Can Science prove Religion?

[reverend boltron]

Reasons

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: reverend boltron
Reasons

That website is worse than the ID supporters. It tries to claim that it has evidence for the existence of the biblical God. However, instead of presenting actual evidence it just repeats the claim that the universe "appears" designed therefore it must be designed. Lol.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: sao123
while this may be true for biological sciences... this does not hold true for the hard sciences of chemistry and physics. Most theories in these subject area come about as of mathmatical equations which happen to fit some data...and thus a theory is born and remains until it is proven that despite the calculations it does not happen in the real world.
Physicists speculated about an island of stability around element 114 based on some mathematical data, then tested it. In this particular case, it worked. in others such as the hydrogen atom model, didnt.
Even the beloved string theory, is nothing more than a mathematic description of a possible way to link the fundamental forces and particles. It has a good mathematical description, but it has yet to be proven true/untrue because of a lack of possible valid experiments at this time.
Either way, a theory based on some data, without any factual evidence is still a valid theory until proven untrue.

You have a very good point and I realize now that it definately applies to theories like string theory. However, I am confused as to whether you are trying to tie this in to ID or not. ID has been repeatedly rejected because, while it offers an explanation, it is based off of nothing of substance. The whole foundation of ID is that since we don't know anything that could possibly create life/the universe than a divine being must have done (which is a very poor foundation).

I dont recall ever having mentioned intelligent design.
Though now i will address the point.

Intelligent design theorist do the same exact thing i said you were doing. Eliminating theories based on lack of evidence... "Well we cant explain it, so it must have been a God." Once again, all theories are valid hypotheses until some actual factual collected evidence rules it out.

My entire point was... We cannot rule out that the possibility may exist that a Creator did in fact create the universe do to a lack of evidence to the contrary, nor can we eliminate the theory that the universe happened because of a random singularity expansion. Both are valid theorys, as are many others, until some sort of hard evidence can be found to actively eliminate them from being one of the plausible explanations.

 

[Vee]

Let's assume God exists.

Can religion, any religion, provide even the tiniest shred of circumstantial evidence that supports their claims of speaking for God? Or that their elaborate picture of God, and Gods work and will, is anywhere near the truth, and not a gross blasphemeous falsification?

Do you believe religion because you believe in God? Or do you believe in God because you believe religion?

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: randay
Ill give you one. A god might not exist because there is no empirical proof or evidence that he does exist. hows that?

I have no empirical proof that you exist. For all I know, you could be a forum bot posting random gibberish. You can argue that your responses form evidence of your existence, but the interpretation of the evidence is often what is lacking when one claims that no evidence exists.

And whats wrong with me existing as a forum bot posting random gibberish? at least ITS PROOF THAT I EXIST. whether I be a human being typing things or a "forum bot posting random gibberish". Simple fact is that these posts that I am making is empyrical evidence that a poster by the name of randay does in fact exist. Now the actual details of my self, there is no evidence and as such, you probably could not accurately say whether I am a bot or human, but it is safe to say that I do infact exist in some form.

Please try harder next time when trying to defend your stance, just replying with some nonsensical rubbish doesnt cut it.

 

[Madwand1]

FWIW, there is mention of evolution in 13th century religious literature, and probably earlier ones as well. This statement risks being an attempt to validate religion using contemporary (at least 19th century) science, and I want to avoid doing that, so am mentioning this not as a point of debate, but as an item of possible interest to some readers of this thread. It's in the book that I previously mentioned.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: randay
And whats wrong with me existing as a forum bot posting random gibberish? at least ITS PROOF THAT I EXIST. whether I be a human being typing things or a "forum bot posting random gibberish". Simple fact is that these posts that I am making is empyrical evidence that a poster by the name of randay does in fact exist. Now the actual details of my self, there is no evidence and as such, you probably could not accurately say whether I am a bot or human, but it is safe to say that I do infact exist in some form.

So as long as something appears somewhere, it's proof that something created it? You typed in something and it appeared in this thread. Therefore, you must exist in some form. Conveniently, your name appears next to your creation. What if your name did not appear? How would I know that you had created it? Or how would I go about determining who had created it? Or, perhaps more importantly, how would you go about determining whether something was created or had simply always existed?

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So as long as something appears somewhere, it's proof that something created it?

no. In the case of this forum post, it is empirical evidence that a thing exists which has filled in the form to fill in the database fields which in conjunction with some php code forms this forum post. There is no question of "Did something create this post?".

You typed in something and it appeared in this thread. Therefore, you must exist in some form. Conveniently, your name appears next to your creation. What if your name did not appear? How would I know that you had created it?

