Science can only discover what G-d has already created/evolved in nature?

[paarsurrey]

For any claim and reason on behalf of science, please quote from:

• A peer reviewed article published in a science journal of repute
• From a text book of science
• Please mention the specific science discipline that deals with it.

Thread open for Theists and the Atheists alike.
Regards

 

[Altfish]

For any claim and reason on behalf of religion, please do not quote from:

• A religious manual, e.g. The Bible, Koran, that has not been updated for 1000-years+

• From a religious website

But please do mention all peer reviewed articles that have been published in journals of repute.

 

[Iti oj]

um whats the point of this thread?

 

[LuisDantas]

This thread is a bit difficult to parse, indeed.

Its title is

Science can only discover what G-d has already created/evolved in nature?

And that is more of a premise than a question.

If there is a God that created existence itself, who might possibly know whether he chose to make existence "complete" or instead as some sort of germen that would later develop on ways that he would not necessarily know in advance? We can only speculate, guess.

Then again perhaps a creator God would see fit to hide part of what is real from science for some reason. Or for that matter, maybe from religion as well. Who would know?

As for the request in the opening post, I don't think I understood it very well. Taken literally, it is a request for a complete list of statements "on behalf of science", with qualified and categorized sources.

But what is a statement on behalf of science? Science is a tool, not an employer or master.

It is difficult to give adequate answer to a request that I understand so little of.

 

[Marisa]

Don't you have to start with proving god?

 

[LuisDantas]

Don't you have to start with proving god?

Doing that or at least establishing what one expects its role and capabilities to be would help, at least.

 

[Quintessence]

Er... a science textbook or peer-reviewed article is not going to use language like "God's creation" in describing its endeavors. Well, you might see in some really old stuff, now that I think about it. But you wouldn't today.

As for @Altfish 's counter request... golly, couldn't you make it hard, at least?

 

[leibowde84]

For any claim and reason on behalf of science, please quote from:

• A peer reviewed article published in a science journal of repute
• From a text book of science
• Please mention the specific science discipline that deals with it.

Thread open for Theists and the Atheists alike.
Regards

This is a claim, and the burden of proof completely rests on the one making a claim. So, I will have to see what can be provided to prove that "God created and evolved everything that Science has discovered." That is a pretty steep hill to climb. But, once an argument is provided for the claim, it can be refuted.

 

[leibowde84]

Don't you have to start with proving god?

Yes. The burden of proof is 100% on the one making this claim. They have to prove the following:

1. That God exists
2. That God created and evolved everything that science has discovered
3. That science is limited in this specific way for future findings.

I'm not sure whether it is possible to prove these things.

 

[HonestJoe]

Science is, at it's core, a simple process of observation, hypothesis, evidence and conclusion. There is no fundamental limitation to it's scale and scope. Literally anything that exists (or indeed anything claimed to exist) could have scientific process applied to it.

Any limitations are not in the tool but in the individual using it. For example, scientific process is currently being used to reach conclusions about the nature of Pluto. It has always been possible to do that but the human race has only recently developed the reach to apply it (and we're still hugely limited in it). It's perfectly possible to imagine a sentient being who had the physical and/or technological abilities to apply scientific process to Pluto in the same way we do to Earth.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

For any claim and reason on behalf of science, please quote from:

• A peer reviewed article published in a science journal of repute
• From a text book of science
• Please mention the specific science discipline that deals with it.

Thread open for Theists and the Atheists alike.
Regards

If there is a god and there is indeed no evidence of god and it is simply some deistic being then yes science is bound mostly to pragmatic materialism.

 

[Thief]

The title is correct as is.
Proving is not required....see Webster's

 

[leibowde84]

The title is correct as is.
Proving is not required....see Webster's

The title of the OP is a claim. A "claim" is only as valid as its supporting evidence. Thus, without supporting evidence, the claim is "empty" or "unsubstantiated". Here is what needs to be shown for the OP claim to be considered "valid" (logically speaking):

1. God exists
2. God created and/or evolved everything that science has discovered
3. Science will not be able to discover anything beyond what God has created/evolved previously

Until you can support these propositions with evidence, they will remain empty/unsubstantiated claims. That is how arguments/debate works. Merely saying things like "proving is not required" and "see Webster's (not really sure what 'definitions' you were referring to specifically, so you should note these)" only shows your lack of contemplation and a lack of respect for fellow RF members.

 

[Thief]

The title of the OP is a claim. A "claim" is only as valid as its supporting evidence. Thus, without supporting evidence, the claim is "empty" or "unsubstantiated". Here is what needs to be shown for the OP claim to be considered "valid" (logically speaking):

1. God exists
2. God created and/or evolved everything that science has discovered
3. Science will not be able to discover anything beyond what God has created/evolved previously

Until you can support these propositions with evidence, they will remain empty/unsubstantiated claims. That is how arguments/debate works. Merely saying things like "proving is not required" and "see Webster's (not really sure what 'definitions' you were referring to specifically, so you should note these)" only shows your lack of contemplation and a lack of respect for fellow RF members.

I thought you LOVED definition....
See 'faith'......Webster's

 

[leibowde84]

I thought you LOVED definition....
See 'faith'......Webster's

The term "faith" is not used in the OP. Please explain why "faith" is relevant to this discussion. The claim in the OP is stated as 'fact', not based on faith.

 

[Thief]

The term "faith" is not used in the OP. Please explain why "faith" is relevant to this discussion. The claim in the OP is stated as 'fact', not based on faith.

If this must be explained to you....this thread will soon close....

 

[leibowde84]

If this must be explained to you....this thread will soon close....

So, you can't even explain your own argument?

 

[leibowde84]

If this must be explained to you....this thread will soon close....

Are you saying that the OP is not necessarily true, but you base your acceptance of its truth merely on faith? In other words, is your bringing the word "faith" in to the discussion an admission that there isn't sufficient evidence to show that the OP claim is true?

 

[Marisa]

The title is correct as is.
Proving is not required....see Webster's

Presupposition at its finest.

 

[Marisa]

So, you can't even explain your own argument?

Does he ever?