Is It Logically Possible That Science Will Answer all The Great Metaphysical Questions Concerning Existence?

[MindOverMatter]

If i have been a bit unfriendly in other posts, i apologize. Extreme intelligence is not an excuse for arrogance.

It is a popular idea that science will one day displace God as a meaningful explanation to anything concerning the nature of existence. Some feel that the only kind of God that can survive, as in be compatible, is a pantheistic God.

My position on this subject is this. Science is inferior to metaphysics when it comes to explaining ultimates.This is because physics is not the cause of everything.
Therefore the argument that science might one day have all the answers for existence, is a false concept that serves nothing in terms of benefiting humanity, accept to feed on the fears of the doubter.

Therefore naturalism is undermined in terms of providing an explanation for existence.
Thus we must seek an explanation else-where.

I am aware that i have just made an assertion without giving any logical support for my arguments. Don’t worry, because i intend to. But i want to start a discussion first about why some naturalists believe and feel confident that science is capable of answering Big metaphysical questions.

 

[Eucharisted]

Is It Logically Possible That Science Will Answer all The Great Metaphysical Questions Concerning Existence?

To an extent, yes. And that extent only goes as far as natural things. Science could find answers to the questions of how miracles occur, for example, because God works in natural ways. The Big Bang is an excellent example of how God works. But science can never find answers to questions on the supernatural, for example, whether God exists or not.

 

[MindOverMatter]

To an extent, yes. And that extent only goes as far as natural things. Science could find answers to the questions of how miracles occur, for example, because God works in natural ways. The Big Bang is an excellent example of how God works. But science can never find answers to questions on the supernatural, for example, whether God exists or not.

If Science could explain how the universe, its qualities, and all the laws of physics, could come into being by itself, or be self explanatory, there would be no good reason to believe in a Creator.

If God works through nature, then there must necessarily be a point where nature is unable to explain itself, since it is reliant upon God in order to work or be. So, I’m not sure that your idea works. Ultimately; nature has to have an inconsistency somewhere in terms of explanation; otherwise there is no logical reason to think that nature itself isn’t existence. Hence Pantheism or Atheism

 

[ConallCernach]

Empirical science can only measure the empirical things. This is the way that empirical science works… You cannot titrate the universe for the presence of God against a standard NaOH solution, nor can you dissect the universe to look for God. Empirical sciences cannot peer into the final cause of an object, just its material cause and formal cause.

As such, it is not logical to say that science will answer any of the great metaphysical questions of existence.

Pax

 

[oriel16]

The Big Bang is an excellent example of how God works. But science can never find answers to questions on the supernatural, for example, whether God exists or not.

The ‘Big Bang’ is a false premise and conclusion or rather a logical conclusion of the error of Flamsteed -

“… our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be isochronical…” Flamsteed wrote in a letter in 1677 .

It looks like this -

youtube.com/watch?v=XTTDWhky9HY

And this -

opencourse.info/astronomy/introduction/02.motion_stars_sun/celestial_sphere_anim.gif

Our race has lost the ability to reason properly and while I understand the 'big bang ’ appeal to Christianity,it represents something as close as possible to sub-human thinking,astrological thinking to be precise.

There is actually nothing left to do in this forum as it appears everyone is happy to believe whatever they need to in order to be believer or non believer.This is actually a religion in itself but without any of the inspiring traits of Christ and terrestrial/celestial creation.

 

[centurionguard]

I wouldn’t equate the intelligence of primitive man by placing the human genus on some ego satisfying pedestal anywhere in the next 500,000 or even a million years from now.
According to primitive day human scientist’s who claim that the “universe” is somewhere in the vicinity of twelve to fifteen billions years in age. And granted, that’s taking into account with the primitive scientific technology it uses to mathematically calculate such a (“theory”) into relevance. With the planet earth being some four-billion years old; humans have only been around for a million years. And less than twenty-thousand years ago mankind was only coming out of it’s Neanderthal period. What’s a million years in human evolution when as a human race today we still murder, rape, wage war, covet our neighbors goods, and are hard pressed to ask ourselves why we are still caught up in selfish pride and bombarded by the sexual lusts and appetites of the flesh. How can we really say we are evolved ?
Human science in it’s own glorious wizardry of technology is no equatable litmus paper on true human evolution in the flesh. True evolution has to be sought from the depths of the human soul, the human spirit that humbly sacrifices itself to God Himself who defies any human or universal science from any intelligence.

