Can Science explain everything in the universe without a God?

[DevilSolution]

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

That question is too lose and open ended.

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

Poe's law?

 

 

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.

 

It's a strange concept, consciousness being able to explain consciousness. If we can then i think it'll be through AI and if so, consciousness is defined purely by logic.

I digress further that we ourselves are supernatural by being able to explain nature, as nature cant explain itself we must therefore be above it, we overstand not understand nature, which is analogous to consciousness. We can't scientifically explain consciousness, atleast not without assistance of some very sophisticated and advanced software that essentially must itself become conscious. At which point the AI will undoubtedly surpass the collective consciousness of humankind and also be supernatural. However i'm not sure a fully conscious AI is possible or that science can fully explain consciousness. Cognitive processes, neurological development and structures, perceptions and memories sure but to actually merge it all into a single theory is almost paradoxical. Like nature being able to explain itself.

 

Furthermore i think it's rather elegant to define specific things within mathematics as supernatural. If as i've explained these "perfect" abstractions are used to explain nature, then they have the right to be defined in those terms. In reality a natural circle isnt perfect nor supernatural but we dont use natural circles in our equations. The nomenclature is secondary to the point that it can deemed supernatural, and we the creators are therefore arguably supernatural. (as an extension to the first paragraph)

 

 

 

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".

 

 

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

 

I believe your wrong, what your misconception is alluding to is that anyone who is spiritual, agnostic or pertains to any religion must have no curiosity as to the nature of the universe and will name every unknown phenomena as "godidit" rather than use their natural curiosity to question such things.

Although in very recent history it's fair to say the majority of scientist's are atheist (which to me shows herd regression of specific individuals who have made it their lifes goal to contradict "RELIGION", the rest follow suit), there are still plenty of agnostic, religious or spiritual scientist's. Historically speaking mostly all scientists to some degree or another were religious, they may have questioned their religion but not necessarily god itself. Einstein was a pantheist and agnostic, does your "rather obvious conclusion" mean Einstein was not a true scientist?

 

It's laughable that you conclude that the existence of something supernatural means that we will stop questioning, some things people associate as supernatural have no place in science and ever will, like the belief of heaven. Believing that if you do right on earth you will end up in heaven with all your dead relatives and enlightenment may be given upon you is a comforting thought for those who have felt the coldness of near death experiences or terminal illness. To say that because i believe in heaven means i dont want to help in progression of humanity through say biochemistry or medicine is ridiculous. I think maybe christopher hitchens has you sprung or other philosophical thinkers who surpass your own ability to think.

 

Most of what you believe is probably aimed at the devout religious people who take their scriptures literally rather than metaphorically, in such cases you'd usually be right, but its not true for all, infact any self aware believer will usually use rationality on such matters the same as an atheist. You need to stop putting everyone in the same box, its like having 1000 different sets which all connect on a single belief and you think that all 1000 sets of people are therefore the same.

 

Just so your aware "godidit" answers plenty of questions for plenty of people, questions science will never be able to answer, such as; why do exist? Whats the purpose to existence? Are there things beyond human comprehension? What might they be? Could there be life after death?.....the existential problem of most people are easily answered by whichever religion they so choose without having to overthink or philosophise on such issues. Maybe you dont have these questions, maybe you have your own answers for each and every one but they are subjective and as such should have no place in science yet they are still associated by secondary means. Morals for example, are not a scientific subject, yet scientific advances should be looked at very closely using a moral approach or else science may be devolution rather than evolution.

 

One more note, i think you'll find it's religious believers who generally get attacked for having irrational beliefs, not scientists for trying to answer questions. Where do you actually dream this stuff up???

Edited January 7, 2016 by DevilSolution

[ajb]

It's a strange concept, consciousness being able to explain consciousness.

Well really it is no different to the concept of us being able to begin to understand any part of the physical world by our mathematical models. Why we can do this at all is not understood.

 

If we can then i think it'll be through AI and if so, consciousness is defined purely by logic.

If we do get close to AI then it will open up all sorts of philosophical and moral questions that we will have to face. One of these may well be a clear definition and understanding of consciousness.

 

At the frontiers of science things are, almost by definition, unclear.

 

I digress further that we ourselves are supernatural by being able to explain nature, as nature cant explain itself we must therefore be above it, we overstand not understand nature, which is analogous to consciousness.

Why can 'nature not explain itself'?

 

We seem to be bound by the standard laws of physics and so we are far from 'supernatural' in the standard sense. But by your earlier definition we maybe supernatural as not everything about humans is fully understood!

