Can science really disprove somethings existence?

[achilles12604]

Usually the argument goes something like this . . .

Theist: God exists.

Science: How do you know?

Theist: 1) origin of the universe, biblical history, personal experience, origin of life, etc

Science: And how do you know that the universe didn't just pop into being without God. Your personal experience doesn't count as evidence, and history can be wrong.

Theist: Well what makes you think God doesn't exist.

science: I am totally unable to detect any sign of him at all and science is the best method we have for detecting and studying things in the universe.

You don't need to answer. My point is very simply that bible thumpers and science thumpers sometimes have similar issues regarding their claims of total knowledge. Neither can truly get the whole picture alone.

But what picture is this? Lets say there is more to this world than science knows. How do we know this? What methodology do we deploy? And the point I’ve been banging on about over several threads the last few days is the only correct method for addressing reality is naturalism because only naturalism can meet the full set of criteria: prediction, verification, falsification and assigns a clear definition to all the signs it deploys in its answers. Any explanation that fails to meet this benchmark is intellectually vacuous. Regardless of the depth of conviction of any given non naturalistic belief.

However I detect that this point is not lost on you achilles because you make great attempts to rationalise your belief system, and I know you think that what is supernatural is only what science does not yet understand. That is easy for a full blown naturalist to admit. What we cannot admit is that the theist can fill in the gaps.

I guess this is where some degree of theistic faith comes in. Hey that gives me a thought. Is faith provable by science? For example, would science be able to determine someone's beliefs? If science is unable to determine someone's beliefs and faith, does that mean that the person's faith does not exist?

My questions for discussion.

Is science able to determine someone's beliefs without being told? Another possible question to clarify this point is can science prove that someone who is now dead, had beliefs while alive?

If silence is maintained and a person's beliefs can not be determined, does this mean the beliefs do not exist?

[muhammad rasullah]

Question, where did the black hole come from? how did it get there?

I, for one, do not know, but let's call it {S}.

The question now becomes, on what grounds do you invest {S} with qualities such as intentionality?

Are we calling S the source where this all comes from?
If so please elaborate further of the following question?

The question now becomes, on what grounds do you invest {S} with qualities such as intentionality?

[/quote]
what do you mean by qualities such as intentionality?

[Goat]

Question, where did the black hole come from? how did it get there?

I, for one, do not know, but let's call it {S}.

The question now becomes, on what grounds do you invest {S} with qualities such as intentionality?

Are we calling S the source where this all comes from?
If so please elaborate further of the following question?

The question now becomes, on what grounds do you invest {S} with qualities such as intentionality?

what do you mean by qualities such as intentionality?[/quote]

I would think it quite obvious. You are calling the first cause 'God', and then say that "God" has the specific quality of intention.

He is asking you how you know this is a quality of the first cause?

[QED]

And if God is thought to be some kind of eternal, necessary being -- why are we supposing it takes a "being" to create things? Hills and rainfall create rivers -- so why not posit eternal, necessary equivalents to "hills and rainfall"? Isn't it rather childish to suppose that it takes some sort of "big man in the sky" to magic even more stuff up from nothing?

The only exception is God!
2:255 Allah. There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permitteth? He knoweth what (appeareth to His creatures as) before or after or behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledge except as He willeth. His Throne doth extend over the heavens and the earth, and He feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory). - English

Your book makes an exception for God, another book might make an exception for an uncreated universe. Only reasoned arguments are going to persuade anyone which book gets it right.

In order for something to exist it needs to be created first!

Except of course for God

The word create means to bring something new into existence.

Well, you're the creationist. Only the likes of creationists actually mean it when they refer to "the creation". Calling animals Creatures is the same kind of loaded terminology that only adds to the problem.

Hills and rainfall create rivers -- so why not posit eternal, necessary equivalents to "hills and rainfall"?

Who created the hills and the clouds for rainfall?

