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]

Tiny point -

We can see the signs of this in the snow blizzards striking the northern parts of Europe and America every winter.

I live in northern Europe and we had about 10 flakes of snow this year. Last year we had none. The year before that we had one snowy weekend...round here, that means approximately 2 inches of snowfall.

But anyway, what you have posted here is a handful of comments from the man. I see nothing which supports your claim that he 'turned and accepted Islam'. The source seems to assume that because he comments that Mohammed was unlikely to have known certain things, they therefore must have come from God.

Okay then give me some hypothesis of where it could've come from? you can't just deny something false with no fact or rebuddle.

[muhammad rasullah]

http://creation.miracle-quran.com/image ... n3Eng2.jpg

So, some person who does not understand evolution makes a straw man out of their misunderstanding of it, then makes a claim about DNA, and thinks that 'destroys' the cornerstone of evolution. Furthermore, it's from a religious site that obviously thinks that if evolution is 'destroyed' by their misunderstanding of it, the only alternative solution is their particular creation myth?

Somehow, I don't think so. There are several very strong mistakes in the 'line of reasoning'. The assumption about dna, and the assumption how collagen is formed is two errors.

I noticed you still have not retracted the statement by Jacques Cousteau about his 'converting to Islam.'

read my last post on that topic carefully because whether Cousteau accepted Islam or not still does not take from the credibility of his statement about the science and knowledge of the quran!!
So are you saying that those statements about DNA in the evolution theory are wrong? If so then what is the basic hypothesis or fundamental aspect of the evolution theory if it is not DNA?

It is wrong in several declarations. First of all, all the TOE requires is that there is a mechanism for inheritance. It does not specify that it ALWAYS has to be DNA. Therefore, that statement is wrong. Second of all, it assume that the presence of DNA in the nucleolus of a cell does not influence such materials at collagen, since it is outside the cell.However, what DOES influence the creation of Collagen is proteins, and where are the specific proteins encoded?? By the DNA! Therefore, the assertion that DNA can not effect chemical reactions outside the cell is incorrect.

So , the sources you are using to proclaim the 'TRUTH' of the Qu'ran lie about Cousteau. They provide misinformation about the TOE. Yet, you want us to trust those sources, and you, for saying the Quran is the truth? Forgive me, when someone lies to me about things when trying to convince me of the truth, I am more than a little bit skeptical. If someone wants to convince me of the 'truth', they had better speak from knowledge and truth themselves, otherwise, I am not buying their bill of goods.

It also requires that there should identification of the missing link between apes and humans and where it occured.
What is the TOE? And what is the overall hypothesis of the evolution theory?

[muhammad rasullah]

Firsty if you would've read the verses closely you would see that when it talks about the separation between the waters it is not talking about a river.
27:61 Or, Who has made the earth firm to live in;made rivers in its midst; set thereon mountains immovable; and made a separating bar between the two bodies of flowing water? (can there be another) god besides Allah. Nay, most of them know not. You can see that he rivers and flowing water are not mentioned in the same instance but separately. Allah makes the distinction between rivers and two bodies of flowing water meaning oceans. These are the only two bodies of flowing water.
55:19 He has let free the two bodies of flowing water, meeting together 55:20 Between them is a Barrier which they do not transgress: The technology was not available to the people at that time to know what scientist have in the past fifty years have discovered. Again Muhammad was never exposed to any bodies of water just examine the area which he lived. In the desert there are no flowing bodies of water, how could he have known this?

Nope - I think you've lost this argument.

It says "river". You use semantics and sentence structures to try and turn a river into an ocean. This looks to be dishonest attempt by somebody to read more than it says.

It is a river. It is probably the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates. These alluvial salt marshs have a complex ecology that is very important in the history of humanity. Muhammad would easily have known about those.

But lets use logic against your claims. Maybe you forgot where Quran originated from ?. It is claimed to be revealed from God. It doesn't matter what Muhammad knew as it matters what God knew. If it was to say ocean it would say "ocean" unless God is as disingenuous as Islamic apologists.

So either you believe the Quran was invented by Muhammad (and his friends or scribes) or it comes from God. Either way it either says river and means river or it would say ocean and mean ocean.

It cannot say river but mean ocean. That is not a book for all of humanity but for apologists, cryptologists and lawyers. Unless this is one of those Hadiths that the Turkish government is gong to cull in the "Quran - Modern Edition".