 

 

We can't scientifically explain consciousness, atleast not without assistance of some very sophisticated and advanced software that essentially must itself become conscious.

Can you point to experts in the field who have made such claims?

 

 

However i'm not sure a fully conscious AI is possible or that science can fully explain consciousness.

It maybe the case that we can never build a conscious AI or really understand consciousness. But that still does not mean that we have to invoke 'supernatural' (in the standard meaning).

 

Furthermore i think it's rather elegant to define specific things within mathematics as supernatural.

It seems too loaded and open to wrong interpretation.

 

'Paranatural' maybe a better term. Para means 'side by side' or 'past'. The mathematical work is complimentary to the natural one and has nothing to do with 'ghouls and ghosts' as the term supernatural would invoke.

 

 

If as i've explained these "perfect" abstractions are used to explain nature, then they have the right to be defined in those terms.

They are used to model nature, but are usually not understood as being nature themselves.

 

 

In reality a natural circle isnt perfect nor supernatural but we dont use natural circles in our equations.

What is a natural circle?

 

Do you mean some physical object that can be well described as approximately having the shape of a circle? This is how we model things, we use abstract mathematics to capture their approximate properties. Making the link between mathematical modelling and supernatural is misleading.

[B. John Jones]

No offense, but I have always been against religion. I know most of the bible and some of it is just plain horrible. I'm going to give you a few of these quotes; Psalms 137:9, 1 Kings 20:35-36, Genesis 19:5-8, Deuteronomy 22:28-29, and Numbers 15:32-36. I got more than that and if you don't believe me read them for yourself.

 

I was always told as a kid that "the universe can't come from nothing" and this proves God exists. It wasn't until I watched a science video until I learned the truth. The basic idea is that the universe started at a heated and condensed state. Energy (not nothing) had transferred into particles of matter. These particles later combined because of the heat and made atoms, which later combined and made planets and stars. Then the universe cooled down and expanded. This took place over billions of years...

 

It's seems like everything can be explained by science and not religion. In the bible; bats are birds, unicorns exist, pi is three, and plants were created before the sun. We all know this is not true. A religious person asked me why the sky was blue the other day and how this proves God exists. I told him that the particles in the atmosphere reflect the color based on the distance from the sun. In your opinion, can Science explain everything without a God. What do you think?

 

Absolutely not. Science is one very useful way of looking at nature.

Edited January 23, 2016 by B. John Jones

[ajb]

Absolutely not.

Do you care to clarify this?

 

 

Science is one very useful way of looking at nature.

And of course not the only way... one can just marvel at the beauty of the natural world and not even try to understand it.

[B. John Jones]

Do you care to clarify this?

 

[Clarifying the first part of my answer to the original question: "Absolutely not."]

 

Certainly. Is there even one master in any field science who can begin to count the number of deviations in nature from what appears, by science, to be natural? If so, then we can begin to contemplate your question.

Edited January 23, 2016 by B. John Jones

[ajb]

Is there even one master in any field science who can begin to count the number of deviations in nature from what appears, by science, to be natural?

I do not follow.

 

What we observe is natural, almost by definition. Are you referring to discrepency between theory and experiment?

 

If so, then we can begin to contemplate your question.

Meaning that on a discussion forum you think you can get away with a statement and not expect it to be questioned? You are the one that said "Absolutely not" and now you should be prepared to back that up! (This is a discussion forum)

[B. John Jones]

I do not follow.

 

What we observe is natural, almost by definition. Are you referring to discrepency between theory and experiment?

 

 

Meaning that on a discussion forum you think you can get away with a statement and not expect it to be questioned? You are the one that said "Absolutely not" and now you should be prepared to back that up! (This is a discussion forum)

 

What we observe is natural, by definition. I'm referring to phenomena such as shooting stars, whirlwinds, rainbows, modern precision of human invention, human warfare and injustice, inexplicable acts of human kindness; extreme exceptions to the way nature usually goes.

 

----------

 

Get away with? Absolutely not. Back it up? Absolutely. How does science explain our standard basis for measuring time as 365 and some fractions of number of rotations of the earth, and yet the earth never orbits the sun, and the moon never orbits the same earth precisely correlative numbers of times? The calendar is correct because humans govern the earth. But except a creative, omniscient artist governs humans and the universe, nothing really is explicable.

Edited January 23, 2016 by B. John Jones

[ajb]

I'm referring to phenomena such as shooting stars, whirlwinds, rainbows...

All understood in terms of physics.