Who or what?... Whatever it was that applied to your God to exempt him from his need to be created... possibly that's what.

7:57 It is He Who sendeth the winds like heralds of glad tidings, going before His mercy: when they have carried the heavy-laden CLOUDS, We drive them to a land that is dead, make rain to descend thereon, and produce every kind of harvest therewith: thus shall We raise up the dead: perchance ye may remember.

Your book seems to work by having a handy passage for every occasion. Do you think this makes it particularly special? Can you not imagine another book (it'll be a big one) that weaves everything under the Sun into a different story? I've seen quite a few.

Besides, here's a small selection of things that can be considered to be something from nothing:

1) Virtual particles (as evidenced by the Casimir Effect).

In physics, the Casimir effect or Casimir-Polder force is a physical force exerted between separate objects due to resonance of all-pervasive energy fields in the intervening space between the objects.

If you have two seperate objects how can this be considered nothing. Without these objects there would be no Casimir effect. So this is not something evolving from nothing.

You don't understand the physics involved: Theory predicted that the particles would emerge out of the vacuum all the time. The plates were just the experimenter's way of making them apparent.

And in case it is felt that for time to have a beginning, there must be an insitgator for the event, the "no-boundary'' proposal of James Hartle and Stephen Hawking adjusts our perspective on time such that the apparent begininng of the universe stretches to eternity.

Again SCience has no proof or substantial evidence of this occurance. These things suggested are merely theories.
The framework for formulating the physical laws that govern the world at microscopic length-scales - the physics of the micro-world, for instance of atoms, atomic nuclei or elementary particles, but also the physics of ultra-precise measurements such as those made by gravitational wave detectors.

The laws of quantum theory are fundamentally different from our everyday experience and from those of classical physics.

The first unusual feature is that, in many cases, quantum theory merely allows statements about probabilities. For instance, in classical physics, one can assign to every particle, at every point in time, a location and a velocity. Whosoever can measure those quantities precisely can, in principle, predict where the particle in question can be found at every point in the future.
http://www.einsteinonline.info/en/navMe ... tum_theory
In no way is this evidence of the origin from where these particles come?

singularity theorems
Theorems, proved by Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking, that state under which circumstances singularities are inevitable in general relativity. As the theorems assume the laws of general relativity and certain general properties of matter, but nothing else, they are valid quite generally. In particular, these theorems prove that, in the frame-work of general relativity, every black hole must contain a singularity, and every expanding universe like ours must have begun in a big bang singularity.

Question, where did the black hole come from? how did it get there?[/quote]

[muhammad rasullah]

Question, where did the black hole come from? how did it get there?

I, for one, do not know, but let's call it {S}.

The question now becomes, on what grounds do you invest {S} with qualities such as intentionality?

Are we calling S the source where this all comes from?
If so please elaborate further of the following question?

The question now becomes, on what grounds do you invest {S} with qualities such as intentionality?

what do you mean by qualities such as intentionality?

I would think it quite obvious. You are calling the first cause 'God', and then say that "God" has the specific quality of intention.

He is asking you how you know this is a quality of the first cause?[/quote]

I would think it quite obvious. You are calling the first cause 'God', and then say that "God" has the specific quality of intention.

Intention to do what?

He is asking you how you know this is a quality of the first cause?

Where did the black hole come from? How did it get there? Something of a higher and supreme intellect had to create it. And the most knowledgable being in this universe that we know of is man. and since man didn't exist nor the things from which it so-called evolved from did I say that this is the supreme and sovereign, all-knowing, all-wise and all-powerful. And I call him Allah meaning the one.

[/quote]

[byofrcs]

......

He is asking you how you know this is a quality of the first cause?

Where did the black hole come from? How did it get there? Something of a higher and supreme intellect had to create it. And the most knowledgable being in this universe that we know of is man. and since man didn't exist nor the things from which it so-called evolved from did I say that this is the supreme and sovereign, all-knowing, all-wise and all-powerful. And I call him Allah meaning the one.