It is really crazy how you are reading this! but lets go over it again shall we. lets see what the arabic says, Waith qala moosa lifatahu la abrahu hatta ablugha majmaAAa albahrayni aw amdiya huquban
18:60 Behold, Moses said to his attendant, "I will not give up until I reach the junction of the two seas or (until) I spend years and years in travel."
We see the word albahrayni appears in the previous verse when speaking of the two seas.It does so in the following as well mentioning the two bodies of flowing water.
Wahuwa allathee maraja albahrayni hatha AAathbun furatun wahatha milhun ojajun wajaAAala baynahuma barzakhan wahijran mahjooran

25:53 It is He Who has let free the two bodies of flowing water: One palatable and sweet, and the other salt and bitter; yet has He made a barrier between them, a partition that is forbidden to be passed.

And with the verse 27:61 which was quoted, Amman jaAAala alarda qararan wajaAAala khilalaha anharan wajaAAala laha rawasiya wajaAAala bayna albahrayni hajizan ailahun maAAa Allahi bal aktharuhum la yaAAlamoona

27:61 Or, Who has made the earth firm to live in; made rivers in its midst; set thereon mountains immovable; and made a separating bar between the two bodies of flowing water? (can there be another) god besides Allah. Nay, most of them know not.

you really don't even need to know arabic to see the difference in the words "river" and "seas" or "two bodies of flowing water" if you look at the placement of the arabic words and the english. In verse 25:53 the arabic word albahrayni is placed in the front of the verse nearly at the same point where flowing bodies of water is seen in the translation. The same is with verse 18:60 where albahrayni is located near the end of the arabic at the same place where the two seas is mentioned in the translation. But if we look at verse 27:61 we see that this is the if we were to say that albahrayni means river when albahrayni in the arabic is located near the end of the verse in the same place were it says "flowing bodies of water" and the word river is at the beginning of the verse. If you use this reasoning you will see that albahrayni means two seas or two bodies of flowing water and not river since the plaements of the translations are different. Hope this is clear enough for you.

[Fallibleone]

Tiny point -

We can see the signs of this in the snow blizzards striking the northern parts of Europe and America every winter.

I live in northern Europe and we had about 10 flakes of snow this year. Last year we had none. The year before that we had one snowy weekend...round here, that means approximately 2 inches of snowfall.

But anyway, what you have posted here is a handful of comments from the man. I see nothing which supports your claim that he 'turned and accepted Islam'. The source seems to assume that because he comments that Mohammed was unlikely to have known certain things, they therefore must have come from God.

Okay then give me some hypothesis of where it could've come from? you can't just deny something false with no fact or rebuddle.

Did I 'deny something false'? Where? I simply stated that the source you supplied assumes that because this person comments that Mohammed was unlikely to have known certain things, they therefore must have come from God. I don't have to give you a hypothesis of where the stuff would have come from. Some might find it acceptable to assume that if we don't know how something happened God must have done it, but I'm not one of those people. I'm a great believer in admitting we don't know the answer if we don't know the answer. Of course, the issue in this case is clouded by the obvious bias of the source.

[byofrcs]

Firsty if you would've read the verses closely you would see that when it talks about the separation between the waters it is not talking about a river.
27:61 Or, Who has made the earth firm to live in;made rivers in its midst; set thereon mountains immovable; and made a separating bar between the two bodies of flowing water? (can there be another) god besides Allah. Nay, most of them know not. You can see that he rivers and flowing water are not mentioned in the same instance but separately. Allah makes the distinction between rivers and two bodies of flowing water meaning oceans. These are the only two bodies of flowing water.
55:19 He has let free the two bodies of flowing water, meeting together 55:20 Between them is a Barrier which they do not transgress: The technology was not available to the people at that time to know what scientist have in the past fifty years have discovered. Again Muhammad was never exposed to any bodies of water just examine the area which he lived. In the desert there are no flowing bodies of water, how could he have known this?

Nope - I think you've lost this argument.

It says "river". You use semantics and sentence structures to try and turn a river into an ocean. This looks to be dishonest attempt by somebody to read more than it says.

It is a river. It is probably the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates. These alluvial salt marshs have a complex ecology that is very important in the history of humanity. Muhammad would easily have known about those.

But lets use logic against your claims. Maybe you forgot where Quran originated from ?. It is claimed to be revealed from God. It doesn't matter what Muhammad knew as it matters what God knew. If it was to say ocean it would say "ocean" unless God is as disingenuous as Islamic apologists.

