randerizer is correct that using the opinions of scientists is not a very persuasive argument, and certainly does not constitute a scientific argument.
it does, however, at least raise the question: if science is in conflict with christianity, then why are so many scientists christians?
of course, the answer is that science does not conflict christianity in any way, and niether guss nor rand have presented any evidence to the contrary.
Thats fine and I don't want this to be adverserial. I happen to respect both you and Guss more than you probably know and have learned a lot from both of you.
But would you also say no to this question?
So science done well has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that God doesn't exist?
Gentlemen,
I have got to get back to work. I have several projects I need to go check on. Have fun.
Well, science can only go so far and then you have to employ logic. I don't think science is capable of proving the nonexistence of my invisible gremlin, either. It is true that some scientific mechanisms appear to operate mysteriously. Some scientists find that as affirmation of their Christian beliefs (whether the beliefs were "preformed" or newly developed). There are certainly many atheist scientists as well. The quote about the physics department -- I also cannot remember who said it -- relates to something particularly unique to the FIELD of physics. I am speaking a bit over my head here, but there is a BIG change in the way the rules work in the macro versus the quantum level. In fact, many talk about how the forces at work in the quantum level appear to contradict the laws of physics that you observe at the macro level. There are other strange things that happen at the quantum level too - for example: the measurement/observer problem.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_ce...res/lec13.html
Because, physicist have produced such wild theories to explain these unusual phenomenon, many have commented on their willingness to believe seemingly-supernatural explanations.
As you may know, some physicists are trying to unite macro and quantum physics under a single set of physical laws, sometimes called the "theory of everything." If such is accomplished, which I think it will be, the quantum world will no longer seem so strange.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
I didn't find anything to be adversarial. Many people consider me a matter-of-fact personality, so if I'm coming off as adversarial, I apologize.
Science has not proven beyond a shadow of doubt that God doesn't exist. I do think, however, that science can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no evidence that confirms that God exists. :icon_wink:
I also think that a combination of science and logic proves beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt (there are always mystics) that a god did not create existence.
When you make the appropriate (or the only response that I can't really answer) religious response that "God doesn't live by our rules," you cross from reasonable (bound by science, logic, sensory perception) into the land of mysticism. This argument can never be answered by science or logic, because the argument abandons both science and logic.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
^"reasonability" is a fairly subjective concept, don't you think?
Good Post. Of course you realize that if God WAS bound by logic and science he would cease being God. I fully admit being raised from the dead violates all laws of science and logic. Thats why it's so special. So important. Thats the whole point. There is only one way to explain it. ....God.
Last edited by Bigdog13; 05-28-2007 at 12:06 PM.
Regardless of what combination you use, it is presumptive to say it proves beyond a shadow of a reasonable anything, except in your opinion. An equally compelling and opposite argument can be provided using the same combination of science and logic from a different perspective.
no, it does prove beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt, since reason implies a rational proof. but i think we're not thinking of terms in the same way. i'm suggesting that calls for mysticism are by definition not reasonable. any "equally compelling and opposite arguments" are either invalid or arbitrary, with regards to rational thought. i am quite sure of that.
as i said earlier, you can argue that "god doesn't play by our rules," which seems to be the most appropriate religious response. just understand that, with regards to reason, it is an arbitrary position and does nothing to cast reasonable doubt on the proof.
no, I understand and even agree to a point with what you are saying. I am simply pointing out that:
Using the word "prove" in a statement that also includes words such as reasoning, reasonable, doubt, rational proof, rational thought, may make sense to you, and certainly at times makes sense to me as well, but to an audience with regard to an issue with so many different perspectives and interpretations of opinion, does not seem cohesive with that particular argument. Neither you nor I may ever agree with anyone else on what is to be considedred reasonable, doubtful or worthy of doubt, rational, or a proof. It is a matter of perspective and interpretation of the world around you. You may believe with all that you know that God rationally does not exist based on the reasonable proof that you have. At the same time, I may believe with everything I know that God rationally does exist based on the reasonable proof that I have.
I do not believe that anyone can discount either side of the issue. We can state that there is rational and relative proof that proves one side or the other beyond a reasonable doubt; however, what you can prove in your mind may be incomprehensable in mine, and vice versa...based on our opinions of what is reasonable, rational, doubtful, and truthful. Therefore, we must continually...as we are doing...discuss, debate, gather information, become increasingly more aware of our surroundings, and make a choice. We each will believe what we believe. The important thing is that we have a choice. If you can prove one or the other beyond...not a, but everyone's...reasonable doubt, there wouldn't be much of a choice, would there? But then again, that would be your opinion. :icon_wink: