Science cannnot disprove the existence of God.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



FistOfThe North
Or can they?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Or can they?

We first need a real definition of what God is before God can be proven.

Biscuit
the existence of God can be neither proved nor disproved. that is the point of religion. faith.

Burnt Pancakes
Originally posted by Biscuit
the existence of God can be neither proved nor disproved. that is the point of religion. faith.

Co-Signed

FeceMan
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Or can they?
OH SNAPS YOU ARE SO PROFOUND

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by FeceMan
OH SNAPS YOU ARE SO PROFOUND

*scratches head*

Devil King
Originally posted by FeceMan
OH SNAPS YOU ARE SO PROFOUND

That was cute.

FistOfThe North
Originally posted by FeceMan
OH SNAPS YOU ARE SO PROFOUND

I tried coming off as a tv show host but i guess it didn't work.

embarrasment

Symmetric Chaos
Science cannnot disprove the existence of God.
Religion cannnot prove the existence of God.

Stalemate. Or at least it would be if it was possible to prove a negative without possessing omniscience.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We first need a real definition of what God is before God can be proven.

thumb up
How can we collect evidence on something we don't even know the deffinition of.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Science cannnot disprove the existence of God.
Religion cannnot prove the existence of God.

Stalemate. Or at least it would be if it was possible to prove a negative without possessing omniscience.

It is not a stalemate; it is neither the objective of science to prove non-existence, or the objective of religion to prove existence.

Alliance
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Or can they?

They can't and don't want to.

Logic disproves god. Science jsut shows us all the time Religion has been wrong.

Nellinator
Originally posted by Alliance
Logic disproves god. Science jsut shows us all the time Religion has been wrong. Nurhhh...

Alliance
Great rebuttal.

Nellinator
Thank you.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Alliance
Logic disproves god. Science jsut shows us all the time Religion has been wrong.

That really depends on what you think god is like.

debbiejo
Science may prove the existence of something greater though someday.

Alliance
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That really depends on what you think god is like.

And thats all god is, a thought.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Alliance
And thats all god is, a thought.

Thats hardly a logical proof.

Admiral Akbar
Originally posted by Alliance
And thats all god is, a thought.

Co-signed.

Alliance
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Thats hardly a logical proof.

What part of god was "logical" or "proof" in the first place?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Alliance
What part of god was "logical" or "proof" in the first place?

I was refering to this:

Originally posted by Alliance
Logic disproves god.

Alliance
Why do you disagree?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Alliance
Why do you disagree?

Because strictly speaking a lack of evidence for god's existance is not really evidence of his non existance.

Also logic can only disprove god if you define god in a specific way.

WrathfulDwarf
nvm.

debbiejo
that's true. We don't even know what god is.

Alliance
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because strictly speaking a lack of evidence for god's existance is not really evidence of his non existance.

Also logic can only disprove god if you define god in a specific way.

I'm not saying that. If god exists, it throws wreches into logic all over the place.

Any god of consequence can be disproved by logic.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Alliance
I'm not saying that. If god exists, it throws wreches into logic all over the place.

How so?

Originally posted by Alliance
Any god of consequence can be disproved by logic.

Not every god is of consequence. Some versions of god do very little.

debbiejo
Yeah, a real god or power wouldn't need their ego stroked and yet it could be very powerful and real.

Alliance
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not every god is of consequence. Some versions of god do very little.

Why does the existance of god matter is he is not of consequence?

debbiejo
Originally posted by Alliance
Why does the existance of god matter is he is not of consequence? Because it can tell you things through ESP.. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Alliance
Why does the existance of god matter is he is not of consequence?

Creation, heaven, moral values etc are still atributed even to gods who do very little in the mortal coil.



However on a purely personal levl I don't give a load of fetid dingo kidneys wether god exists or not.

FistOfThe North
Perhaps science can't disprove God because not only because He is indeed and real after all, and that He's beyond anything science can comprehend.

What I'm trying to say is that God is scientifically unimaginable. How can one reach the level of what is too high to attain. And because our low form of science cannot reach that level, - since we're still primitives in a way - (look at the world and people around you) they just settle with him not existing.

pot_edd_wigga
Word I come from a monkey. Monkeys ar cool u knoe. thumb up

Religion is stupd.

Demon_sniper
it's very simple, god hasn't been seen, or heard, or tasted etc...
by anyone, ever. if(and that's one BIG "IF"wink it did actually exist, then it would be of no consequence whatsoever because he would be too darn far to actually have an effect.
or would it? XD eek!
aw what the heck, it doesn't exist Happy Dance

mr.smiley
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Thats hardly a logical proof.

That's the Ontelogical arguement.theirs also the Cosmological and the Teleological.Let's see if anyone brings them up. smile

Alliance
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Perhaps science can't disprove God because not only because He is indeed and real after all, and that He's beyond anything science can comprehend.

What I'm trying to say is that God is scientifically unimaginable. How can one reach the level of what is too high to attain. And because our low form of science cannot reach that level, - since we're still primitives in a way - (look at the world and people around you) they just settle with him not existing.

How can you disprove something that doesn't exist, especially when people keep changing the definition of what that something is?

willRules
Science cannot prove the existence of God because science is only reliant upon what can be proved through evidence (although some forces of nature which are widely accepted as factual cannot be proved), whereas religion is what can be proved based upon experience (And possibly evidence). Religion and science aren't nor should the be mutually exclusive but they both take drastically different approaches which both have advantages and disadvantages.

ADarksideJedi
WHy put science and reglion together.It does not belong together.jm

inimalist
Here is a wonderful use of Occam's Razor:

God, or anything else supernatural is not as plausible as any naturalistic explanation for any problem because it posits an unknown amount of unknowable and untestable hypotheses.