So either you believe the Quran was invented by Muhammad (and his friends or scribes) or it comes from God. Either way it either says river and means river or it would say ocean and mean ocean.

It cannot say river but mean ocean. That is not a book for all of humanity but for apologists, cryptologists and lawyers. Unless this is one of those Hadiths that the Turkish government is gong to cull in the "Quran - Modern Edition".

It is really crazy how you are reading this! but lets go over it again shall we. lets see what the arabic says, Waith qala moosa lifatahu la abrahu hatta ablugha majmaAAa albahrayni aw amdiya huquban
18:60 Behold, Moses said to his attendant, "I will not give up until I reach the junction of the two seas or (until) I spend years and years in travel."
We see the word albahrayni appears in the previous verse when speaking of the two seas.It does so in the following as well mentioning the two bodies of flowing water.
Wahuwa allathee maraja albahrayni hatha AAathbun furatun wahatha milhun ojajun wajaAAala baynahuma barzakhan wahijran mahjooran

25:53 It is He Who has let free the two bodies of flowing water: One palatable and sweet, and the other salt and bitter; yet has He made a barrier between them, a partition that is forbidden to be passed.

And with the verse 27:61 which was quoted, Amman jaAAala alarda qararan wajaAAala khilalaha anharan wajaAAala laha rawasiya wajaAAala bayna albahrayni hajizan ailahun maAAa Allahi bal aktharuhum la yaAAlamoona

27:61 Or, Who has made the earth firm to live in; made rivers in its midst; set thereon mountains immovable; and made a separating bar between the two bodies of flowing water? (can there be another) god besides Allah. Nay, most of them know not.

you really don't even need to know arabic to see the difference in the words "river" and "seas" or "two bodies of flowing water" if you look at the placement of the arabic words and the english. In verse 25:53 the arabic word albahrayni is placed in the front of the verse nearly at the same point where flowing bodies of water is seen in the translation. The same is with verse 18:60 where albahrayni is located near the end of the arabic at the same place where the two seas is mentioned in the translation. But if we look at verse 27:61 we see that this is the if we were to say that albahrayni means river when albahrayni in the arabic is located near the end of the verse in the same place were it says "flowing bodies of water" and the word river is at the beginning of the verse. If you use this reasoning you will see that albahrayni means two seas or two bodies of flowing water and not river since the plaements of the translations are different. Hope this is clear enough for you.

I appreachiate the semantic analysis but this analysis belies the claim tha tthis is a book for all peaope. It is only with a reasonable understaning of Arabic that this nuance of the language shows this truth.

This is nonsensical as the Quran is claimed ot be for all peopl. I'm not conversant with Arabic enough to question your interpretation but what is clear is that you menationed "Oceans". I do feel you are elaborati

only surpassed by listening to a marketing department drooling over the fonts and Pantone colors used on a advertising campaign.

[byofrcs]

Firsty if you would've read the verses closely you would see that when it talks about the separation between the waters it is not talking about a river.
27:61 Or, Who has made the earth firm to live in;made rivers in its midst; set thereon mountains immovable; and made a separating bar between the two bodies of flowing water? (can there be another) god besides Allah. Nay, most of them know not. You can see that he rivers and flowing water are not mentioned in the same instance but separately. Allah makes the distinction between rivers and two bodies of flowing water meaning oceans. These are the only two bodies of flowing water.
55:19 He has let free the two bodies of flowing water, meeting together 55:20 Between them is a Barrier which they do not transgress: The technology was not available to the people at that time to know what scientist have in the past fifty years have discovered. Again Muhammad was never exposed to any bodies of water just examine the area which he lived. In the desert there are no flowing bodies of water, how could he have known this?

Nope - I think you've lost this argument.

It says "river". You use semantics and sentence structures to try and turn a river into an ocean. This looks to be dishonest attempt by somebody to read more than it says.

It is a river. It is probably the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates. These alluvial salt marshs have a complex ecology that is very important in the history of humanity. Muhammad would easily have known about those.

But lets use logic against your claims. Maybe you forgot where Quran originated from ?. It is claimed to be revealed from God. It doesn't matter what Muhammad knew as it matters what God knew. If it was to say ocean it would say "ocean" unless God is as disingenuous as Islamic apologists.

So either you believe the Quran was invented by Muhammad (and his friends or scribes) or it comes from God. Either way it either says river and means river or it would say ocean and mean ocean.

It cannot say river but mean ocean. That is not a book for all of humanity but for apologists, cryptologists and lawyers. Unless this is one of those Hadiths that the Turkish government is gong to cull in the "Quran - Modern Edition".

