Can science explain everything?

[passitplz]

just wondering everones personal opinions on this. im not gonna share mine yet. But things that science hasnt explained yet do you think it eventually will as life goes on and we get smarter?

[passitplz]

no... think about the question. "it depends" cannot be an answer... yes or no

[Reefer Rogue]

Can science explain God?

I don't think science can explain everything

[MrNiceGuy420]

there is an explanation to everything (with the exception of things like religion)...when we find it out thats called science...so yes science can explain everything...but theres no way we will ever be able to explain everything

[beachguy in thongs]

Science doesn't lie.

Or is that math?

[Not An Addict]

There are some mysteries that'll never be explained..

[passitplz]

There are some mysteries that'll never be explained..

but do you think there is science that would explain those things even though we may never be able to understand it?

[passitplz]

I thought about the question, but I thought about a lot of things that could influence the answer, so I said it depends.

It depends on;

If God actually decides to show itself,
If mankind falls before we 'answer' everything with science,
If we achieve our peak of technology and cannot advance further,
If our governments decide to put a muzzle on helpful research,

It's not really a yes or no question to me...

fair enough...

[Oneironaut]

No. Science can't explain everything. Science is not a thing that's out there. It's a process of discovering what's in the universe and how it works. It never claims absolute truth, only making models that fit the current data. We're never going to acquire all the data there is to know, and our models are only going to be as advanced as our greatest scientific thinkers are capable of imagining. Nobody can possibly explain everything everywhere.

However, I am convinced that science is the only reliable way of finding anything out about anything. Doing tests and experiments with the universe is how we extract truth from it. Science allows us to get closer and closer to the truth by testing our ideas against reality.

"Faith" is not a valid way of acquiring real knowledge. Basically, in faith you are accepting whatever ideas feel comfortable to you, or just accepting what others believe without evidence just for the sake of believing it. But, as Carl Sagan so eloquently said, "The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true." Science is the only way of finding out what is actually true, by observing and experimenting with reality. Close-minded faith traps one into a worldview where their preferences do determine what's true, and that's a destructive worldview when dealing with a reality that does not conform to our preferences.

[wayoftheleaf]

Theory of everything - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything)

Theory of everything?

But no i don't believe it can, and all of it be based on pure fact.

[passitplz]

lemme try an rephrase this question. is it all explainable? not will we ever be able to explain it all but is it all explainable?

[Oneironaut]

Can science explain God?

I don't think science can explain everything

If God is a real entity that interacts with our physical universe somehow, then yes, science can explore the conception of God. It depends on how you define God, really. For example, if we are talking about the popular conception of God which answers prayers, we can do scientific medical studies to see how effective that is as a treatment.

On the other hand, if you're talking about a God that doesn't interact with our universe in any detectable way whatsoever, then that God is not just useless but logically non-existent.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

lemme try an rephrase this question. is it all explainable? not will we ever be able to explain it all but is it all explainable?


I don't know if we'll ever explain it all, but yes I do believe it's all explainable. Are we considering the limitations of the human mind though? Would the human mind expand to accomodate all information? These are all very wishy-washy questions I suppose, but very good ones to ask:thumbsup:.

The reason I think it's all "explainable" though is the simple fact that there's no reason any aspect of existence would work without reason. Almost a paradoxal statement, I know, but the notion of something working by "magic" is something we believe in as children, that things just happen... because. In reality though, even if we can't comprehend something (like gravity), doesn't mean it works for no reason at all, just "magic".

Why even a Wizard's magic like mine works through unseen forces of this universe ;)

[Skink]

for every action there is a reaction,,,so yes...

[couch-potato]

No. Science can't explain everything. Science is not a thing that's out there. It's a process of discovering what's in the universe and how it works. It never claims absolute truth, only making models that fit the current data. We're never going to acquire all the data there is to know, and our models are only going to be as advanced as our greatest scientific thinkers are capable of imagining. Nobody can possibly explain everything everywhere.

However, I am convinced that science is the only reliable way of finding anything out about anything. Doing tests and experiments with the universe is how we extract truth from it. Science allows us to get closer and closer to the truth by testing our ideas against reality.

"Faith" is not a valid way of acquiring real knowledge. Basically, in faith you are accepting whatever ideas feel comfortable to you, or just accepting what others believe without evidence just for the sake of believing it. But, as Carl Sagan so eloquently said, "The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true." Science is the only way of finding out what is actually true, by observing and experimenting with reality. Close-minded faith traps one into a worldview where their preferences do determine what's true, and that's a destructive worldview when dealing with a reality that does not conform to our preferences.

