jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (81 posts)

Where science ends and faith begins and where faith ends.

  1. Ericdierker profile image80
    Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago

    A fine fellow posed a very interesting discussion today. You should visit his pages at http://zelkiiro.hubpages.com/  But I speak to something that came up there. Should religion interfere with straightforward empirical science and the logic and actions dictated therein. In my studies I read this this morning and found it a refreshing hands off position by the Catholics: http://www.flocknote.com/note/113262

    But what struck me is that Science/Empiricists normally poo poo anything without proof (and their notions of that vary widely) So the debate centers on non-believers getting pissed off that they cannot explain the unexplainable and believers getting pissed off because they should not have to in Scientific terms.

    But what I address here is the notion that faith should leave understandable and provable phenomenon to the world. When we now know what causes lightening, leave it alone. When death happens when two speeding vehicles collide -- we know what caused the death - two speeding vehicles. Mama's have babies because an egg is fertilized within her.

    Yes for those of us with faith and belief wonders abound and we see God's hand everywhere. That is because we do. But God does not run around causing nature to develop He built it so it would.

    So I suggest that good people would conclude that because neither can explain everything, we let the other explain that which we do not get and grow. Together.

    1. taburkett profile image61
      taburkettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      From sanctity to blasphemy - the trend will never end.
      Those who believe will always cheer as righteous prayer fills the air.
      Those who do not will always proclaim that it is all just a flair.
      Those who believe will formulate the actions that will lead them to the golden gate.
      Those who do not will promulgate a personal pact, a conjectured declaration of doodle fact.
      These two extremes will always remain far apart because they represent an individual acceptance made through attributed personal decision points.
      The thinking individual must then comprehend, that regardless of the personal choice, everyone will find the answer when their time upon the earth has come to end.
      For at that very moment there is little doubt, both will find the answer regardless of their earthly choice.
      I for one have heard the call from my Lord and Savior. 
      He said I must adhere to a gracious path where logic is astute.
      And, to remind all who will listen, that the Lord is preparing a place at the table for those who wish to someday arise in glory.
      This is not a tale of religion or of the greatness of science, but that which has been passed to me by those not of the earth who traverse as angels.
      Saving those who wish to be saved from a life of bitter discernment and  breach encounter.
      Regardless of personal aspirations, the one thing most assuredly true, is that the true follower represents an individual that flees from lusts: endows righteousness, faith, charity, peace, and a call to the Lord out of a pure heart.
      Psalms 23:6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.
      3 John 1:11      Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.   
      1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

    2. profile image0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Non-believers understand they cannot explain everything yet and that is not what pisses us off. We sometimes get pissed off when we are expected to have all the answers when the only answer believers have is "God done it". The difference being non-believers continue to search for answers while believers have stopped and want everyone to stop with them.

      Correct, but they don't do they? Some don't believe in an old earth or evolution and they expect or want creationism or ID taught in science class, while non-believers don't care what's taught in theology.

      That's a figure of speech and I get that perhaps you see God's hand because you don't understand nature. History proves even the best and most smartest attribute what they don't understand to a deity.

      Great idea, keep your beliefs to yourself and give the young a fighting chance to think for themselves and solve our biggest problems without thinking these things are beyond our understanding and we will stay out of your Sunday mass.

      1. Ericdierker profile image80
        Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I feel your pain. My students get to talk about science and how cool it is and how funny some notions are. They really get tired of the lame spiritual explanations for things that are explainable to the brain alone. So we push the limits of both science and our spiritual. Hey if it shakes their faith good!
        I got one that I have taught for years in Veterinary School and another headed off to Medical school and yet another to culinary school, all what I call sciences. That makes me happy.

  2. A Troubled Man profile image60
    A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago

    Plenty of false premises in the OP.

    You see God's hand everywhere? Funny, I see only nature. Where are these so-called hands?

    1. profile image0
      Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      His hands are busy unknotting Durga's arms from all the face palms she gives your posts. tongue

    2. Ericdierker profile image80
      Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You are a troubled man. Because you cannot see what I see -- you condemn it. I will bet you that you also cannot see bobtail cat tracks where I can. Or know that Populus tremuloides requires a temperature  of over 300 degrees Fahrenheit to germinate. I bet you cannot name the geological time periods on display in the Grand Canyon. It does not make me better than you that I can. And it does not make me better than you that I see the hand of God, even though you cannot. But just admit you do not know everything or claim to know everything --- your choice.