You would not know who entered the information. All you would know is that there is some data in a database which is read by the server that hosts this webpage and then processes that information and forms the page you would have seen.

Or how would I go about determining who had created it?

You would look at the name of the poster on the left hand of the post. If that section were blank, you would not be able to determine which poster made that post. However, it is possible that there are logs located in the database which gives detailed information such as time, IP address, or user ID.

Or, perhaps more importantly, how would you go about determining whether something was created or had simply always existed?

Of course the post would not have always existed because there is all sorts of evidence to prove otherwise. For instance, on the bottom of this page it says "FuseTalk Enterprise Edition - © 1999-2006 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.", in which case as long as this evidence was not proven false by some other evidence, you could assume that this forum was only in existance from 1999-2006. With the same information, you could also assume that FuseTalk Inc. created it, unless of course as I stated before, the evidence was proven to be false.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: randay
You would not know who entered the information. All you would know is that there is some data in a database which is read by the server that hosts this webpage and then processes that information and forms the page you would have seen.

You would look at the name of the poster on the left hand of the post. If that section were blank, you would not be able to determine which poster made that post. However, it is possible that there are logs located in the database which gives detailed information such as time, IP address, or user ID.

Of course the post would not have always existed because there is all sorts of evidence to prove otherwise. For instance, on the bottom of this page it says "FuseTalk Enterprise Edition - © 1999-2006 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.", in which case as long as this evidence was not proven false by some other evidence, you could assume that this forum was only in existance from 1999-2006. With the same information, you could also assume that FuseTalk Inc. created it, unless of course as I stated before, the evidence was proven to be false.

Pretty logical answers. So, by extension, I can postulate that you view the issue of the creation of the universe to be roughly the following:

We know that the universe is here. We don't know when/if it was created or if it has just always been here. However, if it were created, there might be a 'log' of data somewhere that allows insight into who exactly did create it. In lieu of such evidence, we'll assume that no one created it or that it has always been here until evidence to the contrary arises.

Does this sound about right to you?

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
We know that the universe is here.

I agree, if by here, you mean exists.

We don't know when/if it was created or if it has just always been here.

Replace "We" with "I"(as in me), and that would be spot on. Some one might actually know, or believe that they know, or maybe I just believe that they only believe they know.

However, if it were created, there might be a 'log' of data somewhere that allows insight into who exactly did create it.

The use of the word log is questionable. However, there is a lot of data out there somewhere in the universe that can be examined by humans. Change "who exactly did create it." to "exactly how it was created."

In lieu of such evidence, we'll assume that no one created it or that it has always been here until evidence to the contrary arises.

In lieu of such evidence, I cannot come to a conclusion on whether it was created or if it has always been here until evidence to the contrary arises.

or

In lieu of such evidence, I cannot come to a conclusion on whether it was created by "God" or if it was created through some other means.

or

I dont know how the universe was created man, maybe it was god, I dont really care.

or

It was like that when I got here.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: randay
In lieu of such evidence, I cannot come to a conclusion on whether it was created or if it has always been here until evidence to the contrary arises.

or

In lieu of such evidence, I cannot come to a conclusion on whether it was created by "God" or if it was created through some other means.

or

I dont know how the universe was created man, maybe it was god, I dont really care.

or

It was like that when I got here.

So now we're down to it - we have developed two theories.
1. God created all things.
2. Who knows?

It may be said that #2 is a generalization of #1. How is one worse than the other? How can we differentiate between the two? The answer is largely through philosophical endeavors, whose results must mesh with science. Truth cannot stand in contradiction to truth. Science and philosophy give us two methods to address the same question. Neither in and of itself may be sufficient, though with their combination we may arrive at a conclusion.

 

[randay]

One theory is yours, one theory is mine. And thats fine with me. Are you fine with that? You asked a simple(almost dumb) question, and I answered it. You chose to try and debunk my answer, so I defended it. So tell me, am I going to hell now?

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Science and philosophy give us two methods to address the same question. Neither in and of itself may be sufficient, though with their combination we may arrive at a conclusion.

Since when did philosophy have any merit when applied to explaining the creation/reason for creation of the universe? The facts matter, not our opinions.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: randay
One theory is yours, one theory is mine. And thats fine with me. Are you fine with that? You asked a simple(almost dumb) question, and I answered it. You chose to try and debunk my answer, so I defended it. So tell me, am I going to hell now?

Ah, the ever-predictable apologetic atheist. Maybe you can point out where I tried to call you out, condemn you, or denigrate you for your beliefs... I doubt you'll find it. I'm perfectly fine with your beliefs and perfectly fine with mine. I don't feel the need to impose my beliefs on you, nor mock you for your beliefs. Why do you feel the need to do these things to me?