As this is the "science and religion" forum so I think I can safely say your logic is utter nonsense (The Quran is just plain "old nonsense" whereas "utter nonsense" is what you get when you try to use old nonsense out of context.)

A stalagmite (or 'tite) in caves are formed through the slow drips and accretions of minerals. No one designs these - they just form from running water and porous land - though they may look complex and designed.

It's illogical to say that these needed to be designed or need a supreme intelligence to be created when the theory that it is just leaching minerals from water that will do this fits OK.

From simple things can grow more complex things. Black holes are accretions of matter. Matter is formed of subatomic particles and so on. Where do these particles come from ?. Maybe we'll never know, maybe we will work it out what gives matter mass and inertia. To claim this is God or Allah begs the question of the origin of these new entities.

It makes little sense to state that the most knowledgeable being in this universe that we know of is man but man wasn't around when the Big Bang formed...therefore God...when simpler theories fit and predict.

[muhammad rasullah]

......

He is asking you how you know this is a quality of the first cause?

Where did the black hole come from? How did it get there? Something of a higher and supreme intellect had to create it. And the most knowledgable being in this universe that we know of is man. and since man didn't exist nor the things from which it so-called evolved from did I say that this is the supreme and sovereign, all-knowing, all-wise and all-powerful. And I call him Allah meaning the one.

As this is the "science and religion" forum so I think I can safely say your logic is utter nonsense (The Quran is just plain "old nonsense" whereas "utter nonsense" is what you get when you try to use old nonsense out of context.)

A stalagmite (or 'tite) in caves are formed through the slow drips and accretions of minerals. No one designs these - they just form from running water and porous land - though they may look complex and designed.

It's illogical to say that these needed to be designed or need a supreme intelligence to be created when the theory that it is just leaching minerals from water that will do this fits OK.

From simple things can grow more complex things. Black holes are accretions of matter. Matter is formed of subatomic particles and so on. Where do these particles come from ?. Maybe we'll never know, maybe we will work it out what gives matter mass and inertia. To claim this is God or Allah begs the question of the origin of these new entities.

It makes little sense to state that the most knowledgeable being in this universe that we know of is man but man wasn't around when the Big Bang formed...therefore God...when simpler theories fit and predict.

As this is the "science and religion" forum so I think I can safely say your logic is utter nonsense (The Quran is just plain "old nonsense" whereas "utter nonsense" is what you get when you try to use old nonsense out of context.)

Please how can you say I make no sense when you have nothing to support your statement. you can give me plenty of statements of how things evolve and what they evolve from but you have no answer in determining from which the origin came. you say,

Black holes are accretions of matter. Matter is formed of subatomic particles and so on. Where do these particles come from ?.

how can you believe this to be true when you don't know where they cam from? You cannot question the origin of something which has no origin! God is not a man or anything you can imagine it's impossible to do so. What you want to see is proof of God's existence and you have been looking at it the whole time in examining the creation. I know it's hard to fathom God as he is, and it is too difficult to understand God and all his qualities and attributes because they far exceed anything you know.

A stalagmite (or 'tite) in caves are formed through the slow drips and accretions of minerals.

yes but where do these minerals come from?

[Goat]

......

He is asking you how you know this is a quality of the first cause?

Where did the black hole come from? How did it get there? Something of a higher and supreme intellect had to create it. And the most knowledgable being in this universe that we know of is man. and since man didn't exist nor the things from which it so-called evolved from did I say that this is the supreme and sovereign, all-knowing, all-wise and all-powerful. And I call him Allah meaning the one.

As this is the "science and religion" forum so I think I can safely say your logic is utter nonsense (The Quran is just plain "old nonsense" whereas "utter nonsense" is what you get when you try to use old nonsense out of context.)

A stalagmite (or 'tite) in caves are formed through the slow drips and accretions of minerals. No one designs these - they just form from running water and porous land - though they may look complex and designed.

