to the resources requirement for the same number of people, now houses are out of reach for the same pay. Now you need Government to kick in extra resources.

 

I suppose if you are a middleman selling goods and service, immorality offers the best path for higher profits. Maybe the atheists and liberals needs to trace the money trail to their sources of information and ethics. Your heart might be in the right place, but your mind has been scammed.

 

The religious tithe is 10%. Modern income taxes is higher than that. This is a good example of secular waste in terms of higher resource need due to immorality inherent in its leaders. Why can religion do the same thing with less resources if science and atheism is so smart? The atheist sales pitch is good, but the math does not add up to the sales pitch.

[Strange]

I brought up the example that a husband and wife having a child is as cheap as you can get

I wrote a much longer reply initially (because there is so much nonsense in this post). But let's just focus on this:

 

What does this have to do with religion?

 

In other words, what connection does religion have to "a husband and wife having a child"?

Edited December 31, 2015 by Strange

[Ophiolite]

I suppose if you are a middleman selling goods and service, immorality offers the best path for higher profits.

Crap. The route to higher profits is to provide value to the customer. This generates repeat business, or new business by word of mouth and reputation. Higher profits in the short term, through application of immoral, or questionable practices, leads to overall lower profits.

[puppypower]

 

I wrote a much longer reply initially (because there is so much nonsense in this post). But let's just focus on this:

 

What does this have to do with religion?

 

In other words, what connection does religion have to "a husband and wife having a child"?

 

Men and women are designed by nature to reproduce, with each having half the DNA. If we were humans starting a culture from scratch and needed to figure out how to make reproduction and child raising work, socially, with the least amount of resources, while getting the most bang for the buck in terms of the children, you would have the men and women, who make the child, remain together, to raise the child. They, on the average, will have the natural or instinctive love; everyone favors their own child. From this the idea of marriage appeared. It was a natural efficiency.

 

I am not saying all married couples are fit parents, nor am I saying that that some single parents or even gay couples can't do a good job. I am saying if we average all these behavior this across the entire team; culture, married men and women will need less resources due to instinctive love for their own children.

 

The main world religions appeared at a time in history when most people were poor, there was little science, and no welfare state. If you wanted you culture to not just survive, but grow and prosper, you needed to find ways to minimize resource usage for basic things.

 

Sex is very enjoyable, with the husband and wife schema the least likely to generate diseases. This assumes no need for science and medicines, which uses resources. A monogamous male-female couple will rarely create disease of a sexual nature compared to other combinations; no artificial additives. If the needs of the team come first, we can't have a lot of sick teammates. Rather we need all the players healthy and able to deal with the children they might create out of desire, all with a minimal resource requirement. This were wise choices.

 

Religion is closer to nature, since nature is part of their God's creation. Manmade is not part of God's creation, adding artificial will not be favored the same way.

 

Crap. The route to higher profits is to provide value to the customer. This generates repeat business, or new business by word of mouth and reputation. Higher profits in the short term, through application of immoral, or questionable practices, leads to overall lower profits.

 

I agree with you. But I was talking about inefficiencies created by social engineering. For example, if the powers to be decided that people can't walk properly, therefore we all need the help of big brother. With this new need, businesses will attempt to make the best walkers they can make, with efficiency and quality driving the consumer demand toward certain business, who will then profit. The business half of this is fine, since the need is there.

 

But the social engineering created waste by creating the subjective the need for things that would not be needed in a moral society. This does not benefit the whole team. This is a form of business welfare.

 

If you look at diversity, this is not how a team work. A good team does not treat each player like they are their own team, with uniques needs and requirements. The result is waste in terms of the resources. Once this nonsense is law, then business will see the need, and may try to make the best of these parameters. But this takes all types of extra resources not needed if we concerned for the one team. This is immoral; wasteful for the team.

 

If people want to cater to all the sub-teams, it would be moral for such people to give of their own money. It is immoral to take it from the team. Charity could do the same thing. Giving is moral since it helps the team.