Originally posted by: blackllotus
Since when did philosophy have any merit when applied to explaining the creation/reason for creation of the universe? The facts matter, not our opinions.

Because in the absence of facts, only logic serves. Science can never give us a reason. That is the realm of philosophy.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: CycloWizardAh, the ever-predictable apologetic atheist. Maybe you can point out where I tried to call you out, condemn you, or denigrate you for your beliefs... I doubt you'll find it.

I can find it, but its not clear exactly how it should be interpreted, after all I am just a forum bot posting random gibberish.

I'm perfectly fine with your beliefs and perfectly fine with mine. I don't feel the need to impose my beliefs on you, nor mock you for your beliefs. Why do you feel the need to do these things to me?

Isn't that how it works? You guys get to go to heaven after you die and have all the fun while us sinners and unbelievers have to go to hell and burn for eternity? Or does that only happen if you believe in your particular religion/god? Do the things you believe in only apply to you? Like if I believed the Earth was flat, and you didnt believe me, Could the earth still be flat? I feel the need to do it because I'd rather not go to hell. Why do I even entertain that possibility when I don't believe it? Just because I dont believe it doesn't mean it isn't true.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: randay
I can find it, but its not clear exactly how it should be interpreted, after all I am just a forum bot posting random gibberish.

In absence of evidence, just formulate an irrelevant statement that takes one of my statements out of context. Good form.

Isn't that how it works? You guys get to go to heaven after you die and have all the fun while us sinners and unbelievers have to go to hell and burn for eternity? Or does that only happen if you believe in your particular religion/god? Do the things you believe in only apply to you? Like if I believed the Earth was flat, and you didnt believe me, Could the earth still be flat? I feel the need to do it because I'd rather not go to hell. Why do I even entertain that possibility when I don't believe it? Just because I dont believe it doesn't mean it isn't true.

So before you were pissed because I was intrinsically condemning you for your beliefs. Now you're pissed because I'm not condemning you. Like I've said before, there is no argument from me that will convince you. You just have to figure it out for yourself. If I try to force it on you, it will push you further in the opposite direction. Even if you did take it up when I pushed it, then you wouldn't necessarily really believe it. Such understanding must come from within, though its path is influenced by external factors.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: blackllotus
Since when did philosophy have any merit when applied to explaining the creation/reason for creation of the universe? The facts matter, not our opinions.

Because in the absence of facts, only logic serves. Science can never give us a reason. That is the realm of philosophy.

But logic alone, without a substantial amount of facts, can rarely be conclusive, or even meaningful in cases such as this. We can apply logic all day to coming with reasons for the creation of the universe, however we will never get any closer to the actual answer.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: blackllotus
But logic alone, without a substantial amount of facts, can rarely be conclusive, or even meaningful in cases such as this. We can apply logic all day to coming with reasons for the creation of the universe, however we will never get any closer to the actual answer.

If the path of logic is followed correctly, then the facts are sure to follow. Many discoveries in science are based on previously-derived mathematical proofs that tell us what 'facts' we need to look for. So, I guess the point is that logic takes you as far as you let it. I can apply logic all day and come closer to my answer, and you could do the same. You choose not to, but this does not mean that it is impossible.

 

[f95toli]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

If the path of logic is followed correctly, then the facts are sure to follow. Many discoveries in science are based on previously-derived mathematical proofs that tell us what 'facts' we need to look for. So, I guess the point is that logic takes you as far as you let it. I can apply logic all day and come closer to my answer, and you could do the same. You choose not to, but this does not mean that it is impossible.

I don't agree. The greeks tried using "pure logic" to understand the world and look where it got them.
Science must always be rooted in experimental research. A theory that can not even in principle be tested in an experiment is simply not a scientific theory. It does not matter if the "theory" is based on string theory or some form of divine intervention: If you can't test it it ain't science.

And yes, I am aware that this also means that part of string theory is not scientific, at the moment a mathematical framwork than a theory of physics. However, with string theory there is at least some hope that we some day in future will be able to test at least some of its predictions.

In science we must always be willing to say "we don't know" when we don't.

 

[randay]

Im not "pissed" or angry at all. This is a common problem with communicating through text, its very hard to set tone or mood in text and some people tend to read things the way they want to, or interpret it wrongly. basically what I have stated about interpretation, and you have stated about taking things out of context is the same, and still you believe that I am "pissed" about something. Really I'm not. I've had a lot of conversations with religious people and it always ends with them giving up and telling me that I just don't get it, or something to that effect. Which seems to be what you have just done.

Pretend that I am a 10 year old girl and read my previous post again, then reply.