I think it is. Some people claim that science and God is seperate. But the claim that God created everything is implying that he set all of the natural process in the Universe in motion. I`m not saying that God is scientific or can be proven or disprove by science. Just that the cliam that he created everything is scienfitic, to be subjected to scientific scrutiny.
2007-10-24 08:58:01 · 16 answers · asked by Future 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Neil S - I`am not saying that God can be proven or disproven through science. Just that the "Claim" that he created the universe is subjected to scientific scrutinty.
Ex - 3rd law of thermodynamics says energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
Ex - Dawrins orgins of species proves that life evolved from the same terrestrial tree. Some supernatural created did not create different organims in six days.
Both of these examples does not prove that God could not have creaed life through evolution or that God could not have created energy so that it can neither be created nor destroyed.
But it does falsify the claim hence the claim that God created the universe should be and is subjected to scientific scrutiny
2007-10-24 09:15:07 · update #1
I think it is a claim more involved with intuition and non-rational internal processes that science might one day encompass and understand but does not at this point. We can make it s apurely scientific claim, but the lack of exclusive scientific evidence or any ability to rationally comprehend the claim itself at more than a surface level makes it almost pointless to do so. Fun, for some I guess, but ultimately pointless.
2007-10-24 09:03:25 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Science does not exclude the possibility of a supreme being.
Some "hardcore" scientists are also believers & find no inconsistency in the notion that there may have been a divine hand in creation .
On one hand they can accept that God might have just "let it happen"
or that he/she made it happen & to some greater or lesser degree influences the universe through the application of natural laws that were set in place.
I'm an agnostic so either works for me.
My opinion is that we will never know ,maybe because we are not intended to know or there is no way to to prove scientifically if it was an "accident" or a purposeful act made to look like a random event.
Faith & science are not necessarily mutually exclusive....it just gets messy when non thinkers push faith based ideas
instead of accepting other possibilities.
best regards
2007-10-24 09:47:07 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it is a personal religious and philosophical belief. It doesn't have to necessarily be incompatible with science, though. There are plenty of credible scientists who know how to separate their work from their personal lives.
One of the reasons why "God created the universe" can't be a scientific hypothesis is that the details are never defined. What defines "God"? What did the creation process involve? Is the definition rigid enough that you can make objective comparisons and distinctions of what's "created" and what isn't? And most importantly, what are some hypothetical examples of things that could prove the various hypotheses false?
2007-10-24 09:01:41 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
1) That is not even a logically valid claim, but a form of the fallacy "asserting the consequent". How could it, then, be scientific.
2) It is also a category mistake, applying the idea of causality (requiring time) where it has no meaning (outside of space/time).
3) If science cannot show there is a deity, then such a claim is unscientific.
Edit: If science cannot verify somethings existence, it cannot establish a causal (or any other) relationship between it and anything else. Thus, if God cannot be shown, "he" cannot be shown to be the creator of anything.
2007-10-24 09:08:09 · answer #4 · answered by neil s 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
And in fact there is at least one prominent scientist who insists you SHOULD pose it that way - and take the consequences. His Name is Victor Stanger and his book is called "God: The Failed Hypothesis." The point is that if you DO decide to go that route you may find yourself saying: "There is no basis for that hypothesis."
In other words, you must be ready to have "scientific scrutiny" deny the veracity of your proposal. If not, then you are no scientist.
2007-10-24 09:06:51 · answer #5 · answered by JAT 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
God created us in him image. God created the tree of knowledge. Adam and Eve ate of that tree and all was known to them. We are descendants of Adam and Eve. God created all, science included. The deception that the universe is seperated from God is just that: deception. and we all know who's involved in that, now don't we. I used to be like the rest, unbelieving, unknowing, ignorant, naive, then one day I decided to do the research, scientifically and religiously. Do the research. anyone who really searches for the truth shall find it. The problem with most of the world is that they only know what they know, instead know what others know, then make the decision on truth.
2007-10-24 09:06:32 · answer #6 · answered by Ray E 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is not a scientific claim.
Science attempts to explain natural phenomena via experimentation. God is supernatural (beyond nature).
Being supernatural excludes God from scientific claims.
2007-10-24 09:05:13 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
the claim is only scientific if it is falsifiable.
If you don't admit the possibility that god didn't create the universe it's not scientific.
2007-10-24 09:03:35 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Science is a truth based discovery method; eventually God will figure into it...
2007-10-24 09:05:55 · answer #9 · answered by Adonai 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
yes it is a theory, and it should be subjected to much more scrutiny than it is, but i guess if it was the concept would have died out along time ago
2007-10-24 09:00:59 · answer #10 · answered by Seargent Gork 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