Does science believe in God ?

[Valjean]

Doesn't science believe in "Outcome" of result ?

Don't understand. Clarify?

• Trying to understand the nature of "Nature"
• Trying to understand the nature of "God"

My question to science is.. what’s the difference between ?

Nature is observable and known to exist. God is invisible and not known to exist. Science doesn't investigate things that are not known to exist.

If there’s NO difference.
Than my question is.. does science believe in God ?[/QUOTE]
No. It has no more evidence that God exists than it has for unicorns.
But as soon as evidence for God or unicorns comes to light, science will rush to investigate.

 

[chinu]

Nature is observable and known to exist. God is invisible and not known to exist. Science doesn't investigate things that are not known to exist.

You are giving the difference between Nature vs God

Whereas, question was to give the difference between:
nature of Nature
vs
nature of God

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Doesn't science believe in "Outcome" of result ?

When you have demonstrated something, it is no longer necessary to believe it. Galileo measured the acceleration created by gravity, and thus he knew that it was 32 feet per second per second. And knowing it, believing was no longer necessary.

Excerpts from Galileo's book Two New Sciences:

Salviati: "I greatly doubt that Aristotle ever tested by experiment whether it be true that two stones, one weighing ten times as much as the other, if allowed to fall, at the same instant, from a height of, say, 100 cubits, would so differ in speed that when the heavier had reached the ground, the other would not have fallen more than 10 cubits."

Simplicio’s response to this is not to think in terms of doing the experiment himself to respond to Salviati’s challenge, but to scrutinize more closely the holy writ:

SIMP: "His language would seem to indicate that he had tried the experiment, because he says: We see the heavier; now the word see shows he had made the experiment."

Sagredo then joins in:

SAGR: "But I, Simplicio, who have made the test, can assure you that a cannon ball weighing one or two hundred pounds, or even more, will not reach the ground by as much as a span ahead of a musket ball weighing only half a pound, provided both are dropped from a height of 200 cubits."

This then marks the beginning of the modern era in science---the attitude that assertions about the physical world by authorities, no matter how wise or revered, stand or fall by experimental test. Legend has it that Galileo performed this particular experiment from the leaning tower of Pisa.

 

[Bear Wild]

You are giving the difference between Nature vs God

Whereas, question was to give the difference between:
nature of Nature
vs
nature of God

Everyone has some experience of the natural world. Nobody know the nature of god. No one.

 

[Valjean]

You are giving the difference between Nature vs God

Whereas, question was to give the difference between:
nature of Nature
vs
nature of God

God is an invisible, mythological Personage; an Entity, usually conceived as having conscious intent and various supernatural powers.
Nature is not personified. Its' not a conscious entity. It's an amalgam of the stuff, features, function and laws of the world.

 

[Bear Wild]

You are giving the difference between Nature vs God

Whereas, question was to give the difference between:
nature of Nature
vs
nature of God

One exception could be that if you believe the world itself is god and there is nothing beyond then you may have an argument that the study of science is understanding the nature of god but only if nature = god.

 

[Valjean]

God is sometimes conceived of as 'personified nature, but this concept of "God" is not the magical, judgemental, interventionist, abrahamic, lawmaker god of the abrahamics.

 

[chinu]

Everyone has some experience of the natural world. Nobody know the nature of god. No one.

Question is NOT about.. experience of natural world.
Question is about.. PERFECTLY knowing how nature works (or say.. knowing the nature of nature)
But, human fails.

Still the advanced weather-reports also fail to report the accurate weather.

 

[chinu]

God is an invisible, mythological Personage; an Entity, usually conceived as having conscious intent and various supernatural powers.
Nature is not personified. Its' not a conscious entity. It's an amalgam of the stuff, features, function and laws of the world.

Yes "God" is invisible, but, "Nature" too is also invisible, therefore what's the difference ?

Yes "Godman" is mythological Personage; an Entity, usually conceived as having conscious intent and various supernatural powers. but NOT "God"

Here you are mixing the attributes of "Godman" with "God"

 

[chinu]

One exception could be that if you believe the world itself is god and there is nothing beyond then you may have an argument that the study of science is understanding the nature of god but only if nature = god.