It's illogical to say that these needed to be designed or need a supreme intelligence to be created when the theory that it is just leaching minerals from water that will do this fits OK.

From simple things can grow more complex things. Black holes are accretions of matter. Matter is formed of subatomic particles and so on. Where do these particles come from ?. Maybe we'll never know, maybe we will work it out what gives matter mass and inertia. To claim this is God or Allah begs the question of the origin of these new entities.

It makes little sense to state that the most knowledgeable being in this universe that we know of is man but man wasn't around when the Big Bang formed...therefore God...when simpler theories fit and predict.

As this is the "science and religion" forum so I think I can safely say your logic is utter nonsense (The Quran is just plain "old nonsense" whereas "utter nonsense" is what you get when you try to use old nonsense out of context.)

Please how can you say I make no sense when you have nothing to support your statement. you can give me plenty of statements of how things evolve and what they evolve from but you have no answer in determining from which the origin came. you say,

Black holes are accretions of matter. Matter is formed of subatomic particles and so on. Where do these particles come from ?.

how can you believe this to be true when you don't know where they cam from? You cannot question the origin of something which has no origin! God is not a man or anything you can imagine it's impossible to do so. What you want to see is proof of God's existence and you have been looking at it the whole time in examining the creation. I know it's hard to fathom God as he is, and it is too difficult to understand God and all his qualities and attributes because they far exceed anything you know.

A stalagmite (or 'tite) in caves are formed through the slow drips and accretions of minerals.

yes but where do these minerals come from?

The minerals come from the combination of chemicals that were condensed togather via gravitational forces. these matierals were created in nuclear fusion of hydrogen in star formation and scattered when those stars when nova.

But, ultimately all the hydrogen and helium came from the 'cooling' of the quark soup after the expansion of the singularity into the universe. Where did the singularity come from?? I don't know. My personal hope is that it is God. But, I don't know it is God.

The phrase "I don't know" is not evidence for God.

[byofrcs]

A stalagmite (or 'tite) in caves are formed through the slow drips and accretions of minerals.

yes but where do these minerals come from?

Use Google to find the composition of stalagmites yourself.

The point was that you presume that things which look complex are designed and that we presume that these are designed by man.

You said, "Where did the black hole come from? How did it get there? Something of a higher and supreme intellect had to create it. And the most knowledgable being in this universe that we know of is man. and since man didn't exist nor the things from which it so-called evolved from did I say that this is the supreme and sovereign, all-knowing, all-wise and all-powerful. And I call him Allah meaning the one. "

Black holes are quite big masses of stuff. I was trying to make it simpler; stalagmites and thus you would equally say,

"Where did the stalagmite hole come from? How did it get there? Something of a higher and supreme intellect had to create it. And the most knowledgable being in this universe that we know of is man. and since man didn't exist nor the things from which it so-called evolved from did I say that this is the supreme and sovereign, all-knowing, all-wise and all-powerful. And I call him Allah meaning the one. "

Now you are arguing the origin of the matter (or minerals) of a black hole (or stalagmite).

The origin of the minerals for stalagmites (i.e. CaCO3 plus other stuff) are best explained by theories on the metallicity of the universe. These are fairly well known (and do not mention your fictional Allah) but in essence rely on supernova.

Now we know all atoms are made up of smaller bits (electrons, neutrons and protons) and complex technology like the LHC hopefully will make the gaps for God to hide smaller (and require even bigger and fancier colliders I would imagine).

The problem is simple to describe; I can generate a magnetic field and yet no one knows what it really is (electrons have it but given a magnetic field passes through an insulator it isn't electron flows but I can use a metal as a magnetic shield). We can feel gravity and yet again we do not know what causes it nor can easily shield or generate this. We have lots of evidence of fundamental particles in which we don't know how they exist.

It is thus premature of us to suddenly posit Allah because of the lack in technology.