Using "God" as the answer to any question simply changes the nature of it. Instead of the question being about the mechanisms of a natural phenomena, they become questions about supernatural mechanisms and origins.

inimalist
Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
WHy put science and reglion together.It does not belong together.jm

tell religion to stop making falsifiable claims about the universe then

Alliance
Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
WHy put science and reglion together.It does not belong together.jm

Because people use both of them to think about the world. Most scientists are religious, even more are faithful.

However, Religion should be taken out of the physical world and stop making claims about the natural world. The "god of the gaps" apprroach is an old one that will destroy religion in the process, which is perhaps why religion is been so volitile in the US.

King Kandy
However the clear MINORITY of scientists are fundamentalists.

inimalist
its also variable by science

biologists for instance have like 2% who say they believe in a personal god, whereas the number of physicists or mathematicians is signifigantly higher, iirc smile

Alliance
Originally posted by King Kandy
However the clear MINORITY of scientists are fundamentalists.

Yes.

Ytse
Originally posted by inimalist
Here is a wonderful use of Occam's Razor:

I don't think Occam's razor can even be applied to something like divine revelation. I mean, who gets to define what a "compelling reason" to posit God as a cause of phenomena is? Scientific enterprise? Western philosophy? The adherents themselves?

inimalist
Originally posted by Ytse
I don't think Occam's razor can even be applied to something like divine revelation. I mean, who gets to define what a "compelling reason" to posit God as a cause of phenomena is? Scientific enterprise? Western philosophy? The adherents themselves?

no, its a fine use

The idea that someone recieved divine revelation vs any other natural explanation of the phenomena fails occam's razor because it a) posits far more unknown variables than any natural phenomena b) it introduces unfalsifiable claims into the equation

Ytse
Originally posted by inimalist
The idea that someone recieved divine revelation vs any other natural explanation of the phenomena fails occam's razor because it a) posits far more unknown variables than any natural phenomena b) it introduces unfalsifiable claims into the equation

I agree, that's what it does. But what I am saying is that science isn't eqipped to handle such inquiries. So, what use is it to invoke Occam's razor? It's not a compelling argument to use against a theistic worldview because it's ignoring the fundamental "suppositions" of theism.

inimalist
oh right

relativism

go tell me when that finds results stick out tongue

Utrigita
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Or can they?

They cannot prove that god doesn't exist and they cannot prove that he doesn't but none is saying what triggered the big bang ... God???

Ytse
Originally posted by inimalist
relativism

go tell me when that finds results stick out tongue

Why don't you tell me why science is successful then? It certainly cannot justify itself.

inimalist
you have the audacity to say something like that on the internet...

for shame

xmarksthespot
I dislike when people capitalise pronouns when refering to deities.

Anyway negative proof is logical fallacy.

Ytse
Originally posted by inimalist
you have the audacity to say something like that on the internet...

for shame

Eh?

What I'm getting at is that science cannot justify it's own methods. For instance the point at which we cut off skepticism as being "too radical" isn't derived by scientific means.

Alliance
Originally posted by Ytse
Eh?

What I'm getting at is that science cannot justify it's own methods. For instance the point at which we cut off skepticism as being "too radical" isn't derived by scientific means.

The justification is that they work. I really can't see you complaining about the methods of science using that which science created.

Why do you feel that its methods aren't just?

Ytse
Originally posted by Alliance
The justification is that they work.

Science is successful because science is successful?

Alliance
Modern methods of science are justified because it is successful.

Whats your take?

Ytse
Originally posted by Alliance
Modern methods of science are justified because it is successful.

Whats your take?

I'm not saying it isn't useful. Indeed it is a very useful tool. I'm saying science cannot explain why science works. And I'm saying that it ultimately rests on a non-scientific foundation.

King Kandy
Science is justified by it's ability to predict and confirm the predictions.

It works because it's the logical extension of cause & effect.

Ytse
Originally posted by King Kandy
It works because it's the logical extension of cause & effect.

Here's what I'm getting at:

Science must assume that nature is uniform for it to work at all. For instance we can observe a million times that an apple falling from a tree will move toward earth rather than away from it. But can all of those observation tell us about the future?

We could reason that because falling apples have always been observed to act a particular way in the past that they will continue to act that way in the future. But now we're stuck with trying to justify the idea that the future will be like the past. Well, we could reason that in the past the future was always like the past so in the future it will also be like the past. But that's circular.

So, ultimately science calls upon us to abandon this "radical skepticism" for it to work at all. Now, that seems to be a bit internally incoherent to me. Science demands all sorts of rigor for knowledge to be validated but at it's very core is an assumption. And assumptions aren't very scientific.

King Kandy
Originally posted by Ytse
Science must assume that nature is uniform for it to work at all. For instance we can observe a million times that an apple falling from a tree will move toward earth rather than away from it. But can all of those observation tell us about the future?
This makes me think that you don't understand science.

That's why science says you can't prove a theory. You can't prove anything. This is the basis for the scientific method. You can only gather EVIDENCE for something, but never prove it. Even if you do the test a million times, you can't prove that the next time won't contradict it.

This function is built into science. It doesn't contradict it at all.

Ytse
Originally posted by King Kandy
This makes me think that you don't understand science.

Huh? You just used a whole paragraph to basically restate what I said in my previous post.

I'm saying all of that to lead into my original question:

Why is science so successful? You said it yourself, science proves nothing. So why do we place so much confidence in it if, despite all of it's successful predictions, it cannot tell us with any certainty what the nature of reality will be beyond our limited observations? And I do mean limited--as in, an infinitesimally small portion of all of reality.

EDIT: Oh, and what do you mean by evidence? How do you know it's evidence for anything if we have to even assume there's a connection at all between specific observations.

King Kandy
If you predict something and your prediction complies with observation, that's evidence for the method you used for prediction being correct.

Ytse
Originally posted by King Kandy
If you predict something and your prediction complies with observation, that's evidence for the method you used for prediction being correct.

Even using the same methodology and getting the same results, how can one know there is any connection between two specific observations?

King Kandy
Originally posted by Ytse
Even using the same methodology and getting the same results, how can one know there is any connection between two specific observations?
Because every single factor is the same.

xmarksthespot
Scientific findings are based on repeatable observations under the same conditions.

