So, basically, you're saying that science could not describe what a deity is? I disagree completely, and I am honestly shocked that someone with your intellect could say that.
That is EXACTLY my problem with your argument, though. You're starting off on totally the wrong foot. Just because I question that one branch of human knowledge can give an understanding of something, you question my intellect? Why shouldn't someone of my intellect have that opinion? Indeed, there have been people of far, far greater intellect who have thought the same. Few, indeed, save in this most modern of our eras have actually thought as you do, that science can describe such a thing, and if we think we are more enlightened now just because we KNOW more we are making a gravely naive and proud mistake.
Just please, don't resort to that tired cliche, eh? It's better not to say 'I'm surprised that someone of your intelligence...' Indeed, it is not allowing for the idea that science cannot solve everything that is unelightened, but a belief that science can explain everything without doubt (nb. without doubt... objectively, aside from my beliefs, maybe it can. But do you know that for certain? No. So the comment that someone who doesn't believe science to be the end all and be all is flawed is itself rather ignorant) is rather narrow, because it allows for nothing else but that which you know.
Science is not some realm that is somehow separate from reality. It is our observations of reality, of what exists. It is how we explain the real reasons behind this phenomenon or that phenomenon. As such, I see no reason for why we could not do the same with a deity. Just because you feel that it must be "beyond the realm of science" does not make it so.
Exactly, though. The basic supposition of a monotheistic deity is that the deity must exist not as part of creation, but behind it: not a cause of reality, but the cause of it. As such, our observations cannot neccessarially serve to explain. Science is indeed the study of the reality we can see and feel and touch by the sense, and that is precisely what limits it in this regard. Note that my argument in this case is based on the 'if' scenario in which God exists (I firmly believe that, but that's not the issue here.) Were God to exist, then the study of God, and more specifically the Judeo-Christian one, then based on His nature your approach would by neccessity not allow you to observe Him. Like turning to the left, saying 'I don't see something here, so it doesn't exist' while it's sitting on your right. If God exists, He does beyond the realm of science, so to wish for proof on scientific grounds is neccessarially amiss.
Furthermore, science does not limit itself to this universe, as one can find out if they study some scientific research. It is, as I said, our way of examining and explaining all of reality, whatever said reality is, and that would include absolutely anything that can exist, including the space outside of our universe.
Huh? You're totally off. Science is a study by observation, by hypothesis and either proof or rejection. It is based on the knowledge we can gather based on our own universe. From that all we can conjecture about other universes is based on the assumption that they are dimensionally similar to our own (ie. contain dimensions in a similar manner... the number is not neccessarially certain); we cannot quite understand it, however. And as for that which exists APART from the universe, if that can even be, that is absolutely impossible for science to explain, by its very definition. You say science is a way of explaining all reality, but that is a comment that is wrong and shows a misundersanding - and overestimation - of its purpose. Why, can you explain literature by science? If so, why do we not call it a science? Yet it is reality, and it is truth. What you think of when you are talking science is not a study of truth, but of facts. In the end, you still have to come down to what it all means, and all your facts aren't going to help you in that regard. And even if it all means nothing, that, too, will not be a thing arrived at by your mind working in scientific capacity, but poetic.
Basically, Dan, you're trying to use semantics and language to define science in a way that follows with your argument, and it just doesn't jive with what scientists have actually done, nor is your analogy about applying biology to physics apt, because that is something wholly different. They are different ways of looking at specific of reality, not science and "something else."
Absolutely not! In fact, I said 'I am not arguing semantics.' What concerned me in what you were saying wasn't the words you were using, but the very fact that you were considering science and investigation by obvservation to be the only means of arriving at truth. The fact that literature can show us truths apart from this, by making up a story that never happend, that is for all purposes a lie and in the eyes of science utterly reprehensible, shows that there are provinces in which science is blind. For science to be truly made use of in proper capacity, and not be misused, its limitations must be understood, otherwise it becomes no better than a religion that is believed in fanatically to the exclusion of reality. After all, who's to say that the reality we percieve, all that that we see and touch and can analyse by science, is the only reality? What if there were something that were to lie beyond the ability of our instruments to measure? We would not know, and science would be blind. You are starting with the assumption that science CAN tell us everything. But what qualifies us to make that assumption? Just because it is all we have seen? Can you call the world flat just because you've never circumnavigated it? So I'm questioning your reliance on science as the standard. I mean, don't you think it's arrogant of humanity to say 'if we can see it, touch it, understand it, then it's real; if we can't, it doesn't exist.' Why does that neccessarially follow? What makes that true? Reasonably, that assumption can't be made, and that is the very one you are making when you hold science as the only way of arriving at truth.
