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?

[zepper899]

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?

I doubt that you will find many people (you may call them scientists, if you will) who will say that they can guarantee, 100%, that there is no supernatural. That is the same as proclaiming that our current physical laws explain every possible existence. You seize on the picky details many people use when trying to disprove something that goes against the religion's theology, such as evolution.
Scientific sites are riddle with words like 'we hypothesize,' 'probably' 'most likely,' words that suggest that science is always open to change.
Scientists are not "sure" that the supernatural doesnt' exist, or that God doesn't exist, its just that I (albeit not a scientist), haven't found ANY proof that God exists. The only suggestion for me came from the Church, which seemed rather baseless upon further rumination.
I believe McCulloch suggests that an omnipotent, omnipresent god is logically impossible, not any instance of the supernatural

[McCulloch]

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.

Is there any reason to believe in things without evidence.

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

Really? Could you cite some examples of scientists who claimed that the world was flat? My recollection is that the objections to the hypothesis of a spherical earth came from religion.

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

[citation required]

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

Science, you mean like the Malleus Maleficarum? I really don't think that you can put the persecution of witches at the feet of science.

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

One of the principles of science is that ideas can always be challenged and might be proven wrong. One of the principles of divine revelation is that the apparent revelation from God must be true regardless of evidence and subject to interpretation. BTW, can you cite any scientist who claimed that the sound barrier could not be broken? Or even better, can you cite any scientist who claimed that if the sound barrier could be broken, it would have to be a miracle?

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

Actually, three. Time was not originally considered a dimension. However, once reason and evidence were brought into play, virtually all scientists now agree that time is a dimension and that more than four are possible. What evidence is there for supernatural beings? What evidence could there be for the supernatural?

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

Once being proven to be true, what alleged supernatural thing would continue to be considered supernatural?

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?

Does anyone else see the fallacious pattern in this line of reasoning? It is logic and reason, not science which disproves the existence of most people's concept of God.

[Furrowed Brow]

What exactly exists according to science?

To varying degrees of accuracy here is an extensive list of Fundamental Constants. These constants are measured in different types of units depending on the constant e.g. metres, seconds, Joules, Kilograms, electron volts, amperes etc. To this list we can add certain principles like conservation of momentum, the 2nd law etc. To answer your first question: what exists is what science can define by different combination of units, and what science can measure as the value of that definition, and what obeys its basic principles.

The classic example you failed to mention is Phlogiston. A now discredited concept that onetime science tried to define and measure - and went to some effort to do that. But whilst Phlogiston is usually raised as an example of science making a big mistake, really the lesson should be that science corrects its mistakes. The lists of constant you will find via the link are the culmination of a couple of centuries of rigorous self correction.

why are we so sure that the supernatural doesn't exist?

Firstly the complete lack of self correction should be the give away to the bogusness of the subject. Secondly, there is no listing of fundamental supernatural constants. What units would we use? The problem here is not a lack of knowledge of a possible alternative ontology, it is a complete lack of coherence in the concept of supernatural. And because there is no self correction going on the lack of coherence is never challenged - except by external critics.

But the problem is deeper than just a lack of self correction. The mistake is to confuse the language of religion e.g. spirit, soul, heaven, God and so forth as a meaningful language that could ever represent something that can be measured and defined and obey any definable principle let alone physical principles. No supernatural listing exists - not through lack of observation or knowledge - but through lack of a coherent definition of what is meant by spirit, soul, the power of prayer etc.

If you are equating “supernatural” with as yet unknown physics then Okay, but if physics gets round to discovering what is unknown, it will do so following its same old methodology, and will define its objects, and measure them as values of its definitions. A process that religious language is not fit for. So I am sure the supernatural as defined by Soul, God, heaven etc does not exist because such a question is meaningless. Much like asking science to measure the frumiousity of the Bandersnatch. The task is not hampered by lack of knowledge but by the fact the concepts are ill formed.

[HughDP]

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?

Science is not in the business of disproving God; it merely provides a consensus about natural phenomena based on observational evidence.

What science might have done is to remove a lot of the necessity for there to be a God - many events once deemed Acts of God or supernatural are now explained by science.

If God is genuinely and eternally supernatural then science will never have much to say about God directly.

I suppose one could envisage it saying something about God or the supernatural indirectly: if one imagines a time when science is stumped for aeons to explain something, making absolutely no progress, it might state that it simply doesn't know something and can't see how it would ever know - one might conclude that the 'something' it has failed to explain is at least supernatural, if not actually God.

I don't think that'll happen in my lifetime though.

[sacrosanct]

Science has no reason to prove or disprove God. God is Supernatural because he falls outside nature.

The term supernatural or supranatural (Latin: super, supra "above" + natura "nature") pertains to entities, events or powers regarded as beyond nature, in that they cannot be explained by the laws of the natural world. Religious miracles are typical of such “supernatural” claims, as are spells and curses, divination, the belief that there is an afterlife for the dead, and innumerable others. Supernatural themes are often associated with magical and occult ideas.
(Wikipedia)

The other examples you show are not exactly excellent pictures of failure in science. Some of them, such as the shape of the world, wasn't based on Science at all.

Burning Witches? Seriously? It doesn't get more supernatural.

What makes Science seem "opposed" to God is totally the fault of the followers of faith. They tend to make arguments that are demonstrably wrong. If Religion would leave Science alone, stop trying to force what they see as "correct" information into scientific models then Science wouldn't care about God.

There was Evolution. There is simply too much evidence. The Theory of Evolution is not going anywhere. At best, some of the small facts of evolution will change to tie up loose ends.

The Universe is at least 13 Billion years old. There is simply to much observational evidence.

Scientific Method, the greatest single contribution of Science to man, has been making correct preditions and removing false ones for a good long while.

So...

Science doesn't care if there is a God. It would only care of God tinkered with the natural laws of the Universe, and so far she hasn't.

Most things that once were attributed to God/God's has systematically been proven to have a natural explanation.

[Skeptic]

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?

McCulloch already touched on it but:
Being dynamic, as science is, all of those statements have been reevaluated with newer technology and disproven. Except one.
That is the nature of science. Discover something and then work to disprove it. Typically it is more of a refining than completely refuting what has been found. Yet in all that study no support has been found for the God hypothesis.

[byofrcs]

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.

I think you'll find that "science" has always said the earth was round. It's a myth that there was a myth that the earth was flat.

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

I think you'll find that "science" still would say this. Even at the speed of light a few hundred miles would take a millisecond or so (based on velocity of propagation of the medium) for any known signal to propagate. Maybe entangled particles could do this but I didn't think that quantum entanglement could be used to send information.

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

For witches I think you mean "religion" proved witches were witches. Also witches do exist. Familiars, demons and other nonsense probably doesn't exist any more than God exists but science was never used to test for those only that the victim was a witch by whatever criteria was picked.

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

Yes...and ?. Without technology mankind couldn't break the sound barrier. You need to cite someone who has said that the sound barrier could never be broken irrespective of the technology used.

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

But the 1884 book, Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions, was written by a theologian. Was science commenting on this or was Abbott commenting on science ?. You're going to have to cite who in science has said this as it rings no bells.

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

By definition it can't be real. When it is real then it ceases to be supernatural. All religions I know of have claimed that their gods are "real" or the gods have appeared in corporeal form. That's not a supernature but just nature we don't have much evidence for.

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?

But who has actually said that ?. God is unlikely to exist given the evidence to date and certainly not likely in the many fanciful formats presented from the numerous religions.

[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?

[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?
If God or what ever it is you think is true were to become understood it would no longer be supernatural, it would be natural.
Science is falsifiable where your superstition isn’t.