 

[redrosetea]

If i have been a bit unfriendly in other posts, i apologize. Extreme intelligence is not an excuse for arrogance.

It is a popular idea that science will one day displace God as a meaningful explanation to anything concerning the nature of existence. Some feel that the only kind of God that can survive, as in be compatible, is a pantheistic God.

My position on this subject is this. Science is inferior to metaphysics when it comes to explaining ultimates.This is because physics is not the cause of everything.
Therefore the argument that science might one day have all the answers for existence, is a false concept that serves nothing in terms of benefiting humanity, accept to feed on the fears of the doubter.

Therefore naturalism is undermined in terms of providing an explanation for existence.
Thus we must seek an explanation else-where.

I am aware that i have just made an assertion without giving any logical support for my arguments. Don’t worry, because i intend to. But i want to start a discussion first about why some naturalists believe and feel confident that science is capable of answering Big metaphysical questions.

Not for me…God is a mystery

 

[jhalchak]

So I don’t know what this discussion is about.

Science, being empirical by nature, is only able to speak about nature. I think even science understands it has no real place in the study of metaphysics.

I guess it depends on what you mean by “will it replace” God. If you mean offer an alternative for those wishing to justify their unbelief, I believe it already does so. I think the person who does this is badly mistaken about the nature of science though.

Science isn’t in the business of talking about God… that’s why we have philosophers and theologians.

Science will never be omnipotent because, by it’s definition, there are many things it cannot prove (by it’s method) including itself. It is only one of the most helpful tools we’ve come up with. In my opinion, science itself is absurd without God’s existence.

 

[jhalchak]

You can change the word “replace” with “displace” above…

I also wanted to add that I hold to a panentheistic view of God and creation. I’m also somewhat of an idealist when it comes to reality. I really think this is one of the reasons we can be sure science is giving us truth at all, through our study of nature we are studying God (in that nature is within God and he is “co-located” with all things while simultaneously transcending them).

Also wanted to say that since science works with inductive methods of truth (to speak about nature) and philosophy generally uses deductive arguments (to speak about super-nature). I don’t see why we should think one could replace/displace the other…

Science is still slave to philosophy.

 

[PJM]

No, I think not.

Not that they will not try, but for two very good reasons.

I suspect that such is not God’s Will.

I suspect that with regularity, scientific pride will be the Corner Stone & the stumbling stone. “If they ca’t fifure it out,” "then it just can’t be.

Isaiah 55: "**6 "Seek the LORD while he may be found, call upon him while he is near; 7 let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
**

 

[VociMike]

If Science could explain how the universe, its qualities, and all the laws of physics, could come into being by itself, or be self explanatory, there would be no good reason to believe in a Creator.

I agree, with the additional proviso that it must also be shown that the universe must, of necessity, have come into existence.

If God works through nature, then there must necessarily be a point where nature is unable to explain itself, since it is reliant upon God in order to work or be. So, I’m not sure that your idea works. Ultimately; nature has to have an inconsistency somewhere in terms of explanation; otherwise there is no logical reason to think that nature itself isn’t existence. Hence Pantheism or Atheism

Agree again. FWIW, I have found it useful to talk about the First Explanation rather than the First Cause, simply because many people respond to the latter with “well, why did there need to be a first cause at all?” But people can grasp a chain of explanations leading back to whatever it is that cannot be explained, but from which all other explanations flow.

 

[MindOverMatter]

The ‘Big Bang’ is a false premise and conclusion or rather a logical conclusion of the error of Flamsteed -

“… our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be isochronical…” Flamsteed wrote in a letter in 1677 .

It looks like this -

youtube.com/watch?v=XTTDWhky9HY

And this -

opencourse.info/astronomy/introduction/02.motion_stars_sun/celestial_sphere_anim.gif

Our race has lost the ability to reason properly and while I understand the 'big bang ’ appeal to Christianity,it represents something as close as possible to sub-human thinking,astrological thinking to be precise.