 

If we had a sports team and all players wanted to be the hot dog, this can cause the team to break down. To keep the team whole and also allow hotdogs, we can have groupies fawn over each player. This self benefitting charity also helps the team and the hotdogs. But if we take resources from the team, to buy groupies, this is immoral, since it add costs.

Edited January 1, 2016 by puppypower

[Strange]

Men and women are designed by nature to reproduce, with each having half the DNA. If we were humans starting a culture from scratch and needed to figure out how to make reproduction and child raising work, socially, with the least amount of resources, while getting the most bang for the buck in terms of the children, you would have the men and women, who make the child, remain together, to raise the child. They, on the average, will have the natural or instinctive love; everyone favors their own child. From this the idea of marriage appeared. It was a natural efficiency.

 

I am not saying all married couples are fit parents, nor am I saying that that some single parents or even gay couples can't do a good job. I am saying if we average all these behavior this across the entire team; culture, married men and women will need less resources due to instinctive love for their own children.

 

None of that appears to have anything to do with religion. So let me try again:

 

What is the connection between sex/love/couples/marriage/children/health and religion?

 

Because I am struggling to see one.

 

I am, reluctantly, going to ignore the rest of the crap in your post because I don't want to distract from this main point.

[Ophiolite]

If you look at diversity, this is not how a team work. A good team does not treat each player like they are their own team, with uniques needs and requirements. The result is waste in terms of the resources.

I take it you have never managed a team. No team can be efficient, effective and happy, unless the strengths and weaknesses of each individual member are recognised and appropriately catered for. Attempting to create cookie cutter team members is a waste of resources because - even if their job is making cookie cutters - each one requires different levels of training, motivation, discipline and support.

 

Once again I note a serious disconnect between your opinions and reality.

[Phi for All]

I am, reluctantly, going to ignore the rest of the crap in your post because I don't want to distract from this main point.

 

Explanations pulled from one's ass are a) not easily scrubbed clean by reason, b) usually accompanied by a lot of hand-waiving, and c) apt to stink upon close examination.

[John Cuthber]

Has anyone yet found an example of something that science can't explain?

[Phi for All]

Has anyone yet found an example of something that science can't explain?

 

You know, there are plenty of things science doesn't have the information to explain yet, but there's not one phenomena science needs an omnipotent being to explain. The title question is flawed from the start.

 

Dimensional analysis says we're mixing units here. You can't measure reality accurately using empirical evidence AND goddidit.

[Ophiolite]

Has anyone yet found an example of something that science can't explain?

If there were no unexplained phenomena then there would be no further need for science.

[DevilSolution]

Has anyone yet found an example of something that science can't explain?

 

consciousness

 

human stupidity

 

And about a million "Why" questions...Why do magnets and electricity relate ? I know how, just not why. Why do humans believe we are superior to other animals?

 

Why are we so curious to know why? Why does anything exist...........shada shada shada.

 

Whats inside a blackhole? Whats dark energy? How many laws of physics are there? Why do sub atomic particles behave as they do?

 

 

 

Anyway, supernatural, as Ophiolite has mentioned (though on a different issue) there plenty of phenomena that exists in which we can only hypothesise, theorize or philosophise. Ofcourse we strive to comprehend some of these things which is progression (or sorts) but to fully dedicate yourself to the notion that all of these phenomena are of a natural cause is a harder notion to comprehend than that of something "supernatural" (atleast to me).

 

 

And i still believe some of the tools in which we use to explain nature are or could be defined as supernatural. As Phi for All pointed out there plenty of circles in nature and to assert "perfect" to anything makes it rather...well supernatural. Nothing is perfect, but still we use the theoretical notion of "perfect" to explain nature. We dont estimate pi when using it in our calculations to explain coloumbs law or general relativity. Infact we go beyond using perfect circles we create imaginary numbers, which them themselves have the mathematical principles of circles (or can be used as such). We made imaginary perfect circles to help explain the "natural" universe. Am i honestly the only one who can see that "perfect imaginary circles" dont exist in nature.....Not that they aren't profoundly useful at explaining nature through science. But your explaining nature with supernatural conceptions, non existent entities.