 

 

...modern precision of human invention,

Physics and technology, okay...

 

...human warfare and injustice, inexplicable acts of human kindness;

biology, social sciences and physiology...

 

 

 

extreme exceptions to the way nature usually goes.

But still nature and very natural!

 

I am sorry, but you are not making yourself clear here.

 

What has any of this got to do with science needing God or gods to explain things?

[B. John Jones]

All understood in terms of physics.

 

Physics and technology, okay...

 

biology, social sciences and physiology...

 

But still nature and very natural!

 

I am sorry, but you are not making yourself clear here.

 

What has any of this got to do with science needing God or gods to explain things?

 

The question is, "Can science explain everything without admitting there is a God?"

 

Science cannot ever explain the spirit or "thing," inside of a person that let's them have life; to move and breathe and experience it all in full awareness. Science can never duly explain what happens to that spirit or "thing," when it's body of flesh is buried or cremated or otherwise decays. Science can explain the electrical pulses, but if that were the essence of life we would all be robots without senses.

Edited January 23, 2016 by B. John Jones

[ajb]

The question is, "Can science explain everything without admitting there is a God?"

An even more philosophical question is can science explain everything full stop!

 

However, so far there is no compelling reason to just say 'God did it'. That is not to say that science has stopped and that we know everything, nor is it to say that science will ever actually reach a stage of knowing everything. The notion of science and mathematics in principle explaining (so modelling well everything) and humans actually achieving that are subtly different questions.

 

 

Science cannot ever explain the spirit or "thing," inside of a person that let's them have life;

Science has not established that there is a good notion of a 'spirit'. We have no evidence at all that such a thing exists. Moreover, spiritualists and religious people have not defined such a thing carefully. Of course that cannot as they cannot actually study such a 'thing'. So your point is moot.

 

 

...to move and breathe and experience it all in full awareness.

Maybe not yet, but please be aware that we have medical science, biology etc and that people are scientifically trying to study consciousness. Again, not having a scientific explanation for something today does not imply that in principle we can never find a scientific explanation. Don't confuse scientific questions with the need for a God!

 

Science can never duly explain what happens to that spirit or "thing," when it's body of flesh is buried or cremated or otherwise decays. Science can explain the electrical pulses, but if that were the essence of life we would all be robots without senses.

You are making huge leaps here without first taking small steps.

 

Again we have no evidence for a spirit or soul. There seems no case to answer here. And why is it impossible that we are just 'biological computers'? We are a very complex system that we may never fully understand, but again this by itself does not invoke the need for the supernatural.

 

In short, science is work in progress and the gaps themselves do not imply a God, gods or anything else supernatural.

 

The emphasis is now on you to define a soul, define a god and find some meaningful, unbiased non-personal evidence. Good luck.

Edited January 23, 2016 by ajb

[B. John Jones]

An even more philosophical question is can science explain everything full stop!

 

However, so far there is no compelling reason to just say 'God did it'. That is not to say that science has stopped and that we know everything, nor is it to say that science will ever actually reach a stage of knowing everything. The notion of science and mathematics in principle explaining (so modelling well everything) and humans actually achieving that are subtly different questions.

 

 

 

Science has not established that there is a good notion of a 'spirit'. We have no evidence at all that such a thing exists. Moreover, spiritualists and religious people have not defined such a thing carefully. Of course that cannot as they cannot actually study such a 'thing'. So your point is moot.

 

 

 

Maybe not yet, but please be aware that we have medical science, biology etc and that people are scientifically trying to study consciousness. Again, not having a scientific explanation for something today does not imply that in principle we can never find a scientific explanation. Don't confuse scientific questions with the need for a God!

 

 

You are making huge leaps here without first taking small steps.

 

Again we have no evidence for a spirit or soul. There seems no case to answer here. And why is it impossible that we are just 'biological computers'? We are a very complex system that we may never fully understand, but again this by itself does not invoke the need for the supernatural.

 

In short, science is work in progress and the gaps themselves do not imply a God, gods or anything else supernatural.

 

The emphasis is now on you to define a soul, define a god and find some meaningful, unbiased non-personal evidence. Good luck.

 

Science is precisely what it was in the days of the first metallurgists. Technology has evolved but science is the same.

 

A soul is not to be defined, a soul is just to be. Late here in Hawaii. Aloha.

[ajb]

Science is precisely what it was in the days of the first metallurgists. Technology has evolved but science is the same.

I now think you do not have much of a grasp of science and in particular the philosophy of science.

 

 

A soul is not to be defined, a soul is just to be. Late here in Hawaii. Aloha.

