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?

[McCulloch]

How can you prove than man is a species of apes they are totally two distinctly different existences. To say that humans are apes is ridiculous you obviously agree with the evolution theory. Then wheres the evidence of a talking ape or an ape who walks upright and lives civilized as human beings. the correct statement would be humans are humans and apes are apes!! Science needs to correct itself before it makes such bold statements!

Let's work backwards.
Animals are multicellular life forms which are not plants. Humans are therefore animals.
Mammals are animals with warm blood, hair, backbones that birth their young live. Humans are mammals.
Primates are omnivorous mammals with well developed of the hands and feet, a shortened snout, a large brain, varied locomotion, and by complex flexible behavior involving a high level of social interaction and cultural adaptability. Humans are primates.
Apes are primates characterized by long arms, a broad chest, and the absence of a tail. Humans are apes. The other apes are chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons and siamangs.

Animals are different from human beings they don't have the thinking capacity humans do, they can't speak languages like humans can or do anything at the level of a humans being. they don't have free will as humans have! so tell me where does the leap from ape to human begin where is sciences evidence for this claim?

Humans are the animal with the greatest known thinking capacity and the most highly developed linguistic ability. That does not remove us from being animals. There is nothing in the scientific definition of animal that precludes intelligence, language or free will. Where is your evidence that humans are not apes? We certainly fit the definition!

[MrWhy]

Science cannot clarify many things that go beyond the natural raelm of understanding. for instance the origin of man, creation of the universe etc.

It is common knowledge that science cannot answer many questions. Scientists are usually very skeptical and require a lot of evidence before any idea is accepted as a valid theory. The word “proof” if not often used. Doubt and skepticism is how knowledge advances. Reasonable people acknowledge there is much we don’t know.

Knowledge and certainty are two different concepts and should not be confused when evaluating any issue. We can recognize that a particular theory is the best available explanation of the known data, but never achieves 100% certainty. This should not be misinterpreted as saying we know nothing, and there's nothing to choose between that and some other idea that has less or no evidence. An accepted, or established theory means that any alternative to replace it is going to have to be better, explain more, predict more, fit the facts better. Lack of 100% certainty in a theory should not be a license to believe some other idea that has even less evidence.

Most of these ideals have no proof and since this is the case only end as theories unproven knowledge.

Any theory is accepted as provisional. It may be recognized as the best available theory until it is finally superseded by a better one, or is found false by new facts. Evidence is support for the truth of a proposition, and includes anything that makes a proposition more likely and contrary propositions less likely. Some evidence can be listed for almost anything, but a reasonable person should withhold conclusions until a high level of supporting evidence is established. The quality of evidence has to do with the credibility of the facts and the theories. Opinions and conclusions should be considered temporary, and be guided by the preponderance of evidence, and not by faith, tradition, or desire.

Science doesn't answer the questions of why and how things are and come to existence and their purpose for being.

Science does not attempt to assume or pursue “purpose”, just the how and why things work as they do. There is no evidence of any divine “purpose” as you imply.

Supreme knowledge and knowledge of all things known and unknown is attributed to a supreme and sovereign existence God almighty.

This would be conjecture. The absence of evidence does not support speculation that a god entity exists.

How can we come to the conclusion that a god does not exist? By examining the evidence that people create ideas about gods, and the lack of evidence that a god exist.

Many of sciences claims and discoveries have been previous known by man through revelation of scripture as the quran tells us about the ceation of man from a single blood clot "nutfah", "sperm" 1,400 years ago before this discovery was known and the earth being round and not flat which men of previous years after the qurans revelation thought was true. So the question is who has the knowledge of scince before science is known to man? It has to be a supreme and all-knowing God which all knowledge is attributed! If this is not the case then where are the talking and walking monkeys the evolution theory claims and this big bang theory that created the unviverse?

This claimed knowledge of science in the Quran does not hold up under careful analysis. To fit current knowledge, the specific points always require very creative interpretation of scripture, and many assumptions.

[muhammad rasullah]

How can you prove than man is a species of apes they are totally two distinctly different existences. To say that humans are apes is ridiculous you obviously agree with the evolution theory. Then wheres the evidence of a talking ape or an ape who walks upright and lives civilized as human beings. the correct statement would be humans are humans and apes are apes!! Science needs to correct itself before it makes such bold statements!

