Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
ellapenella

What Science Can't Prove

771 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Lilly

Well, don't forget this rule, as well. Please always respect the beliefs of other members - the bashing of specific religions, countries, races or belief systems is strictly disallowed

Please report any posts that contain personal attacks and/or bigotry. However, just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are behaving in a rude and/or bigoted manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

A sin I'm quite prone to as well.*LOL* You're fun to spar with.See youn in a nonreligious thread where we can relax and have fun.

This is the "Spirituality vs Skepticism" section. If you post here, you volunteer to put your beliefs on the line, that's why its here. For general discussion, there's a dedicated section where the mods keep threads from being a spectic vs believer discussion.

Uh, the rule is posted at the top of the Spirituality vs Skepticism page . Obviously not enforced. Perhaps they should change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

So what is the point of the topic of unavailability of disproving God or anything for that matter? Heck, let's take any type of something, make it up in fact, and say you can't disprove it. That would be an unlimited amount of things. So why this thread?

Thinking of science, I always thought that science was more of proving of something existing through it's work. Why go through the effort to try to show why something that doesn't have proof to begin with, that it doesn't exist? That almost sounds oxymoranic to me.

When it comes to whether proving or disproving God, or anything that is subjective to the other person, aren't they the ones are trying to convert by proving their belief? What seems to me to be the more logical way of thinking of this, this comes into play when someone is approached to be converted. So when something is brought to the attention of the disbeliever, and they feel that there is nothing to show how they can believe, that would pretty much show that they can't believe. It's not the lack of proof, but the unbeliever's point of view of not seeing the proof to allow them to not believe.

Again, I am not sure why bring this up. Why this thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeder

Science... is the one looking for the God particle, I mean higgs bosun, what investigation do those who simply have faith do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DecoNoir

?

Well, why should they? If they truly have faith, why would they have any need to prove anything externally? There is more to life than what is in front of your nose.

Because they insist on making others have the same beliefs, that's why.

'I find it funny' that atheists (note the spelling, btw) only accept what they perceive through their physical senses. Could that not be somewhat limiting?

b******s. Mankind has invented many ways to measure and observe that which we can't directly percieve. X-rays. Ultraviolet. The chemical composition of stars light years away.

Edit: Apparently b******s is censored.

Edited by DecoNoir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

Please report any posts that contain personal attacks and/or bigotry. However, just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are behaving in a rude and/or bigoted manner.

Please always respect the beliefs of other members - the bashing of specific religions, countries, races or belief systems is strictly disallowed

Are we talking about the same rule?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DecoNoir

Uh, the rule is posted at the top of the Spirituality vs Skepticism page . Obviously not enforced. Perhaps they should change that.

Trust me it gets enforced. From what I've seen, the attack needs to be really focused an explicit. The goings on here are pretty par for the course both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

Trust me it gets enforced. From what I've seen, the attack needs to be really focused an explicit. The goings on here are pretty par for the course both ways.

It's fine with me. What I've seen in other threads makes this exchange a bit tame, albeit yours truly can be a bit of an ass sometimes. To all I have offended, I apologize. Edited by Hammerclaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

To try to be helpful, I generally "report" occurrences of rudeness and specific slurs on beliefs, but it is a judgment call and it is not my board, so they can act on it or not as they see fit, and of course I have no clue about any PMs that may go out.

I do think there is a slight tendency to over-protect belief and under-protect non-belief, while in theory they should be treated the same. For example I find the recent statements that atheism is empty and pitiable and devoid of purpose and moral standing a rather unfortunate slur.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DecoNoir

It's fine with me. What I've seen in other threads makes this exchange a bit tame, albeit yours truly can be a bit of an ass sometimes. To all I have offended, I apologize.

No problems. It takes a lot more than this to earn any sort of hate from me. Some of my best sparring opponents on here are more than happy to joke and discuss common interest on other threads and PMs.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

So? That still doesn't indicate unicorns were real. Using religion or religious references to support a claim doesn't really make it more credible.

I wasn't trying to say unicorns were real, just thought it was a cool coincidence that this thread was started with the thought that science can't disprove the existence of God, then someone brought up unicorns, so then I pointed out unicorns (obviously mythical as viewed today) in medieval times were used in art to symbolically represent Jesus.

