What exactly exists according to science?

[achilles12604]

I bring this topic up because I just scanned the Christianity and Apologetics section and found that McCulloch has started at least 4 threads about the non-existence of "spiritual" or "supernatural" things. Science and scientific discovery is listed as "proof" in each of these threads.

I find this line of thinking to be forgetful of history.

Remember that there was a time when science stated that the world was flat and a round world was impossible and didn't exist.

Remember that there was a time when science said that communications over several hundred miles instantly was impossible.

Remember that there was a time when science was used to "prove" that someone was a witch.

Remember that there was a time when science stated that mankind COULD not break the sound barrier.

Remember that there was a time when science was sure that there were only 4 dimensions.

Remember that there was a time when science was sure that the supernatural could not be real . . . .



Does anyone else see the pattern of begging the question that this reasoning leads us to? So tell me again . . . why are we so sure that the supernatural doesn't exist? Why was it again that science proved God couldn't exist?

[achilles12604]

I am please that so many atheists responded just as I hoped they would. My last couple examples were by far the most effective as the recent discoveries of the speed of sound, and dimensions (not to mention Photons, virtual particles, etc) all have told us something we did not know before. We discovered that something we previously thought to be impossible, or something we previously could not concieve of, did in fact exist.

So does science actually "disprove" God? Or is God simply beyond the reach of science, just as breaking the sound barrier or photons, or virtual particles used to be?

I wouldn’t be so please if I were you as you were asked to show where science believed such examples. If they thought it was impossible to go faster then the sound barrier why did they keep trying?

Because some people foolishly BELIEVED IN IT.

*ouch*


Hence they kept believing in it. Einstein BELIEVED in relativity to his death without the slightest proof and in the face of skeptics in the scientific community. What a believer.

[zepper899]

Because some people foolishly BELIEVED IN IT.
*ouch*
Hence they kept believing in it. Einstein BELIEVED in relativity to his death without the slightest proof and in the face of skeptics in the scientific community. What a believer.

Einstein had rational proof. Religious people don`t.

Thats the difference. One requires a leap to faith, or ennculturation.

Science determines a theory from occurances, religion applies a theory to occurances.
Although Einstein did not have data, he had a legitimate argument.

[Cathar1950]

I am please that so many atheists responded just as I hoped they would. My last couple examples were by far the most effective as the recent discoveries of the speed of sound, and dimensions (not to mention Photons, virtual particles, etc) all have told us something we did not know before. We discovered that something we previously thought to be impossible, or something we previously could not concieve of, did in fact exist.

So does science actually "disprove" God? Or is God simply beyond the reach of science, just as breaking the sound barrier or photons, or virtual particles used to be?

I wouldn’t be so please if I were you as you were asked to show where science believed such examples. If they thought it was impossible to go faster then the sound barrier why did they keep trying?

Because some people foolishly BELIEVED IN IT.

*ouch*


Hence they kept believing in it. Einstein BELIEVED in relativity to his death without the slightest proof and in the face of skeptics in the scientific community. What a believer.

Not everything foolishly believed will be found to be true.
The problem most theists have is that they place God outside time, space and matter or outside the natural realm. Einstein or any of your so-called foolish examples were not dealing with the supernatural. Putting your concepts in the same category is rather nonsensical. Tell us how your concepts can be shown to be wrong or even right.
How would you disprove your concept? When the technology was sufficient they could show Einstein was correct and it was possible to show he was wrong.

[McCulloch]

I am please that so many atheists responded just as I hoped they would. My last couple examples were by far the most effective as the recent discoveries of the speed of sound, and dimensions (not to mention Photons, virtual particles, etc) all have told us something we did not know before. We discovered that something we previously thought to be impossible, or something we previously could not concieve of, did in fact exist.

So does science actually "disprove" God? Or is God simply beyond the reach of science, just as breaking the sound barrier or photons, or virtual particles used to be?
[...]
Einstein BELIEVED in relativity to his death without the slightest proof and in the face of skeptics in the scientific community. What a believer.

Einstein believed in relativity because it made theoretical sense. During the total eclipse of 1919, a British expedition to Brazil and West Africa, directed by Arthur Eddington, confirmed that Einstein's prediction based on relativity was correct, and the Newtonian predictions wrong. There would be more and better demonstrations of relativity later, but it is quite misleading to say that Einstein believed relativity without the slightest proof. He believed that relativity was possible because it fit the theoretical framework and the available evidence.

This is in contrast to the confident faith of the theist who's belief in the existence of a God is not even close to being proportional to the available evidence. Furthermore, they believe very specific things about this god, the substitutionary sacrifice of his son for instance, without the slightest proof.

The usual omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, personal god of the spiritual heirs of Abraham is not at all supported by evidence or by logic.

[HughDP]

Because some people foolishly BELIEVED IN IT.

*ouch*


Hence they kept believing in it. Einstein BELIEVED in relativity to his death without the slightest proof and in the face of skeptics in the scientific community. What a believer.

I really don't know where you're going with this. Scientific theories are falsifiable and if they are indeed falsified the scientific community reassesses. It's a process of continually refining our understanding of natural phenomena based on new evidence.

Christianity on the other hand refuses to be falsified in the light of any evidence. Indeed, even when faced with blatantly obvious facts it has historically persecuted and imprisoned the people who've pointed these facts out. Only reluctantly, under the weight of massive evidence, has it eventually conceded that the dogma may have been wrong.

Science and religion are different disciplines with different values.