Let's work backwards.
Animals are multicellular life forms which are not plants. Humans are therefore animals.
Mammals are animals with warm blood, hair, backbones that birth their young live. Humans are mammals.
Primates are omnivorous mammals with well developed of the hands and feet, a shortened snout, a large brain, varied locomotion, and by complex flexible behavior involving a high level of social interaction and cultural adaptability. Humans are primates.
Apes are primates characterized by long arms, a broad chest, and the absence of a tail. Humans are apes. The other apes are chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons and siamangs.

Animals are different from human beings they don't have the thinking capacity humans do, they can't speak languages like humans can or do anything at the level of a humans being. they don't have free will as humans have! so tell me where does the leap from ape to human begin where is sciences evidence for this claim?

Humans are the animal with the greatest known thinking capacity and the most highly developed linguistic ability. That does not remove us from being animals. There is nothing in the scientific definition of animal that precludes intelligence, language or free will. Where is your evidence that humans are not apes? We certainly fit the definition!

If you examine both humans being and apes by structure and genetic make up then yes we have some similarities but you cannot define the two by this. If we go backwards then we must go further to the beginning and examine the purpose of our existence and creation. Nothing is created without purpose! also the capacity to which we can do and achieve things. Examine the things which make humans different from apes and if the differences out weigh the similarities then the conclusions is obvious. I am pretty sure many more things can be named that humans can do that apes can't. So religion and science are both taken out and only logic and reasoning leads to conclusions. Again if humans are apes we obviously have to had evovled from them please answer the question, where is the evidence of a talking monkey who speaks spanish or english, greek or slang or anything if this proof is given i have no arguement.

[Cathar1950]

It seems it is a matter of what we are looking for and how we are using science.
I wonder if the word any longer captures all the meanings and use. We can think of science as our cultural knowledge or we can think of it as methodologies.
It seems to be grounded in our experience and the experience of others. Understanding and meaning are behind our searches but usefulness often shapes them.

[muhammad rasullah]

Science cannot clarify many things that go beyond the natural raelm of understanding. for instance the origin of man, creation of the universe etc.

It is common knowledge that science cannot answer many questions. Scientists are usually very skeptical and require a lot of evidence before any idea is accepted as a valid theory. The word “proof” if not often used. Doubt and skepticism is how knowledge advances. Reasonable people acknowledge there is much we don’t know.

The root word of knowledge is know and how can you know something to be true unless you have proof an evidence to support what you know. Without the proof it is false conjecture. why try to find evidence of something that is not true? it serves no purpose.

Knowledge and certainty are two different concepts and should not be confused when evaluating any issue. We can recognize that a particular theory is the best available explanation of the known data, but never achieves 100% certainty. This should not be misinterpreted as saying we know nothing, and there's nothing to choose between that and some other idea that has less or no evidence. An accepted, or established theory means that any alternative to replace it is going to have to be better, explain more, predict more, fit the facts better. Lack of 100% certainty in a theory should not be a license to believe some other idea that has even less evidence.

Certainty is only 100% you either know it or you don't true or false. certainty leaves no doubt so you either have it or you don't. and when your and idea does not have certainty it is not theory it's false, doubtful. how can accept and establish something which is uncertain? No certainty in an idea gives one the license to leave falsehood and conjecture to search for truth. knowone should believe things which are uncertain.

Most of these ideals have no proof and since this is the case only end as theories unproven knowledge.

Any theory is accepted as provisional. It may be recognized as the best available theory until it is finally superseded by a better one, or is found false by new facts. Evidence is support for the truth of a proposition, and includes anything that makes a proposition more likely and contrary propositions less likely.

Some evidence can be listed for almost anything, but a reasonable person should withhold conclusions until a high level of supporting evidence is established. The quality of evidence has to do with the credibility of the facts and the theories. Opinions and conclusions should be considered temporary, and be guided by the preponderance of evidence, and not by faith, tradition, or desire.

The quality of evidence should depend on the validity and reliabilty of its source not by other falsehoods and conjecture that support it.


[

quote]Science doesn't answer the questions of why and how things are and come to existence and their purpose for being.

