Can Science Reveal God?

Science is usually a different field than spirituality, or religion. It isn’t the function of scientists to prove these things. Scientist’s function is to figure out how energy works. God being a managing separate deity is the belief of specific religions. This is completely separate from the realm of science.

More than whether God exists or not is what God is. The millennia old idea of the stern old white man w/ long flowing white hair, beard, & robes that is a parental micromanager, rewarding/punishing us or an innate intelligence that is the whole Universe, of which we are a full partner?

Whether or not God exists is a question based in the duality of the Piscean era. The placing of scientists vs religion is also Piscean. The Aquarian era has moved past these tired old questions to appreciating & celebrating how the energies we call God are are alive in everything, including us.

Originally Posted by mickiel

... This brings us into the area of " Irreducible Complexity." Many things in our Universe do not change; ...

Change is a constant in the Universe.

‘Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations.[1] The argument is central to intelligent design, and is rejected by the scientific community at large,[2] which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3] Irreducible complexity is one of two main arguments used by intelligent design proponents, the other being specified complexity.[4]’

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Interesting posts Mickiel

[mickiel]

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

Interesting posts Mickiel

Well thank you, I think the topic is interesting. Many things are irreducible in their complexity, such as " Protiens." Protiens only function in the body when all componants are there. They couldnot have created themselves, then slowly evolved from a lesser state to a more advanced state, while the so called " Carriers just died off until nature just finally got it right."

Interesting post Mickiel.

My thoughts on this subject though is that science will not be able to reveal God because the instruments they use for finding are limited and will always stay in that limited zone, there are just some things that science can not explain and I believe God is one of them.

Only through yourself will you be able to find God, because otherwise science will just deny the existence by explaining to people that it is your mind playing tricks on you or that you are hallucinating.

I am not saying that I think their judgements are wrong, far from it, I am just saying that the techniques that they are using will not help them to reveal God because science is stuck on a different wavelength. Science will prove things that have to do with the physical world around us, but with only this one point of view they will make misjudgements like they have done in the past.

Science needs to look at the whole picture, not just the one that is in front of them.

[Sammy]

Ive used methods of science before to prove/disprove spiritual things to myself. An experiment is still an experiment, and should be treated as such for any solid results. Without this process, proving a truth to yourself would be minimal at best. Sometimes science is simply observance, which can lead you to spiritual results.

[skygazer]

There is a handful of science minded folks who have been proposing this very thing. They have called for cross-disciplinary dialogue among biologists, cosmologists, physicists and philosophers, though it is a revolutionary concept some have taken heed.

I should say that we are not speaking about the god of religion here; the omnipotent man in heaven idea, but the source of creation.

[mickiel]

Originally Posted by Aquatic_Dragon

Interesting post Mickiel.

My thoughts on this subject though is that science will not be able to reveal God because the instruments they use for finding are limited and will always stay in that limited zone, there are just some things that science can not explain and I believe God is one of them.

I disagree with you there; I think science most defintely reveals God. And I could use a little know instrument called the " Astrailian Termite" to show that. One need only to scientifically examine this creature and we can see both the Anthropic principle, and irreducible complexity. This Termite is actually 4 creatures in one, each depends on the other for its existence. This termite represents the case of " You cannot have one without the other", and creation " As is."

Mixotricha Paradoxa lives in the gut of the termite. They are covered with hairy like creatures called Spirochetes, a totally different type of microorganism. On the mixotricha , there are bumps where the spirochetes are attached, and Bacillus are lodged on the other side of the bump. 3 totally different germs that decided to live together in a community?

An interdependance between a large microorganism, a spirochete, a bacillus, an Austrailian termite, AND even the trees the termite feeds on. I suppose if one is an evolutionist, they would believe that all these different creatures just randomly overtime, just happened to have met and formed a committee and decided to work together, the mixotricha " Developing bumps" where the spirochetes could bury their heads , behind which the bacillus could hide. All of whom " Decided" to live in the gut of a termite.

Obviously this scientific look inside of this termite illustrates the case for special creation of all of these creatures at " The same time." They couldnot have developed seperately and ever made it to the point where they could " Rendezvou" and forever spend their existence interdependant and together.

[hybrid]

mickiel,

your aarguments ...
1.irreducible complexity therefore god
2.creation therefore god

are logical fallacies. there is no connection between your proposition and your conclusion other than a belief and a confession of faith in your part. iow, the gap between the your proposition and your conclusion is only bridged by leap of faith.

[mickiel]

Originally Posted by hybrid

mickiel,

your aarguments ...
1.irreducible complexity therefore god
2.creation therefore god

are logical fallacies. there is no connection between your proposition and your conclusion other than a belief and a confession of faith in your part. iow, the gap between the your proposition and your conclusion is only bridged by leap of faith.

I have no faith ; not that I do not want it, but I simply have no faith; so I examine the facts, and have only listed the scientific facts. Which is why I presented the Anthropic principles, which show that earth was deliberately created to accomindate humans. In another example; the air we breathe everyday is about 78% Nitrogen gas, only 21% consist of Oxygen. The remaining 1% consist of Carbon Dioxide, Argon, Neon, Helium, Krypton, Hydrogen, Xenon and Ozone. You cannot reduce this complexity, nor do I think one can deny its order.

Its design, no ifs and buts about it, I think its academic that God did this deliberately.

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by mickiel

I have no faith ; not that I do not want it, but I simply have no faith; so I examine the facts, and have only listed the scientific facts. Which is why I presented the Anthropic principles, which show that earth was deliberately created to accomindate humans. In another example; the air we breathe everyday is about 78% Nitrogen gas, only 21% consist of Oxygen. The remaining 1% consist of Carbon Dioxide, Argon, Neon, Helium, Krypton, Hydrogen, Xenon and Ozone. You cannot reduce this complexity, nor do I think one can deny its order.

Its design, no ifs and buts about it, I think its academic that God did this deliberately.

could be god or an equally alternative and rational explanation if not better, that nature given an infinite number of chances can make any improbability a certainty.