      1. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You can drop the personal insults, thanks.



        You see exactly the same thing as everyone else.



        No, you don't see the hand of God, you believe God dunnit because of your religious indoctrination. Your religion taught you to lie about such things. Naming time periods is irrelevant to that.



        I have never made any such claims, nor would. It has nothing to do with anything.

        1. Ericdierker profile image80
          Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Then ATM if you do not know everything how can you know what I know. If you cannot see what I see it does not mean it is not real because you cannot know everything. (hand of God is a metaphor friend) No scientist can determine what is beautiful to me. That does not mean it is not beautiful to me. I see the beauty and you do not, does not mean there is no beauty.

          Religion is at least a shared belief system. I do not know anyone who believes exactly what I believe. Religion does not teach. People teach.
          And yes the Bible is a book I learn from and I do hold it above my law books and reference books --- but I use a dictionary for definitions (or google search ;-) I also have a doctorate and read all kinds of books for knowledge.
          Hey you just told me to stop the insults and then called me a liar. Well I am rubber and you are glue. hahaha

  3. janesix profile image60
    janesixposted 3 years ago

    "Yes for those of us with faith and belief wonders abound and we see God's hand everywhere. That is because we do. But God does not run around causing nature to develop He built it so it would."

    This is exactly the TRUTH.

    And said really well.

  4. wilderness profile image96
    wildernessposted 3 years ago

    A nice sentiment and very well worded, but...what is it that the believer is going to teach the unbeliever?  How the universe was created?  Whether God exists or not?  How man (or life itself) came to be?  The believer can't, because he doesn't know the answers himself!

    Can he teach morality - right and wrong?  In every case for the last 200 years religious believers have lagged far behind the rest of society in understanding right from wrong.  He is constantly being drug, kicking and screaming all the way, into modern concepts of how to treat his fellow men.

    Can he teach the meaning of holy scriptures?  Believers in the same god can't agree on the meaning of their own scriptures, let alone any of "opponent" gods/religions - they can't teach anything there, either.

    What is the believer going to teach?

    1. Curiad profile image82
      Curiadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      @ wilderness,

      The believer teaches that none of us have all the answers. Not believers, and not scientists, philosophers or physicians.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Umm.  In my experience the only people thinking they have all the answers are the believers - God has already written everything worth knowing into the bible.  All that's left is learning how to make better trinkets.

        Everyone else knows better.

        1. janesix profile image60
          janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Why do atheists always associate "believers" with Christians? You don't have to be a Christian to believe in God.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Partly because that is by far the most common "sect" found in the US.

            But if you will look up a few posts, you will find that I mention that very thing; that there are more believers than just Christians and they don't get along when it comes to what to teach.

            1. janesix profile image60
              janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Ok. I suppose that makes sense.

            2. janesix profile image60
              janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              lol....I'm glad you missed the part where I said "atheists always..."

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                lol

        2. Curiad profile image82
          Curiadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well I guess than that your experience is limited. (Not to be snide), but I know of so many secular types and science types that believe they have all the answers and are extremely boisterous about condemning the believers.

          The truth is that both sides have their voices, and both sides have their share of those that cause issues.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Only fools and those whose faith tells them that everything is in the bible believe all of mankind put together have all the answers.  No one else.

            And no, I do not intend to indicate that the faithful are fools.  Mistaken, yes, but not fools.

          2. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Come now, you know that's not true. Be honest.



            That is also not true. One side (non-believers) would never have a word to say, ever, if it weren't for believers "sharing" their beliefs and causing the conflict in the first place. The non-believer must always be on the defensive.

        3. Ericdierker profile image80
          Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Wilderness your comment speaks of your attitude. Seriously that adds nothing to insight. Why do you do it? Your smart, you could contribute but you just tear down --- do you actually get some reward for that or just try to act smarter. I do not get it. I built up the scientific point of view but you just come back and tear down.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Because, while your posts in recent weeks seem to indicate an understanding of the difficulty of teaching the unfaithful, it doesn't seem here that you truly DO understand it.

