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?

[bernee51]

If you don't even know what "primates" refers to, you're way in over your head.

apparently i don't know what they mean so please tell me?

You, assuming you are of the species homo sapiens are a primate.

There are at least questionable photos of Big Foot. The same can't be said about your "Allah".

This is the same as people have done before requesting to see allah for themselves before they believe.

So in order to 'see' you have to first 'believe'. If I do not 'believe' I will not 'see'.

it is interesting to note yet another similarity between christianity and islam - circular arguments.

how can you see allah when it is he who created the sun and you cannot stare into the sun without going blind. you will never see allah only until the day of judgement.

This is what is known as a non sequitor. Christians are known to use such devices as well.

[Beto]

That is the thing you fail to see primates don't have complex languages.

If you don't even know what "primates" refers to, you're way in over your head.

apparently i don't know what they mean so please tell me?!

You're one.

There are at least questionable photos of Big Foot. The same can't be said about your "Allah".

This is the same as people have done before requesting to see allah for themselves before they believe.

I'm not one of them. I have no illusions about meeting logical fallacies.

how can you see allah when it is he who created the sun and you cannot stare into the sun without going blind.

Not true. I have stared at the sun on many occasions.

[McCulloch]

That is the thing you fail to see primates don't have complex languages.

The thing you fail to see is that the definition of primate does not exclude the development of complex languages. Obviously one primate has developed complex languages, humans.

Let's start at the beginning and review the taxonomy.
There are things which are alive and things which are not.
Humans are alive, water is not.
I hope that you are with me here. There is no need for a third classification of things which are alive, things which are not and humans, is there?

Biologists divide the things which are alive into single celled life forms and multi-celled life forms. [Real biologists reviewing this will notice the oversimplification, but it will serve our purpose.]
Paramecium are single celled and humans are multi-celled. Again, I hope that you can agree with every biologist that humans are multi-celled life forms and there is no need for a special category of life form for humans.

Multicellular life forms are divided into plants and animals. There are only two categories. There is no justification for saying that multicellular life is divided into three categories, plants, animals and humans. Animals are multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli. Humans are multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and limited growth, move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow us to respond rapidly to stimuli. Humans clearly are animals; we are not plants. On this point, you have expressed disagreement. I don't see it. Humans have all of the attributes that qualifies us to be animal life.

Within the animals, there is a group of animals called mammals. Mammals are warm-blooded vertebrates having the skin more or less covered with hair; young are born alive except for the small subclass of monotremes and nourished with milk. Humans are warm-blooded vertebrates having the skin more or less covered with hair; young are born alive and nourished with milk. Clearly, humans are mammals.

Primates are omnivorous mammals distinguished by the use of hands, varied locomotion, and by complex flexible behavior involving a high level of social interaction and cultural adaptability. Please notice that there is nothing in the definition of primate which excludes complex language. Humans are omnivorous mammals distinguished by the use of hands, varied locomotion, and by complex flexible behavior involving a high level of social interaction and cultural adaptability. Clearly, humans are primates.

Apes are primates with long arms, a broad chest, and the absence of a tail. Humans are primates with long arms, a broad chest, and the absence of a tail. Chimpanzees are also primates with long arms, a broad chest, and the absence of a tail. There are differences between humans and chimpanzees as there are greater differences between gibbon and chimpanzees. Humans have developed complex written and oral language. The other primates have not.

[muhammad rasullah]

That is the thing you fail to see primates don't have complex languages.

If you don't even know what "primates" refers to, you're way in over your head.

apparently i don't know what they mean so please tell me?!

You're one.

There are at least questionable photos of Big Foot. The same can't be said about your "Allah".

This is the same as people have done before requesting to see allah for themselves before they believe.

I'm not one of them. I have no illusions about meeting logical fallacies.

how can you see allah when it is he who created the sun and you cannot stare into the sun without going blind.

Not true. I have stared at the sun on many occasions.

apparently i don't know what they mean so please tell me?!

You're one.

I surely am not a primate I am a human being with an intellectual capacity that no animal will ever have. One who knows the difference between right and wrong and truth and falsehood. Animals don't it not in there nature!