 

 

Even the nomenclature itself is somewhat open to interpretation. As i previously tried explaining, something that we currently have no "natural" law for, or way of explaining has by the law of logic the same disposition to be interpreted as supernatural. If you have no natural cause for something then its mutually exclusive and has as much right to be defined as supernatural until such a time as science can say otherwise. To what extent you wish to use this is completely subjective, i personally dont over extend my interpretation of what is and isnt supernatural but fundamentally you have the right to believe what you want beyond that which science can explain.

 

 

As far as religion goes, you need a natural first cause, at which point you could argue that if nature "caused" the big bang and all the laws and forces within the universe are natural they therefore exist everywhere. By extension we are then completely constrained by those laws and forces which are pretty powerful, well they are everything. Then nature itself seems omnipotent , omniscient and omnipresent. (omniscient by means of us being creatures of nature itself thats able to comprehend everything there is to know.....). It's actually quite malevolent aswell, as its unbiased and ruthless. You could also say its benevolent by having the exact balance of forces to allow animals and humans to exist, for which we should be thankful that we can love and hate and experience life as nature so deemed or ??? intended.

 

So even if the first cause is a completely natural phenomenon almost everything about it conforms to most religions belief of "God", maybe nature doesnt have a white beard and theres a good chance heaven isnt in a black hole but by most people standards there is enough similarity to say nature is the all powerful force and the source of our being.

 

Though in reality we're never going to explain half the questions we have, we'll probably not find a first cause or explain all the laws of the universe, most of us will barely figure out our own purpose let alone natures. We might just be lucky enough not to destroy ourselves. But then i remember that were smashing atoms together near the speed of light so i wouldnt hedge my bets even on that .

 

However the great thing about supernatural forces is that they dont have to conform to the laws of nature or maths or logic, which means there is no logical contradiction in terms of creation, by definition it should be supernatural enough to imagine itself. (atleast thats what i imagine). If we dismiss fairy tales, indoctrination and the irrational personification of what god is defined as by some religions, i think we come to the conclusion that there is something supernatural its just probably beyond our comprehension.

 

I havent really god much else to say other than I can see an intellectual rift between science and religion where really its probably our only chance, unless humanity unite is some form another then nature will do what she does. And whether atheists anonymous like it or not there's more believers than non. I think i've rambled on a bit too much so ill finish up with my beliefs, agnosticism is the only way, personal beliefs and philosophical debate, atleast thats a battle of intellect rather than money, oil or organised religion.

 

One question to everyone who questioned me for proof of something supernatural though, do you believe your more intelligent than people who believe in God?

 

Like im asking sincerely because there are alot of religious people who lack rational thinking, whether through indoctrination or ignorance and thats the only thing i fear. Anyone with a belief so strong that reason is replaced by their own inability to accept someone elses truth.

 

You know, there are plenty of things science doesn't have the information to explain yet, but there's not one phenomena science needs an omnipotent being to explain. The title question is flawed from the start.

 

Dimensional analysis says we're mixing units here. You can't measure reality accurately using empirical evidence AND goddidit.

 

I hate it when peoples counter argument to supernatural forces or being is the spaghetti monster or unicorns. Its innate philosophical curiosity to question and as i've said above, science can be very dangerous, not that religion is necessarily its moral counter part but most religious people i know are very drawn towards unity and selflessness. I think i've shown how theres a probability there might be a god by nature or otherwise.

 

And god didnt do it, it was a roman soldier

 

Oh and i can basically turn wine into water so..checkmate athiests. (i wouldnt personally drink though)

Has anyone yet found an example of something that science can't explain?

 

Wasnt the question based on an example of something supernatural?

 

I'm going with sex, its super and pretty natural.