E.g. if I use a cell culture model I can't necessarily apply my observations to organotypic culture, nor acute preparations, nor in vivo.

Science predicts under the same conditions. An apple is observed to fall under a particular set of conditions repeatedly. A prediction is made that apples will fall under these conditions. The prediction doesn't assert that apples won't "fall" up under different conditions.

Ytse
Originally posted by King Kandy
Because every single factor is the same.

If you claim that this proves a connection between all past observations then why can't it work the other way...with future observations?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Scientific findings are based on repeatable observations under the same conditions.

Yes, I was taking that into account. smile

King Kandy
Originally posted by Ytse
If you claim that this proves a connection between all past observations then why can't it work the other way...with future observations?
Because it might happen differently in the future.

Ytse
Originally posted by King Kandy
Because it might happen differently in the future.

You're saying both:

If all factors are the same then there is a connection between two observations.

and

If all factors are the same then the results still may be different. ((and so, there was no connection after all))

It's contradictory.

inimalist
Ytse: long story short, post modernism at its radical extreme is a logical fallacy

"you cannot prove something wont happen therefore it can"

which should be self evident in its fallaciousness

EDIT: a little harsh prior, sorry if you read that smile

Ytse
Originally posted by inimalist
"you cannot prove something wont happen therefore it can"

If you really feel like arguing that statement against people, go to the 4th grade

I don't recall saying anything like that. Are you putting words in my mouth or just giving me a warning or what?

Heh...

inimalist
haha, lol

it really sounded like you were going in that direction.

explain a bit more what you mean by "justify"

JacopeX
Originally posted by Biscuit
the existence of God can be neither proved nor disproved. that is the point of religion. faith.

Originally posted by JacopeX
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/443465_10-you-cannot-prove-gods-existence#post8813657

Originally posted by Burnt Pancakes
Co-Signed

Ytse
Originally posted by inimalist
it really sounded like you were going in that direction.

Eh, there's no reason to even begin to try and prove something that claims that faith is necessary itself.



Well, from a purely scientific standpoint how can we explain if science is successful or not?

This is an old one you may be familiar with. Science tells us that tomorrow morning the sun will rise as it does every morning. Men have been making the same observation about the motion of the sun since prehistory. And every day it indeed rises again. But why is science successful in making such predictions?

As I said earlier we reason that the sun will rise in the morning because it's always risen in the morning in the past. Now the question is, "how do we know the future will resemble the past?" This can be answered with what's called the Principle of the Uniformity of Nature. That nothing that is now impossible in principle was ever the case in the past. But how does one justify that principle? One could reason that in the past the future was always like the past. But that is attempting to justify induction with induction, and so gets us nowhere.

inimalist
Originally posted by Ytse
Well, from a purely scientific standpoint how can we explain if science is successful or not?


well, that requires a lot more definition.

Speaking generally, there is no such thing as "science". There are theories and hypotheses, but no overarching theory of science. It also depends what you mean by successful. Science by definition places success in predictive power, so it might be said that any particular scientific theory is successful if it is able to predict the results of a controlled experiment.

There is also the scientific method itself. Here, the only way the scientific method is successful is if you define success as "predicting or explaining the natural world". It is successful in this because it is the only method or theory in existence that can even come close to explaining the mechanisms behind the world.

Originally posted by Ytse
This is an old one you may be familiar with. Science tells us that tomorrow morning the sun will rise as it does every morning. Men have been making the same observation about the motion of the sun since prehistory. And every day it indeed rises again. But why is science successful in making such predictions?

This is an interesting interpretation, but a little askew from how a astronomer or astrophysicist might describe it.

For instance, the sun has no motion in the sky, although we see it as such, and coincidently, it does not rise. This is both a geocentric and ethnocentric way to describe the solar system.

Rather, scientists would explain the apparent motion of the sun through the sky as the rotation of the earth, and its rising each morning as the light from the sun reaching the point at which we are measuring from.

Originally posted by Ytse
As I said earlier we reason that the sun will rise in the morning because it's always risen in the morning in the past.

this is also wrong. While it is true that every morning you or I wake up the sun will rise, and the same was true of our fathers and grandfathers, and the same will be true for the next many generations of our children.

However, there was a time when the earth did no exist for the sun to "rise" on. There was a time when the sun was not in existence. There will be a time when the sun does not exist again.

The reason we say that the sun will rise tomorrow has nothing to do with the consistency of it. From a basic human psychological level, yes, thats exactly it, but from a scientific perspective, the sun will come up tomorrow morning because the earth will rotate to a point where the light from the sun reaches the place where you are.

Originally posted by Ytse
Now the question is, "how do we know the future will resemble the past?" This can be answered with what's called the Principle of the Uniformity of Nature. That nothing that is now impossible in principle was ever the case in the past. But how does one justify that principle? One could reason that in the past the future was always like the past. But that is attempting to justify induction with induction, and so gets us nowhere.

I did a google for this "principal of the uniformity of nature" and came up with nothing. It is something I have NEVER come across, nor does it sound remotely close to anything that is true in science.

For instance, the big bang and cosmic fine tuning would fly directly in the face of this.

Can you give me a link or whatever to where you got this as a description of science?

Ytse
Originally posted by inimalist
well, that requires a lot more definition.

Scientific enterprise.



I was merely describing it from a specific point of view.



Perhaps the way I put it wasn't very clear.

It doesn't matter how you describe this particular phenomena. When I talk about the sunrise you know what I mean and you know it involves a lot of physical principles which we believe to hold true whether our sun is there or not. It's these principles which are consistent; which act as the clockwork driving our sun and our planet.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformity_of_nature

inimalist
Originally posted by Ytse
Scientific enterprise.

what does that mean? defining things is scientific? only scientists define things?

Originally posted by Ytse
I was merely describing it from a specific point of view.