I'm not one of them. I have no illusions about meeting logical fallacies.

Maybe that's the problem If you think your an animal then you'll act like one! Use the mind That Allah has given you to think about the life of this world.

Not true. I have stared at the sun on many occasions.

[/quote]

I would like to see you on a bright sunny summers days stare into the sun for one hour without closing your eyes or looking away! It's impossible!

[Beto]

apparently i don't know what they mean so please tell me?!

You're one.

I surely am not a primate I am a human being with an intellectual capacity that no animal will ever have.

If you say so.

One who knows the difference between right and wrong and truth and falsehood. Animals don't it not in there nature!

Some individuals of a particular species do.

I'm not one of them. I have no illusions about meeting logical fallacies.

Maybe that's the problem If you think your an animal then you'll act like one!

I don't see a problem here.

Not true. I have stared at the sun on many occasions.

I would like to see you on a bright sunny summers days stare into the sun for one hour without closing your eyes or looking away! It's impossible!

You should've been more specific than. Is there also a proper time when can see this "Allah" character?

[muhammad rasullah]

That is the thing you fail to see primates don't have complex languages.

The thing you fail to see is that the definition of primate does not exclude the development of complex languages. Obviously one primate has developed complex languages, humans.

Let's start at the beginning and review the taxonomy.
There are things which are alive and things which are not.
Humans are alive, water is not.
I hope that you are with me here. There is no need for a third classification of things which are alive, things which are not and humans, is there?

Biologists divide the things which are alive into single celled life forms and multi-celled life forms. [Real biologists reviewing this will notice the oversimplification, but it will serve our purpose.]
Paramecium are single celled and humans are multi-celled. Again, I hope that you can agree with every biologist that humans are multi-celled life forms and there is no need for a special category of life form for humans.

Multicellular life forms are divided into plants and animals. There are only two categories. There is no justification for saying that multicellular life is divided into three categories, plants, animals and humans. Animals are multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli. Humans are multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and limited growth, move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow us to respond rapidly to stimuli. Humans clearly are animals; we are not plants. On this point, you have expressed disagreement. I don't see it. Humans have all of the attributes that qualifies us to be animal life.

Within the animals, there is a group of animals called mammals. Mammals are warm-blooded vertebrates having the skin more or less covered with hair; young are born alive except for the small subclass of monotremes and nourished with milk. Humans are warm-blooded vertebrates having the skin more or less covered with hair; young are born alive and nourished with milk. Clearly, humans are mammals.

Primates are omnivorous mammals distinguished by the use of hands, varied locomotion, and by complex flexible behavior involving a high level of social interaction and cultural adaptability. Please notice that there is nothing in the definition of primate which excludes complex language. Humans are omnivorous mammals distinguished by the use of hands, varied locomotion, and by complex flexible behavior involving a high level of social interaction and cultural adaptability. Clearly, humans are primates.

Apes are primates with long arms, a broad chest, and the absence of a tail. Humans are primates with long arms, a broad chest, and the absence of a tail. Chimpanzees are also primates with long arms, a broad chest, and the absence of a tail. There are differences between humans and chimpanzees as there are greater differences between gibbon and chimpanzees. Humans have developed complex written and oral language. The other primates have not.

Okay you say

The thing you fail to see is that the definition of primate does not exclude the development of complex languages. Obviously one primate has developed complex languages, humans.

What i want know is this. How did these languages develop from nothing if we were once ape like and they didn't speak language back then who taught them how to speak? language is learned it isn't something that is developed without previously being there it has to already have been present in order for it to develop. grunts don't turn into spanish, greek, hebrew, english or arabic. It's no way possible if you were to put a baby in the wild away from any human life form that he will grunt and develop english or any other language. In fact if you were to come to this person speaking english and he was an adult he wouldn't understand a thing you were saying. A vise versa if you were to put a monkey with human beings and speak english around them they still wouldn't know what you are saying because they don't have this capacity to learn and speak it as humans. they may be able to understand some things but even those things are very little and limited. Language is learned not developed.

Animals are multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli. Humans are multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and limited growth, move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow us to respond rapidly to stimuli.

