Are there any questions that are beyond the realm of scientific enquiry?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Zero point energy doesn't exist long enough to actually do anything.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
just because we dont have evidence of something that doesnt mean it doesnt exist. a killer can kill some one but despose of the body and all the evidence.if police doesnt have any evidence does that mean it didnt happen. flawd logic.....🙄
doesnt it occur to you that we dont have evidence because its beyond our minds to comprehend.
in a marvel comic, normal humans dont have evidence of celestials because its beyond there mind to even understand what they are.
scientist have theorys of many things with no evidence at all, its even said that its impossible to prove the big bang actually happend its all theory no solid evidence.
when people thought the world was flat, at the time our techonology had no way to prove it wasnt and no evidence that it was round, in the Far furture our technology maybe can prove an infinit being.

first off. lmao at the sarcastic smiley. what you are describing is a classical logical fallacy. its called the fallacy of negetive evidence or russel's teapot, if ud like to check it out. the burden of evidence is on YOU to prove that sumthing exists, not on the other side to disprove the existance of sumthing that isnt alluded to exist in the first place.

2. you are mixing the meaning of hypothesis and theory, a "THEORY" in science is similar to a fact in layman's terms. coincidentally there are no FACTS in science, everyhing from gravity, to reletivity to the laws of motion are THEORIES. what u r referring to is an hypothesis and has noo significance.

3. we dont have to go out looking for sumthing that we have no evidence for and theres no evidence for god. furthermore, your talking about a deistic entity, while the THEISTIC entity yahweh has been disproven on account of internal inconcistancies and disproven assertions of the scriptures.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That's absurd. By that logic, I could say "You are made of cheese" and the burden of proof would be on you to prove you aren't. Just claiming a fallacy has been committed is in no way showing that it actually was.

*breaks rules of forum*

Well I looked at the "begging the question" article, and I don't see how it relates to the snippet you quoted it responded to.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
God and Heaven and the Bible.

Not having proof of such things shouldn't be the answer, right? Science can't explain those concepts and it seems since they can't it's fiction.

But there are tons of things we take for granted in our everyday life as existing that Science either hasn’t fully comprehended or ascribed an explanation to. You just described one of those for Christians.

The problem for many scientists is that everything must be proven or given enough evidence and credence to be considered a viable option.

There are many problems with this outlook. What if one fully qualified scientist reaches a conflicting conclusion to another based on the same evidence? What qualifies as enough evidence?

Really, more than any scientist (and to throw them in there as well, Atheist) will care to admit, is that many, many things in life come down to a matter of faith, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Ex-Atheist and devout Christian C.S Lewis confronted this issue constantly in his works and said a famous quote in regard to God that could also be applied to science for this thread.

"Is there any question that God could not answer? I should think so. All nonsense questions don't have an answer."

Originally posted by King Kandy
That's absurd. By that logic, I could say "You are made of cheese" and the burden of proof would be on you to prove you aren't. Just claiming a fallacy has been committed is in no way showing that it actually was.

That would be a non sequitor comparison. My post clearly states calling someone on a logical fallacy, not accusing them of being made of something absurd.

Correct example: Nice try, but that's not what we were talking about, is it? A strawman is not going to fly.

Incorrect example: You are made of cheese.

And, yes, claiming a fallacy was committed, without doing anything else, is just fine. After the claim has been committed, it is up to the accused to demand and explanation, justify why their argument does not qualify (if they see why it was a fallacy), or admit fault.

If, during a presidential debate, they said "strawman" in response to some points made, not only would it be correct almost every time, I'd laugh. Sometimes, it's just way too obvious and undeniable when a logical fallacy is committed. There's no reason to get wordy, and it is bad form to get wordy, when someone's shit is called out.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
hmm

LOL!

That's hilarious.

But God would never indulge a scientist like that.

That's still HILARIOUS!

Originally posted by King Kandy
Er, zero point energy always exists. That's why it's called zero point energy.

But it "operates" at a level below thermodynamics - I.E., it was irrelevant to a literal heat death (as far as I can tell.) That's what we were talking about.

Lemme make a comparison so it will make more sense.

Sym and DDM are talking about watermelons. We talk about icecold, and juicy, red, ripe watermelons as being the best (I"m craving some, right now. Get off me. lol)

Then King Kandy comes along and says that breasts are awesome meaning a perfect watermelon cannot exsist(I'm "craving" these too. lol).

Whilst your statement about breasts being awesome is correct, it is not related to watermelons and even operates outside the realm of watermelons. (unless you put watermelons on boobs and eat them off of the boobs...which would be the same as increasing the energy of a system by harvesting and applying zero-point energy (which, is kind of impossible since zero-point energy operates at levels below the lowest possible states of thermodynamic physics...meaning, it's really really really difficult to even fathom how zero-point energy could even jump an entire level of physics to be usable at a higher state.))

I think everything is explainable eventually

Originally posted by amity75
As the title says - are there any questions Science CANNOT explain??

What, and why? I can't really think of much... afterall, it pretty much poos all over god.

How do you escape a black hole?

you should learn to make more sense before you start speaking in public. 😉

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
How do you escape a black hole?

You don't.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That would be a non sequitor comparison. My post clearly states calling someone on a logical fallacy, not accusing them of being made of something absurd.

Correct example: Nice try, but that's not what we were talking about, is it? A strawman is not going to fly.

Incorrect example: You are made of cheese.

And, yes, claiming a fallacy was committed, without doing anything else, is just fine. After the claim has been committed, it is up to the accused to demand and explanation, justify why their argument does not qualify (if they see why it was a fallacy), or admit fault.

If, during a presidential debate, they said "strawman" in response to some points made, not only would it be correct almost every time, I'd laugh. Sometimes, it's just way too obvious and undeniable when a logical fallacy is committed. There's no reason to get wordy, and it is bad form to get wordy, when someone's shit is called out.

Originally posted by King Kandy
No, not at all. The burden of proof being on the one who made the positive claim still applies regardless of whether that argument was an accusation of fallacy or not.

Incorrect. There is no burden of proof unless requested. If both parties are fully aware of the logical fallacy, it is a waste of time. It is up to the accused to request the burden of proof if they are lost or disagree.

Originally posted by King Kandy
The defending debater never has to try to negate a claim that has no substantiation. That would be trying to force them to prove a negative.

This assumes the accused is an idiot that does not realize what he or she just did. That's usually not the case around here.

If you make a strawman reply, I call you on it, you will most definitely recongize it. No need to waste space by exlaining something simple.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Incorrect. There is no burden of proof unless requested. If both parties are fully aware of the logical fallacy, it is a waste of time. It is up to the accused to request the burden of proof if they are lost or disagree.

This assumes the accused is an idiot that does not realize what he or she just did. That's usually not the case around here.

If you make a strawman reply, I call you on it, you will most definitely recongize it. No need to waste space by exlaining something simple.

But if I DON'T think what I did was a strawman, all you did was fish for agreement and fail badly. All arguments need evidence to be considered proven... this applies regardless of whether the argument had to do with fallacies or not.

Originally posted by amity75
As the title says - are there any questions Science CANNOT explain??

What, and why? I can't really think of much... afterall, it pretty much poos all over god.

Cannot science be a religion?

Originally posted by ATX/UT ND Money
Cannot science be a religion?

Too many definitions of religion. Science already satisfies some of them.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You don't.

rhetorical dammit!! but you knew that you dirty bastard. 😠 😂