It's fairly easy for anyone to recognize that it's unlikely science can be used to disprove things like God, morals (good, evil, right, wrong)

Another quirky thought here. Although science can't disprove the existence of God, it may one day prove the existence of God somehow. That would be a trip eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

Please always respect the beliefs of other members - the bashing of specific religions, countries, races or belief systems is strictly disallowed

Are we talking about the same rule?

I've read this thread through twice now, once to get a feel for the flow of the discussion, the second to break it down into who-did-what-and-when rules. Truthfully, there's been some rudeness on both sides. However, such rudeness was instigated by you, Hammerclaw. Your very first post was aimed at atheists and how you think they'll respond. Shortly thereafter you directly refer to an atheist as a "delighted child" (if that's not mocking, I don't know what is). Then when said atheist responds in a far calmer approach than you did, you use that example as evidence of your original accusation that atheists will get frustrated and belittle others.

My question is, are they frustrated at the question of the thread, or are they frustrated by YOU? While I don't agree with atheists on their views, rarely do they react to me in the way they seem to react toward you. For the record, I think the frustration is aimed at you and your deliberately antagonistic approach to posts in this section.

Finally, to address your quote - no one has broken the rule you are quoting. Disagreeing with a belief is not the same as "bashing" it. This section of the board exists for the very purpose of arguing the matter, different views are to be expected. Though if you do find something to be a breach of the rules, as was said earlier, you can use the "Report" button to alert the moderators to such behaviour.

Being that we both believe in God, particularly the God outlined in the Bible, hopefully what I say here might resonate more than the others who are not believers who have replied to you on this matter. I suggest you strongly consider taking these words under advisement, you've walked a very thin line, and it's not unfair to say that the line has been crossed several times across several threads. And this is all on you, not the actions of those who reply to your posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

Local brown people. Monkeys, Gorillas, Elephants, Giraffes, Lions were always known to 'them'.

That wasn't my point. I was responding to Ryu saying that things like fairys and unicorns were believed in by uneducated, superstitious people and I was pointing out that those "Local brown people" (as you put it) that knew of the existence of silver backs were also backward primitive superstitious people. Again, I'm not arguing that science is wrong and spiritualism is right or however you want to tr to label my statements, just pointing out the fallacies in some of the things being presented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

Hence why more and more people are leaving religion or not embracing it to begin with.

If you don't start with the idea that god(s) exist(s) (or aren't brainwashed as a child) and simply look at the natural world from an scientific and evidence based perspective, you quickly realize that our existence makes perfect sense without the need for an all seeing sky wizard.

That I can almost agree with, but I do believe in God, but not as and all seeing sky wizard. The ideas most people have about God as you label it are based on peoples fear of death and wish for immortality. My own personal concepts are pretty different in most ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

Besides, if religion had any truth to it, the earth is supposedly 6000 years old. Through science we know this isnt true. And God made man? Again through science, we know where man come from, its the reason we have a coccyx, canine teeth, eyes facing forward as most predators are, and finger and toe nails.

Well that depends on who is interpreting genesis. By some translations the earth existed but was a blasted ruin brought back to life. I find that interesting from an ET created humanity point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DecoNoir

Well that depends on who is interpreting genesis. By some translations the earth existed but was a blasted ruin brought back to life. I find that interesting from an ET created humanity point of view.

Like the giant albinos in Prometheus?

If that were so I'd feel jipped out of not having a rippling torso like those guys.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

I've read this thread through twice now, once to get a feel for the flow of the discussion, the second to break it down into who-did-what-and-when rules. Truthfully, there's been some rudeness on both sides. However, such rudeness was instigated by you, Hammerclaw. Your very first post was aimed at atheists and how you think they'll respond. Shortly thereafter you directly refer to an atheist as a "delighted child" (if that's not mocking, I don't know what is). Then when said atheist responds in a far calmer approach than you did, you use that example as evidence of your original accusation that atheists will get frustrated and belittle others.

My question is, are they frustrated at the question of the thread, or are they frustrated by YOU? While I don't agree with atheists on their views, rarely do they react to me in the way they seem to react toward you. For the record, I think the frustration is aimed at you and your deliberately antagonistic approach to posts in this section.

Finally, to address your quote - no one has broken the rule you are quoting. Disagreeing with a belief is not the same as "bashing" it. This section of the board exists for the very purpose of arguing the matter, different views are to be expected. Though if you do find something to be a breach of the rules, as was said earlier, you can use the "Report" button to alert the moderators to such behaviour.