There is actually nothing left to do in this forum as it appears everyone is happy to believe whatever they need to in order to be believer or non believer.This is actually a religion in itself but without any of the inspiring traits of Christ and terrestrial/celestial creation.

Sounds like you got something in your brain that i ought to know. Can you please teach me more?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Science will never be omnipotent because, by it’s definition, there are many things it cannot prove (by it’s method) including itself. It is only one of the most helpful tools we’ve come up with. In my opinion, science itself is absurd without God’s existence.

Interesting. Can you please explain in more detail what you are saying here?

 

[MindOverMatter]

You can change the word “replace” with “displace” above…

I also wanted to add that I hold to a panentheistic

What the hell is that!!!

Science is still slave to philosophy.

Please explain this a bit more.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Empirical science can only measure the empirical things. This is the way that empirical science works… You cannot titrate the universe for the presence of God against a standard NaOH solution, nor can you dissect the universe to look for God. Empirical sciences cannot peer into the final cause of an object, just its material cause and formal cause.

As such, it is not logical to say that science will answer any of the great metaphysical questions of existence.

Pax

Thanks for your imput.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I agree, with the additional proviso that it must also be shown that the universe must, of necessity, have come into existence.
Agree again. FWIW, I have found it useful to talk about the First Explanation rather than the First Cause, simply because many people respond to the latter with “well, why did there need to be a first cause at all?” But people can grasp a chain of explanations leading back to whatever it is that cannot be explained, but from which all other explanations flow.

This is good, but i would say that there is a final explanation that explains itself. Or rather, it is self explanatory.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Not for me…God is a mystery

I know that God is a mystery. However there might be some people in existence who would say that the Universe is a rich chocolate cake in disguise.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I wouldn’t equate the intelligence of primitive man by placing the human genus on some ego satisfying pedestal anywhere in the next 500,000 or even a million years from now.
According to primitive day human scientist’s who claim that the “universe” is somewhere in the vicinity of twelve to fifteen billions years in age. And granted, that’s taking into account with the primitive scientific technology it uses to mathematically calculate such a (“theory”) into relevance. With the planet earth being some four-billion years old; humans have only been around for a million years. And less than twenty-thousand years ago mankind was only coming out of it’s Neanderthal period. What’s a million years in human evolution when as a human race today we still murder, rape, wage war, covet our neighbors goods, and are hard pressed to ask ourselves why we are still caught up in selfish pride and bombarded by the sexual lusts and appetites of the flesh. How can we really say we are evolved ?
Human science in it’s own glorious wizardry of technology is no equatable litmus paper on true human evolution in the flesh. True evolution has to be sought from the depths of the human soul, the human spirit that humbly sacrifices itself to God Himself who defies any human or universal science from any intelligence.

Thanks for the post. Are you pro evolution?

 

[MindOverMatter]

No, I think not.

Not that they will not try, but for two very good reasons.

I suspect that such is not God’s Will.

I suspect that with regularity, scientific pride will be the Corner Stone & the stumbling stone. “If they ca’t fifure it out,” "then it just can’t be.

Isaiah 55: "**6 "Seek the LORD while he may be found, call upon him while he is near; 7 let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
**

Thanks.

 

[mario_grgic]

Of course not. Science is largely empirical. Even more, logic as a tool of discovery of truth is limited as Kurt Godel has proved in his incompleteness theorem:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

Basically, it says that for even very simple axiomatic systems, there will always be true statements in the theory, that can not be proved form the axioms and theorems of the system.

Some have used this result to argue that machines will never be able to think (well be conscious what ever that means, by arguing that consciousness is not computational in nature).

And then there are things that can not even be studied scientifically, because they are not repeatable and hence not testable.

Modern physics does not prevent you from believing there are little men behind you, but as soon as you or anyone (thing) looks at them they disappear. Since one can not study them, modern physics has nothing to say about them.

It is really amazing that the best modern science has to offer to explain how universe came into being (and when I say universe I mean not just matter, but space in which the matter is situated) is that it spontaneously appeared out of nothingness. Not unlike Genesis .

It apparently has been observed that subatomic particles do appear out of nothing (quantum tunneling), but they don’t last very long, and they are tiny. It is a stretch of imagination to carry this to large scale mass of the universe.

So, yeah, we are still in the dark, except for the light of God .