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]

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

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.

[quote+"byofrcs"]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).)[/quote]

I don't mistake the word theory I know what the word means the definition is clear. You cannot use the definition as you like and for your own purpose. here are some other definitions for theory, a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. Dictionary.com
Here is the definition of a fact, a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts". You have chosen to be more expansive and scientific with it and I chose to be more frank and reasonable.

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.

Alright here is the definition of who Allah is which is universally excepted by all. http://www.dawateislami.net/general/dev ... /index.htm
Even though there are different religions we all think of god alike!
now to my question.
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]

.....

I don't mistake the word theory I know what the word means the definition is clear. You cannot use the definition as you like and for your own purpose. here are some other definitions for theory, a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. Dictionary.com
Here is the definition of a fact, a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts". You have chosen to be more expansive and scientific with it and I chose to be more frank and reasonable.

You were not more frank and reasonable but were trying to make a disingenuous attempt to devalue my answers. I caught you out. I think we'll leave it at that.

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.

Alright here is the definition of who Allah is which is universally excepted by all. http://www.dawateislami.net/general/dev ... /index.htm
Even though there are different religions we all think of god alike!
now to my question.
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?

The web site you link to is SPAM. A bizarre acid-trip-meets-Photoshop that certainly meets the criteria for what I call Islamic-bling. It plasters watermarks across the images and has no logical relationship with the images and the concept plus I bet that the photostock used isn't royalty free and if free the source of the stock isn't cited.

Humans have given many deities many attributes. I have read a lot of fiction e.g. Michael Moorcock's Elric series introduces a number. Egyptian Gods (which pre-date the invention of Allah by many years) also have many attributes.

Your listing these *isn't* evidence (any more than my writing a cheque for a million dollars means I have a million dollars in the bank. Trust me - life doesn't work that way) and it isn't a universally acceptable description because not only would Deists not agree with you, the evidence for these names is the Qur'an and Sunnah. These documents have no factual basis for what they claim and unfortunately without any shred of evidence that the documents and conventions are sourced from any God we can't really take your word for this. Dawkins presents such beliefs as delusion.

As for evolution explain emotion ?. Just like evolution explains any attribute of humans though it may not be obvious (your use of this is as a appeal to ignorance but that is another matter) and I like the reply from here,

1. Once the brain and consciousness have evolved, emotions, personality, and mind may be unavoidable. They certainly have selective advantage. Emotions serve to motivate us. And people without personality tend not to get laid.

(my bold)

2. People who have had pets know that cats, dogs, even birds also exhibit emotions and personality.

It is true - my dog has a personality (my avatar is actually her on her back getting a tummy rub - when she smiles it's all teeth - plus a bit of GIMP to spook people).

[muhammad rasullah]

The web site you link to is SPAM. A bizarre acid-trip-meets-Photoshop that certainly meets the criteria for what I call Islamic-bling. It plasters watermarks across the images and has no logical relationship with the images and the concept plus I bet that the photostock used isn't royalty free and if free the source of the stock isn't cited.

Okay what are you talking about if you ask any religious person if these names they attribute to whoever their God is they will tell you yes. don't focus so much on the arabic words but more so on the meaning of them you can't deny it if you are religious and believe in a God.

Again please don't try to critique my sources and say that they aren't valid when you keep on telling me maybe's and could possibly and all other things in your definitions that you think is fact. If it's fact then there is no maybe or could possibly explain either it does or it doesn't simple as that don't beat around the bush here. Certainty is only 100% not 50%!!

1. Once the brain and consciousness have evolved, emotions, personality, and mind may be unavoidable. They certainly have selective advantage. Emotions serve to motivate us. And people without personality tend not to get laid.

what is up with this maybe stuff if you are so correct you don't ever see me write maybe in any of my statements of proof, what the problem you aren't sure. Evidense doesn't have maybe's and if you went in front of a jury you would lose!

So what you are saying is that you don't know how emotions come into play with evolution! Why didn't plants evolve emotions? what happened? And if you can't bring evidense without saying maybe then you can't use it becasue it's not certain.

[byofrcs]

The web site you link to is SPAM. A bizarre acid-trip-meets-Photoshop that certainly meets the criteria for what I call Islamic-bling. It plasters watermarks across the images and has no logical relationship with the images and the concept plus I bet that the photostock used isn't royalty free and if free the source of the stock isn't cited.

Okay what are you talking about if you ask any religious person if these names they attribute to whoever their God is they will tell you yes. don't focus so much on the arabic words but more so on the meaning of them you can't deny it if you are religious and believe in a God.

Again please don't try to critique my sources and say that they aren't valid when you keep on telling me maybe's and could possibly and all other things in your definitions that you think is fact. If it's fact then there is no maybe or could possibly explain either it does or it doesn't simple as that don't beat around the bush here. Certainty is only 100% not 50%!!

OK. I'm 100% certain the Qu'ran is a pile of crap fictional stories invented to help someone rule.