Perhaps the way I put it wasn't very clear.

It doesn't matter how you describe this particular phenomena. When I talk about the sunrise you know what I mean and you know it involves a lot of physical principles which we believe to hold true whether our sun is there or not. It's these principles which are consistent; which act as the clockwork driving our sun and our planet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformity_of_nature

so your argument is that since it is impossible for time to be both finite and infinite science can't exist?

I'd be careful how much credence is put into those "philosophy of science" rules of thumb. The principal is generally something that scientists must assume in order to make any conclusions about the universe, but is clearly something that can be overlooked in instances like the big bang, quantum states of matter, or cosmic fine tuning.

Its an interesting thing you are putting forth, but it seems like too much of an academic word play. Good job, those are fun.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Ytse
Why don't you tell me why science is successful then? It certainly cannot justify itself.

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e384/super_hottie_2/sock.jpg

Alliance
Originally posted by Ytse
I'm not saying it isn't useful. Indeed it is a very useful tool. I'm saying science cannot explain why science works. And I'm saying that it ultimately rests on a non-scientific foundation.

WHY science works is not a scientific question, its a philosophical one.

Thus you are placing the absurd specification that everything be able to be explained by science.Originally posted by Ytse
Science must assume that nature is uniform for it to work at all. For instance we can observe a million times that an apple falling from a tree will move toward earth rather than away from it. it has demonstrated as such. An Apple in China falls the same way as it does in Mexico. Originally posted by Ytse
But can all of those observation tell us about the future?
Lets have a practical demonstratoin. Would you ever step off a cliff, or drink EtBr assuming you're not going to plumet to your death or develop cancers?

Originally posted by Ytse
So, ultimately science calls upon us to abandon this "radical skepticism" for it to work at all.

What is "radical skepticism"? Where are you pulling this from?

Originally posted by Ytse
Science demands all sorts of rigor for knowledge to be validated but at it's very core is an assumption. And assumptions aren't very scientific. Just because you have not taken the time to examine the history of science and what actually could and could not validate its practice does not mean this does not exist. You're placing an abusrd criterion on an untestable idea. Thats not science, thats philosophy.

Are you then suggesting that science be disbanded?

Ytse
Originally posted by inimalist
so your argument is that since it is impossible for time to be both finite and infinite science can't exist?

Not at all. Just illustrating that there is an element of faith inherent in scientific enterprise (by that I mean not only the practical application of science but broad research and development).

Ultimately we rely on inductive reasoning to go from specific propositions (that specimen of Cygnus atratus is black), to general ones (all Cygnus atratus are black). And that leads to the problem of induction. That we cannot justify the use of induction except via induction. Hume came to the conclusion that we must adopt "practical skepticism" to survive at all. This is the faith I am talking about.

I'm also trying to set up the idea that religion and science aren't opposites. And that they are generally in entirely different spheres. I'm saying that it is logical to say God sustains the universe and therefore inductive reasoning is justified (and although you could disagree that there is a God in the first place, Im not trying to mount an argument about that, just explaining what I'm getting at).

-----------------------------------------------------------------

To Alliance: I think I've replied to some of what you've said in my response to inimalist. Anything you don't think I've covered just let me know.

To Adam_PoE: Matt Damon sucks. smile

Alliance
Originally posted by Ytse
I think I've replied to some of what you've said in my response to inimalist. Anything you don't think I've covered just let me know.

I'd prefer if you actually addressed me point by point.

inimalist
Originally posted by Ytse
Not at all. Just illustrating that there is an element of faith inherent in scientific enterprise (by that I mean not only the practical application of science but broad research and development).

Ultimately we rely on inductive reasoning to go from specific propositions (that specimen of Cygnus atratus is black), to general ones (all Cygnus atratus are black). And that leads to the problem of induction. That we cannot justify the use of induction except via induction. Hume came to the conclusion that we must adopt "practical skepticism" to survive at all. This is the faith I am talking about.

I'm also trying to set up the idea that religion and science aren't opposites. And that they are generally in entirely different spheres. I'm saying that it is logical to say God sustains the universe and therefore inductive reasoning is justified (and although you could disagree that there is a God in the first place, Im not trying to mount an argument about that, just explaining what I'm getting at).


1) The problem of induction is something that people in ivory towers who don't want to waste their tenure worry about

2) the problem of induction is ingrained into modern statistical analysis, which is why we say that there is a margin of error, and we give the probability that members of a group will have an observed characteristic

3) faith by definition is counter scientific. It means to believe in the face of or in spite of contradictory evidence. Science on the other hand requires no faith. I do not need faith to know gravity or light. even if we accept that this induction problem is inherent in science, the fact remains that any evidence that supports this problem would HAVE to be incorporated into science. Science, by its nature, has no faith in a particular theory.

4) the only place where religion and science are not opposite is in the psychology of truth. I'll gladly explain to you why you think the things you think are true are, why you wont change your mind, and why certain things are more truthful to you than others, it is really my favorite field of science, but my experience is that people get really defensive when you start to break down their dualism.

5) God fails occam's razor. Why can't you just believe without having to misrepresent science? Shouldn't your faith be stronger than any of these follies of man?

Alliance
Originally posted by inimalist
1) The problem of induction is something that people in ivory towers who don't want to waste their tenure worry about

2) the problem of induction is ingrained into modern statistical analysis, which is why we say that there is a margin of error, and we give the probability that members of a group will have an observed characteristic

3) faith by definition is counter scientific. It means to believe in the face of or in spite of contradictory evidence. Science on the other hand requires no faith. I do not need faith to know gravity or light. even if we accept that this induction problem is inherent in science, the fact remains that any evidence that supports this problem would HAVE to be incorporated into science. Science, by its nature, has no faith in a particular theory.

4) the only place where religion and science are not opposite is in the psychology of truth. I'll gladly explain to you why you think the things you think are true are, why you wont change your mind, and why certain things are more truthful to you than others, it is really my favorite field of science, but my experience is that people get really defensive when you start to break down their dualism.

