-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can Science Prove Anything?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
The Great Architect
Active Member
Something just occurred to me: is it important to prove anything? I know it is human nature to be curious, but some people need absolute proof of everything, in order to believe that it's true.
Should we denounce/ mock/attempt to disprove someone's deepest beliefs -- simply because we can't see it, or feel it? I don't think so.
So much of the need for proof is counter-productive.of course, some beliefs are ridiculous to the point of being dangerous; those are troublesome. In most cases, though, it is live, and let live.
Too much about time on this Earth, is spent trying to prove someone else is wrong. All this negative energy!
Should we denounce/ mock/attempt to disprove someone's deepest beliefs -- simply because we can't see it, or feel it? I don't think so.
So much of the need for proof is counter-productive.of course, some beliefs are ridiculous to the point of being dangerous; those are troublesome. In most cases, though, it is live, and let live.
Too much about time on this Earth, is spent trying to prove someone else is wrong. All this negative energy!
crystalonyx
Well-Known Member
It usually is to the IRS.
MSizer
MSizer
I have to disagree with you. Yes, there is merit in proving things, because correct information is one of the necessary elements of making decisions for which actions we should take. If we want to abolish suffering, we need to know first what the causes of suffering are, else we're almost hopeless to abolish them. The same is true of the so-called "spiritual" experiences. Once neuroscientists complete the map of the biology behind them, we'll be able to treat them the way we do mental illnesses (ie- with medicine and therapy).
ThereIsNoSpoon
Active Member
No. It just closes in on the truth using the simple assumption that repeated and diversified experiements yielding the result you anticipated in your theory indicate a good aproximation of the daily workings in this universe.
Actually no. He more often tries to tell me i just imagine those because of phsycholgical stress. He is not very good at prooving that either however
Amhairghine
Member
We (I am a research scientist) know certain facts. We can prove but that is a long story I can do if you wish. We know the oldest rocks are 4.4 billion years old (i.e. Earth is 4.4 billion years old or older. We know the Earth formed after the Sun had already ignited. Why? We can see distant solar systems in early stages of formation. We see stars igniting. We see ignited stars surrounded by disks of debris not yet forming planets. We can see other young solar systems in which planets have begun to accrete and are accreting. This puts Genesis 1 to be a lie.
We know Earth is spherical, with a crust composed of moving plates called tectonic plates that are propelled by a combination of circulating magma currents that we can measure plus the pulling of the plate under an interplate subduction zone. The plate movements are measured in the trenches with deep sea markers and spreading plates are measured at the surface in Iceland and East Africa where the rift is above sea level. We place markers on either side of the rift zone and measure the distance they move apart yearly.
We know we humans evolved from other apes because of fossil evidence and the highly accurate genetic markers that can even tell when we and chimps separated from the Human-Chimp common ancestor 6 million years ago. We can tell when Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalis separated from our common ancestor Homo heidelbergensis between 350,000 and 400,000 years ago. We know when modern Homo sapiens sapiens split from more primitive Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens idaltu over 100,000 years ago in East Africa. We know from the genes when our ancestors left African about 70,000 years ago following the catastrophy of Mount Toba's eruption, and we went to Arabia. Then branches split to Asia, India-Indonesia, and Europe (the last being about 40,000 to 45,000 years ago (I am a European, and descendant of that group.)
I could go on about knowing the universe is at least 13.7 billion years old because we can see a gamma ray burst that occurred in a star in the very early universe. We know because it took the radiation and light 13.7 billion years to reach us.
Yes. We can anaesthetise the fracture zone of the broken bone. If the pain ceases that proves it came from the fracture. We can also stimulate the sensory nerve. Suppose it is the ulnar nerve from the mid bone of the Ulna. We can stimulate with a bipolar electrical stimulator or the newer Magnetic transcutaneous stimulator. Then we measure with electrode placed over the brachial plexus in the neck, the posterior sensory ganglia of the C-7/8 in the cervical spine, and the scalp over the main sensory parietal cortex. Each site has well established latencies (time of impulse travel) and established conduction velocities. Where a nerve is injured, one may find absense or marked delay in the latency, slowing or absense of a conduction velocity. That is about as good as proof gets. That way we can also distinguish from phantom pain arising at the root entry zone or myofascial nerve generated pain by local adrenergic agonists that initiate inhibitory pain at that junction.
In early days, we used to prove that pain was real or hysterical or malingering by applying placebo saline to the pain centre and telling the patient that it would numb the pain. If it did not, then we treated the problem. If the pain ceased with the placebo, we told the patient, "Sod off, you bloody gob****e."
Try to ask harder questions, mate.
Amhairghine
Amhairghine
Member
Science has tonnes of proven facts. However, a mass of reliable scientific data is in the form of Theories and hypotheses. A theory is an explanation of an observed phenomenon or a mathematically calculated phenomenon, supported by strong evidence, evidence examined by supporting and contrary data, and fitting the structure of the theory. Theory is the best possible explanation of something based on the evidence. That is not infallible. Some data may be flawed or later evidence may change everything. This is why scientific theories are discarded almost daily and replaced by more probably correct theories. Hypotheses are rationally structured explanation of what different processes may cause a phenomenon. Hypotheses lack the evidence to advance to theory. It can easily be discarded with single piece of evidence.
Unlike science, religion is neither fact nor theory but purely imaginative speculation based on no evidence at all. Believers claim that subjective experiences not seen by anyone else to be evidence (dreams, hallucinations, optical illusions, and simple lying.)
Since religion is based on pure speculation and no evidence, it cannot be challenged by a rational method. This is why so many religions have different beliefs and none can disprove the other nor prove itself.
Science debating religion is really a waste of time. It is like comparing measured and reproducible data against fables like Jack and the Beanstalk and the virgin birth of Jesus and 16 other so-called saviours.
Amhairghine
Last edited:
themadhair
Well-Known Member
Q. Can science prove anything?
A. No.
Q. Can science present a mountain of evidence to show that a given proposition is almost definitely true?
A. Hell yes.
A. No.
Q. Can science present a mountain of evidence to show that a given proposition is almost definitely true?
A. Hell yes.
nonbeliever_92
Well-Known Member
Science isn't about proof, it's about understanding through observation and/or experimentation with the available information. Religion is also not about proof, it's about believing that one understands even if observation and/or experimentation with the available information can or does refute it.
mordorf
Member
Science has proven a lot of things one example is that the earth is round and not flat, science have done more for mankind than religion has done all that has done is make peaople studpid and narrowminded.
yes he can and how by simply ruling out one thing after another and almost at most of the time they send u to get an x-ray pic of the arm.
Science works in hole different way then religion does, science never stops if they cannot explain something no they try to figure out the problem not like religion does when they are faced with something that they can't explain they often claim a supernatural cause, insted to try to figure out the cause..
richardlowellt
Well-Known Member
Yes, science can prove many things. On a simple scale, science can PROVE that fire needs oxygen to burn, a candle covered with a glass is simple proof of that fact. Science can also prove that fire can change a solid into a gas, that gravity in responsible for water flowing downhill, and that humans deprived of nourishment, will die.
ProudAtheist122208
New Member
Yes science has proved alot over the years with great discoveries such as evolution and stem cell its up to the person to believe or not.
bonus-yes by using logic (think about it)
bonus-yes by using logic (think about it)