Gods are quite the opposite. Many people say they exist and yet they are unable to show evidence of this and yet it is claimed that this entity is the fundamental source of the Universe. So fundamental that in all the billions of stars, in billions of galaxies, Allah is more interested in forbidding the eating of bacon sandwiches and expects people to call to prayer 5 times a day.

Now the funny thing is that in Christian countries where the God is the same God, it doesn't mind about bacon sandwiches, or beer and there is no call to prayer 5 times a day.

This is really part of the problem. Even though your invention you call Allah is alleged to be the creator of the universe (with a billion billion stars or more) countries that worship the slightly mad but crafty warlord, Mohammed, who repackaged the Jewish/Christian idea of God and called it Allah, would imprison me for saying that. Basically your religion has little credibility other than being a mechanism to suppress people.

So before you start going on about how hard it is to work out and understand God and all his qualities and attributes because they far exceed anything you know, you people haven't even got the straight story yourself. There is no consistent message as to exactly what the creator is. Now I can understand that with nuclear physics because it's quite clear there are gaps; but for a religion that claims to have the revealed word of God and tries to run countries ? Give us a break; that's just autocratic politics.

Firstly work a universal and consistent definition of God that nearly all people agree on (just like nearly all people agree E=MC^2) and then come back.

[muhammad rasullah]

A stalagmite (or 'tite) in caves are formed through the slow drips and accretions of minerals.

yes but where do these minerals come from?

Use Google to find the composition of stalagmites yourself.

The point was that you presume that things which look complex are designed and that we presume that these are designed by man.

You said, "Where did the black hole come from? How did it get there? Something of a higher and supreme intellect had to create it. And the most knowledgable being in this universe that we know of is man. and since man didn't exist nor the things from which it so-called evolved from did I say that this is the supreme and sovereign, all-knowing, all-wise and all-powerful. And I call him Allah meaning the one. "

Black holes are quite big masses of stuff. I was trying to make it simpler; stalagmites and thus you would equally say,

"Where did the stalagmite hole come from? How did it get there? Something of a higher and supreme intellect had to create it. And the most knowledgable being in this universe that we know of is man. and since man didn't exist nor the things from which it so-called evolved from did I say that this is the supreme and sovereign, all-knowing, all-wise and all-powerful. And I call him Allah meaning the one. "

Now you are arguing the origin of the matter (or minerals) of a black hole (or stalagmite).

The origin of the minerals for stalagmites (i.e. CaCO3 plus other stuff) are best explained by theories on the metallicity of the universe. These are fairly well known (and do not mention your fictional Allah) but in essence rely on supernova.

Now we know all atoms are made up of smaller bits (electrons, neutrons and protons) and complex technology like the LHC hopefully will make the gaps for God to hide smaller (and require even bigger and fancier colliders I would imagine).

The problem is simple to describe; I can generate a magnetic field and yet no one knows what it really is (electrons have it but given a magnetic field passes through an insulator it isn't electron flows but I can use a metal as a magnetic shield). We can feel gravity and yet again we do not know what causes it nor can easily shield or generate this. We have lots of evidence of fundamental particles in which we don't know how they exist.

It is thus premature of us to suddenly posit Allah because of the lack in technology.

Gods are quite the opposite. Many people say they exist and yet they are unable to show evidence of this and yet it is claimed that this entity is the fundamental source of the Universe. So fundamental that in all the billions of stars, in billions of galaxies, Allah is more interested in forbidding the eating of bacon sandwiches and expects people to call to prayer 5 times a day.

Now the funny thing is that in Christian countries where the God is the same God, it doesn't mind about bacon sandwiches, or beer and there is no call to prayer 5 times a day.

This is really part of the problem. Even though your invention you call Allah is alleged to be the creator of the universe (with a billion billion stars or more) countries that worship the slightly mad but crafty warlord, Mohammed, who repackaged the Jewish/Christian idea of God and called it Allah, would imprison me for saying that. Basically your religion has little credibility other than being a mechanism to suppress people.