            Those objections are very real - you DON'T know God.  To quote your own post (and that of Janesix) "Yes for those of us with faith and belief wonders abound and we see God's hand everywhere"
            But you don't see God's hand at all - you see beauty, you see incomprehensible complexity, you see the vast unknown and you assign it to God's hand.  But you do not, and never can, know that to be truth.  It is by faith only, and that cannot be taught except to the gullible (mostly small children) and people willing to accept answers to their questions without the need for truth.  Indeed, acceptance of untestable and unprovable answers can only turn us back to the dark ages when demons and fairies were responsible for everything that happened from poor crops to drought to sickness.

            Similarly, the problem of religious morality and scriptural interpretations are very real to anyone not of the faith.  It is extremely obvious to the atheist that the faithful do NOT have answers there, but only personal faith.  Faith which cannot be taught.

            But I did leave you a very valid opening and one I'm surprised you didn't take.  For the faithful (a better terminology might be spiritual) do have something; something very important and that few people (believers or not) own for themselves.  That is an inner peace, an understanding and control of self that few people today are able to develop unaided.  Whether it be by meditation or other means it CAN be taught and it is real.

            It just isn't from a god, whether Christian, Muslim, Pagan or any other.  And while faith in a god may well be useful in developing that peace and understanding it isn't necessary, either.  Leave out the mumbo jumbo that usually accompanies it, leave out the unbelievable "other world", "chi", or "energies of the spine" and teach people how to know themselves.  Teach them how to fit within the strange new world we all find ourselves in.

            So yes, you can perhaps teach the unfaithful something useful.  It just isn't about your or any other god.  It isn't from an imagined supernatural world that we can never touch or sense in any way regardless of how many times we claim that we can.  It isn't from another universe and it isn't about your personal interpretation of your chosen scriptural writings.  Become a "monk" if you will, or a philosopher (choose your own word here) and teach, but never assume that the unfaithful are interested in hearing about your religious leanings or the god you have chosen to believe in.  They aren't.

            1. profile image0
              riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              +++++++++++++++++

            2. Ericdierker profile image80
              Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Thank you wilderness that was very informative. And very instructional. I do not see great distinction between faith and spiritualism. But that is because of my spiritualism so you may have a point there. Many do have a blind faith and so in that sense my use interchangeably would be completely wrong.

              "The hand of God" is a metaphor for sure. And yes it is only seen in the beauty of life.  We can not see love. Just like heartache and heartburn have nothing to do with the heart.

              It is not accurate to paint me with a religious brush. I am not speaking here of a church doctrine. Although sometimes I do. And sometimes some church's doctrine may be the same as mine.

              But back to the point: That area that science cannot explain. Who made the rule that it cannot be explained by a faith in God?

              1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Once again, your analogies fail miserably due to incredulity and dishonesty on your part.



                lol Gee, what a coincidence. lol



                Whatever science can't explain today will most likely be explained another day, and we will find that like everything else science has explained, gods are never part of the explanation. smile

              2. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Good.  It is always difficult to communicate when an unknown jargon is used, and the words used by the religious (or "faithful" or "spiritual" or "believer") are most definitely classified as jargon.  Meanings differ to different people - I tend to lump "religious" and "spiritual" together without the meaning having anything to do with the tenets expressed by organized religion. 

                "The hand of God" is such jargon.  A metaphor, yes, but it either means that a supernatural, intelligent creature (God) is involved or it means that we don't know.  If the first, I reject it as unproven.  If the second, then say so rather than using words that have a different meaning.

                The only acceptable answers will come (to the unbeliever) from observation, testing, peer reviews, and reason.  Not from making up an unsupported answer and calling it "faith" (there's that jargon again). 

                Science made that rule when the scientific method of discovery was formulated.  It has worked very well, has produced much knowledge and truth and has expanded the capabilities and knowledge of the race of man enormously.  On the other hand, "faith" has never produced a verifiable truth.  It's claims are hit and miss - one can never know if there is a connection to reality until the scientific method (in one form or another) is used to examine the claim.  The claims of truth from "faith" are nothing more than a "hypothesis" in the scientific jargon.  Simple acceptance as truth (the existence of a spiritual world or a god for example) simply does not provide anything but comfort - not truth.  Science is very often (even usually) wrong, but it tries.  The faithful do not - while the "answers" they provide explain natural phenomenon those answers are never tested and checked for truth but are simply accepted as an explanation.  They are thus quite worthless to anyone searching for truth rather than a simple, feel good answer to the unknown.