5) God fails occam's razor. Why can't you just believe without having to misrepresent science? Shouldn't your faith be stronger than any of these follies of man?

if you want...I can handle this. Its easier than lambasting him with multiple arguments at once...

inimalist
Originally posted by Alliance
if you want...I can handle this. Its easier than lambasting him with multiple arguments at once...

lol, please do smile

I think thats all I've got anyhow embarrasment

Ytse
Originally posted by inimalist
the problem of induction is ingrained into modern statistical analysis, which is why we say that there is a margin of error, and we give the probability that members of a group will have an observed characteristic

What is your point?



Accepting that induction works without being able to explain it isn't faith? And you must accept that for science to be useful at all.



How is Occam's Razor relevant here? Occam was a theist himself.

Templares
Originally posted by Ytse
Here's what I'm getting at:

Science must assume that nature is uniform for it to work at all. For instance we can observe a million times that an apple falling from a tree will move toward earth rather than away from it. But can all of those observation tell us about the future?

We could reason that because falling apples have always been observed to act a particular way in the past that they will continue to act that way in the future. But now we're stuck with trying to justify the idea that the future will be like the past. Well, we could reason that in the past the future was always like the past so in the future it will also be like the past. But that's circular.

So, ultimately science calls upon us to abandon this "radical skepticism" for it to work at all. Now, that seems to be a bit internally incoherent to me. Science demands all sorts of rigor for knowledge to be validated but at it's very core is an assumption. And assumptions aren't very scientific.

Yep. For science to work, it relies on naturalistic assumptions (ie. gravity pulls everything down then, now, and in the future) supported by objective and verifiable studies on the subject matter, which makes scientific explanations superior to supernatural explanations.

Ytse
Originally posted by Alliance
I'd prefer if you actually addressed me point by point.

Okay.



I never said "that everything be able to be explained by science"



I was using the falling apple to illustrate what inductive reasoning is and where it's limits lie.



I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying here. I am not saying that science isn't useful.



Philosopher David Hume advocated practical skepticism over radical skepticism. A brief definition:

Whereas a philosophical skeptic may deny the very existence of knowledge, an empirical skeptic merely seeks likely proof before accepting that knowledge.

Ytse
Originally posted by Templares
which makes scientific explanations superior to supernatural explanations.

Not in a theistic worldview.

((lame response perhaps, but it's just as much an argument as yours))

wink

Alliance
Originally posted by Ytse
I never said "that everything be able to be explained by science"
Then why must science be explained by science? Thats right, it shouldn't be.


Originally posted by Ytse
I was using the falling apple to illustrate what inductive reasoning is and where it's limits lie.
Baconian philosophy has been alive and well for some time. It already addresses many of your issues. Obviously the limits of inductive reasoning are wll beyond what is necessary for functional use. This of course keeps in mind that inductive reasoning is only one type of reasoning science employs.

Originally posted by Ytse
I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying here. I am not saying that science isn't useful.

Then what are you trying to say?

Originally posted by Ytse
Philosopher David Hume advocated practical skepticism over radical skepticism. A brief definition:

Whereas a philosophical skeptic may deny the very existence of knowledge, an empirical skeptic merely seeks likely proof before accepting that knowledge.

And what is science other than the seaching of proof? Thats the concept of the scientific method.

Besides...you're using the ideas of an 18th century philospher to critique a science that is much more recent. If this method is valid, there is clearly some disjunction.Originally posted by Ytse
Not in a theistic worldview.

((lame response perhaps, but it's just as much an argument as yours))

wink

Actually, it is lame, because your worldview presumes that everyone has the smae faith, which they do not. So no, you really don't have an argument there.

A scientific approach simply capitalizes on the fact that we all inhabit the same world.

Anywhay, you are clearly creating an abstraction and not actually analyzing concepts.

Templares
What's a theistic worldview?

Ytse
Originally posted by Alliance
Then why must science be explained by science? Thats right, it shouldn't be.

I kind of feel like I have to keep battering down strawmen.

I responded to essentially the same kind of comment by inimalist. I never claimed that science itself has any such burden, but that science ultimately relies on a kind of faith to be useful.



See above.



What're you saying?



Umm, no?



What does that even mean?

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Ytse
Why don't you tell me why science is successful then? It certainly cannot justify itself.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
..the point all along has been that science itself can not justify it's own existence..so based on this, how can we accept anything as scientific?

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e384/super_hottie_2/sock.jpg

Templares
Originally posted by Ytse
Not in a theistic worldview.

((lame response perhaps, but it's just as much an argument as yours))

wink

Was finally able to read some of these theistic worldview sites and boy do they blow!

Specified complexity!
God is the First Cause!
God is Infinite!
God is beyond comprehension!

BS

Anyway, the theistic worldview (ie. to generalize, the stance that a powerful supernatural being caused all things to be) relies on subjective and unreliable supernatural explanations (god did this, god did that, god is capable of this and god is capable of that) which is waaay inferior in terms of use and explanatory power, to the objective and verifiable scientific explanation than science offers.

King Nothing
The other way around can be said as well.
Absence Of Evidence Is Not The Evidence Of Absence.

Mindship
Originally posted by Ytse
...that science ultimately relies on a kind of faith to be useful.

Science does not rely on faith to be useful. It is useful whether you have faith in it or not, as evidenced by its ability to allow prediction and control. Might as well say you don't believe you'll fall if you jump off a building. Science, in other words, offers a reliable map of reality.

What you may be referring to, with regard to science and faith, is the validity of the reality map science offers. In this sense, I would agree with you.

However, while faith may be involved regarding the validity of a scientific or religionistic POV, the latter is not reliable (certainly not to the same degree) that the former is, as evidenced by religion's inability to make testable predictions.

It is not for nothing that the scientific method is often described as "applied common sense."

lord xyz
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Science cannnot disprove the existence of God.
Religion cannnot prove the existence of God.

