Franktalk wrote:Since science limits itself to the natural world outside of the human mind
It does not so limit itself. It limits itself to whatever is observable and what ever can be inferred to exist as a result. Everything observed is by a human mind in science so it would be rather challenging to exclude that which exists inside the human mind from scientific discussion.
it must by definition be limited to a study of those things of nature and not of God
That is only because there is not so much as a definition of the word god. It is hard to study an undefined concept.
Now some believe that God is found in nature. These people dance around naked in the forest and seek Gaia. I wonder if scientist do this?
The rambler has returned.
But for me God is defined as an intellect.
Oh, gasp! Say it isn't so!
We could discuss the details but this is not important for this post.
And besides, the math involved would likely be beyond the reader's comprehension.
Now for many they think that a physical mind is needed for an intellect to exist. I am not one of these people.
And he's proud of that, folks!
So the real barrier to science is its reliance on the physical world.
It does not rely on any such definition. It relies only upon that which can be observed. If it can't be observed there is nothing to say about such a thing even so much as whether it exists.
That is silly because they have violated this principle many times.
It was never a principle to begin with but please feel free to continue making up more s**t.
I guess as long as it does not allow a god in the tent it is fine.
It would more than welcome a god in a tent. Please show us the tent with a god inside it.
Now the rules of science flow back and forth but the agenda of keeping god out is alive and working just like it did while Darwin and Hutton were finalizing their attack on religion.
Why is Ken Miller still a scientist? OMG is he daft?
So your statement does not match the reality of the history of science. And from where I sit nothing will change going into the future.
My statement was that science deals with observable evidence and if that treads into an area where the implications of the discovered evidence might have something to say about some particular concept of a god, so be it. Science is not restricted from going there if there is something to be observed and implications to be drawn from those observations whether or not that affects someone's concept of a deity or whether or not it would violate someone's claim that science must remain agnostic.
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee