doesn't that mean that what existed before was supernatural (by definition)? And if science can't explain that, is it unreasonable to say that science can't assess everything that's going on now?
2007-07-09 12:45:02 · 25 answers · asked by Joe 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Supernatural:
of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2007-07-09 13:07:46 · update #1
lol. No, it doesn't. And science can't YET. Yet being the operative word.
2007-07-09 12:50:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Science doesn't claim to assess everything. In fact, most of it is very honest in spite of how others use the information gained. Science is the search for truth in our physical world... so basically, it's only going to deal with the physical world. Most scientists would claim things that are supernatural, and the study of it, is beyond what science can actually give. Granted some get down right nasty about it, calling it pseudoscience and not a "true" science at all. (Reminds me of all of the times I was told certain people aren't "True" Christians - just looks like a cop-out) Just like with anything else, people will use whatever they find that supports their own opinion on the matter and claim that is evidence. If you read the actual scientific documents, you'll find they will be honest in pointing out when they lack knowledge in an area... but they put the pieces together the best they can to give a better picture than what we had before. Religious people do the same thing with their own writings. :o)
2007-07-09 20:09:01 · answer #2 · answered by River 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think any scientist ever claimed to be able to 'assess' everything going on now. Nor has any claimed to be certain of what happened before the 'big bang' or even that the big bang was a certainty of itself (it's a theory... like gravity).
The big bang theory (in case you're unclear) stems from the observation that all observed bodies in the universe appear to be moving away from some central point... along with the theory that every action has a reaction... so, some kind of action had to set all this matter in motion from a central location in space.
Since space and time are interlocked, to say "before the big bang" is a falacy (if you're operating on the assumption that the big bang theory is correct). Since there was no space before the big bang, there was no time either.
2007-07-09 19:58:19 · answer #3 · answered by Fretless 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
'supernatural' is a useless category. there is no way to distinguish it from the natural, but unknown. a hundred years ago, no one had the slightest clue about the big bang - it wasn't even an issue, because there was no observational evidence for it. would you have said then that the puzzle of how the universe came to be was 'supernatural'? before newton's gravitation, was the motions of the planets 'supernatural'? do you suppose that science will never make any progress beyond what is known now?
2007-07-09 19:56:07 · answer #4 · answered by vorenhutz 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The general consensus is that the Big Bang began with a singularity. But, like the Theory of Evolution, it is a continually growing and changing concept. We are creating almost daily, the mathematics necessary to describe the things that occurred at that point. It is not complete, but again like evolution, it makes the most sense now, given the observable and measurable evidence.
2007-07-09 20:37:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
1.) No, it doesn't. What happened before the BB just hasn't been satisfactorily worked out yet.
2.) Of course science will never be able to assess everything that's going on now, any more than one day people will know absolutely everything there is to know - because that would be the case if it could.
2007-07-09 19:50:30 · answer #6 · answered by Citizen Justin 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
there are theries that explain what was before the big bang.
One is that the universe is all ways expanding to a point and thenn gravity pulls it back in and when it gets very close together it explodes out again.
And no the unexplained is not supernatural, it is just not explained yet!!!
2007-07-09 19:51:44 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
That is a non sequitur. The cause of the universal expansion can easily be a natural event that we cannot explain because we lack the tools to do so. There is no necessity to assume that there must be a supernatural origin for things we cannot explain.
2007-07-09 19:52:44 · answer #8 · answered by Rev. Still Monkeys 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Sure, if science can't answer something lets just make up answers. That's all religion is.
When the ancient Greeks couldn't explain where lightening came from, they created Zeus. For the Romans, Jupiter explained thunder. Are Zeus and Jupiter supernatural entities? No, they are gods that were created when science was not sophisticated enough to explain what we know are natural phenomenons.
It is reasonable to say that one day God will be relegated to the same mythological bookshelves as the Greek and Roman gods. For me, it won't be soon enough.
2007-07-09 19:48:19 · answer #9 · answered by Kathryn™ 6 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Since science is based on observation (either directly, indirectly or through inference) it has no access to anything before the big bang. But that doesn't automatically mean that what happened before was 'super-natural' it just means that it is unobservable.
2007-07-09 19:49:26 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Just because WE cannot explain it does not mean that it is unexplainable. We just haven't found it out, yet.
If "supernatural" means "undoable or not understandable by human beings" to you then there are supernatural things. But if you think that "supernatural" means "beyond the laws of physics" then there are no supernatural things. Or can you name me one? (Please don't say "God"...this can easily be invented by anyone.)
2007-07-09 20:22:59 · answer #11 · answered by socrates 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