Science does not attempt to assume or pursue “purpose”, just the how and why things work as they do. There is no evidence of any divine “purpose” as you imply.

Supreme knowledge and knowledge of all things known and unknown is attributed to a supreme and sovereign existence God almighty.

This would be conjecture. The absence of evidence does not support speculation that a god entity exists.

This is not conjecture the evidence lies within the questions scientist refuse to answer because they know they can't everything in existence cannot be proven by science and science refuses to attribute such knowledge to a higher and supreme entity. Science refuses to examine purpose. if we believe that we evolved from apes then where does our ability to think and conceptualize come from? everything and its origin comes from the creater and the reason why we are this way stems from our purpose and since nothing is created without purposes we come to this conclusion that such knowledge is attributed to the all mighty, all knowing! Science doesn't know who put the sun where it is. They refuse to aswer the who and why because they can't!
How can we come to the conclusion that a god does not exist? By examining the evidence that people create ideas about gods, and the lack of evidence that a god exist.
It isn't an idea it's fact that god exist. if not what is the reason or purpose for our existence?

Many of sciences claims and discoveries have been previous known by man through revelation of scripture as the quran tells us about the ceation of man from a single blood clot "nutfah", "sperm" 1,400 years ago before this discovery was known and the earth being round and not flat which men of previous years after the qurans revelation thought was true. So the question is who has the knowledge of scince before science is known to man? It has to be a supreme and all-knowing God which all knowledge is attributed! If this is not the case then where are the talking and walking monkeys the evolution theory claims and this big bang theory that created the unviverse?

This claimed knowledge of science in the Quran does not hold up under careful analysis. To fit current knowledge, the specific points always require very creative interpretation of scripture, and many assumptions.

Why does this knowledge in the quran not hold up? Who else knew that the world wasn't flat but round 1,400 years ago besides those who read the quran? Who else knew about the water in the sea that their is a part in the sea where the two waters salt and fresh don't mix 1,400 years ago? Just because you don't agree with the source doesn't mean the source isn't valid and reliable.[/quote]

[MrWhy]

If you examine both humans being and apes by structure and genetic make up then yes we have some similarities but you cannot define the two by this. If we go backwards then we must go further to the beginning and examine the purpose of our existence and creation. Nothing is created without purpose!

How do you know this? When you say "purpose" do you mean function? I don't understand where or how this "purpose" is demonstrated?

also the capacity to which we can do and achieve things. Examine the things which make humans different from apes and if the differences out weigh the similarities then the conclusions is obvious. I am pretty sure many more things can be named that humans can do that apes can't.

There are many aspects of human behavior that appear to be more like what you would expect of a smart ape. Just watch the evening news. Human intelligence is not much greater than apes.

So religion and science are both taken out and only logic and reasoning leads to conclusions. Again if humans are apes we obviously have to had evovled from them please answer the question, where is the evidence of a talking monkey who speaks spanish or english, greek or slang or anything if this proof is given i have no arguement.

Evolution theory has never stated that man evolved from an ape. Man and ape evolved from a common ancestor, and then took separate paths which changed some characteristics of each. Grunts became more complex and more specific as the human line changed over a very long period of time. There was not likely to be a specific time or place where language began. It probably started with a very small set of different sounds that acquired a common meaning to members of a local group. Today it's recognized that many animals have certain vocalizations that mean danger, food, or threat.

The author Sam Harris explains this.
"The concept of a "species" is misleading, however, and it tempts us to think that we, as homo sapiens, have arrived at some well-defined position in the natural order. The term "species" merely designates a population of organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring; it cannot be aptly applied to the boundaries between species (to what are often called "intermediate" or "transitional" forms). There was, for instance, no first member of the human species, and there are no canonical members now. Life is a continuous flux. Our nonhuman ancestors bred, generation after generation, and incrementally begat what we now deem to be the species homo sapiens — ourselves."

[MrWhy]

Science cannot clarify many things that go beyond the natural raelm of understanding. for instance the origin of man, creation of the universe etc.

It is common knowledge that science cannot answer many questions. Scientists are usually very skeptical and require a lot of evidence before any idea is accepted as a valid theory. The word “proof” if not often used. Doubt and skepticism is how knowledge advances. Reasonable people acknowledge there is much we don’t know.