So before you start going on about how hard it is to work out and understand God and all his qualities and attributes because they far exceed anything you know, you people haven't even got the straight story yourself. There is no consistent message as to exactly what the creator is. Now I can understand that with nuclear physics because it's quite clear there are gaps; but for a religion that claims to have the revealed word of God and tries to run countries ? Give us a break; that's just autocratic politics.

Firstly work a universal and consistent definition of God that nearly all people agree on (just like nearly all people agree E=MC^2) and then come back.

The origin of the minerals for stalagmites (i.e. CaCO3 plus other stuff) are best explained by theories on the metallicity of the universe. These are fairly well known (and do not mention your fictional Allah) but in essence rely on supernova.

Supernova- 1. the explosion of a star, possibly caused by gravitational collapse, during which the star's luminosity increases by as much as 20 magnitudes and most of the star's mass is blown away at very high velocity, sometimes leaving behind an extremely dense core who made the star and where did it come from? can you answer that no you cannot.

you continue to rely on theories so what is a theory?
Theory- contemplation or speculation. guess or conjecture.
so what your telling me is that every post you put to prove yourcase is from a theory and nothing is fact. okay now i understand why you cant give me an answer! this is evidence in your answers:
I asked where did the black hole come from?

Black holes are quite big masses of stuff.

What!!!

The problem is simple to describe; I can generate a magnetic field and yet no one knows what it really is (electrons have it but given a magnetic field passes through an insulator it isn't electron flows but I can use a metal as a magnetic shield). We can feel gravity and yet again we do not know what causes it nor can easily shield or generate this. We have lots of evidence of fundamental particles in which we don't know how they exist.

What I don't understand is this. How can you believe in all these theories which do not give you the source of anything. but can't accept that a greater existence is behind the creation of everything it baffles me really. Islam has all the credibility in the world. answer this question then how does evolution explain emotion in humans? where did that evolve from?

[byofrcs]

.......................

you continue to rely on theories so what is a theory?
Theory- contemplation or speculation. guess or conjecture.
so what your telling me is that every post you put to prove yourcase is from a theory and nothing is fact. okay now i understand why you cant give me an answer! this is evidence in your answers:
I asked where did the black hole come from?

Black holes are quite big masses of stuff.

What!!!

The problem is simple to describe; I can generate a magnetic field and yet no one knows what it really is (electrons have it but given a magnetic field passes through an insulator it isn't electron flows but I can use a metal as a magnetic shield). We can feel gravity and yet again we do not know what causes it nor can easily shield or generate this. We have lots of evidence of fundamental particles in which we don't know how they exist.

What I don't understand is this. How can you believe in all these theories which do not give you the source of anything. but can't accept that a greater existence is behind the creation of everything it baffles me really. Islam has all the credibility in the world. answer this question then how does evolution explain emotion in humans? where did that evolve from?

You have mistaken the sense of the word "theory" in how I have used it. Was that deliberate ?. My use is in the scientific sense in that

...a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.

(Wikipedia contributors, "Theory," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =186889020 (accessed January 29, 2008).)

You asked where did the star come from ?. Stars are accretions of matter. You ask where does the matter come from and I say subatomic particles. You ask where these come from and I answer that what gives particles mass isn't yet clear and that such machines as the LHC could help answer this.

You keep asking questions any yet refuse to answer mine.

So firstly you must work on a universal and consistent definition of God that nearly all people agree on (just like nearly all people agree E=MC^2) and then come back.

Your only evidence for Allah is a book written by people many years ago. It is a book of tales to help someone rule by force. Not the first to use religion and god as an authority and probably won't be the last. Nothing in it is predictive and nothing in it is prescient. It is of human origin and as a somewhat plagiarised copy of earlier Christian and Jewish works it makes it as nasty a syncretise to humanity as those works.