Stalemate. Or at least it would be if it was possible to prove a negative without possessing omniscience. In my opinion, a stalemate is enough not to believe he exists, I only beileve what can be proven, or has a probability of truth above 50%.

Ytse
Originally posted by Templares
Was finally able to read some of these theistic worldview sites and boy do they blow!

Who exactly are you arguing with here? You're quoting me but responding to some websites...

-------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Mindship
Science does not rely on faith to be useful. It is useful whether you have faith in it or not, as evidenced by its ability to allow prediction and control.

I'm saying it ultimately lies on faith in inductive reasoning. If one does not accept that induction is justifiable at the outset then science can have no use. The doctor wouldn't know which medicine to give because he couldn't know if it would continue to work as it had before. No buildings could be built because the workers couldn't know if the next steel beam would support like the previous one. Etc, etc.

Hume (and later Bertrand Russell) came to the conclusion that we have no grounds for accepting inductive inferences as rational. But that we needed to abandon such skepticism to survive at all.



I'm arguing that theism can justify the principle of induction and thereby support scientific enterprise.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Ytse
Why don't you tell me why science is successful then? It certainly cannot justify itself.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
..the point all along has been that science itself can not justify it's own existence..so based on this, how can we accept anything as scientific?

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e384/super_hottie_2/sock.jpg

Ytse
I'm going to assume that Adam_PoE isn't capable of a cogent response.

Have an admin check my IP if you think I'm this other person.

Bardock42
(auto quote)[/quickquote

How would that help?

Ytse
Originally posted by Bardock42
How would that help?

I don't know. Is there a habit of accusing new guys of being banned members to try and discredit them?

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Ytse
I don't know. Is there a habit of accusing new guys of being banned members to try and discredit them?

New members do not join existing discussions and continue the arguments of banned members:

Originally posted by Ytse
Why don't you tell me why science is successful then? It certainly cannot justify itself.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
..the point all along has been that science itself can not justify it's own existence..so based on this, how can we accept anything as scientific?

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e384/super_hottie_2/sock.jpg

Ytse
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
New members do not join existing discussions and continue the arguments of banned members:

This is nonsense.

Ad hominem attacks because you can't defeat my argument. I can't believe you actually have the audacity to make serious accusations like this to a stranger. Great way of making a new member of the community feel welcome.

And by the way, this kind of argument is way way older than myself or "whobdamandog" -- so it's rather foolish of you to say I'm merely picking up his old argument.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Ytse
Why don't you tell me why science is successful then? It certainly cannot justify itself.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
..the point all along has been that science itself can not justify it's own existence..so based on this, how can we accept anything as scientific?

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e384/super_hottie_2/sock.jpg

Ytse
*sigh*

Because I used similar language as some other guy I'm going to get harassed. Is that it? I'm not even making the same freaking contention as this other person.

Maybe an admin could clear this up somehow. I've posted on all sorts of messageboards and this is the first time I've encountered such abject rudeness.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Ytse
Why don't you tell me why science is successful then? It certainly cannot justify itself.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
..the point all along has been that science itself can not justify it's own existence..so based on this, how can we accept anything as scientific?

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e384/super_hottie_2/sock.jpg

Ytse
Adam, all you've demonstrated is that you need to develop some reading comprehension. If you've read this thread you'll notice that I never said science isn't useful. In fact I've restated many many times that that is NOT what I am contending. Yet, you quote some guy who seems to be saying that we cannot accept science. How on earth does that lead you to believe we are one in the same?

It would be funny if it weren't so annoying. Because I started this debate with some seemingly intelligent people and harassment is all you can contribute. You won't even respond to my PMs on the matter. So, I'm not sure what else to say.

Mindship
Originally posted by Ytse
I'm saying it ultimately lies on faith in inductive reasoning. If one does not accept that induction is justifiable at the outset then science can have no use. The doctor wouldn't know which medicine to give because he couldn't know if it would continue to work as it had before. No buildings could be built because the workers couldn't know if the next steel beam would support like the previous one. Etc, etc.
The utility of inductive reasoning is evident in its practicality. Unless one is unable to learn from past example, once the utility of inductive reasoning is demonstrated, there is no justification for doubt in future applications (with regard to method).

This is what I mean by reliability. Constant testing of specifics isn't necessary because science gives dependable information, allowing us to generalize. It's "faith," if you will, based on past example or experimentation, hardly faith as understood and commonly used by a religious POV, which can not demonstrate an equal degree of dependability.

Theism could be used to support inductive reasoning, yes, but IMO it is superfluous.

leonheartmm
science= developing a hypothesis{speculative statement} extrapulated by evidence stating clearly the independant and dependant variable
testing the hypothesis by testing as far as possible the independant variable only
looking at the results, if they match the predictions of the hypothesis further tests are done, if the predictions of the hypothesis in a number of conclusive experiments are proven true, then the hypothesis becomes an accepted theory. the theory might be proven false even with one wrong conclusive result or might be added to in different untested conditions.

so yea science cannot disprove the existance of god. on the other hand LOGIC, deductive, syntactical, as well as extrapulant CAN and HAS disproven the existance of a god that is omnipotent, is omniscient, is omnibelevolant, is omniupresent, furthermore ANY combinations of the above omni's has been FULLY {be it only 2 or all} proven to be logically inconsistant and false. furthermore logic has proven the quran/hadith, bible/old/new/discarded, vedas/lower hindu scriptures. to ALL be mathematically and logically self contradicting{hence inconsistant} , false and for the most part unoriginal and a lie{statement prophesising or stating a false fact/prophecy}. furthermore the false statement can be extended to physical scientific knowledge and LOGICAL deductions/extrapolations maade on the basis of that knowledge. at the very least in thesephysical logics, certain constraints are put on god {although believers dont for the most part believe that god can surpass these illogically} which stop himi from being the god of the described and most other organised relegions which are atleast in some respect or completely monotheistic, or otherwise even}

Alliance
Originally posted by Ytse
that science ultimately relies on a kind of faith to be useful.
How is that? You're making close to zero sense. Every piece of technology that you use is realiant on the fact that natural laws are esentially constant. This is not faith at all, its called educated assumptions. The photons streaming into your eye act the same way...always and I really doubt that you feel that ATP isn't going to be synthesised the same way in your cells throughout yourt life without some outside force.

You're not being intelligent or noble by suggesting that science is logically fallible. I could assume that the world is made up of tiny little elephants. You make these smae basic assumptiong every day and you're making billions of them now as you read/respond to this.

Originally posted by Ytse
What're you saying?
You're not even quoting relevant sources.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Ytse
*sigh*

Because I used similar language as some other guy I'm going to get harassed. Is that it? I'm not even making the same freaking contention as this other person.

Maybe an admin could clear this up somehow. I've posted on all sorts of messageboards and this is the first time I've encountered such abject rudeness. You really suck at lying.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by lord xyz
You really suck at lying.

thumb up

Bardock42
Originally posted by Ytse
I don't know. Is there a habit of accusing new guys of being banned members to try and discredit them?

Nah.

Ytse
Originally posted by Mindship
The utility of inductive reasoning is evident in its practicality. Unless one is unable to learn from past example, once the utility of inductive reasoning is demonstrated, there is no justification for doubt in future applications (with regard to method).

Using induction to justify induction is begging the question.

---------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Alliance
This is not faith at all, its called educated assumptions.

I'll quote something I said earlier:

"Hume (and later Bertrand Russell) came to the conclusion that we have no grounds for accepting inductive inferences as rational. But that we needed to abandon such skepticism to survive at all."

How can you be "educated" about the reliability of induction when any new observation just adds to the series?



You don't know anything about Hume if you think his observations about inductive reasoning aren't relevant.

Mindship
Originally posted by Ytse
Using induction to justify induction is begging the question.
Reliability justifies induction.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Mindship
Reliability justifies induction.

Reliability (in the vernacular) does not justify anything.

Ytse
Originally posted by Mindship
Reliability justifies induction.

Induciton cannot be shown to be reliable except via induction. You cannot reason by experience because you ultimately get to the point of trying to reason that the future will be like the past because in the past the future was like the past. Thus, begging the question.

Mindship
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Reliability (in the vernacular) does not justify anything.

I've been using reliability in the scientific sense, as in consistent effects resulting from consistent causes. Certainly, without any notion of validity, reliability by itself justifies nothing. However, validity was not being discussed here, because on that point I agree with Ytse: science presents an as-if option, open to interpretation, just like religion.

As to the source of this interpretation: does it require a transcendent reality? Ultimately, we are dealing with the origin of meaning, and so there may be temptation to see something so intangible, yet profound, like meaning as explanable only through a transcendent reality.

IMO, that isn't necessary (but not necessarily wrong, either). In the past, those organisms with the genetic predisposition to see meaning, to learn from experience and build patterns which successfully enabled them to anticipate the future, had a better chance to survive and pass on their genes than those organisms which did not learn, for which the world was brand new every few seconds. Inductive reason simply did not exist for those beings.

Don't get me wrong: I've yet to come across a convincing argument for actively denying the existence of a God. But on the other hand, I'm not inclined to impose more meaning on a phenomenon (eg, inductive reasoning) than I necessarily have to.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Ytse
Induciton cannot be shown to be reliable except via induction. You cannot reason by experience because you ultimately get to the point of trying to reason that the future will be like the past because in the past the future was like the past. Thus, begging the question.

^ This argument sounds familiar:

Originally posted by whobdamandog
IS SCIENCE THE ULTIMATE TEST?

In the early 20th century, some scientists and philosophers thought so. But, curiously, science itself turned out to be the first victim of this way of thinking. This is because, in order to get started, science has to make certain assumptions that cannot be proved scientifically. They are:

Rationality - that our thinking processes are basically reliable. (This assumption is needed in every area of life - even to discuss rationality!)

Orderliness - that there is an order to be discovered in nature - otherwise why do science at all?

Intelligibility - that our minds are able to discover this order.

Uniformity - that doing exactly the same experiment twice gives the same results. The scientific enterprise would be impossible without the assumption that there is a general uniformity in nature.

These basic beliefs, necessary for science, can't be proved scientifically...


http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e384/super_hottie_2/sock.jpg

Bardock42
Originally posted by Ytse
Induciton cannot be shown to be reliable except via induction. You cannot reason by experience because you ultimately get to the point of trying to reason that the future will be like the past because in the past the future was like the past. Thus, begging the question.

Well, if we are talking about induction in the mathematica sense it is an axiom that it works.

Ytse
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
^ This argument sounds familiar:

Because it's a centuries old and hotly debated issue? Of course you're totally ignorant of that. Amirite?

This guy just sounds like he's been reading Van Til, Frame, Bahnsen, etc., etc.

---------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, if we are talking about induction in the mathematica sense it is an axiom that it works.

Axioms are themselves assumptions.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Ytse
Axioms are themselves assumptions.

No, they are axioms.

And it has proven to be useful.

Ytse
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, they are axioms.

axiom
a proposition that is not susceptible of proof or disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident

Bardock42
Originally posted by Ytse
axiom
a proposition that is not susceptible of proof or disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident

...not in mathematics. They don't have to be self evident at all.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
thumb up laughing out loud

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah. You ****ing liar! oh

Ytse
Originally posted by Bardock42
...not in mathematics. They don't have to be self evident at all.

Either way, they're assumptions and are accepted without proof.

Anyway, theologan Gordon Clark argued that the truths of scripture were axiomatic. I doubt you're going to simply accept that.

So, axioms are kind of useless in this sort of debate.

Atlantis001
Originally posted by Ytse
Either way, they're assumptions and are accepted without proof.

Anyway, theologan Gordon Clark argued that the truths of scripture were axiomatic. I doubt you're going to simply accept that.