Again, though, you're missing the point. You're saying the two sciences are two ways of looking at reality, whereas what I'm talking about is 'reality and something else'. No. What I'm also talking about is two aspects of reality, whether you like that or not. Indeed, what I am talking about is 'true' reality, much like you'd see in Plato's concept of Ideals. What is truth is no possessed inherent in a thing, but what is important stands behind it in an eternal ideal. This is a valid point for me to bring up, make no mistake. There is nothing less real in talking about something philisophical and theological than there is in something scientific. That biology/physics analogy was carefully picked, because the view I'm maintaining is indeed one which has that which we cannot percieve be another part of reality. You only call it 'something else' on the grounds that YOU cannot perceive it. But what makes you, a mere creature, if you wish a mere monkey, have the right to make that sort of statement? 'Something else' is only professing your ignorance of what it is, but doesn't prove it's NOT part of reality. Look over the analogy again. It's certainly not the best, but the best I could come up with at the moment. The thing is, again you've gone into it making the baseline assumption that science is superiour and the only way. You've closed your mind to anything else, to the possibility of anything else. Basically, I'm thinking you're thinking biasedly, and as such are not giving these possibilities a fair treatment.
Finally, despite your long and well-written little essay, you still haven't said a single thing that could prove the existence of God or any deity. Admittedly that was probably not what you were after, but I am still letting it be said.
Then what's the point in saying it? Of course I wasn't arguing proof. That's a tough thing that would take the work of eternity to complete. No, that I'm not up for. Instead, I was maintaining that you have to be open to the possibility, and this includes not blinding yourself in saying 'if I don't see a god here where I want him, he doesn't exist.' I'm questioning your approach, and questioning what you believe. You're saying 'how does one know, how can one prove that God exists?' Fine, let that doubt be thrown out. But let us also stand this doubt, that science may not be able to explain everything. For if the concept of God exists, then even if that is not proof for God, then that opens the possibility, and it neccessitates the need for us to keep open the possibility. And that possibility means that we cannot say unequivocally that science can tell us these things, and indeed maintains a sobre judgement on the limitations of science. You say 'prove God to me'? Well, prove to me that science can tell us everything. It's just as impossible. How's that?
(Lord J, a little back-up, please. I fear his mastery of English and other languages over my amateur understanding may eventually overwhelm me.)
If so, I'm sorry. I'm not trying to combat you by style. This really is my natural voice, be certain of that. I'm trying to bring my ideas across, and if my style is a block to that, that's unfortunate. You don't need Lord J, here. This isn't a battle, though I've said 'combat.' I'm not trying to beat you, I'm merely questioning you and saying that you are wrong in your basic assumptions, and that you should open your mind to other possibilities. Whether or not you choose to do so is wholly up to you, and Lord J entering into this is hardly relevant. Of course, language wise, he can defeat me, but again, that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. All I've written is not meant to get you to believe what I do, but merely open your mind to more possibilities than science alone presents. This is certainly not a rejection of science in the least, but an understanding of the place science has in the scheme of things. And even if you don't take this view, reject it not because it is contrary, but consider it and convince yourself of its fallicy, alright? If you wish to try and do that here, be my guest, but you don't have to. Not replying to me will definitely not be taken as a sign that you 'admit defeat' or anything like that, so don't worry. Indeed, I've not said very much for all my words. Again, all I've maintained is the need to question, and in this case question science's supremacy in your mind.
Whew, it's been a long time since I discussed something like this. It's a good feeling to know I'm not too rusty.