Brilliant. I love Carl Sagan.

[Reefer Rogue]

If God is a real entity that interacts with our physical universe somehow, then yes, science can explore the conception of God. It depends on how you define God, really. For example, if we are talking about the popular conception of God which answers prayers, we can do scientific medical studies to see how effective that is as a treatment.

On the other hand, if you're talking about a God that doesn't interact with our universe in any detectable way whatsoever, then that God is not just useless but logically non-existent.

We don't need science to explore the conception of God. All you need is your own personal beliefs. There is no formula that states there is a god or there isn't based on scientific evidence or experiment. Perhaps my example of God was vague but it was the first thing that came to my head at the time. I still don't believe science can explain everything. We have not necessarily discovered everything out there. Science can do a lot but i don't see it as the end all be all, it doesn't have answers for everything.

Hey Science, what's the meaning of life?

What? You'll get back to me in 200 years?

K, see ya then and you still won't know ;)

[BUZz UK]

lol

[bong_man]

well maybel if science can explain science maybe??

[Blowboy]

I believe everything is explainable, since it's all a matter of cause and consequence, but the question then is if it is possible to find the causes (and motives) of everything. I think that is possible, but only in theory. Mankind will never see the end of scientific problems, and new ones will always arise..

[LIP]

In short; No.

[Oneironaut]

Hey Science, what's the meaning of life?

What? You'll get back to me in 200 years?
According to the scientific worldview, there is no intrinsic meaning to life. Our species was an accident of the cosmos. It didn't want to have us; we just happened. This is the logical conclusion of the theory of natural selection. We weren't planned out from the beginning with some kind of "meaning" in mind. We are the product of so many random events and mutations that if you went back and ran evolution all over again you certainly wouldn't get anything like us. Science, more than anything else, teaches us that we are not special in the grand scheme of things. We are not at the center of the universe, and the universe was not made especially for us.

No, meaning and purpose are human concepts, just like beauty and utility. What is the purpose of life? What is the beauty of life? What is the utility of life? The answers to those questions depend on the perspective of the particular human whose worldview you are applying the questions to. Things don't have intrinsic meaning, beauty or utility. They can only have the meaning, beauty or utility that we humans assign to them in our own perceptions of the world in our heads.

Some people think the lack of an intrinsic meaning to life makes life meaningless. Quite the contrary. My life would be most meaningless, to me, if it had some higher purpose that I could not choose, and I were forever a slave to this grand purpose that was imposed upon the universe long before I was born. No, I am nothing but a physical being, and the only purpose I have in my life is the purpose that I define for myself. That is the ultimate freedom; to decide the purpose of your own life. And it is the freedom that atheism gives us - religions will only teach you how to obey their imagined purpose for your life. Atheism gives you the realization that you are the one in control of your fate, and it is you who gives meaning to your actions, who guides your actions in accordance with the beliefs and purposes that you have assigned to your existence.

As Karl Marx explained: "Die Kritik der Religion endet mit der Lehre, dass der Mensch das höchste Wesen für den Menschen sei, also mit dem kategorischen Imperativ, alle Verhältnisse umzuwerfen, in denen der Mensch ein erniedrigtes, ein geknechtetes, ein verlassenes, ein verächtliches Wesen ist." ("The critique of religion ends with the teaching that man is the highest being for man, hence with the categorical imperative to overthrow all relations in which man is a debased, enslaved, forsaken, despicable being.")

I can understand how it can be hard for religious people to come to this understanding. It is rather like telling a child they were an accident. Only in this case, our heavenly Father doesn't even exist: he's a fairy tale. We are an accident of the cosmos. And on the surface, that seems like sad news. It is only when you think through all the logical consequences of that notion of our origins that you realize this is not only a humbling and maturing concept for our species, but a liberating one.

[afghooey]

I don't think we were an accident at all, for two reasons.

Firstly, because everything happens for a reason. Causality isn't about 'random chance', it's about action and reaction. Every effect has a cause (and every effect is a cause). Nothing is truly 'random', it just appears that way when you can't percieve the reason behind it.

Secondly, for an event to be an 'accident' it has to be outside of someone's plans or expectations. If the universe has plans, we were obviously in them or we wouldn't be here. If the universe doesn't have plans, it simply can't have accidents either.

As to whether science can explain everything; I'd have to say no. Scientific method is hinged on the ability to separate, name, categorize and define objects. However, not everything can be separated, named, categorized and defined (as difficult as that is for some people to get their heads around).