See it is true as I said "100%" and "certain". Hey this is great. I can now solve so many undecided problems in science, politics, maths by simply sticking in 100% certain in front of whatever I say without the need for any evidence to support what I say.

I must thank you for this new approach. It's so much easier than qualifying what I say.

1. Once the brain and consciousness have evolved, emotions, personality, and mind may be unavoidable. They certainly have selective advantage. Emotions serve to motivate us. And people without personality tend not to get laid.

what is up with this maybe stuff if you are so correct you don't ever see me write maybe in any of my statements of proof, what the problem you aren't sure. Evidense doesn't have maybe's and if you went in front of a jury you would lose!

So what you are saying is that you don't know how emotions come into play with evolution! Why didn't plants evolve emotions? what happened? And if you can't bring evidense without saying maybe then you can't use it becasue it's not certain.

I think you've lost the plot here with the fallacy of many questions. When evidence is presented to a jury then it is on the balance of probabilities that it is judged. Both sides say that they are telling the truth so who is not ?

On one hand we have a huge selection of evidence for Evolution and on your side we have what ? A book written by someone long ago that contains a lot of made-up stories. I can present many such books both past and present that are equally true.

It doesn't matter that I phrase what I say to show that there is always a certain level of uncertainty in science because science is not mathematics. It is only in mathematics (which is not a science) that you can make claims of certainty.

Again using the new-"muhammad rasullah" approach I'm 100% certain that plants have emotions and that evolution gave us emotion. I needn't justify why I think this.

I'll be off now to talk to some trees.

[muhammad rasullah]

The web site you link to is SPAM. A bizarre acid-trip-meets-Photoshop that certainly meets the criteria for what I call Islamic-bling. It plasters watermarks across the images and has no logical relationship with the images and the concept plus I bet that the photostock used isn't royalty free and if free the source of the stock isn't cited.

Okay what are you talking about if you ask any religious person if these names they attribute to whoever their God is they will tell you yes. don't focus so much on the arabic words but more so on the meaning of them you can't deny it if you are religious and believe in a God.

Again please don't try to critique my sources and say that they aren't valid when you keep on telling me maybe's and could possibly and all other things in your definitions that you think is fact. If it's fact then there is no maybe or could possibly explain either it does or it doesn't simple as that don't beat around the bush here. Certainty is only 100% not 50%!!

OK. I'm 100% certain the Qu'ran is a pile of crap fictional stories invented to help someone rule.

See it is true as I said "100%" and "certain". Hey this is great. I can now solve so many undecided problems in science, politics, maths by simply sticking in 100% certain in front of whatever I say without the need for any evidence to support what I say.

I must thank you for this new approach. It's so much easier than qualifying what I say.

1. Once the brain and consciousness have evolved, emotions, personality, and mind may be unavoidable. They certainly have selective advantage. Emotions serve to motivate us. And people without personality tend not to get laid.

what is up with this maybe stuff if you are so correct you don't ever see me write maybe in any of my statements of proof, what the problem you aren't sure. Evidense doesn't have maybe's and if you went in front of a jury you would lose!

So what you are saying is that you don't know how emotions come into play with evolution! Why didn't plants evolve emotions? what happened? And if you can't bring evidense without saying maybe then you can't use it becasue it's not certain.

I think you've lost the plot here with the fallacy of many questions. When evidence is presented to a jury then it is on the balance of probabilities that it is judged. Both sides say that they are telling the truth so who is not ?

On one hand we have a huge selection of evidence for Evolution and on your side we have what ? A book written by someone long ago that contains a lot of made-up stories. I can present many such books both past and present that are equally true.

It doesn't matter that I phrase what I say to show that there is always a certain level of uncertainty in science because science is not mathematics. It is only in mathematics (which is not a science) that you can make claims of certainty.

Again using the new-"muhammad rasullah" approach I'm 100% certain that plants have emotions and that evolution gave us emotion. I needn't justify why I think this.

I'll be off now to talk to some trees.

[quote="byofrcs']OK. I'm 100% certain the Qu'ran is a pile of crap fictional stories invented to help someone rule.

See it is true as I said "100%" and "certain". Hey this is great. I can now solve so many undecided problems in science, politics, maths by simply sticking in 100% certain in front of whatever I say without the need for any evidence to support what I say.
[/quote] Well that's another theory excuse me I mean opinion you have. but again what I'ved said you somehow get the opposite from it. What I am saying is if you are proving your case to a jury and you go up on the stand you cannot say a bunch of maybe's and probably's or could be's you need to be certain when you define or bring evidence to show someone you know what you are talking about or at least speak like you know it's true but you can't debate about something your not sure of. In court you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and your claims of evolution leave reasonable doubt because you explain and define using too many maybe and you are not certain. If you're going to say that your 100% certain that quran is what you think it is then you can bring evidence but you can't prove something with a maybe. but be careful because if you cannot prove your certainty then this is evidence against you that you are wrong. When start off with maybe though you already bring evidence against yourself that you maybe wrong.

