science cannot explain everything because we only see a fraction of all thats out there with our eyes! agree?

Question

comments appreciated

lol yeha but if religion is wrong it doesnt mean science is 100% correct sicne we see FRACTION of what is out there in this frequency range! maybe science and religion are both wrong! im open to all possibilities! or maybe one needs to mix the 2 i know it sounds crazy thats why i asked this!

Answer 1

And Religion answers even less because it lacks any truths.

Answer 2

This is actually one of the most interesting areas of metaphysics; what it implies about the functioning of science.

While it has it's contextual limitations, the popular movie "What the Bleep" has something very significant to say about the way traditional science functions, though the movie didn't carry it out to where I'm going with it.

It's true that consciousness is creative, and this creative function is not bounded. That is, there is no point at which the universe ceases to be a subjective creation of individual and collective consciousness, and becomes something objective. The entire universe is, in a sense, happening within mind rather than outside of it.

So, if the world is a subjective creation of human consciousness, what does that say about the scientist who's job it is to make objective discoveries? It means that science is asking the questions, and providing it's own answers by manifesting the phenomena that fits it's current paradigm.

Given this, one might expect science to, in some way, parallel the barely discernable evolution in human consciousness. Perhaps very early science was reflective of man's magical thinking. Newtonian physics comes along with man's utilitarian phase and the industrial revolution, reflecting a rather mechanical, cause/effect view of the world. Einstein's more abstract, integrated time/space continuum 'discoveries' reflect man's own phase of social and philosophical abstraction and integration. Quantum physics is now exploring the boundaries between physics and theology and will soon be exploring consciousness itself.

As this occurs, the boundary will likely collapse, along with traditional objective science, since objectivity itself will be seen for the illusion it is.

Answer 3

true, we can't see everything out there with our eyes, for example the tempeture. That is why we create instuments to help us measure them. Some things that even our instuments won't detect, we can still detect by their results ( for example from the premutations in the orbit of a steller body we can infer that another body's gravity is effecting it). As we refine our intruments and come to a greater undertanding of the unniverse, there is no reason to think that we could not, someday, see everything out there (hypothetically of course, the time and distance's involved in seeing a flea on the but of some dog on a planet orbiting a star in another galazy does creat logistical problems).
However, we can not discount the possibility that there are places where the rules of physics differ from those that we know ( like within the event horizen of a black hole). All this means is that when we reach the point that we can measure them we will we will figure them out too.

Answer 4

Science cannot explain everything yet, because we only see a fraction of all that's out there with our eyes and instruments.

However, with the steady progression of science we continue to uncover more truth about the universe than any other method so far. Nothing is beyond the scope of science given enough time and its proper application.

Answer 5

I agree that we see only an infinitesimal fraction of what is there with our "eyes" but science is not limited to our eyes... it has hundreds of other, much better methods of "seeing" what is there. The Hubble Telescope for example. Microscopes, optical and electron. All manner of ultra sensitive recording devices, including ones that can track the movement and decay of particles smaller than atoms. We have mathematics that can describe and explain the most complex aspects of nature. We know so much about the world and universe around us it's beyond astounding.

Answer 6

yes i partially agree. I partially disagree because we have 5 senses not 1 so what we cannot see with our eyes, we can smell, hear, reason, extrapolate etc but even less so can religion. Because where science is substantiated with evidence and experiments and results to prove it's claims, religion is based on faith that cannot even be proven by believers and that differs from one believer to another etc. No science cannot explain everything but religion cannot explain anything except man's incredible imagination and great story telling abilities

Answer 7

Hallelujah. Indeed. Now doesn't that make you question if it was just us arrogant bipeds that have invented, discovered etc. everything we have convinced ourselves we have ? Do you know that Pasteur was thrown out of some French establishment for suggesting that heating milk to a certain temperature below boiling would sterilize the harmful bugs in it. Ever heard of pasteurized milk ? Thank God that Pasteur was encouraged to continue his work without the arrogant acceptance of mankind. Hateful creatures we are, you would have to be God to have the tolerance and patience to keep looking after each and everyone of us. Amen.

Answer 8

Neither the knowledge of everything is the requirement of every human being nor is possible for anyone to comprehend and analyse details of everything;It is the individual persuit dictated by the personal motivation and inclination that we may see things with open eyes or by concepts and imagination;as such scienctific knowledge cannot be underrated.

Answer 9

technology has the flair to explaining each and everything in terms of ways, inspite of the undeniable fact that it can not deal in concerns of "WHY", that's the place philosophy and faith come into play. AND NO, technology isn't a faith, in basic terms the silly Creationists might say such issues, because of the fact they don't additionally know what technology is. The notice concept, in assessment to the Creationist straw-guy definition, does not advise "wager", it potential a normal scientific certainty. Gravity continues to be an theory, Rotation and Revolution around the solar counts as an theory. technology isn't certainty, it particularly is certainty. certainty isn't placed down by way of technology, certainty is in basic terms a spiritual and philosophical count. additionally, the "the least confusing answer is often the spectacular one" is greater suited to faith! technology takes great pains into clarify the organic worldwide, on an identical time as faith in basic terms says "it rather is GOD!", which isn't rebuked by way of technology, because it in basic terms explains HOW, not WHY.

Answer 10

YES! I totally agree with you!
God is there, and yet we can not see Him. Things have happened in the past- wonderful things that are described in the Bible. But people choose not to believe it because there is no proof-nothing that they can see.
They believe they have great, great, great grandparents that of course are not alive anymore and yet they still believe they existed. They can't see their third generation of grandparents, but still they claim they existed!
They might say in their defense, that there are written records of them and their lives.They might say that without that third generation or anyone before that, they wouldn't be here, but they are.
Well, let me say the same thing.
I know my God exists because there are written records proving His existence,(the Bible). Without God, none of us would be here!
Just hear me out, everyone who doesn't believe in God. I AM here. And so are you.

Science has given you a theory-evolution, and you jump on it instantly. God has given us truth and proof of it, and you stand there like a pack of wild dogs, so ready to defend what you know nothing of.
What I know is the truth, and the truth only.It says that 'the truth will set you free'.
<><

Answer 11

So because science cannot explain everything you choose to ignore all it does explain and replace that knowledge with the ravings of ancient goat herders? Does that make any sense?