Extreme skepticism can be just as much a crutch as gullibility.
E.F. Shumacher once observed that there are three planes of thought for man. The first is primitive religion. The second is that of the modern man, of facts and science and "objectivity." The third, final, and best is that which goes, as he said, "beyond facts and science." The problem is that to someone who lives in the second plane of thought, there seems to be no difference between the first and third.
How convenient that the best plane of thought is the one that goes 'beyond' facts and science, eh?
I am quite sure god creating the Earth breaks conservation of mass and/or conservation of energy. If any God is all powerful then how come we cannot observe any effect of this power on the universe?
Nope. You'd be wrong then.
Any theory of God, even Creationist theory of God, would explain that God had created the universe, and therefore the laws of the universe, and before that time there were no laws of the universe to break. Therefore, even a Creationists' God would not have been able to break the laws he had yet to create... it's that simple.
But if you're referring to matter just being 'created' from nothing, then sure, you can say he broke the law... but Creationism is a minority belief.
You're not even bothering to conceptualize a non-Creationist God. Most religious people do not believe in Creationism. I'd be willing to say that even most Christians would believe that God created the universe utilizing the 'Big Bang', or something similar that science would not object to. Since the 'Big Bang Theory' was even proposed by a Catholic priest, I don't see any reason to see any differently.
And if God created the Big Bang, it could easily be said that no laws of the universe were ever broken.
Most religious people are naturalistic. They believe that God created the universe as it appears to us in a natural way and beyond our comprehension. Most religious people do not object to anything scientific, and most will object to those who object to science, thinking they are insane.
There is absolutely no reason to group all religious people into some anti-science group, just because that minority is the kind you've seen on TV, or the ignorant folk who come out of local churches. These are a minority.
As for why we can not observe a God's power... well that question, I think, is being asked incorrectly.
If a God exists that created the universe and all things, and omniscient God... then we are in direct observance of his power by observing all things, existing, and simply being. As well, it could be stated that the God does not wish to make his powers directly observable, perhaps to make life into a 'test'.
Some may say 'miracles' are an obvious display of his power.
There are multiple answers for the question... but I think to truly get an answer, you need to understand the different concepts of God and ask the question the right way in accordance with each definition.
A religion which can have its focus disproved would quickly fall apart.
True... but what's you're point?
I understand scientific method. The experiment is used to gather evidence. A hypothesis is an idea that can be tested and disproved. A Theory has been tested and not disproved.
You stated that science works with a 'show evidence first rule'. This is not true and just an incorrect statement you made. To clarify how science works and why the statement you made was wrong, I explained the scientific method.
Your statement/argument here does not negate the fact that your previous statement was wrong.
What this means is that if you were to attempt to prove the existence of god you would have to begin by disproving the laws and theories that prevent its existence. Its the same as the first step to getting FTL travel.
This really makes no sense... but feel free to clarify.
But as I stated, science and religion are unrelated. Science does not attempt to, or state that it can, prove or disprove the existence of God.
Attempting to do so would get you laughed out of both the science and the religious community... because it would be a huge misuse of science for unintended purposes, and to do so would also require some very 'unscientific' methods...
How convenient that the best plane of thought is the one that goes 'beyond' facts and science, eh?
Yes, very. I think he set it up that way. Regardless of his intentions for formulating such a thing, it is interesting to think about. How would a person move from the second to the third plane, assuming it exists? Schumacher was a Catholic convert from atheism, but I don't think he ever explained it. I guess he just got kind of tired of the facts and the physical and moved on to try out faith and metaphysics.
The facts and the physical... heh, sounds like a soap opera about scientists.
How convenient that the best plane of thought is the one that goes 'beyond' facts and science, eh?
Nope. You'd be wrong then.
Any theory of God, even Creationist theory of God, would explain that God had created the universe, and therefore the laws of the universe, and before that time there were no laws of the universe to break. Therefore, even a Creationists' God would not have been able to break the laws he had yet to create... it's that simple.
But if you're referring to matter just being 'created' from nothing, then sure, you can say he broke the law... but Creationism is a minority belief.
You're not even bothering to conceptualize a non-Creationist God. Most religious people do not believe in Creationism. I'd be willing to say that even most Christians would believe that God created the universe utilizing the 'Big Bang', or something similar that science would not object to. Since the 'Big Bang Theory' was even proposed by a Catholic priest, I don't see any reason to see any differently.
And if God created the Big Bang, it could easily be said that no laws of the universe were ever broken.
Most religious people are naturalistic. They believe that God created the universe as it appears to us in a natural way and beyond our comprehension. Most religious people do not object to anything scientific, and most will object to those who object to science, thinking they are insane.
There is absolutely no reason to group all religious people into some anti-science group, just because that minority is the kind you've seen on TV, or the ignorant folk who come out of local churches. These are a minority.
As for why we can not observe a God's power... well that question, I think, is being asked incorrectly.
If a God exists that created the universe and all things, and omniscient God... then we are in direct observance of his power by observing all things, existing, and simply being. As well, it could be stated that the God does not wish to make his powers directly observable, perhaps to make life into a 'test'.
Some may say 'miracles' are an obvious display of his power.
There are multiple answers for the question... but I think to truly get an answer, you need to understand the different concepts of God and ask the question the right way in accordance with each definition.
True... but what's you're point?
You stated that science works with a 'show evidence first rule'. This is not true and just an incorrect statement you made. To clarify how science works and why the statement you made was wrong, I explained the scientific method.
Your statement/argument here does not negate the fact that your previous statement was wrong.
This really makes no sense... but feel free to clarify.
But as I stated, science and religion are unrelated. Science does not attempt to, or state that it can, prove or disprove the existence of God.
Attempting to do so would get you laughed out of both the science and the religious community... because it would be a huge misuse of science for unintended purposes, and to do so would also require some very 'unscientific' methods...
lol I stated almost exactly the same thing a couple pages back with no responses at all.
Yes, very. I think he set it up that way. Regardless of his intentions for formulating such a thing, it is interesting to think about. How would a person move from the second to the third plane, assuming it exists? Schumacher was a Catholic convert from atheism, but I don't think he ever explained it. I guess he just got kind of tired of the facts and the physical and moved on to try out faith and metaphysics.
The facts and the physical... heh, sounds like a soap opera about scientists.
You heard that, green and red.