[quote="byofrcs']Again using the new-"muhammad rasullah" approach I'm 100% certain that plants have emotions and that evolution gave us emotion. I needn't justify why I think this.[/quote]
If you really believe that plants have emotions then why don't they cry, or get scared when it thunders? And if they do how can you tell if or when they display emotions?

[Cathar1950]

I am thinking something exists and science helps us check it out and helps seperate between what is and isn't. But even the imagination exists.
I think it was N. Boer that said for something or anything to exist it must be felt.
Whitehead hinted that feeling was a precurser to thought.
I love to muddy the waters because it is easy and it makes things much clearer.

[byofrcs]

Again using the new-"muhammad rasullah" approach I'm 100% certain that plants have emotions and that evolution gave us emotion. I needn't justify why I think this.

If you really believe that plants have emotions then why don't they cry, or get scared when it thunders? And if they do how can you tell if or when they display emotions?

Facts are they are 100% happy when it rains (so they tell me). Thunder means clouds, clouds mean rain, rain is good. Plants are happy. It's obvious isn't it ? No maybe about that one.

OK they don't actually have brains or a central nervous system but we can't let these doubts spoil the argument for the jury now can we as we just have to convince the jury that what we say is true regardless of if it is reality or not.

Someday you will understand that a jury presentation isn't science but a show presentation to win a case. The science is not on trial and so I need not adopt an adversarial approach.

So which version of Islam do you promote ? . Sunni or Shia ? Maybe I need to rephrase my question; come back, not when you have a 100% consistent view of God but a 100% consistent view of each other which doesn't involve killing each other.

[muhammad rasullah]

I am thinking something exists and science helps us check it out and helps seperate between what is and isn't. But even the imagination exists.
I think it was N. Boer that said for something or anything to exist it must be felt.
Whitehead hinted that feeling was a precurser to thought.
I love to muddy the waters because it is easy and it makes things much clearer.

why can't you feel air? don't we know that exists?

[muhammad rasullah]

Again using the new-"muhammad rasullah" approach I'm 100% certain that plants have emotions and that evolution gave us emotion. I needn't justify why I think this.

If you really believe that plants have emotions then why don't they cry, or get scared when it thunders? And if they do how can you tell if or when they display emotions?

Facts are they are 100% happy when it rains (so they tell me). Thunder means clouds, clouds mean rain, rain is good. Plants are happy. It's obvious isn't it ? No maybe about that one.

OK they don't actually have brains or a central nervous system but we can't let these doubts spoil the argument for the jury now can we as we just have to convince the jury that what we say is true regardless of if it is reality or not.

Someday you will understand that a jury presentation isn't science but a show presentation to win a case. The science is not on trial and so I need not adopt an adversarial approach.

So which version of Islam do you promote ? . Sunni or Shia ? Maybe I need to rephrase my question; come back, not when you have a 100% consistent view of God but a 100% consistent view of each other which doesn't involve killing each other.

Facts are they are 100% happy when it rains (so they tell me). Thunder means clouds, clouds mean rain, rain is good. Plants are happy. It's obvious isn't it ? No maybe about that one.

your reasoning behing this is very illogical!! Just because rain is good for the plants doesn't mean there happy. And besides how do you know there happy when it rains? It's now way for you to tell since they don't have emotiions? just admit it and taking this through twists and turns just because you can't no or your wrong about this one. There are things which happen to people that are good for them and they don't like them and there are also things that happen to people which are bad for them but they like them over something which is better. But you know what the difference is between plants and us we can choose but plants can't choose whether it rains for them or get water when they need it. So again how do you know there happy if this is true and no this is not obvious?

OK they don't actually have brains or a central nervous system but we can't let these doubts spoil the argument for the jury now can we as we just have to convince the jury that what we say is true regardless of if it is reality or not.

Nope don't agree with you there! why lie to the people when you know what your saying isn't true that's just dumb and eventually from what your saying they'll figure it out sooner rather than later. But this statement just tells me you know your wrong about this anyway but you just want to keep this going. We can't let doubts spoil the arguement that's just crazy if you have doubts there is no need for an arguement. how can you prove something which you don't have full understanding or even knowledge of? The conversation is futile!

Someday you will understand that a jury presentation isn't science but a show presentation to win a case. The science is not on trial and so I need not adopt an adversarial approach.

I understand this but the juries job is to discern the truth from falshood and you can't prove anything telling somebody maybe and what if all the time it just won't work. And then when you say your maybe's are true then you have to prove and you realize you can't because it is a maybe and probably that is why you can't state these as truth or certain because you don't know. So why don't you just say it and stop pulling my leg here!!!
if you want to know what I am then I am a muslim I don't subscribe to any sect to separate myself from others. I am a muslim just as the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was he didn't claim anything which those claim today. (sunni or shi'ite) And I follow what the messenger practised and taught.

[McCulloch]

why can't you feel air? don't we know that exists?

I can feel air, can't you?