It is really crazy how you are reading this! but lets go over it again shall we. lets see what the arabic says, Waith qala moosa lifatahu la abrahu hatta ablugha majmaAAa albahrayni aw amdiya huquban
18:60 Behold, Moses said to his attendant, "I will not give up until I reach the junction of the two seas or (until) I spend years and years in travel."
We see the word albahrayni appears in the previous verse when speaking of the two seas.It does so in the following as well mentioning the two bodies of flowing water.
Wahuwa allathee maraja albahrayni hatha AAathbun furatun wahatha milhun ojajun wajaAAala baynahuma barzakhan wahijran mahjooran

25:53 It is He Who has let free the two bodies of flowing water: One palatable and sweet, and the other salt and bitter; yet has He made a barrier between them, a partition that is forbidden to be passed.

And with the verse 27:61 which was quoted, Amman jaAAala alarda qararan wajaAAala khilalaha anharan wajaAAala laha rawasiya wajaAAala bayna albahrayni hajizan ailahun maAAa Allahi bal aktharuhum la yaAAlamoona

27:61 Or, Who has made the earth firm to live in; made rivers in its midst; set thereon mountains immovable; and made a separating bar between the two bodies of flowing water? (can there be another) god besides Allah. Nay, most of them know not.

you really don't even need to know arabic to see the difference in the words "river" and "seas" or "two bodies of flowing water" if you look at the placement of the arabic words and the english. In verse 25:53 the arabic word albahrayni is placed in the front of the verse nearly at the same point where flowing bodies of water is seen in the translation. The same is with verse 18:60 where albahrayni is located near the end of the arabic at the same place where the two seas is mentioned in the translation. But if we look at verse 27:61 we see that this is the if we were to say that albahrayni means river when albahrayni in the arabic is located near the end of the verse in the same place were it says "flowing bodies of water" and the word river is at the beginning of the verse. If you use this reasoning you will see that albahrayni means two seas or two bodies of flowing water and not river since the plaements of the translations are different. Hope this is clear enough for you.

Yup certainly looks like he was talking about confluence. Doesn't mention "oceans" (I assume Arabic of the time has a word for Ocean and Allah would have known about this word when he sent Gabriel ?.

The text just seems to me to be talking about rivers and confluences especially between salt water and fresh water (which is clearly visible and would have been visible back then).

The Quran is clearly not a book for all as it is only through textual analysis and interpreting the syntax that the science is claimed to be revealed. It seems unlikely that there is much truth in such sophistry. There may be but it has taken you numerous postings to argue the placement of a few words means that the Quran reveals metalimnions or some such phenomena. This interpretation is grasping at straws.

What about a different interpretation ?. Where does the word Ocean come from ?. It is Greek from Okeanos/Oceanus who was the early god of the great earth-encircling river Okeanos.

Yes, the Greeks, over a thousand years before the Quran was written believed in the idea of a river which was the Ocean and on this floated the land. The scribes that wrote the Quran almost certainly would have known about this educated classical belief (it is referenced in the Iliad)

I content that the Quran is simply rephrasing Greek myth, attributing the design to Allah away from earlier Greek (Titans) gods.

[jack8256]

science dosent claim to prove anything, Its the THEORY of whatever (evolution posibly) and something only becomes a law (law of gravity etc) when everything else has been disproved and the main theory has enough evidence. even then it could be retracted at the drop of a hat if more evidence comes along.
so no science cant prove anything 100% but it can tell you what should be correct.

[McCulloch]

science dosent claim to prove anything, Its the THEORY of whatever (evolution posibly) and something only becomes a law (law of gravity etc) when everything else has been disproved and the main theory has enough evidence. even then it could be retracted at the drop of a hat if more evidence comes along.
so no science cant prove anything 100% but it can tell you what should be correct.

I think that you are over stating the case. In science, well established theories are not retracted a the drop of a hat. It takes a considerable amount of conclusive evidence to convince scientists to give up a well established theory, as it should.

[jack8256]

I appologise McCulloch. but I meant in commparisson to most religions. Your right that lots of evidence is needed, but by comparison its a mager step forward. But your right I pride myself on being balenced.

[McCulloch]

I appologise McCulloch. but I meant in commparisson to most religions. Your right that lots of evidence is needed, but by comparison its a mager step forward. But your right I pride myself on being balenced.

Are you implying that religions do not change their teachings?