There has been an ongoing philosophical debate about the creation of the universe or an evolved "big bang". This of course is a precursor for us to begin assuming that science, in a way, is being used as a tool to dispute the reality and existence of God.

Because of this view, people have begun to compare science to religion as if they are one in the same and have the same purpose. However, this is a false idea. In fact in some people science is their religion.

Science has benefited all of us on many levels and has been an awesome tool to alleviate human sufferage. Man truely is doing his best to make lemonade out of the lemons he has been handed in this life. However it has no purpose in dealing with the spirit of God or His servant, which is man.

However, science can not measure the spirit of man nor the Spirit of God. Science can not explain the origins of life because it requires measured results in a controlled, experimental environment. That means something has to be within the grasps of matter and substance in order to be understood by scientific means. As you see, the spirit is something that has no substance but we do know it is there by searching our own being.

How do we measure happiness, joy, anger, hatred, love or contentment? There is not a electode or beaker that can contain them. We can see the result of a happy person in their personage but can we put a ruler to it and add it to the periodic table?

I do declare my acceptance that God has created all things and science is nothing more then man's study of God's creation.

God Bless~

Science cannot prove a universal negative. Especially if the universe is infinite. Evolution nor creation is provable by science because they must be repeatable and observable.

However mathmatics can dispute evolution quite adeptly, but lacks on the God issue.

And btw, philosophy is not science http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Science cannot prove a universal negative. Especially if the universe is infinite. Evolution nor creation is provable by science because they must be repeatable and observable.

However mathmatics can dispute evolution quite adeptly, but lacks on the God issue.

And btw, philosophy is not science http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

When science stays within the boundries of science I agree but when it crosses the boundries of theology and humanities then it becomes a philosophy.



When it is added to cultural and morale foundaries then it is a philosophy.

When it is innertwined with law and justice it becomes a philosophy.

When it becomes a force to dispute a religious view it becomes a philosophy.

But you are right, when it is used as a means to understand our universe with the absense of social controls and agenda's then I agree science is not a philosophy.

However, the several basic controls over society begin with the spiritual. But when we base our laws and morale theology on science it is no longer a tool but a way of life.

We are replacing God with science.

quote:Sig_Intel:

When science stays within the boundries of science I agree but when it crosses the boundries of theology and humanities then it becomes a philosophy.

When it is added to cultural and morale foundaries then it is a philosophy.

When it is innertwined with law and justice it becomes a philosophy.

When it becomes a force to dispute a religious view it becomes a philosophy.

But you are right, when it is used as a means to understand our universe with the absense of social controls and agenda's then I agree science is not a philosophy.

To be politically correct, science doesn't "become" philosophy. Rather, it's a philosophy based off of scientific knowledge. I believe the one you're referring to is called Modern Humanism. Or something like that.

Actually, you can. You have your scientists who believe in God, and show how science EXPLAINS the bible rather than disproving it. Then your scientists who think science is right and completely omits the bible. I suggest you look into both and think deep of them as individuals then as a whole. Think for yourself and declare your own interpretation.

Science and philosophy have more in common than you might think. "Philosophy" comes to us from the ancient Greeks, the original word being philosophia which means philos (love) and sophia (knowledge), so literally "love of knowledge". "Science" on the other hand comes from the Latin word scientia, meaning "knowledge".

Science and religion, although they seem so different, are actually quite similar when you really think about it. Religion is an attempt to explain life and understand the universe, and science has precisely the same goals, it just has a very different way of going about achieving it. I don't think it's absurd to say that for committed scientists, their work is very much the same as religion, they simply require proof for their beliefs while religious faith is happy to have none.

In fact the only real difference I can think of between religion and science is the relation each has to knowledge. Religion seeks union to achieve truths about the universe, which is especially obvious with meditation. Science has the exact opposite approach, seeking separation of subject and object to achieve truth. But it's only the method of approach that is different, not the goals.

If you want to read about the parralels between science and religion, "The Tao of Physics" by Fritjof Capra is a really interesting book.

Just to back up what I said about religion being all about union, it comes from the Latin word religare, which means "to bind back together". "Yoga" actually is the Sanskrit word for "union", and yoga isn't just about the funny stretches and so on. The physical stuff is just one branch of yoga called hatha yoga, meant to be preparation for raja yoga which is all about consciousness and meditation. There are actually plenty of different forms of yoga, mantra yoga for sound, karma yoga for ethics, jnana yoga for the intellectual, etc etc etc.

Here's something for those who are into science:

"When I read the Bhagavad-Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous."

Guess who said that?

Albert Einstein.

From www.Dictionary.com (http://www.Dictionary.com)

sci·ence (sns)

n.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.



You say science cannot "measure the spirit of man nor the Spirit of God" or "measure happiness, joy, anger, hatred, love or contentment". I disagree. What exactly is the spirit of man and god? the only reason these things cannot be measure is because you have given them arbritery meanings. And the emotions you list can be measured as combiened effects of hormones in the blood, brain activity and other such things.

Science cannot deal with god as his existance/infulance is irrelevent.

Sig, I don't really having anything to say to your argument because that's not why I'm posting this. This is a thank you. You're a damn good poster and have provided some interesting information, and I hope for this to get better.