So, axioms are kind of useless in this sort of debate.


I will not deny the usefulness of science, but maybe I understand what you are trying to say:


For example, science uses empiricism to justify itself. Empiricism says that knowledge comes from experience rather than faith or intuition, but technically empiricism in itself is used like an axiom made true to make science work.


In this sense, it is true that that science requires some type of faith or intuition or whatever, since after all we can just assume that empiricism is true. Everything needs a starting point, so there will always be something assumed without proof, something that is prior to experience. That happens for everything not just science.

debbiejo
Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

Example: If you see no difference in the cleaning ability of various laundry detergents, you might hypothesize that cleaning effectiveness is not affected by which detergent you use. You can see this hypothesis can be disproven if a stain is removed by one detergent and not another. On the other hand, you cannot prove the hypothesis. Even if you never see a difference in the cleanliness of your clothes after trying a thousand detergents, there might be one you haven't tried that could be different.

Theory

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.


Law

A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science.The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations.

Ytse
Originally posted by Mindship
Theism could be used to support inductive reasoning, yes, but IMO it is superfluous.

Well, my argument is an apologetic, not a theodicy.

Mindship
Originally posted by Ytse
Well, my argument is an apologetic, not a theodicy.
Understood.

Alliance
Originally posted by Ytse
Well, my argument is an apologetic, not a theodicy.

Oh really! THAT was difficult.

Ytse
Originally posted by Alliance
Oh really! THAT was difficult.

What're you getting at?

You probably don't even understand what I'm saying.

Alliance
Don't be so presumptuous.

You said your argument was an apolgetic. Is that not what you meant?

Ytse
Originally posted by Alliance
Don't be so presumptuous.

Well, sorry. You just come off as antagonistic sometimes. Maybe it's my problem that I take it that way.



I was just making the contrast there by saying that I am not trying to justify why god may have done this or that but only trying to demonstrate that science and Christianity aren't necesarily opposed. And so, by making that contrast I'm saying that while it may be superfluous for god to justify induction in a materialist or physicalist worldview, I am defending the Christian theistic worldview.

Templares
Originally posted by Ytse
Who exactly are you arguing with here? You're quoting me but responding to some

websites...



I asked a question, What's a theistic worldview?

Since you didnt answer my question, i proceeded to find the answer for myself . . . . and it suck as$. I hope you have a better explanation.

And yes, subjective and unreliable supernatural explanations (god did this, god did that, god is capable of this and god is capable of that) are still waaay inferior in terms of use and explanatory power, to the objective and verifiable scientific explanation than science offers.

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Templares
I asked a question, What's a theistic worldview?

Since you didnt answer my question, i proceeded to find the answer for myself . . . . and it suck as$. I hope you have a better explanation.

And yes, subjective and unreliable supernatural explanations (god did this, god did that, god is capable of this and god is capable of that) are still waaay inferior in terms of use and explanatory power, to the objective and verifiable scientific explanation than science offers.

Science offers what?

All science has done at this juncture is confirm what the Bible has stated all along: life is not the product of random, chance occurrence (studies are strongly in favor of creation and not random evolution). Look up the statistical probabilities of life emerging by chance (which by the way is a relatively scientific, but definitely mathematical approach to determining likelihood of an event occurring).

big grin

zozo_yoyo_xoxo
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Scientific findings are based on repeatable observations under the same conditions.



When have you ever done anything but make up results in a lab after you see the pattern?

Gregor Mendelism is great.

Templares
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Science offers what?

All science has done at this juncture is confirm what the Bible has stated all along: life is not the product of random, chance occurrence (studies are strongly in favor of creation and not random evolution). Look up the statistical probabilities of life emerging by chance (which by the way is a relatively scientific, but definitely mathematical approach to determining likelihood of an event occurring).

big grin


What particular study?

The only creationist statistical probablity study i could remember is Henry Morris and his 200 good mutations. And he's a douchebag because he assumed that the 200 good mutations have to occur consecutively . Mutations, good or bad, occur at the same time. His statistical study is both rigged and flawed and didnt pass peer review.

Ytse
Originally posted by Templares
And yes, subjective and unreliable supernatural explanations (god did this, god did that, god is capable of this and god is capable of that) are still waaay inferior in terms of use and explanatory power, to the objective and verifiable scientific explanation than science offers.

What I meant was in a theistic worldview there are certain presuppositions the believer makes about reality and one of those things is the truth of scripture. Scientific evaluation is entirely ineffectual in determining if scripture really is divine revelation.

King Kandy
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
(studies are strongly in favor of creation and not random evolution)
sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick

Starhawk
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Or can they?

Science doesn't need to, it's kid brother LOGIC does the job for it.

Nellinator
No, it doesn't. Try again once you have a valid argument.

Starhawk
Tell me one scientific fact that proves God exists.

lord xyz
Cue: Tell me one scientific fact that proves God doesn't exist.

no expression

Starhawk
Don't be stupid, thats like me saying prove scientifically Santa Claus isn't real or the Easter Bunny. It's not a case where science has to prove anything. We use logic and reason.

Nellinator
And yet logic and reason cannot disprove God. You fail... again.

Ytse
Originally posted by Starhawk
It's not a case where science has to prove anything. We use logic and reason.

No, you can quite easily begin with a thestic supposition and make conclusions that follow logically.

But please, show us your logic, sir.

Starhawk
Originally posted by Ytse
No, you can quite easily begin with a thestic supposition and make conclusions that follow logically.

But please, show us your logic, sir.

My logic is that we have no scientific evidence at all that God exists.

Starhawk
Originally posted by Nellinator
And yet logic and reason cannot disprove God. You fail... again.

They don't need to, the burden of proof is on the people who do believe. So your saying Santa is real?

Ytse
Originally posted by Starhawk
My logic is that we have no scientific evidence at all that God exists.

confused

Originally posted by Starhawk
It's not a case where science has to prove anything.

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>