Well, there is no evidence that a soul 'does be'.

 

How does science explain our standard basis for measuring time as 365 and some fractions of number of rotations of the earth, and yet the earth never orbits the sun, and the moon never orbits the same earth precisely correlative numbers of times?

I do not understand your point. It was noticed a long time ago that, based on observations, that the year is about 365 days. I agree

 

The calendar is correct because humans govern the earth.

What do you mean that a calender is correct? A calender is just a useful way of approximately dividing up a year.

 

 

But except a creative, omniscient artist governs humans and the universe, nothing really is explicable.

Well, I do not follow your arguments here at all.

Edited January 23, 2016 by ajb

[John Cuthber]

 

The question is, "Can science explain everything without admitting there is a God?"

 

 

Science can explain exactly the same things whether there's a God or not.

However "Goddidit" doesn't explain anything.

[B. John Jones]

I do not understand your point. It was noticed a long time ago that, based on observations, that the year is about 365 days. I agree

 

What do you mean that a calender is correct? A calender is just a useful way of approximately dividing up a year.

 

Nature suggests the basis of years being the cycle of 4 seasons, the basis of months being transitions of full moons, and the basis of days being transitions from dusk to dawn. Correct? Scientifically, these bases are far from being in-sync, because, I submit, science is imperfect, nature is not. Nature is logical, and nature is artistic. The things in nature appearing initially as flaws or divine exceptions--shooting stars, rainbows, human injustice--are all a part of someone's masterpiece. Everyone who appreciates art will understand that flaws and exceptions inspire the most beautiful aspects of the final specimens of art.

[John Cuthber]

Scientifically, these bases are far from being in-sync, because, I submit, science is imperfect, nature is not. Nature is logical, and nature is artistic.

And yet, in the real world the year is something like 365.259636 times longer than the day.

That's natural- and it's not even constant. The earth isn't spinning as fast as it used to.

Nature is just plain awkward in this case (and many others).

The orbital period of the moon also isn't either an exact number of days, nor a simple fraction of the year.

[B. John Jones]

And yet, in the real world the year is something like 365.259636 times longer than the day.

That's natural- and it's not even constant. The earth isn't spinning as fast as it used to.

Nature is just plain awkward in this case (and many others).

The orbital period of the moon also isn't either an exact number of days, nor a simple fraction of the year.

 

So what I'm saying is that all these explicit anomalies working together harmoniously strongly affirms divine creativity. If nature were just a meaningless machine, the universe would be mostly self-destructive without harmonious home-environments and without conscious beings to experience them.

 

But God, by his divine nature of perfect love, chose as a master father to bring into his own house disobedient children of an imperfect world--he even struck his sinless, firstborn Son, Jesus, who took ownership of our own sin, receiving God's divine judgment, on our behalf.

Edited January 24, 2016 by B. John Jones

[Phi for All]

 

So what I'm saying is that all these explicit anomalies working together harmoniously strongly affirms divine creativity. If nature were just a meaningless machine, the universe would be mostly self-destructive without harmonious home-environments and without conscious beings to experience them.

 

But God, by his divine nature of perfect love, chose as a master father to bring into his own house disobedient children of an imperfect world--he even struck his sinless, firstborn Son, Jesus, who took ownership of our own sin, receiving God's divine judgment, on our behalf.

 

Even science can't explain why a perfect god would create an imperfect world and then blame his children for disobedience and call it perfect love. But then, I wouldn't want it to bother.

[ajb]

So what I'm saying is that all these explicit anomalies working together harmoniously strongly affirms divine creativity.

I really do not understand your point. It is true that the rotation of the Earth, the Earth's orbit around the Sun and the orbit of the Moon around the Earth are reasonable things to use to build units of time duration and form a calendar. All these things are approximate in the sense that an actual trip around the Sun is not exactly a year, So what?

 

I don't really see any malignancies here, just a reasonable choice based on periodic motions.

 

If nature were just a meaningless machine, the universe would be mostly self-destructive without harmonious home-environments and without conscious beings to experience them.

Why would it?

 

Anyway, you seem to be hinting at the anthropic principle, which in modern forms says that the physical constants are just right to allow life (as we know it) to be present in the Universe.

Edited January 24, 2016 by ajb

[John Cuthber]

 

So what I'm saying is that all these explicit anomalies working together harmoniously strongly affirms divine creativity. If nature were just a meaningless machine, the universe would be mostly self-destructive without harmonious home-environments and without conscious beings to experience them.

