Does science prove gods existence?

[Al_Moritz]

That actually seems to be where the evidence points.
So you can call it ‘faith’ if you want, but you’re just changing the definition when it’s convenient.

Which evidence? Certainly not scientific observational evidence. At best, some mathematical models. Or not?

 

[Winterwolf00]

I came to this site wondering if there were any valid arguments or honest apologetics here.
I remain disappointed sadly.

 

[Winterwolf00]

Which evidence? Certainly not scientific observational evidence. At best, some mathematical models. Or not?

Math is not a part of science since when?

 

[PRmerger]

Well, that’s because you’ve already proved that you don’t live by Reason Alone.

You have some faith. Things you believe in which you can’t prove.

Such as an eternal universe…among others.

Indeed.

And the fact that the pilot flying the aircraft he’s flying in has a valid license.

No consumer actually checks that before he gets on a plane.

He just has faith that the pilot is competent.

Now, Winterwolf may counter that he could prove that the pilot is competent–all he would have to do is ask the pilot for her license.

But that brings up the next point: he has faith that the license is actually valid. Not forged. And that she didn’t cheat on her physics final. Or bribe some higher-up.

Faith.

And, since Winterwolf has never actually asked for a pilot to produce her license (on that I am quite certain! Faith and reason tells me so!), he is essentially living his life on a faith-based assertion.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Math is not a part of science since when?

Oh, you really don’t understand how science works – just like I had suspected.

As I wrote somewhere else:

As Alexander Vilenkin, one of the ‘fathers’ of quantum cosmology, wrote in his paper Quantum Cosmology and Eternal Inflation: “sadly, quantum cosmology is not likely to become an observational science.” But if it cannot become observational science, what kind of science is it then? The natural sciences are founded on observation and experiment. Shifting the foundations of the natural sciences towards an exploration of the world by pure thought alone would throw us back to – well, the pre-scientific world (even if the concepts and the mathematics are now more sophisticated).

You can do all the math you want, but math alone doesn’t lead you anywhere if there is not even possibility of verification by observation. Math could perfectly demonstrate, with beautiful epicycles, that the Sun and all the planets revolve around the Earth. If there wouldn’t have been such a pesky little thing called scientific observation, which got in the way…

Hawking’s mathematical model for the universe is just one of many possible ones. The same goes for other models.

Theoretical physics was so successful until the 1970s because it predicted all particles and parameters that later were in fact experimentally observed and led to the Standard Model of Physics.

String theory on the other hand has not yielded any experimental results that support it, not even with the recent Large Hadron Collider. Why do you think the scientists who formulated the Standard Model have received a Nobel Prize, but not even one of the famous string theorists, or Hawking for his models? The Nobel Prize is awarded for scientifically demonstrable results, not for speculations.

Mathematics can easily be used to ‘create’ physical scenarios, but in the natural sciences mathematics describes reality, it does not create it.

There is no scientific observational evidence for an eternal universe. Your assumption that the universe is eternal is indeed based on – faith.

 

[Winterwolf00]

Indeed.

And the fact that the pilot flying the aircraft he’s flying in has a valid license.

No consumer actually checks that before he gets on a plane.

He just has faith that the pilot is competent.

Now, Winterwolf may counter that he could prove that the pilot is competent–all he would have to do is ask the pilot for her license.

But that brings up the next point: he has faith that the license is actually valid. Not forged. And that she didn’t cheat on her physics final. Or bribe some higher-up.

Faith.

And, since Winterwolf has never actually asked for a pilot to produce her license (on that I am quite certain! Faith and reason tells me so!), he is essentially living his life on a faith-based assertion.

The fact that you feel the need to constantly twist the meaning of words says alot about your lack of any real argument.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Well, no, actually, my major blunder was that I assumed I was talking with someone who was open to the possibility of demons - at least open to looking at the evidence - rather than merely drawing preconceived conclusions based upon materialistic assumptions.

What PHYSICAL evidence can you present? Something that can be repeated and objectively evaluated - just like in other fields of science.

Of course, you might claim that scientific experiments have never “proven” demons exist, but doesn’t that assume demons are the kinds of things that would sit still and allow themselves to become the willing subjects of experiments?

They are “dumb” enough to allow themselves “detected” by some exorcists. Or so your empty claim says. And they are “willing” to be exorcised. Better stop this nonsense, since your credibility was already zero… but this nonsense about demons makes it even lower. .

 

[Winterwolf00]

Well, no, actually, my major blunder was that I assumed I was talking with someone who was open to the possibility of demons - ** at least open to looking at the evidence** - rather than merely drawing preconceived conclusions based upon materialistic assumptions.

lol what?

 

[PRmerger]

The fact that you feel the need to constantly twist the meaning of words says alot about your lack of any real argument.

In your 267 posts here, I have yet to see a single post where you actually refute something a Catholic has said.

I think it would be a good idea if you examined the arguments being presented, and then either refuted them, or considered their logic and reason as being true.

Just learn how to dialogue a little bit better and you might learn something.

If you can refute any of the arguments presented, we can discuss.
Rather, what you’ve been doing is simply attacking the person, instead of her ideas.
Or, you simply punt and say, “All of those arguments are bad!” without offering a single refutation.

Not a single refutation has been offered.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh, you really don’t understand how science works – just like I had suspected.

As I wrote somewhere else:

As Alexander Vilenkin, one of the ‘fathers’ of quantum cosmology, wrote in his paper Quantum Cosmology and Eternal Inflation: “sadly, quantum cosmology is not likely to become an observational science.” But if it cannot become observational science, what kind of science is it then? The natural sciences are founded on observation and experiment. Shifting the foundations of the natural sciences towards an exploration of the world by pure thought alone would throw us back to – well, the pre-scientific world (even if the concepts and the mathematics are now more sophisticated).

