Limitation in science to research on God?
-
Validity of science
How can we validate science?
There can be 2 God-less validation for science.
- Accidental harmony
One may have faith that, even though the entire universe is accidental and outcome without plan or purpose, the accidental nature of the universe and human consciousness is such that there is an accidental harmony with each other. Human senses and intellect can know the universe without distorting it and as it is.
This is a tyrannical imposition, upon Nature, of human will or desire. No one can prove this harmony, as no one can sense the universe coming out of his skin or think of the universe coming out of his brain.
- Utility or pragmatic value
This is the one most influencing cause for science and probably the most widely accepted ground for science. But if one looks into the nature of science and the nature of human utility or value, he shall find that both the two are beyond the scope of science. Hence science has been based on some non-scientific ground. Utility and value has further problems to be solved. These two things depend on human sanction and animal instinct. So this is too tyrannical like the first.
The third one
It is based on the following prime notions given in the Koran.
a. There is God who is the Omnipotent, the Omniscient and the Wise.
b. Man is the vicegerent of God.
c. God created man and his universe for him.I get, by definition, a solid ground and science gets a strong validity as the logical deduction.
Comparison
The first 2 suffers from the fact that they are unfounded.
God?s existence may also be regarded as unfounded.But with the first two
we have weak assumption and invalid conclusion.And with the last one
we have stronger assumption and sound conclusion. -
The first 2 suffers from the fact that they are unfounded.
God?s existence may also be regarded as unfounded.But with the first two
we have weak assumption and invalid conclusion.And with the last one
we have stronger assumption and sound conclusion.How did you conclude that with the last one, you have a "stronger assumption"?
Anwar Azim
-
Peace to all,
I am quite overwhelmed by very logical discussions that we are having here!
Thanks to all, particularly alpha!Just finished reading Richard Dawkin?s The GOD DELUSION. Have you read it?
My conclusion is this donkey utterly failed to convince me in his book of the preposterous title. Evolution and natural selection is just a drug to calm atheists, because they are scared, as for them there is a 50% chance that some form of power or God might exist, hence hell might be there abode.
Why the heck would greatest evolutionist of today write a book to prove that the creator does not exist, prior to scientifically convincing someone like me and other scientist the evidence for evolution?
However, he made a very good analysis that religions are manmade in his book. This I totally agree, which further convince me that Islam is not a religion but a way of life based on truth. For unfortunately majority of so called Muslims have turned it into a religion??..really sad.
-
How did you conclude that with the last one, you have a "stronger assumption"?
Salam Anwar Azim Bhaai.
The strength in the assumption lies in the definition of God and in the fact that if this definition is accepted, Science gets better logical and objective ground.
But the definition of Matter, or Physical things, or Human Consciousness is in weak position to provide that.
If we have no other way except to assume this or that, is it not better to have the best possible assumption?
Can any one here help me in this regard? Let?s discuss taking it as a hypothesis.
-
Peace all,
Alpha, I'm always happy when we agree.
Preshant, I echo Anwar's concerns. From a subjective viewpoint (this side of the "belief in God" fence), certainly, one can say that it is the stronger argument. However, from a pragmatic view, all views without evidence are equally weak.
You asked
If we have no other way except to assume this or that, is it not better to have the best possible assumption?
Can any one here help me in this regard?Yes, the best assumption is better. But we must define the criterion for "best" since we're not dealing with anything tangible. The atheist will argue that it is best to live a life of no consequence. You die, and that's it. While the theist will argue that a life without consequence is not worth living. Who's right?
I feel this only illustrates my point that science is ill-equipped to handle such a daunting task. Imagine using a computer to try and gauge the joy of witnessing childbirth.
Peace,
Tay -
Salam Anwar Azim Bhaai.
The strength in the assumption lies in the definition of God and in the fact that if this definition is accepted, Science gets better logical and objective ground.
But the definition of Matter, or Physical things, or Human Consciousness is in weak position to provide that.
If we have no other way except to assume this or that, is it not better to have the best possible assumption?
Can any one here help me in this regard? Let?s discuss taking it as a hypothesis.
Hello Prashant,
I believe that the emperical or definitive value of God as proclaimed and exercised by faith based philosophies is relied purely on observational grounds leading to assumptions. The stronger the observations, the stronger the assumptions, hence its implications on faith. These observations are obviously contended naturally and never by scientific apparatuses, simply because it is beyond science, and for that matter, for any human to actually calculate and cultivate God. Take the example of Truth and ask yourself what really is Truth, because Truth cannot be scientifically measured, thus it becomes purely observational by experience through nature, and therefore its implications on justification.
-
Salamun alaykum, Tay, Danish and all.
Yes.
If we can not see God with bear eyes, we shall not be able to see Him with any telescope or microscope too.
If we can not see God here on Earth, our space travel shall not take any closer to God to see him.
But science is disclosing the beauty, intricacy and splendor in the Nature. Probably in future, there shall come one day when scientists shall submit themselves to God, as the magicians of Pharaoh did in the past.
-
Peace Preshant,
Probably in future, there shall come one day when scientists shall submit themselves to God, as the magicians of Pharaoh did in the past.
More than one would guess, scientists exploring the deeper realms of their respective disciplines are left with no alternative except a higher intelligence - especially in the chaotic realm of the quantum. If you haven't already seen it, I highly recommend the DVD "What the Bleep Do We Know".
Peace,
Tay