Nature is.. God's-nature. Rather Nature = God.

For example:
Sunlight is NOT sun, but, yes its sun's-sunlight we can say.

Another example:
Your nature is NOT you, but, yes its Your-nature we can say.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Question is NOT about.. experience of natural world.
Question is about.. PERFECTLY knowing how nature works (or say.. knowing the nature of nature)
But, human fails.

Still the advanced weather-reports also fail to report the accurate weather.

Some of the biggest computers are used to model weather systems. Perhaps shows how complex the subject is, such that even though forecasts are better than they used to be, they can still get it wrong.

 

[chinu]

Some of the biggest computers are used to model weather systems. Perhaps shows how complex the subject is, such that even though forecasts are better than they used to be, they can still get it wrong.

Even birds give such weather reports, what a big deal it is ?

 

[Valjean]

Yes "God" is invisible, but, "Nature" too is also invisible, therefore what's the difference ?

Nature's invisible? The Earth, the trees, my cat, you -- all invisible?

Yes "Godman" is mythological Personage; an Entity, usually conceived as having conscious intent and various supernatural powers. but NOT "God"

Here you are mixing the attributes of "Godman" with "God"

But isn't God always conceived of as a conscious, intentional being?
...so who's this "Godman," and how is he different from God?

 

[Bear Wild]

Question is NOT about.. experience of natural world.
Question is about.. PERFECTLY knowing how nature works (or say.. knowing the nature of nature)
But, human fails.

Still the advanced weather-reports also fail to report the accurate weather.

All we have is our experience of the natural world. The rest is imagination. The nature of nature is being understood through the study of nature and cannot be known perfectly. That does not mean we do not approach increasing understanding of nature as we continue to learn.

The fact that we can predict the weather as well as we do is a testament to how much we have learned about the nature of world.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Even birds give such weather reports, what a big deal it is ?

One could point to many creatures and their having abilities that humans don't possess, such as dolphins, bats, those that can regrow parts of their bodies or spin silk webs, all birds or fish, but as far as I can tell, they haven't achieved what humans have - the abilities to conceptualise, design, and produce whatever comes to mind and in such a vast array. Neither could they all too often live outside of their normal environment, but humans can, such that we have certain advantages over other forms of life (probably a lot more) as well as those having such over us. And whatever abilities other creatures have, we have tended to emulate or improve on - I don't think we have evidence that any other creature uses x-rays, for example, even if dolphins might have something similar.

 

[chinu]

Nature's invisible? The Earth, the trees, my cat, you -- all invisible?

The physical body of nature is visible, whereas behavior is NOT.

But isn't God always conceived of as a conscious, intentional being?
...so who's this "Godman," and how is he different from God?

"Godman" = "Jesus Christ" or "Muhammad" or "Buddha" etc.

 

[chinu]

All we have is our experience of the natural world. The rest is imagination. The nature of nature is being understood through the study of nature and cannot be known perfectly. That does not mean we do not approach increasing understanding of nature as we continue to learn.

The fact that we can predict the weather as well as we do is a testament to how much we have learned about the nature of world.

• Trying to understand the nature of "Nature"
• Trying to understand the nature of "God"

My question to science is.. what’s the difference between ?

 

[chinu]

One could point to many creatures and their having abilities that humans don't possess, such as dolphins, bats, those that can regrow parts of their bodies or spin silk webs, all birds or fish, but as far as I can tell, they haven't achieved what humans have - the abilities to conceptualise, design, and produce whatever comes to mind and in such a vast array. Neither could they all too often live outside of their normal environment, but humans can, such that we have certain advantages over other forms of life (probably a lot more) as well as those having such over us. And whatever abilities other creatures have, we have tended to emulate or improve on - I don't think we have evidence that any other creature uses x-rays, for example, even if dolphins might have something similar.

What is OP question ?

I think we are going off-topic, isn't ?

 

[Mock Turtle]

What is OP question ?

I think we are going off-topic, isn't ?

Well, not expecting responses to your posts?