Being that we both believe in God, particularly the God outlined in the Bible, hopefully what I say here might resonate more than the others who are not believers who have replied to you on this matter. I suggest you strongly consider taking these words under advisement, you've walked a very thin line, and it's not unfair to say that the line has been crossed several times across several threads. And this is all on you, not the actions of those who reply to your posts.

Sorry I didn't realize how loosely the rules were enforced)(perhaps in hindsight, I should have, considering the slack I've been given) and that the forums are, basically, self moderated. As for filing reports against other members, yes, I could do that, but have you ever known a skunk to be welcome at a picnic? I'll just rein in the rhetoric and avoid the more controversial discussions and occupy myself with the interesting topics I'm here for in the first place. I've been quite trying, I know, you moderators have been patient and kind. I'll make no more trouble for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

Sorry I didn't realize how loosely the rules were enforced)(perhaps in hindsight, I should have, considering the slack I've been given) and that the forums are, basically, self moderated. As for filing reports against other members, yes, I could do that, but have you ever known a skunk to be welcome at a picnic? I'll just rein in the rhetoric and avoid the more controversial discussions and occupy myself with the interesting topics I'm here for in the first place. I've been quite trying, I know, you moderators have been patient and kind. I'll make no more trouble for you.

I'm not sure how you got out of this that the forums are "self moderated", but thank you for your promise of no further trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

I do think there is a slight tendency to over-protect belief and under-protect non-belief, while in theory they should be treated the same.

both are beliefs actually. :gun:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DecoNoir

I'm not sure how you got out of this that the forums are "self moderated", but thank you for your promise of no further trouble.

I think by "self moderated" he means that it usually up to our own judgment as to what's appropriate and what's not. Its not like you guys go around with the ban hammer looking for any minor infraction.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xeno-Fish

We can look at it from two different perspective (I'm using the unicorn for this). As a living breathing animal there is no proof that unicorns exist. As an idea they do. We create images of them, statuettes, etc. You can prove one but not so much the other. You can think something exist (like bigfoot) but without objective proof it doesn't.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

I'm not sure how you got out of this that the forums are "self moderated", but thank you for your promise of no further trouble.

No offense, I'm just trying to get a grip on how things work here. Over the last year or so I've, at various times noticed certain individuals mocking and belittling the religious beliefs of other members, in threads I was not at the time engaged, and insulting the intelligence of believers and so on. This was allow to go on with no moderation and then you and another moderator said such incidences need to be reported to be addressed, hence my reference to self moderation. Some internet forums are quite a bit more strict and more directly moderated, Neogaf, for instance. Also, if what I perceive as violations aren't seen that way by the moderation team, what point would there be in reporting them? No, I'll just withdraw from vs debates and leave them to kinder souls. Edited by Hammerclaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

We can look at it from two different perspective (I'm using the unicorn for this). As a living breathing animal there is no proof that unicorns exist. As an idea they do. We create images of them, statuettes, etc. You can prove one but not so much the other. You can think something exist (like bigfoot) but without objective proof it doesn't.

The article this thread is based on is pretty self evident IMO. Science can't disprove God. So what? Science and faith both play a role in the human experience. does anyone deny that there are aspects to consciousness and perception that are just out of the purview of scientific explanation in a meaningful way? Things which are labeled as subjective like good and evil? You can get a (limited) definition of those concepts which many people will say "you nailed it" and then some body else will say but what about this? and you can't help but feel that he has a good point as well. It's become science vs spirituality in our modern culture but my feeling is elements of both are required to accurately describe our experience of perceived sentience. Even Einstein, who was a pretty smart guy by all accounts believed in intelligent design and not chaotic random chance in our existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likely Guy

If science can not disprove the existence of unicorns, how can it disprove the existence of God ?

http://www.str.org/a...ve#.VEFXNlfgXcw

by author : Greg Koukl

I really appreciate honest thinkers like this gentleman.

It's not science's job to disprove anything.

That's not the way science works.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
S2F

The article in the OP states that science cannot disprove God, which is true. So far nobody has been able to adequately demonstrate the existence of God either, therefore faith. I would claim that faith is not by nature rational. To believe something exists without proof has to be rationally balanced by the fact that the belief may be erroneous. Therein lies the rub though as faith is anathema to such logic. One of the basic differences between religion and science, in religion there is no room for doubt, in science room is reserved specifically for doubt. Which then is the more humble approach?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.