                So no, faith cannot adequately explain much of anything.  Certainly none of the natural phenomena we see around us.  Or, more accurately, those explanations are nothing but a working hypothesis to begin the search for truth and knowledge.

                1. Ericdierker profile image80
                  Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  By rules of science you make a great position.

                  But science is not the only valid school of thought.  Although it seems to be for you. Things exist that science is not the best source of explanation. Like Love and War. But I accept your belief that everything must be scientific and empirical. I just choose not to be so limited.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Oh, I don't know - I would disagree on a couple of points.

                    For instance, psychology is the science of man's mental makeup.  A part of that is love, and another part can be war (although there are many other causes as well).  The social sciences include many areas of that sort.

                    The problem, I think, is that term "valid".  If indeed truth and reality is what is being sought then science is the way to go, not the study of the supernatural, including any gods.

                    But that isn't what many people want or need.  Maybe they want comfort.  Maybe to allay the fear of death.  Maybe the feel incapable of formulating a set of moral codes.  Maybe they are so uncomfortable with "I don't know" that any other answer, correct or not, is preferable.  There can be many reasons to search the "god field" (as opposed to physics, chemistry, biology or any other field of science) for answers, it's just that truth and an understanding of the world around us isn't one of them.  That doesn't mean that those studies and questions of god are invalid, though.  Just that the answers do not necessarily have any connection with reality, and that's fine if that connection is not important to the searcher.

                    But limited?   I don't see it that way - that some people (myself included) have no need for a god in their lives doesn't limit them.  Instead it sets them free.  I am free from the requirement to believe in what isn't there.  Free from the need for someone else to describe correct morality, free from the fear of death.  True, it means a great deal of effort to discover correct descriptions of nature and what we see around us, but that is a price I pay gladly rather than make a story without connection to reality.

  5. Electro-Denizen profile image88
    Electro-Denizenposted 3 years ago

    Belief is false and science is false, for the following reasons.

    Belief is false, because it's possible to believe anything. Belief is akin to hope. Either something is, or it isn't. Belief is too much of a mental construct that is fueled by emotion and such tendencies. To witness something as it is, without belief, is a different kettle of fish. Believing something in some ways kills the wondrous mystery of our reality.

    Science is false because science is never pure. Philosophical purists and truth seekers and mathematical and statitician wizards will all tell you that nothing is 100% true, in an empirical sense. Our scientific conclusions are 'make do', until something else fits into the jigsaw.

    So like belief, empirical science is really a short term solution. Belief serves a purpose and gives a sense of direction as science does, but both are contrivances, in a sense.

    I like Zen for that reason. Strip everything down, and what's left? Who knows what reality really is?

    1. Ericdierker profile image80
      Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Denison I like this perspective but it has a fault. In the dark of the night I stepped on my sons sharp building block. I did not see or anticipate doing it, but that pain and fall were real. Nothing I conjured up, just reality. And I can explain all of that through true science. Lack of vision, neurotransmittters, etc etc. I can also tell you there was no reason for that block to be there. But it was.
      That stuff is not false.

      1. Electro-Denizen profile image88
        Electro-Denizenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Haha, ouch! Eric I do agree with that - but arguably, the  reality of it is more to do with the fact that we experience it as real and observable...  but is it really? Or are we just flesh-suits bouncing off objects that really have no substance?

    2. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Can it pointed out that everything you enjoy today, your computer, internet connection and this forum, as just a few, are all the results of your so-called "false" science? Without it, one would still be living in a cave... with plenty of beliefs to keep one warm and comfortable. smile

      1. Electro-Denizen profile image88
        Electro-Denizenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Got me! :-)  The point I was pressing, was that... hummm... stuff does work, surgery and electronics do follow the rules etc., but somehow it's not the whole story. It's rather like these rules are a subset of another bigger set of rules... or something :-/

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That's not a problem at all and does nothing to diminish science.