 

NO .... i take it back, donald trumps dead hamster is super natural, it goes everywhere with him.

And it does not directly imply that we have to entertain the idea of 'supernatural' or 'god(s)'. It just implies that we have gaps in our knowledge.

 

Beyond our comprehension isnt learning to spell, its mankinds capabilities to think in abstract or conceptual terms.

 

You can entertain whatever beliefs you wish, and you will interpret things the way your brains adapted to, i doubt i could tap into that even if i wanted.

 

I offer a basic logical premise for the fact that "perfect" circles do not exist in reality but yet we use them over and over to explain nature, we construct abstract concepts and theories which are ideologies, you can choose to name something that doesnt exist in nature as unnatural if you so wish but i personally believe they're supernatural.

 

Here's a question for you though, why do you decide to not entertain the idea? What purposes do you have for not imagining something?

 

Logic and reason alone are like a void, why not fill it with unicorns and idea's of something better than yourself? (thats not attack btw, i literally mean imagining what perfection actually is, or what it might exist as)

 

Look at the world around you, then imagine that you could create heaven or hell. Just conceptually think about that. You don't need god to think in those terms but its not exactly counter active.

Edited January 5, 2016 by DevilSolution

[John Cuthber]

 

consciousness

 

human stupidity

 

And about a million "Why" questions...Why do magnets and electricity relate ? I know how, just not why. Why do humans believe we are superior to other animals?

 

 

There is a difference between "things can't explain yet" and "things that science can't explain in principle"

And, as has been pointed out, science isn't finished yet.

So, can anyone think of something that science can't, even in principle, explain?

(I thought it was obvious that I meant that- sorry for not making it clear).

 

Anyway:

Why do magnets and electricity relate ?

Because they are two aspects of an overall force called electromagnetism.

human stupidity

Partly because no system is totally reliable but largely because the brain has two separatte systems for reacting to the world- one is quick, instinctive and unreliable for complex problems; the other is slow, logical and much better at that sort of thing.

We need both, because we need to address both sorts of questions.

Why do humans believe we are superior to other animals?

Because we are the only animals that can answer questions like these.

Etc.

 

It's also important to keep track of the other half of the OP's question.

 

Having a God fails to explain anything.

"Goddidit" isn't an answer; it's an acceptance of failure.

Edited January 5, 2016 by John Cuthber

[DevilSolution]

There is a difference between "things can't explain yet" and "things that science can't explain in principle"

And, as has been pointed out, science isn't finished yet.

So, can anyone think of something that science can't, even in principle, explain?

(I thought it was obvious that I meant that- sorry for not making it clear).

 

Anyway:

Why do magnets and electricity relate ?

Because they are two aspects of an overall force called electromagnetism.

human stupidity

Partly because no system is totally reliable but largely because the brain has two separatte systems for reacting to the world- one is quick, instinctive and unreliable for complex problems; the other is slow, logical and much better at that sort of thing.

We need both, because we need to address both sorts of questions.

Why do humans believe we are superior to other animals?

Because we are the only animals that can answer questions like these.

Etc.

 

It's also important to keep track of the other half of the OP's question.

 

Having a God fails to explain anything.

"Goddidit" isn't an answer; it's an acceptance of failure. <---- only for certain people!!!!

 

i already told you it was a roman soldier.

 

Well you skipped the main questions and answered the one i knew.

 

Also i had about 7 inbox quoting me so i broadly answering everyones questions.

 

So we are better because we can think? even though we murder for money and care less for our own kind than say....elephants?

 

Yeh if thats how you define better We are far too ignorant and greedy, there are animals that far out-seed us morally and physically.

 

Can science explain in principle consciousness? i missed the memo

 

Also EM explains how they relate not why they do.

 

Maybe...consciousness is supernatural?

Edited January 5, 2016 by DevilSolution

[Strange]

Also EM explains how they relate not why they do.

 

Can "God" explain that?

[John Cuthber]

 

Can "God" explain that?

