Evidence for God from Science

Sam1995 wrote:

Byblos wrote: Can science ever answer for itself?

What do you mean exactly? Because my immediate response would be that if we look at chemistry, for example, we can see how different chemicals react with each other and produce certain results, here science answers for itself without the need for any other input, but I'm not totally clear that's what you meant!

I mean it exactly how it sounds, if science can answer for everything and therefore prove there is no need for God, then how does science even begin to answer for itself?

Byblos wrote:

Sam1995 wrote:

Byblos wrote: Can science ever answer for itself?

What do you mean exactly? Because my immediate response would be that if we look at chemistry, for example, we can see how different chemicals react with each other and produce certain results, here science answers for itself without the need for any other input, but I'm not totally clear that's what you meant!

I mean it exactly how it sounds, if science can answer for everything and therefore prove there is no need for God, then how does science even begin to answer for itself?

If science is the explanation of phenomena, and it can explain the origins of life and the universe, then not only can it explain what the phenomena are, but also where they originated from, so in that sense science would be able to account for its own existence and answer for itself, as it defines where the phenomena which it explains comes from.

However, realistically this will never happen, I do not believe for a second that science will ever have all the answers, because there is a God involved.

SB

Sam1995 wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Sam1995 wrote:

Byblos wrote: Can science ever answer for itself?

What do you mean exactly? Because my immediate response would be that if we look at chemistry, for example, we can see how different chemicals react with each other and produce certain results, here science answers for itself without the need for any other input, but I'm not totally clear that's what you meant!

I mean it exactly how it sounds, if science can answer for everything and therefore prove there is no need for God, then how does science even begin to answer for itself?

If science is the explanation of phenomena, and it can explain the origins of life and the universe, then not only can it explain what the phenomena are, but also where they originated from, so in that sense science would be able to account for its own existence and answer for itself, as it defines where the phenomena which it explains comes from.

However, realistically this will never happen, I do not believe for a second that science will ever have all the answers, because there is a God involved.

SB

You'd be right if it weren't for the circularity of it all, science defining what science is.

My two cents that I'll toss in,

This might be a simple version of what some people have said so far, but one thing I've been thinking about is how science could be flawed because of its reliance on Occam's Razor. Scientists assume that the simplest explanation from our point of view is the correct one. Reality could very easily be more complicated than we give it credit for though, and the correct explanation in given cases might be the seemingly roundabout and absurd one.

I love science, but this could be a huge reason for one to be skeptical of it.

Seraph wrote:My two cents that I'll toss in,

This might be a simple version of what some people have said so far, but one thing I've been thinking about is how science could be flawed because of its reliance on Occam's Razor. Scientists assume that the simplest explanation from our point of view is the correct one. Reality could very easily be more complicated than we give it credit for though, and the correct explanation in given cases might be the seemingly roundabout and absurd one.

I love science, but this could be a huge reason for one to be skeptical of it.

You missed the most crucial (albeit often implied) part of Occam's razor, that being the simplest explanation is the correct one until proven otherwise.

It's simple:
Science can only comment on what can be observed in nature.
Those observations are subject to the observers ability to understand what he/she is seeing.
Science makes a comment on what may be the best possible explanation based on that observation UNTIL another one is found to be more correct.

Seraph wrote:My two cents that I'll toss in,

This might be a simple version of what some people have said so far, but one thing I've been thinking about is how science could be flawed because of its reliance on Occam's Razor. Scientists assume that the simplest explanation from our point of view is the correct one. Reality could very easily be more complicated than we give it credit for though, and the correct explanation in given cases might be the seemingly roundabout and absurd one.

I love science, but this could be a huge reason for one to be skeptical of it.

How true. Indeed, no one guarantees that the simplest explanation is the correct one. (although I really doubt if "everything happened due to chance" is more simple than the "someone/something created everything"...)

skakos wrote:

Seraph wrote:My two cents that I'll toss in,

This might be a simple version of what some people have said so far, but one thing I've been thinking about is how science could be flawed because of its reliance on Occam's Razor. Scientists assume that the simplest explanation from our point of view is the correct one. Reality could very easily be more complicated than we give it credit for though, and the correct explanation in given cases might be the seemingly roundabout and absurd one.

I love science, but this could be a huge reason for one to be skeptical of it.

How true. Indeed, no one guarantees that the simplest explanation is the correct one. (although I really doubt if "everything happened due to chance" is more simple than the "someone/something created everything"...)

One thing I wish to note: Well, what is simple when considering science? What is not simple now, can be simple later. In science it happens all the time that with new theory some things get much simpler. Before that theory there were no glasses through which it would seem simple.

From which point are we to look to see whether something is simple or not? Is there really some point? Tell me what do you think.