You can do all the math you want, but math alone doesn’t lead you anywhere if there is not even possibility of verification by observation. Math could perfectly demonstrate, with beautiful epicycles, that the Sun and all the planets revolve around the Earth. If there wouldn’t have been such a pesky little thing called scientific observation, which got in the way…

Hawking’s mathematical model for the universe is just one of many possible ones. The same goes for other models.

Theoretical physics was so successful until the 1970s because it predicted all particles and parameters that later were in fact experimentally observed and led to the Standard Model of Physics.

String theory on the other hand has not yielded any experimental results that support it, not even with the recent Large Hadron Collider. Why do you think the scientists who formulated the Standard Model have received a Nobel Prize, but not even one of the famous string theorists, or Hawking for his models? The Nobel Prize is awarded for scientifically demonstrable results, not for speculations.

Mathematics can easily be used to ‘create’ physical scenarios, but in the natural sciences mathematics describes reality, it does not create it.

There is no scientific observational evidence for an eternal universe. Your assumption that the universe is eternal is indeed based on – faith.

This ^^.

 

[Peter_Plato]

What PHYSICAL evidence can you present? Something that can be repeated and objectively evaluated - just like in other fields of science.

Yes, of course, because conscious agency always makes itself amenable to repetition and objective evaluation, and you, personally, meet the criteria of repetition and objective evaluation that demonstrates your subjective existence to researchers “like in other fields of science.”

I am certain that we would find a detectable little homunculus living in your skull that sings and dances on command or provides a complete itinerary of its plans so it can be dependably tracked or otherwise objectively evaluated by researchers if we did a proper biopsy.

They are “dumb” enough to allow themselves “detected” by some exorcists. Or so your empty claim says. And they are “willing” to be exorcised. Better stop this nonsense, since your credibility was already zero… but this nonsense about demons makes it even lower. .

You need to do a little more fact finding about exorcisms, apparently. They aren’t “willing” to do be exorcised, that is precisely why they “need” to be exorcised.

 

[adawgj]

Wow, there’s like three conversations going on at once on this thread.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Better stop this nonsense, since your credibility was already zero… but this nonsense about demons makes it even lower. .

Someone died and made you Director of Credibility?

 

[Peter_Plato]

… but this nonsense about demons makes it even lower.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2053&pictureid=17307

 

[Peter_Plato]

Wow, there’s like three conversations going on at once on this thread.

It’s called multi-threading

You’re just itching to make it four, aren’t you? :tiphat:

 

[Al_Moritz]

Someone died and made you Director of Credibility?

Yes, it’s pretty funny, as if Hee Zen had any credibility himself.

He hasn’t even answered your posts #88 and #89 (thread page 6), which refute his attempts to establish that free thought or actions are possible under naturalism. I am still waiting.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Yes, of course, because conscious agency always makes itself amenable to repetition and objective evaluation, and you, personally, meet the criteria of repetition and objective evaluation that demonstrates your subjective existence to researchers “like in other fields of science.”

My OBJECTIVE, observer independent existence is obvious to anyone.

You need to do a little more fact finding about exorcisms, apparently. They aren’t “willing” to do be exorcised, that is precisely why they “need” to be exorcised.

Oh, I know about this view - I was merely expressing a little sarcasm. So your “willingness” criterion - namely that demons cannot be “found” because they are not “willing to be found” is just another nonsense - after all they are “found” by the exorcists despite the demons’ “reluctance”. Somehow those exorcists perform some physical activity (possibly some special prayers?) which overcomes the demons’ unwillingness to be found and then the exorcists perform some other physical acts (burning some incense, maybe?) and the demons find themselves exorcised… against their “will”, presumably. Poor little buggers, being harassed all the time.

So the oft repeated disclaimer - namely that the supernatural entities are not subject physical detection and they cannot be influenced by physical activities was just negated - by YOU.

As I said before, I am willing to learn more about these pesky little demons, but you said that you have no idea about the details. All you suggested that: “IF there would be no physical signs, then there would be no need for exorcists”. How “convincing”!

 

[Hee_Zen]

Yes, it’s pretty funny, as if Hee Zen had any credibility himself.

He hasn’t even answered your posts #88 and #89 (thread page 6), which refute his attempts to establish that free thought or actions are possible under naturalism. I am still waiting.

You are not in the position to criticize others, since you neglected the extensive rebuttals to your little article about naturalism being “self-contradictory”. All you “proved” was that you have no idea what “self-contradictory” means and what the “naturalist view” entails.

Of course you are welcome to reconcile the “lack of detectability” of supernatural entities with the activities of exorcists.

 

[PRmerger]

You are not in the position to criticize others, since you neglected the extensive rebuttals to your little article about naturalism being “self-contradictory”.

Hee, would you mind addressing all of these questions posed to you a while ago?

Thanks.

It appeared to me that Hee was saying that there are no moral absolutes. He may consider something morally repugnant (let’s say…raping someone), but if the actor doesn’t view it as morally repugnant, what is Hee to do?

What say you, Hee?

I am curious–if you saw a man raping a woman, would you voice your “reservations” to this man?

And when he told you to go away would you shrug and say, “I guess you and I don’t have the same moral values. And who am I to tell you that your actions are morally repugnant”?

Excellent.

Very Catholic, this.

Do you think there should be laws against beating one’s domestic partner?

Indeed.

 

[PRmerger]

Hee, would you mind addressing all of these questions posed to you a while ago?

Thanks.

Oh, and this one, too.

This sounds suspiciously like faith-based reasoning, no?

Is it not a Science-of-the-Gaps paradigm?