Can "God" explain that anything?

 

So we are better because we can think? even though we murder for money and care less for our own kind than say....elephants?

 

Maybe...consciousness is supernatural?

Speak for yourself.

Maybe it isn't and, in the absence of any evidence for the existence of "supernatural" it's sensible to assume it isn't.

[DevilSolution]

Well, like, were not really on talking terms at the moment.

He said something about complementary forces.

 

I speak in conceptual terms, While we have a minimal understanding of what consciousness is, its fair to say its a unique trait, nothing else in nature is conscious is it? Some animals are sentient but consciousness is very unique. It's not an illogical conclusion. Ofcourse were supernatural...how else can we explain nature? nature cant explain itself.

 

 

Can "God" explain that?

 

Whoever or wherever it came from ... i imagine can, yeh. Cant you?

Edited January 5, 2016 by DevilSolution

[Strange]

Whoever or wherever it came from ... i imagine can, yeh. Cant you?

 

In what was is "God" an explanation for anything? It is just a cop out. It is giving up. You are saying, "we don't currently know the answer so I am going to give up and just say GodDidIt. Problem solved."

 

Except, problem not solved. All you have done is substitute a non-existent entity for "we don't know" and dropped the "but we are damn well going to find out". That is why primitive superstition never lead to technological progress.

[DevilSolution]

Please quote where i said that we should give up on science because theres a chance god might exist please before asserting your misinterpretation....thanks.

 

I said who or whatever created the force could explain it, not that we shouldnt try, your free to try and do whatever you wish, by including "god" in any conversation seems to mean that that person dismisses progression? Strongly biased belief you seem to show. Excuse me if i've misinterpreted you....

Edited January 5, 2016 by DevilSolution

[Strange]

by including "god" in any conversation seems to mean that that person dismisses progression?

 

Yes. Because as soon as you say "god-did-it" you have no reason to look any further. And will attack others for looking for other answers because one shouldn't question "god did it".

 

Strongly biased belief you seem to show. Excuse me if i've misinterpreted you....

 

It is not a belief, just a rather obvious conclusion.

[johnsonchester03]

No..Because it all started with God..by God.

[Fuzzwood]

No..Because it all started with God..by God.

http://xkcd.org/285/

[ajb]

I offer a basic logical premise for the fact that "perfect" circles do not exist in reality but yet we use them over and over to explain nature, we construct abstract concepts and theories which are ideologies, you can choose to name something that doesnt exist in nature as unnatural if you so wish but i personally believe they're supernatural.

Once again the problem is that you are using the word 'supernatural' outside of the standard context. If we allow for all abstractions of nature to be labelled 'supernatural', and I appreciate your argument here, then we are not really discussing what people would usually mean by 'supernatural'.

 

You seem to be equating what we currently do not understand and abstractions with 'supernatural'. Fair enough, but this will create confusion.

 

Here's a question for you though, why do you decide to not entertain the idea?

You mean why I do not like your definition of 'supernatural'? If so, then the reason is just that it does not sit well with common meaning.

 

What purposes do you have for not imagining something?

That question is too lose and open ended.

 

Logic and reason alone are like a void, why not fill it with unicorns and idea's of something better than yourself? (thats not attack btw, i literally mean imagining what perfection actually is, or what it might exist as)

 

Look at the world around you, then imagine that you could create heaven or hell. Just conceptually think about that. You don't need god to think in those terms but its not exactly counter active.

I can imagine many things, many of then clearly unphysical. So what?

 

So, can anyone think of something that science can't, even in principle, explain?

This is why I think the standard dictionary definition is vacuous.

 

 

No..Because it all started with God..by God.

Poe's law?

 

Can science explain in principle consciousness? i missed the memo

 

 

Maybe...consciousness is supernatural?

Many people think that consciousness can be explained in principle by science. That is not to say that scientists have found such an explanation, but people do study and write papers on cognitive science.

Edited January 6, 2016 by ajb