The root word of knowledge is know and how can you know something to be true unless you have proof an evidence to support what you know. Without the proof it is false conjecture. why try to find evidence of something that is not true? it serves no purpose.

Knowledge and certainty are two different concepts and should not be confused when evaluating any issue. We can recognize that a particular theory is the best available explanation of the known data, but never achieves 100% certainty. This should not be misinterpreted as saying we know nothing, and there's nothing to choose between that and some other idea that has less or no evidence. An accepted, or established theory means that any alternative to replace it is going to have to be better, explain more, predict more, fit the facts better. Lack of 100% certainty in a theory should not be a license to believe some other idea that has even less evidence.

Certainty is only 100% you either know it or you don't true or false. certainty leaves no doubt so you either have it or you don't. and when your and idea does not have certainty it is not theory it's false, doubtful. how can accept and establish something which is uncertain? No certainty in an idea gives one the license to leave falsehood and conjecture to search for truth. knowone should believe things which are uncertain.

Most of these ideals have no proof and since this is the case only end as theories unproven knowledge.

Any theory is accepted as provisional. It may be recognized as the best available theory until it is finally superseded by a better one, or is found false by new facts. Evidence is support for the truth of a proposition, and includes anything that makes a proposition more likely and contrary propositions less likely.

Some evidence can be listed for almost anything, but a reasonable person should withhold conclusions until a high level of supporting evidence is established. The quality of evidence has to do with the credibility of the facts and the theories. Opinions and conclusions should be considered temporary, and be guided by the preponderance of evidence, and not by faith, tradition, or desire.

The quality of evidence should depend on the validity and reliabilty of its source not by other falsehoods and conjecture that support it.


[

quote]Science doesn't answer the questions of why and how things are and come to existence and their purpose for being.

Science does not attempt to assume or pursue “purpose”, just the how and why things work as they do. There is no evidence of any divine “purpose” as you imply.

Supreme knowledge and knowledge of all things known and unknown is attributed to a supreme and sovereign existence God almighty.

This would be conjecture. The absence of evidence does not support speculation that a god entity exists.

This is not conjecture the evidence lies within the questions scientist refuse to answer because they know they can't everything in existence cannot be proven by science and science refuses to attribute such knowledge to a higher and supreme entity. Science refuses to examine purpose. if we believe that we evolved from apes then where does our ability to think and conceptualize come from? everything and its origin comes from the creater and the reason why we are this way stems from our purpose and since nothing is created without purposes we come to this conclusion that such knowledge is attributed to the all mighty, all knowing! Science doesn't know who put the sun where it is. They refuse to aswer the who and why because they can't!
How can we come to the conclusion that a god does not exist? By examining the evidence that people create ideas about gods, and the lack of evidence that a god exist.
It isn't an idea it's fact that god exist. if not what is the reason or purpose for our existence?

Many of sciences claims and discoveries have been previous known by man through revelation of scripture as the quran tells us about the ceation of man from a single blood clot "nutfah", "sperm" 1,400 years ago before this discovery was known and the earth being round and not flat which men of previous years after the qurans revelation thought was true. So the question is who has the knowledge of scince before science is known to man? It has to be a supreme and all-knowing God which all knowledge is attributed! If this is not the case then where are the talking and walking monkeys the evolution theory claims and this big bang theory that created the unviverse?

This claimed knowledge of science in the Quran does not hold up under careful analysis. To fit current knowledge, the specific points always require very creative interpretation of scripture, and many assumptions.

Why does this knowledge in the quran not hold up? Who else knew that the world wasn't flat but round 1,400 years ago besides those who read the quran? Who else knew about the water in the sea that their is a part in the sea where the two waters salt and fresh don't mix 1,400 years ago? Just because you don't agree with the source doesn't mean the source isn't valid and reliable.

The point you are missing is that it is OK to acknowledge and say "I don't know". Scientists do this. The facts indicate there many unanswered questions, so "we don't know" is the only reasonable response.

Our relative basis of information appears to be too different to allow much progress if we discuss many issues at the same time. It might be interesting to choose your favorite Quran science point and discuss only that one claim.