 

But God, by his divine nature of perfect love, chose as a master father to bring into his own house disobedient children of an imperfect world--he even struck his sinless, firstborn Son, Jesus, who took ownership of our own sin, receiving God's divine judgment, on our behalf.

So the reason it's created by a perfect God is that it's full of imperfections.

Do you actually think that makes sense?

 

Anyway, according to scripture God proclaimed His own stupidity by including the serpent in the garden of Eden.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Just a reminder, since this is a long thread, that the subject is whether science has a natural explanation for every phenomena and therefore doesn't need god(s) to fill in the gaps. It's not about the nature of specific gods or their temperaments. It's not about your personal version of god(s).

 

Carry on.

!

Moderator Note

Upon further staff review, I've split off a pretty large section of posts that were all about preaching B. John Jones version of Christianity. Sorry it went on so long.

 

I've split these posts into the Trash, so if there are points you'd like to re-make, please make sure they're relevant to the topic.

 

As always, if you have a beef with this action, Report it rather than talk about it here.

[seriously disabled]

Yes I believe that in the future science will be able to explain everything without the need for any God.

 

I believe that there are natural and scientific explanations for everything.

 

The evidence humanity have gathered in fields such as evolutionary biology, genetics, neuroscience, chemistry, physics and cosmology is overwhelming and really shows that God really does not exist.

 

See The Top 10 reasons I don't believe in God:

 

http://www.alternet.org/story/154774/the_top_10_reasons_i_don't_believe_in_god

[swansont]

How does science explain our standard basis for measuring time as 365 and some fractions of number of rotations of the earth, and yet the earth never orbits the sun, and the moon never orbits the same earth precisely correlative numbers of times? The calendar is correct because humans govern the earth.

 

Actually the opposite. Our calendar is what it is because humans don't govern the earth. Same with time. The length of the day varies and there's very little we can do about that, so we add leap seconds instead.

 

No reason to invoke God for any of this.

[Ophiolite]

 

Even science can't explain why a perfect god would create an imperfect world and then blame his children for disobedience and call it perfect love. But then, I wouldn't want it to bother.

I believe psychiatrists could take a good stab at it. It puzzles me that, for the most part, adherents of the Abrahamic religions and atheists alike seem to perceive the nature of God (real or imagined, as appropriate) as being necessarily benevolent. The theists take it as read, the atheists attack the strawman by pointing to the "unfairness" in the world. If God, or gods, happen to be bitter, twisted, psychopaths, well - why not?

[Phi for All]

If God, or gods, happen to be bitter, twisted, psychopaths, well - why not?

 

Great point. Fear of psychotic reprisal probably lasts longer as an incentive to worship than omnipresent love and benevolence.

 

I wonder if supernatural explanations persist because of the capriciousness of god(s). If they made any sense at all, adherents might become complacent in worship. But when the rules are fuzzy and your deity can do ANYTHING (including something really tragic for you personally), you tend to stay on your toes, and accept ad hoc solutions from the church you worship with ("Let's try this: no meat on Fridays!").

 

Perhaps it's this tendency that keeps religious people thinking that god(s) have secret knowledge that science will never know. It's a pretty persistent meme that the Christian God's work is done mysteriously. To me, that always suggests no matter how much we learn, religion gets to claim there's a whole bunch of stuff none of us know, including them. It perpetuates itself since it's an unfalsifiable position.

[PoPpAScience]

can Science explain everything without a God. What do you think?

 

 

Now the OP of this thread post and ran, so my response is in general.

 

Science does an excellent job of showing and explaining the perceived Universe. That's what it does. It is not bias in its findings, only expresses what it finds.

 

Because science on earth has been around only for a short time in earth history it can only study a virtual now to come to conclusions. The rest is theory based on observations of this virtual now. Do our observation see all there is to see, I say not, because we have always found new findings.

 

This brings us back to the OP's question based on his post. Because he is designating God as one of persona, from the Jewish religion as it is expressed in the bible, then the answer is yes. Because based on the perception and literal interpretations of this God story in the bible, then the actions of this God do not match up with science.

 

Now if God is this Universe, as explained in the original teachings of all religions, then based on science, God creates just as science shows, step by step the process goes, and the process is the only way it goes. Again yes, science can explain everything without God('s help). Science discovers the process of creation, that is what it does.

 

There is a huge difference between the God with persona, in man made religions, and the God Universe of the original seer's. Huge difference in a God personally manipulating a Universe, and a God Universe manifesting through the processes we discover with science. Huge difference between creation by God thinking, and God manifesting.