Nature is ultimate master of science

1. 51

   paarsurreyposted 13 years ago

   The results of the tests of science are ultimately verified with the laws of nature; already in existence; if an anomaly is detected the tests are repeated with necessary amendments; so the nature is ultimate master of the science as it is set on a system by the Creator-God Allah YHWH.
   
   The science proves what is already proven and working.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I agree, the "science" is limited by our comprehension of the "Laws".  It's there whether or not we discover and understand it, but ultimately put into place by God.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Prove it without using religious tripe to do it.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            That's what YOU have to do if you place all of your faith in science, prove it.  I need not prove anything, only rely on faith.  Science has facts, religion has faith.

            replyreport
            1. 69

               Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Religion has faith? No. Religion forces you to choose faith in absence of knowledge and wisdom. But, I guess you rather not deal with reality.
               
               
               Edit: Secondly, you're the one who has to provide proof, considering YOU are talking about something that cannot be proved.
               
               You are the one who has to give proof, because there is no way to prove a negative, which is what you've asked me to do.
               
               Since, a negative cannot be proven, then it falls upon you to prove positive proof to your claim.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, my religion has faith.  That is a main focus of my religion. I deal with reality everyday, I'm also concerned with the afterlife.
                  
                  I wouldn't expect you to comprehend much of anything else I wrote, especially after stating something as absurd as not being able to prove a negative.  They prove negatives all the time in the science you so blindly put your faith in.
                  
                  
                  I have to prove nothing.  I only need to have faith.

                  replyreport
            2. 51

               paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I think the science people also have faith in innumerable things to start with the life; otherwise it will be impossible to live; when they see sun; they believe it is sun; when they see moon they believe it is; so on and so forth; they do believe their mother as mother and their father as father.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Exactly right, but ultimately they require empirical proof to validate their faith.

                  replyreport
      2. 51

         paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Thank you for agreeing with me.
         
         Regards
         
         The Scientists or the Science present problems or solve them in a way that matches with the present stage of our knowledge for immediate use in our technololgy for benefit of the humanity; that is laudable; but they cannot present things in absolute terms. They are not equipped for that.

         replyreport
         1. 79

            pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I agree. What nature already "is", it is. Science confirms what "is"in their discoveries. If they haven't discovered this or that. Nature continues to work the way that it does, without the discoveries.

            replyreport
            1. 51

               paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Absolutely fine.

               replyreport
   2. 72

      getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The part about Creator-God Allah does not fit in with the rest of your statement.  Your conclusion is not logical.
      
      Is that part just your biased opinion?

      replyreport
      1. 51

         paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I don't think so; I sincerely express what I understand.
         
         As our friend pennyofheaven has paraphrased it, the nature is the working proof of the Creator-God Allah YHWH. We suppose a thing and with this supposition everythings fits alright; so our supposition is a truthful reality.
         
         I don't mind if you oppose my view point; of course it will be your sincere view point.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            You seem to have a very confused idea of science.  Nature is the evidence, science derives the laws.  Of course science also derives laws about things other than nature.

            replyreport
            1. 58

               Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               What aspect of nature does science not study, and what does science study that isn't a part of nature?
               
                 seriously asking cause I'd like to know.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  fits3x100posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Sorry psycheskinner, respectfully disagree. Gravity...is a Law . It occurs Naturally...no help from men trying to understand it(science)... Same with Laws regarding energy and the conservation of said energy...Natural...no help from science. What we refer to as religion and science could be equally described as men trying to understand. The problems start when that becomes men trying to impose...I personally find science and faith to be inseparable. God Bless and have a Great Holiday!

                  replyreport
                  1. 51

                     paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     I agree
                     
                     Science is just an interpretation of nature by the people who work for science; if they interpret it wrongly, it is not taken by anybody seriously, if the interpretation is correct, it could become a scientific law that has been derived from the nature. Nature is always correct as it has been created and set by the Creator-God Allah YHWH; it is Work of God.
                     
                     It is like a believer if he does not understands the Word revealed he is wrong; if he understands it correctly it is a correct interpretation of the Word of the Creator-God and Word of God is always right if correctly understood.

                     replyreport
            2. 51

               paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I think , and with all respect I mention that it is putting the cart before the horse. Nature is the master of science not proof of the science. Nature existed when the science was not even born from its mother mathematics and philosphy.

               replyreport
            3. 51

               paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               For instance; please

               replyreport
   3. 58

      Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, and mothers milk leads to crack cocaine. Notice the irrelevancy of the claim in light of the conclusion drawn.

      replyreport
   4. 60

      Jack Greshamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Religion is just a word used to group all issues of faith under one heading. That's allright if used in this context. The real word we are looking for is faith and what a persons faith is entrenched.
      
      jgresh

      replyreport
2. 69

   Cagsilposted 13 years ago

   Again, you might consider trying to prove a god first exists instead of making blanketed statement that one does exist and then attributing things to it/he/she or whatever.
   
   Since you have no proof a god really exists, except for your own imagination, then your statement about the origins of nature is moot.
   
   Nature is only a part of our reality and NOT all of it. The fact you lack the understanding of what reality is, isn't much of a surprise.
   
