A Troubled Man
Active Member
Science can only help us test and understand evidence. If believers make claims that can be tested, in other words, they produce evidence, then their claims can be tested and the evidence understood by us all.
-
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 or disprove the existence of a Spiritual existence? God?
- Thread starter Road Warrior
- Start date
Student of X
Paradigm Shifter
What if a particular piece of evidence is best understood in light of a philosophy other than materialism? Can science still help us understand it?
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Evidence is not philosophical; explanations for the evidence are.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Can one name one example of such a thing?
A Troubled Man
Active Member
Can you give examples of philosophical evidence?
Student of X
Paradigm Shifter
Can you answer in the abstract?
A Troubled Man
Active Member
Sorry, I can't because you stated in your post, "particular piece of evidence"
Student of X
Paradigm Shifter
OK, I'll answer for you. The answer is no. If a particular piece of evidence is best understood in light of a philosophy other than materialism then science is balked. The establishment has to sweep it under the rug.
A Troubled Man
Active Member
Unless you are able to explain and define that "piece of evidence" your answer is rather meaningless.
What establishment do you refer?
Student of X
Paradigm Shifter
You want me to explain and define the evidence within a materialistic framework?
Don't play dumb please.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
See my post above. Materialism has nothing to do with language.
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
Well, I wouldn't have said it if I couldn't demonstrate it.
No, we dont. There isn't any reason as of yet to think that there is any nature beyond our observational universe. If there is, it hasn't been shown yet so therefore there is no reason to believe it unless you are looking for a way to avoid the implications of supernaturalism. But even if there is nature beyond our universe, that would only push the question of origins back one step further, which only complicates the matter.
Ok, so hold your breath and wait for science to come up with a answer as to how a man can rise from the dead. Good luck with that. Science cannot study the supernatural and any nature beyond ours is some stuff you see on Star Trex, but when it comes to reality, there is no evidence of anything natural that is beyond our universe.
So if I observe an angel walking straight through a wall, we can apply the scientific method as to how this could occur??? I dont think so.
Last edited:
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
You show me a paper that has suggested the idea that time can slow down or stop??? Time isn't a "thing" that you can just these kind of things to.
Take it from a fellow who works with the stuff: Time, once it began, was and is a juggernaut that CANNOT stop. Phil Keaggy's song "His Name is Time" states that Phil's name is "baloney lyrics..." LOL
A Troubled Man
Active Member
No, I simply wanted you to provide a "piece of evidence" from the philosophical position you yourself claimed. If you have no examples, your question is moot.
Terribly sorry that I can't read your mind and know which establishment you refer.
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
I just love the way you state your belifs as fact. it is very conviencing
So this is your chain of reasoning:
1) eternal universe = absurd =>
2) universe began to exist =>
3) cause of the = (non-temporal,non-material,non-special) =>
4) cause of the universe had to have been timeless, immaterial, and a being of tremendous power.
Questions:
@1) Why is an eternal universe absurd?
@3) Is your line of reasoning here that if the cause of the universe had some of the same properties as the universe then it would in fact be the universe or a universe, thus leading to that eternal universe which you foind absurd?
@4) Where did the being come into this? A being implies a conscious thought, how do you get from (non-temporal,non-material,non-special) to conscious thought?
Two philosophical reasons why an eternal universe is absurd......the first one is...it is impossible to have an infinite amount of anything. You cannot have an infinite amount of baseball cards or marbles. If you have an infinite amount of marbles, and you give me three, you would still have an infinite amount....if you have an infinite amount of marbles, and I give you three more, you would still have an infinite amount....if you have an infinite amount of marbles, and you gave me all of the "even" numbered marbles and kept all of the odd numbered marbles, you would still have an infinite amount of marbles. But this is absurd, because every time you add you are supposed to have more than what you had previously, and every time you subtract, you are supposed to have less than what you had previously. But in these cases, you would still have the same amount whether you added or subtracted. This is the kind of absurdity that you get when you deal with infinity. An "actual" Infinity cannot exist in reality, it exist as a concept. So, this is why postulating these "multiverse" theories are logically absurd. The Hilberts Hotel paradox also shows why it is impossible to have an actual infinite number of things.
The second philosophical reason why we can know that the universe is past finite is, it is impossible for time to be infinite. It is impossible to "traverse infinity", meaning, it is impossible to cross an infinite number of points and arrive at a single point. If time had to travel across an infinite amount of points just to get to the present point, when would it get here?? If a man has been running on an infinite road, and he has been running for an infinite amount of time, and he stops, and turns back around, and runs the same distant where he stopped but in the opposite direction, where and when would he stop??? There is no answer to this. It cant happen.
These are two very distinct reasons why we can know for certain that the universe is not infinite. If our universe was just a by-product of some pre-big bang event, then that would suggest an infinite amount of cause and effect events, and also an infinite amount of time at which those events would have to had occurred. Both, impossible. These reasons are independent of the scientific findings in cosmology on a finite universes. They corroborate it. Now I will wait patiently has someone try to rebut these things lol. Good luck.
Huh?
A Troubled Man
Active Member
All GPS satellites take both relative gravitational and velocity time dilation into account. They wouldn't give any of us correct locations on earth if they didn't.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
You wouldn't need to say it if you actually went ahead and demonstrated it.
I didn't say anything about "nature" (which is an even worse word for confusion than "universe"). Correct me if I'm wrong but don't you believe the idea of an intelligent creator of "our universe", which is by definition something outside of it. I also believe there is something outside it, though I don't claim to know what that is.
That story, true or not, has little to do with the scope of science in the context of what, if anything, exists beyond the universe.
There is no evidence of anything beyond our universe, though there are hypotheses in the area and methods of study (if only hypothetical themselves) to investigate them. All scientific. This includes zero evidence for the existence of anything commonly defined as "supernatural". That is nothing more than another hypothesis, and not a very clearly defined one at that.
Yes. It has done in many similar cases. Where scientific conclusions have been reached, the answer has been that is wasn't actually an angel walking though a wall, only the perception of one.
If there is a being capable of passing through solid objects though, I see no fundamental reason why scientific method couldn't be applied to discover the manner in which it is achieved.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
"Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper," Einstein A., 1905.