[muhammad rasullah]

If you examine both humans being and apes by structure and genetic make up then yes we have some similarities but you cannot define the two by this. If we go backwards then we must go further to the beginning and examine the purpose of our existence and creation. Nothing is created without purpose!

How do you know this? When you say "purpose" do you mean function? I don't understand where or how this "purpose" is demonstrated?

I know this through the inventions which man has created and everything had a purpose for its creation. when I say purpose i mean the reason for which something exists or is done. The only one who would know with certainty this purpose would be the one who created us, this would the all knowing and science doesn't answer this question. Who does something without purpose or even knowing the purpose or reason why they would do them? The answer is those in creation who do not have the ability to know what is right and wrong and don't have free will as human beings do. 'Animals"

also the capacity to which we can do and achieve things. Examine the things which make humans different from apes and if the differences out weigh the similarities then the conclusions is obvious. I am pretty sure many more things can be named that humans can do that apes can't.

There are many aspects of human behavior that appear to be more like what you would expect of a smart ape. Just watch the evening news. Human intelligence is not much greater than apes.

yes humans sometimes act in an animal like nature but at least they have a reason and know the reason why they do it.

So religion and science are both taken out and only logic and reasoning leads to conclusions. Again if humans are apes we obviously have to had evovled from them please answer the question, where is the evidence of a talking monkey who speaks spanish or english, greek or slang or anything if this proof is given i have no arguement.

Evolution theory has never stated that man evolved from an ape. Man and ape evolved from a common ancestor, and then took separate paths which changed some characteristics of each. Grunts became more complex and more specific as the human line changed over a very long period of time. There was not likely to be a specific time or place where language began. It probably started with a very small set of different sounds that acquired a common meaning to members of a local group. Today it's recognized that many animals have certain vocalizations that mean danger, food, or threat.

Whon is this common ancestor? What happened to this common ancestor?Grunts don't turn into english and spanish and other languages. grunts don't become complex grunts are grunts.

The author Sam Harris explains this.
"The concept of a "species" is misleading, however, and it tempts us to think that we, as homo sapiens, have arrived at some well-defined position in the natural order. The term "species" merely designates a population of organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring; it cannot be aptly applied to the boundaries between species (to what are often called "intermediate" or "transitional" forms). There was, for instance, no first member of the human species, and there are no canonical members now. Life is a continuous flux. Our nonhuman ancestors bred, generation after generation, and incrementally begat what we now deem to be the species homo sapiens — ourselves."

How can there be no first member of humans i would surely like to see a human and an ape breed and produce another human being.

[Beto]

How can there be no first member of humans i would surely like to see a human and an ape breed and produce another human being.

Please bear with me for a while and consider that evolution might be true. Can you think of a change that would make a human being more efficient in its environment? Can you think of a hundred? How about a thousand? How do you think all these changes could affect the way humans look like? Regardless of how dramatic the changes might be, would the species cease to be called Human to be called something else? What about one million changes ago? Why would the species be called something other than Human, because of how it looks at the time?

[muhammad rasullah]

Our relative basis of information appears to be too different to allow much progress if we discuss many issues at the same time. It might be interesting to choose your favorite Quran science point and discuss only that one claim.[/quote]
78:12 And (have We not) built over you the seven firmaments
78:13 And placed (therein) a Light of Splendour?

In the above verse, the word "light" is used for the Moon ("nooran" in Arabic) and the word "lamp" for the Sun ("sirajan" in Arabic.) The word used for the Moon refers to a light-reflecting, bright, motionless body. The word used for the Sun refers to a celestial body which is always burning, a constant source of heat and light.

On the other hand, the word "star" comes from the Arabic root "nejeme," meaning "appearing, emerging, visible." As in the verse below, stars are also referred to by the word "thaqib," which is used for that which shines and pierces the darkness with light: self-consuming and burning.

86:3 (It is) the Star of piercing brightness;-
We now know that the Moon does not emit its own light but reflects that reaching it from the Sun. We also know that the Sun and stars do emit their own light. These facts were revealed in the Qur'an in an age when mankind simply did not have the means to make scientific discoveries of their own accord. It was an age when peoples' knowledge of celestial bodies was severely restricted, to say the least. This further emphasises the miraculous nature of the book of Islam.