This is a very limited defintion and does not show the extended capabillities which human beings possess. If you want to go by this limited standard then yes you could say that they are animals. But a more thorough defintiion needs to be used which describe the capabilities that the human being contains.

[MrWhy]

I think some posters are wasting their time. There is too much distance between minds participating on this thread. Is Rasullah a devil's advocate?

[byofrcs]

I think some posters are wasting their time. There is too much distance between minds participating on this thread. Is Rasullah a devil's advocate?

Not really wasting time as what I do is double-check what I am saying before I post. I would expect my answers to slowly change in time as new research comes to light and more importantly as I understand this new information.

I could ask the questions to myself but it's usually much better to have someone ignorant of the problem ask these. In this respect I find Muslims have an interestingly view when it comes to basic knowledge of the Universe.

I don't actually care if he/she changes their point of view; I'm not here to sell anything and make no money at all out of religion.

[QED]

What i want know is this. How did these languages develop from nothing if we were once ape like and they didn't speak language back then who taught them how to speak?

I'll wager that your enquiring mind will happily switch-off when it comes to certain things. I happen to think that the subject of things developing from nothing gets really interesting when it comes to God(s). My mind stays switched-on... I want to know who taught God how to construct universes. I bet that makes me an Infidel

BTW isn't it obvious that all animals communicate in some capacity? Even single cells send chemical signals to each other. Have a go at imagining how pointing and grunting could spark off a whole new language -- were we all to fall under a spell that robbed us of our current languages.

[McCulloch]

That is the thing you fail to see primates don't have complex languages.

If you don't even know what "primates" refers to, you're way in over your head.

apparently i don't know what they mean so please tell me?!

You're one.

I surely am not a primate I am a human being with an intellectual capacity that no animal will ever have. One who knows the difference between right and wrong and truth and falsehood. Animals don't it not in [strike]there[/strike][their] nature!

We have provided the definition of primate in great detail. Very clearly humans are primates. We have provided the definition of animal. Very clearly humans are animals. Yet you continue to stubbornly insist that humans are not animals and that humans are not primates. Why? You appear to be working under the false belief that the definitions of animal and primate exclude intellectual capacity and moral discernment. Please provide the source of this definition. We cannot meaningfully debate if you get to arbitrarily make up definitions for words.

Animals are multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli. Humans are multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and limited growth, move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow us to respond rapidly to stimuli.

This is a very limited definition and does not show the extended capabilities which human beings possess. If you want to go by this limited standard then yes you could say that they are animals. But a more thorough definition needs to be used which describe the capabilities that the human being contains.

Humans may be a special animal with extended capabilities, but by the common English and biological definition of the word animal, humans are animals. Perhaps what you are trying to express is that humans are not beasts.

What i want know is this. How did these languages develop from nothing if we were once ape like and they didn't speak language back then who taught them how to speak? Language is learned it isn't something that is developed without previously being there it has to already have been present in order for it to develop. Grunts don't turn into Spanish, Greek, Hebrew, English or Arabic. It's no way possible if you were to put a baby in the wild away from any human life form that he will grunt and develop English or any other language. In fact if you were to come to this person speaking English and he was an adult he wouldn't understand a thing you were saying. A vise versa if you were to put a monkey with human beings and speak English around them they still wouldn't know what you are saying because they don't have this capacity to learn and speak it as humans. They may be able to understand some things but even those things are very little and limited. Language is learned not developed.

This is a genuinely interesting field of inquiry. The truth is that no one really knows how language started. We know a bit (but not enough) about how languages change over time and how one language, for example Latin, can over generations of separated speaking groups can evolve into more languages, for example, Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Catalan, Galician, Occitan and Romanian. Given that linguistic change takes generations to happen, it is rather unlikely, as in your attempted counter-examples, that it could become fully developed in one generation.

There are two approaches you can take to this question. One approach is to say that we don't know how language originated, therefore it must have been supernatural. The other approach, more honest in my opinion, is to say, we don't know how language originated, so let's research the development of language in cultures, the processing of language in neurology, the learning of language in developing humans and proto-linguistic abilities in non-human animals and try to learn more about this difficult and interesting problem.

Which approach do you prefer?