          Of course, to speculate that "it's not the whole story" will usually end up in philosophical discussions and may have little to do with reality.

  6. ThompsonPen profile image85
    ThompsonPenposted 3 years ago

    wow, you make a really amazing point!

    1. Ericdierker profile image80
      Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Good people gather here to discuss. I am happy to know them. I think that I learn much here, I hope others do to.

  7. juschan45 profile image60
    juschan45posted 3 years ago

    This is really a nice question, I think it is differs for person to person. Even with the same person, some situations mandate a logical lead-in, while others demand faith as the starting point.
    I believe that both complement each other. Logic works well when enough facts are known to make an informed logical decision. However, in the absence of sufficient facts, faith often gives us that "gut feeling" that can lead us in the right direction. One tool can even be used as a cross-check for the other.

    1. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry, but faith often leads us in the wrong direction. Faith is not a tool at all for checking anything, it is little more than guesswork and wishful thinking.

      1. Ericdierker profile image80
        Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Makes who wonder what rules of science have kept us from making genetically altered substances to eat even more plentiful.  Makes you think that the Hippocratic oath must of come from science. Certainly our regulations of embryo research have a basis in science? And why aren't we cloning ourselves again? The whole NSA spying technology is cool.

        I guess the above proves that science rules society?

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I have no idea what you're talking about.

          1. Ericdierker profile image80
            Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            ATM I was being sarcastic. Science and logic do not run the human world. Feelings and faith and belief do. Science is only a tool for that.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Faith does not provide 100 bushel of wheat per acre to feed the masses; science does.  Feelings do not provide for the transportation of that food to where it is needed; science does.  Belief in a god does not heal the sick; science does.  Faith did not provide the A bomb and cause the cold war; science did.

              I could go on for hours, but you see the point.  Science is indeed running the world, not feelings, faith or belief.

              1. Ericdierker profile image80
                Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Wrong Wilderness, faith that a crop will grow and faith that a wage be paid is what plants the field not science. Any notion that the sun will rise tomorrow requires faith for logic and science do not make it so, they only explain why it does, with no promise that it will continue.
                If you follow science why work today?

                1. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I have no blind faiths and yet I work today and will do the same tomorrow. With a blind faith that God will bring you to heaven, why bother with the other half of life? See, works both ways.

                2. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You do understand that science is mostly about a crystal ball?  That science is used primarily to predict the future?

                  If I do this, then that will happen.  Every time, no less.  Science predicts the sun will rise tomorrow, but faith...faith in the rising will do nothing.  Have faith, and it will rise, Have no faith and it will rise.  Have faith it will not and it will rise anyway.  No effect.  Science could prevent the rising, however, if only the engineering was up to it.  It knows how.  Faith does not.

                  Ditto for the crops.  Believe me when I tell you that a farmer will plant with or without faith his seeds will grow and earn him a living (and if you disagree you haven't known any farmers smile ).  And all the faith in the world for a great crop won't produce one in a drought.  So again, faith has exactly zero effect; that crop will do what it will do based on it's environment, not on what a person has faith in.

                  1. Ericdierker profile image80
                    Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    And so is science not performing the art of planting, man does. And he is not motivated by your science. I have worked farms and ranches and physical commodities.
                    Again you assume nonsense. Again I tell you I love science as far as it can go. This is not "me" against science, it is "me" after science. You do not know what I know of science. You have not touched billion year old rocks and fossil or faced cancer where science and prayer are cures. I know your world but you do not know mine.
                    Address that. I have a Bachelor in Science what do you have in philosophy, theology or faith?
                    You keep downgrading me but I am as educated as you in science and you are not educated in the arts.
                    Get over it. I get your science. It is not difficult. Get over it. I can beat you in a game of "string theory" or botany. But you can not address my other studies for you are close minded.

                3. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Again, you make no sense at all. You are also confusing faith in evidence with blind faith.

                  Of course, science doesn't make promises our world will continue to work as it does, that's just silly.

            2. Electro-Denizen profile image88
              Electro-Denizenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              If faith is seen as something that colours our perception of life, then it does follow that what we are able to achieve and discover, comes second; when we expand our awareness of the nature of existence, who knows what science we'll discover? and I don't mean Frankenscience either...

