Can Science Explain Everything?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes but the ‘why’ is a very big inquiry they may never get there. It may end up like dark matter and dark energy: no explanation.
 
Father, yes, the question can be scientifically verified. It is falsifiable. Stated in the positive it is ‘Science can explain everything’. A single thing that science cannot explain falsifies the statement. There are many such things. So the proposition is a scientific proposition. A non-scientific proposition is one not capable of being falsified: ‘human beings have souls’; ‘there is a God’; ‘reincarnation happens’; ‘transubstantiation happens’; etc. Science cannot yet fully explain the phenomenon of religious belief but progress is being made particularly through techniques of brain imaging.
 
To speak of truth or falsehood, and thus of falsification, is a philosophical claim. Science is inescapably philosophical.
 
The positive claim that “science is capable of explaining everything” is itself self-refuting.
 
Hmm. I know that philosophy is important in Catholic thought. It is not so much for me. To explain further: if I postulate that the world and everything in it, including all things appearing to be old, or human-made, and our thoughts and memories, were created by a God five minutes ago - nothing can refute the proposition. It is not falsifiable. It is not scientific. Most critical religious beliefs are like that. You may not be able to disprove them, but neither can they be observed, still less proven. By staying with scientific observations you ground yourself in observable reality. By adopting religious, non-falsifiable beliefs, you ground (sky?) yourself in a set of beliefs that are as valid as anyone else’s set of beliefs and cannot be rationally discussed.
 
I think you too easily dismiss religion and philosophy as something akin to sentiment. It will be difficult to have a conversation about things like that if that’s all you think they are.
 
FiveLinden said:
nothing can refute the proposition. It is not falsifiable
Click to expand...
Anyone more than 5 minutes old falsifies it. Carbon dating falsifies it.
FiveLinden said:
By staying with scientific observations you ground yourself in observable reality. By adopting religious, non-falsifiable beliefs, you ground (sky?) yourself in a set of beliefs that are as valid as anyone else’s set of beliefs and cannot be rationally discussed.
Click to expand...
But Catholicism is grounded in observable reality. Aquinas’ ways showing God exists are. Things are caused by prior things = based on observable reality that parents cause kids, seeds cause trees, etc. That these things have characteristics (eg kid w brown hair) based on the prior cause (eg parent w brown hair). And that logically there had to be a first UNCAUSED CAUSE (God) which cannot be finite physical cause since (again based on observable reality) we know that all finite physical causes (eg human) have characteristics (brown hair) based on prior cause (parent). So the first UNCAUSED CAUSE can’t be physical finite entity since then would have to have prior cause.
 
I’ve yet to see a concrete scientific explanation on how the Universe came to be.
 
FiveLinden said:
Hmm. I know that philosophy is important in Catholic thought. It is not so much for me. To explain further: if I postulate that the world and everything in it, including all things appearing to be old, or human-made, and our thoughts and memories, were created by a God five minutes ago - nothing can refute the proposition. It is not falsifiable. It is not scientific. Most critical religious beliefs are like that. You may not be able to disprove them, but neither can they be observed, still less proven. By staying with scientific observations you ground yourself in observable reality. By adopting religious, non-falsifiable beliefs, you ground (sky?) yourself in a set of beliefs that are as valid as anyone else’s set of beliefs and cannot be rationally discussed.
Click to expand...
Consider that this entire post isn’t scientific, it’s philosophical. To argue that the scientific method gives us real, grounded truths (and reasons why) is not in itself a scientific argument, but a philosophical one, and it presumes certain philosophical truths.

I’m not even speaking of theology or religion here, just a general take on philosophy.
 
Last edited:
It seems that one would have to start out with at least two philosophical presuppositions before science is even possible:

I am.
I can know.
 
Lawrence Krause attempted in book “A Universe from Nothing”

But failed spectacularly since his definition of “nothing” isn’t nothing as includes Quatum Fields with particular states such that when the fields are in state #1 physical particles exist yet when they’re in state #2 no physical particles exist. Like how your fingers can be moved into one state (no fist formed) and another state (where fist is formed)

He theory fails bc he never accounts for where did Quantum fields come from? Why do they have the particular discrete states? Why not a continuous range of states, for example? A lot of design choices he can’t explain
 
It’s all good.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
I am still waiting for science and technology to invent the warp drive. Without it we can never explore the galaxy, let alone the universe.
 
edward_george1 said:
I think you too easily dismiss religion and philosophy as something akin to sentiment. It will be difficult to have a conversation about things like that if that’s all you think they are.
Click to expand...
No I don’t dismiss religion. Not sure about philosophy. Religion is universal in human societies. It requires explanation and it, or the biological processes that give rise to it was almost certainly an evolutionary advantage. It is a part of the human condition.
 
Aquinas11 said:
A human being alive > 5 minutes refutes Universe being 5 minutes old. This is just plain common sense.
Click to expand...
I’ll try to explain. Assume there is a god, who is the creator of all we experience. This god created it all, five minutes ago, with the appearance of age, including our (false) memories of having been here earlier than five minutes ago. It is impossible to refute this proposition, which explains all phenomena. It is also not possible to imagine something which would falsify it. The example you cite does not. ‘God’ made it seem that way, but in fact nothing existed prior to five minutes ago. Its lack of fallibility is what makes it a non-scientific proposition. It cannot be argued against. No observation refutes it. Like flying to heaven on a winged horse, transubstantiation, creation of the universe in some unspecified way, such religious beliefs do not form a part of science. Science is interested, however, on why people believe them. The can be tested.
 
No, Science cannot explain why blue is my favorite color.
 
Age old question I suppose, how to get something from nothing. In my humble opinion time is a human construct that God is separate from. He is the creator. My mind can’t help but to wonder how God came to be. It’s really overwhelms my mind thinking about it. I don’t think we will ever understand this and science does not provide any clarity.
 
Tha being said, read the response of Magnamity; it appears the author did a good job. It would be the answer I would give to my parishioners.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top