(m)
There is a lack of consensus as to the appropriate scientific treatment of religious questions, such as those of the existence and nature of God. A major point of debate has been whether God's existence or attributes can be empirically tested or gauged.
A common view divides the world into what Stephen Jay Gould called "non-overlapping magisteria" which is a concept often referred to by the acronym NOMA. In this view, questions of the supernatural, such as those relating to the existence and nature of God, are non-empirical and are the proper domain of theology. The methods of science should then be used to answer any empirical question about the natural world. The opposing view, advanced by Richard Dawkins, is that the existence of God is an empirical question, on the grounds that "a universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference."[13] A third view is that of scientism: any question which cannot be answered by science is either nonsensical or is not worth asking, because there is no empirical answer.
2007-02-26 17:43:29
·
answer #1
·
answered by mallimalar_2000 7
·
4⤊
0⤋
Perfect Answer:
1.) There Is No Scientific Definition Of God.
2.) God Is Everything That Makes Up The Concept Called LOVE.
3.) God Does Not Translate Into ANYTHING that Is Of A Human Thought or Form.
4.) God Is Undescrible Because There Is Only Perfection.
(My honest and truthful perspective)
2007-02-26 17:55:28
·
answer #2
·
answered by metrosexualis 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
I would have to say that the scientific definition of god would be ..
that which is... or the "being" referred to when .. we as humans encounter situations or problems that science has yet to understand. Perhaps a way for a sane mind to try to fashion some sense of order and reason from an extremely unpredictable world .
2007-02-26 17:33:17
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Some people have faith in a God. The definition of faith as from dictionary.com is "belief that is not based on proof" and "confidence or trust in a person or thing". Therefore even though God may or may not exsist, some people will believe in a God. Its a faith.
Science however is based on proven facts and not faiths, it is totally unbiased, and there is no "gut feelings" or traditional faiths involved. Science is based on facts.
God is based on faiths and beliefs. So to answer your question there is no scientific definition of God.
2007-02-26 17:27:05
·
answer #4
·
answered by cutelagayguy 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Ekam Sat
Vibrah Bahuta Vadanthi
2007-02-26 18:15:40
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
One definition I can give is GOD is a form of energy.as da law of energy states "energy can neither be created nor be destroyed but can change form" . Its da same with God. God neither has birth nor does he have death. He is omnipresent and exists in various forms. If you think God is light,he is light energy. Hope this explanation fits da scheme well. It was God who defined science. Its difficult to define God with science.
2007-02-26 22:49:56
·
answer #6
·
answered by prashanth 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
God is defined as the the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe.
2007-02-26 22:37:15
·
answer #7
·
answered by You-Know-Who 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
There is none God is not a scientific concept.
2007-02-26 17:15:54
·
answer #8
·
answered by October 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Scientifically god is the power which has brought big-bang into existance and who controls theory of relativity....because these two are the most important fact for existance of life and maintainance of life in this universe.....
2007-02-26 17:33:07
·
answer #9
·
answered by aaryan 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
computers is abranch of science so god may be defined as a software programmerwho knows different tactics to handle every file small or big( i.e. human beings) introduces new developments in files and modifies at the same he tests the software also he is a brilliant software engineer.
2007-02-26 17:27:30
·
answer #10
·
answered by amrin 1
·
0⤊
1⤋