Posted on 04/03/2015 8:05:39 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
I’m just curious about what bothered you about the statement made by that other guy:
“The scientific method was created by men in an attempt to define the universe created by God. The scientific method is limited, God is not.”
I’m not challenging you or arguing, just wonder what about that statement made it stick in your craw.
If an atheist says it he means it in a completely different sense than I do. I mean that separating the natural universe and its laws from its Creator and Law Giver by labeling something we don’t or can’t understand as “supernatural” creates a false dichotomy. Atheism is based on denying the existence of one side of that dichotomy. I have known too many scientists who devoutly believe in God, as do I, to think they are all blind to the wonder and implications of the nature they study or so conceited that they believe what they can explain is all there is. Science can no more contradict the existence of God than a clay pot can contradict the existence of the potter.
I sure do.
Who created the scientific method?
Who created those who created the scientific method?
I personally would include God as creator of all the above :-)
THE INNER LIFE OF THE CELL
Yes. I believe in the resurrection. And I KNOW that God is all-powerful. He reveals things about His creation that SCREAM: "I AM!"
That's "Natural Revelation" for ya!
But then there's "Special Revelation" --- Oooh! That's good stuff!
Gravity is a great example...
we can observe its effects, know how it works in practice, even some of the esoteric effects like bending time...
but what is it!? By what physical mechanism does it actually work?
“I have known too many scientists who devoutly believe in God”
Well, to the extent that you know me now, you’ve met another one.
One mistake is to think science can prove God.
The other is to think science disproves God.
The former comes closer to being true, I think, in terms of philosophical argument.
The latter can’t address God at all. Science doesn’t by definition and inherently cannot address things outside of nature.
Science can address claims made in religious teaching with regard to scientific understanding. Thus one can say virgin births are not possible.
But to my mind that misses the point aside from being quite obvious.
In fact the point of the virgin birth or other miracles is exactly that they are scientifically impossible.
“I’m just curious about what bothered you about the statement made by that other guy:”
He said the scientific method was limited but failed to show how it was limited.
If he had said that man is limited in his abilities and the tools he has, I would find that more appropriate.
The scientific method makes no claims. It is merely a method for logically seeking the truth.
For example, one could make the hypothesis that the sun goes around the earth. The scientific method then requires you to design an experiment to DISPROVE your hypothesis. If you do not design your experiment properly, that is not a limit on the scientific method but a limit on your capabilities.
I agree with you.
I don’t know what he meant by limited.
It is limited in that it can’t address supernatural events, or things that can’t be measured, which is the limitation you mention (man is limited in his abilities and the tools he has).
That, though, is not a trivial limitation.
On the other hand, I agree we are limited by our own intellect or creativity as much as any thing else.
Well, if you insist on using your definition of, "natural," doesn't that make your argument purely semantic as well?
Do I make any sense?
I guess.
That’s the point of semantic analysis.
What is meant by a word or term.
We can observe gravity. Is our sample size statistically relevant to apply those observations to the entire universe?
Absolutely. I’ve heard somewhat the same thought expressed in somewhat folksier terms: “A god that’s small enough for me to understand isn’t big enough to do me any good.”
Really? What color is it? We can only observe the effects of gravity.
So if something doesn’t have a color it doesnt exist?
Glad to know you, to however limited an extent.
You're making my point, but that's not it.
I'm saying that just because something is not directly observable, does not mean that it does not exist. There are many things we can't observe, and are only aware of because we observe their effects.
and I was agreeing with you, was is the key word.
OK, then if gravity is observable, what does it look like?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.