[afghooey]

"Faith" is not a valid way of acquiring real knowledge. Basically, in faith you are accepting whatever ideas feel comfortable to you, or just accepting what others believe without evidence just for the sake of believing it. But, as Carl Sagan so eloquently said, "The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true." Science is the only way of finding out what is actually true, by observing and experimenting with reality. Close-minded faith traps one into a worldview where their preferences do determine what's true, and that's a destructive worldview when dealing with a reality that does not conform to our preferences.

As I said (with slightly different wording, but the same meaning) in another thread:

Faith (trust) is a cornerstone of all knowledge. Not faith that what you think is right, but faith that truth will always remain truth no matter what perceptions you may have of it or what definitions you try to give it.

A belief, on the other hand, is a fervent hope that what you think is true. Even 'facts' are beliefs; they are what we believe to be true. 'Facts' can be proven wrong, and have been on countless occasions throughout history. Truth, to the contrary, can never be proven wrong; it can never be shaken or destroyed like beliefs can.

What it all comes down to is this: You can put your faith in beliefs; or, you can put your faith in truth. It's how faith is applied that determines its value in attaining knowledge.

[Markass]

just wondering everones personal opinions on this. im not gonna share mine yet. But things that science hasnt explained yet do you think it eventually will as life goes on and we get smarter?

if you're talking about pot, the government knows absolutely any and everything good about it, but we'll never get them to admit it until we literally force them to.:thumbsup:

[LIP]

if you're talking about pot, the government knows absolutely any and everything good about it, but we'll never get them to admit it until we literally force them to.:thumbsup:

Exactly! The Uzi 9mm, AK-47, Mac 10, Mac 11, and M16 with silencer comes to mind.

[halfassedjediknight]

science cannot explain everything. science will only try to prove what they knowingly or reasonably believe to be able to. if the scientific method cannot bring the proper results then usually the hypothesis is either ruled out or dismissed, and another is adopted.

so while science may be trying to prove all it can, it still cannot possibly prove or explain everything. after all, scientists are still only human. :D

[Perp]

No. Here's something science has yet to explain. If energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another, where did all the energy in the universe originally come from?

[Nochowderforyou]

Science has explained a lot of things, but if you are talking about a higher power, a creator, or "God", then I'm on both sides of the fence. I guess I'm not too sure what is right or wrong, but I can tell you one thing, I'm not foolish enough to believe in a magic man in the sky and an evil man who lives underground.

The belief of God has done more damage than any Athiest has ever done, and I also find it funny that out of 121 countries, Iraq, Afganistan, and Iran are the top 3 worst places to live on earth, yet they are the most religious.

So I like I said, I lean towards science than I do an invisible man.

"I worship the sun. I can actually see the sun"
-George Carlin

[Coelho]

Well... even being a scientist myself, i believe science will never explain everything. Simply because our human minds and perception are (very) limited. We only percieve a small bit of all range of perceptions.
For example, we cant see infrared, ultraviolet (that are simply another "colors" of the light), we cant hear sounds beyound our range of hearing, and so... There is a lot of things in the world that are outside of our perception range, so we dont even know about their existence.
Take the daltonic people, for example... i have a daltonic friend, and for him green and brown are much the same. He will never understand the difference between this colors just because his perceptual limitations.
And even if we could percieve everything percievable... our minds, our intelligence, is limited. Dogs NEVER will understand math. Monkeys are smarter, but they will NEVER understand phylosophy, or physics. We humans are smarter than dogs and monkeys, but we are limited also. Even if our intelligence is far greater than theirs, it is not infinite. So, always there will be things beyond our comprehension.
We humans are like bacteries in a sand grain that is the earth... and the universe is vast, far greater than we can imagine... how does its possible to think we will ever understand everything?
The evolutionists and atheists and so say we are only more one species here, not more special than the cockroaches, or the plants, or anything... so we should regard ourselves as such, and realize our own humbleness, instead acting as we were semi-gods, with the power of understanding and reasoning everything (which is the belief of many of the same evolutionists/atheists).

[cheeto]

a lot of people don't realize what science is.

monkeys picking up sticks and using them productively is science, it is the periodic discovery of the cause to an effect, every effect has a cause, and so, all things can be categorized, for something not to have an effect would be the equivalent of quiting, saying you don't want to find the answer.

i leave that to people with religion-for me, the universe always has a cause to every effect, including that really big one- you know the one i'm talking about.

[Quantummist]

Yes...