              1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Unfortunately, faith has a history of warping, denying and rejecting life and reality in favor of submission, obedience and ignorance and does nothing at all to expand our awareness of the nature of existence, quite the contrary, in fact.

            3. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              In a way, you're right. Religious dogma runs most of the world and has for centuries shaped and formed much of what makes up our societies today. That is changing now, of course and science and logic are taking over, much to the chagrin of many believers.



              Baloney. Faith and belief have produced literally nothing. If not for science, you'd be living in cave with your 'feelings, faith and beliefs' to keep you safe, warm and comfortable.

  8. Curiad profile image82
    Curiadposted 3 years ago

    The problem with most of these arguments, is that in reality, God or a creator as you wish, is not exclusive from Science. More accurately, the essence of the creator, which is what we have faith in, and the processes of the known universe, which when studied we call science are tied hand in hand. The processes come from the spirit of God, are a creation of his, and were created not as a finite system, but rather a living, ever changing essence.

    When I hear non believers spouting this bunk, I have to laugh at the short sightedness, and then wonder, are these the same people that are writing the scientific journals? If so then I doubt the validity of the theories.

    Thank you Eric for this engaging forum.

    1. Electro-Denizen profile image88
      Electro-Denizenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      great response Curiad, especially your first paragraph... along those lines, it always intrigues me how 'empirical' science tries to decide the validity of things, when the very thing which it is testing, is within a wider phenomenon (and eventually, the all-embracing superset/concept of God).

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry, but the actions of a falling rock are not within the "concept" of god except in the mind of the person making the claim.  A concept cannot hold physical things.

        The rock CAN be within the superset you call God, however.  Can you provide evidence that such is true or even that the superset exists? 

        No?  Then you have answered your question of why empirical science decides the validity of that superset.  No evidence, no knowledge.  You are not allowed to declare that your imagination has produced anything but imaginary things; anything you wish to be taken as fact must be observable and testable by all.  Science recognizes all too well (after numerous frauds) that a mere claim does not make truth or knowledge.  It takes far more than that.

      2. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Funny how you folks discuss science without knowing much about it. lol

    2. Ericdierker profile image80
      Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Mano 0 Mano I am learning a lot here. We are very privileged to engage and learn from each other. Curiad it is always nice to hear from you.

    3. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Lol, that doesn't even make any sense or is remotely true. Science has nothing to do with religions or creators or gods or thing that go bump in the night. No, the processes don't come from any spirits, they come from the hard work and rigor of the human mind. Please don't insult those who offered the rigor and the results of it by giving credit where it is certainly not due.



      Hilarious, you claim non-validity of theories in science simply because those who conduct science don't wallow in the same myths and superstitions as believers.

      Never mind the actual theories themselves.  lol

      1. Ericdierker profile image80
        Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        ATM, I had to study some Latin. So I could get some terms in botany and medicine all those pesky prefixes and suffixes and families....... But I also saw some other good terms: Dominus vobiscum.

  9. w15dom525 profile image61
    w15dom525posted 3 years ago

    Various aspects of the study of quantum physics as well as the latest advances and research in neuroscience serve to back up the Christian faith.  Science is finally catching up to what Jesus already knew 2000+ years ago, and put into practical utilization.  If you'd like to know more, perhaps I can post a hubpage on specifics.  However, it would be necessary for some people to discount what they "think they know" about the world and the things in it.  Often, we create biases against something because we simply do not believe the subject matter could possibly be fact. And often the reason for these biases is none other than the fact that we've never heard of the subject matter at hand before. So we brush it off as nothing, when nonetheless, the information is indeed fact. Just as a for instance, the fact that we have an electromagnetic field (some call it a biofield) emanating from out bodies.  That information is not necessarily readily available unless you search for it, but obviously it is fact.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Fully agree that we need to discount (or at least de-emphasize) what we think we know to gain new knowledge in many cases.

      But how does a biofield indicate Christianity has it right that there is a God out there?  Or that the man named Jesus knew of the field and knew it was electromagnetic?  Off the top of my head it will take an awful lot of squirming and circumstantial evidence to make either case.

 
working