Is There Any Room For God In Modern Science?

I assumed you were fine with the term civilization being used. Why wouldn't you be?!? It'd be hard to discuss things in depth without ever referring to civilization. Civilization is at the crux of everything. Perhaps the question "Is belief in God civilized?" is as good as "Is God scientific?" Because as long as it's civilized, couldn't the believer be a perfectly good scientist? Or would that one venture into the unknown put his entire worldview into jeopardy?

After all, it must be more important to be civilized than it is to be scientific. Because to put science before civilization is obviously just crazy. Isn't it an assumption that science is somehow just the equivalence of civilization? I like the assumption, but assumptions are not scientific, and the fact is that there are some things you just simply cannot understand. Aren't we to take this lack of understanding into account at all, and just be scientific about everything, looking for answers where there sometimes just are none, never pondering the ones where there just is none because we just know there is none.

I'm not going to argue that God is the crux of civilization, but he's part of the crux. Science is part of the crux; God is; Class IV Civilization is; the Loch Ness Monster is; leprechauns are. Our whimsical side is a wonderful, necessary thing. We can't just be scientists, because we just aren't. What do you want, the class of scientists to commit genocide upon the inferior population?! Is that what you're arguing? I can't believe you want to commit genocide upon the inferior population! This is what you're arguing! ThIs Is CraZy :afro:

 

It just so happens there are these mass communal orginizations which embrace, even idolize the idea of God within our civilization, they are called religions.

This is just plain stupidity and pretty lame of you to make such a claim. You're either trolling or that is one really weak, last ditch effort to save face on many of your crap arguments.

 

PLEASE, just walk away and let this moronic thread rot in peace.
Please stop responding to these idiot trolls.

 

*sigh* *shakes head*

You are a douche.

 

Resort to name calling... I think it fits you better than butchering people's responses.

 

Well I figure the conversation has pretty much ended. You can't respond to any of my arguments. You just call them crap. You've pretty much just exposed yourself as a total douche and that's where I'll let it lie.

When I said you were arguing that scientists should eradicate all non-scientists, I was JOKING. I guess someone has to wear clown makeup and walk around with their pants around their ankles for you to get the gist that they're not being serious.

 

I'll assume about half those questions and assertions from you were jokes then, hard to get tone through text sometimes. I chose not to respond to the the absurd questions, some that I more or less already discussed and some that I didn't have much to say on, thought were rhetorical and/or tangential.

I do a lot of my posting on a phone, since I am not ominpotent nor do I desire to develop arthritis, I try and respond to what I can. I probably even responded to a whole lot more questions than I should have to end up being called a douche.

 

PLEASE shut your trap and stop being an arrogant dumbass.

 

Science is so brilliant, it had to use its Scientific Method to discover this amazingly un-obvious fact about trees. If it weren't for Science, I could have never known this ...http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/07/09/scientists-have-discovered-that-living-near-trees-is-good-for-your-health/

 

Maybe it's just your phone then, but you're coming off as a total douche. Weird how technology works sometimes.

 

If it weren't for science, you could never prove it.

 

Don't pin this on technology, such a personal attack has to do with your personality.

I do not understand why you are not incessantly defending, poking, provoking others in that other thread you started, in regards to your position(s) and questions.

 

So you need the Scientific Method to also prove that water is essential for one's existence? Or has humanity always instinctively known this because of obviousness and common sense? Weren't humans drinking water before the Scientific Method came around? Weren't they drinking it out of necessity for thousands of years before the Scientific Method came around?

What's more proof, the fact that we have always drank water, or some science experiment done on water to "prove" that we needed it, even though if it wasn't for the water, we never would have evolved to the point of doing a science experiment on it?

 

Human drank water out of "instinct". All animals know this equally well. However, what they don't have a clue about is "why"? This is where you need science, and this is what seperates us from the lower animals.

 

So maybe we should do a Scientific experiment on "why" it's humans alone that have done insurmountable damage to nature, to the point where it has threatened our entire existence? If we are so above the animals, then why is it humans alone who have done the most damage to the planet that they live on?

Also, unless you are an animal yourself, you have no way of proving that animals don't have a clue about "why" to anything at all.

And this "why" to drinking water has not made much of a difference. Doesn't really matter why we need water. All that matters is that we need it. Instinct is its own form of knowing.

 

Cyanobacteria, they did a whole lot of "damage" to nature. Completely changed the environment on the planet making it possible for organisms like us to exist. Damage is subjective. Humans are the only species that produce engineers.

 

Weren't the cyanobacteria engineering our existence?

 

No.

 

I would say they definitely played a hand in engineering our existence. You said for yourself that the damage they did made way for our existence. I would say that's part of the engineering process in the same way that humans clearing out trees to make way for the building of hotels is part of the engineering/development process.

 

It was a natural process, but there was no planning, design, implementation of plan ... research and application of said research. Of course natural processes including ones involving bacteria are often featured in engineering, but the processes and principles themselves are not "engineered", it only becomes engineering when it is applied and used to implement a complex system to serve a useful purpose.