   Science has one primary goal- explore reality.

   replyreport
   1. 51

      paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I think in Algebra we suppose value of a thing to be x; and then we find its value which we did not know to start with.
      
      Everything works fine if we suppose that there is a Creator-God; who is only attributive.
      
      So He exists.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Another failed example to justify your belief.
         
         Rational is that since life does not need or require a god, to be understood or to live, then there is no god.

         replyreport
         1. 51

            paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            How is it rational? I don't agree with you. Please elaborate.

            replyreport
            1. 69

               Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Paar,
               
               Understanding my own life- Done! No god needed.
               
               Living my own life- Done!(doing it) - No god needed.
               
               I didn't need a god to bring me into this world. My parents did that.
               
               Therefore, it's easily concluded that no god is needed or required.

               replyreport
               1. 51

                  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  It is your own life and your own free will; we don't wish to deny that.
                  
                  Did your parents need you? Do you have sons and daughters? If you have; did you need them?
                  
                  Nothing personal; just for discussion and to understand you rationale or otherwise; with respect and love.

                  replyreport
                  1. 69

                     Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     I haven't a clue if my parents needed me. Never bothered to ask, because it's irrelevant to my understanding my own life.
                     
                     I have no need or desire to be needed.
                     I guess this is moot, considering I have none.

                     replyreport
                     1. 51

                        paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Sorry to ask the question. I did not know you don't have them.
                        
                        One does not need them; it is just natural to have them.
                        
                        Why work against nature? Why not to fullfil the natural instincts?
                        
                        If you think I am becoming too personal; please don't answer; sorry.

                        replyreport
                        1. 69

                           Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           You're correct, it is natural to have them. I've also been taught not to have them until I was prepared to have them and assume the responsibility that comes with the territory.
                           Not working against nature, being consciously responsible for my actions.
                           Natural instinct says to negate rational thinking, such as lust. That fails oneself if not handled responsibly.
                           If it becomes too personal, trust me, I will let you know.

                           replyreport
   2. 79

      pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I thought that is what he was doing? Nature is working proof.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Nature is not proof of anything.

         replyreport
         1. 79

            pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Evolution might disagree with you. If you meant proof of God Evolutionist will agree with you.

            replyreport
         2. 59

            fits3x100posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Man Cagsil I respectfully disagree. Nature, and Nature alone proves everything. No empirical "proof" can be stated without referring to the Natural Laws imposed upon it and the measurement of it's reaction to that Law.

            replyreport
      2. 51

         paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I think you have elaborated the true view point.
         Regards

         replyreport
3. 0

   Twenty One Daysposted 13 years ago

   What boggles the mind is the constant necessity of humans to separate Creator and [seemingly] themselves from the elements. The elements are creation. Whatever humans 'discover' within nature/creation are simply minute bits of Creator's tangibility.
   They are not proving anything for or against. to prove something, they must understand the intangible and how its is made tangible.
   
   Although a rock is tangible light, humans do not have the faintest incline of a rocks intangible properties, purpose, power and fundamental placement as a pebble upon the top of a stalagmite in the Grand Canyon.
   
   Furthermore, everything is Creator.
   The breath you are taking is Creator, the thoughts you think are Creator. All is Him and He is all.
   
   Perhaps when the duality of humanism comes this apex, the chasm of their limited thinking of self or external characters (gods, nature, science, religion, titles) will finally be put to rest.
   
   Here's hoping...
   
   James

   replyreport
   1. 79

      pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with your points.

      replyreport
      1. 51

         paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Please elaborate points of the Twenty One Days in as simple words as possible.

         replyreport
         1. 79

            pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Ok
            
            We are not as separate to the creator as we think we might be.
            
            What exists is bits of tangible evidence of the creator
            
            Human discovery is the tangible bits
            
            Our thoughts/breath are not just ours but the creators
            
            Because we are in and of the creator.
            
            Does that make it clearer?

            replyreport
            1. 51

               paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Yes, it helps to understand him.
               
               Thanks and regards

               replyreport
   2. 59

      fits3x100posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Great stuff! I really do enjoy reading these posts. It is remarkable what can be uncovered when people simply "dig" for truth. You guys (and Gals) are awesome!

      replyreport
4. 61

   kessposted 13 years ago

   I love this thread

   replyreport
5. 51

   paarsurreyposted 13 years ago

   Faith is not a blind one; that is myth or a no-faith; the elements of faith have been experienced and witnessed by the most truthful human beings in all ages and in all regions of the world. They had treaded on a path which has veracity; though the beginners have yet to test them.
   
   It is like an experiment which has been done in lab but the students have yet to do and experience it.

   replyreport
6. 51

   paarsurreyposted 13 years ago

   The results of the tests of science are ultimately verified with the laws of nature; already in existence; if an anomaly is detected the tests are repeated with necessary amendments; so the nature is ultimate master of the science as it is set on a system by the Creator-God Allah YHWH.
   
   The science proves what is already proven and working.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Nature is one subject (topic) of science.
      
      Science does not have a master.  It is simply a method of observation any person can use.

      replyreport