Does it exist before science....

[RestlessSoul]

I think a better question(s) might be: if one has a subjective experience of something that isn't objectively evident, but is subjectively evident, is it possible for that something to exist? Or should we write it off as "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" because it is not objectively evident to everyone?

Knowledge or insight gained experience, can only be truly shared if the experience is shared. This is why, in my opinion, it is impossible to prove the veracity of a spiritual experience to a third party. That doesn't make the experience any less real, it just means that no sceptic can be persuaded by evidence, because the evidence can only be obtained by experience.

 

[Twilight Hue]

To me spiritual experience is more real than the physical world.
But i am aware few experiences it like that.

Then it's your own personal experience. Not applicable to other people or the reality beyond the ideological limits of the cerebellum.

 

[RestlessSoul]

God is Dark Energy. We have measured Dark Energy.

Calculated, rather than measured. Sorry to be pedantic, but we can't measure what we can't observe.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I have no reason to claim anything atheists are freecto believe and say what they want.

True. Like my intergalactic invasion force stuck on backorder!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly, one has to look at religious belief and science as two different aspects of life

Not necessarily. Sometimes the religious make the error of entering the realm of science. Then one can use science to refute a particular deity. For example if one claims that their God caused a worldwide flood and that particular god cannot lie, then that god can be refuted. That person may mistakenly claim that "Science cannot refute God". That is only partially right. Science cannot refute all concepts of God. Particular gods on the other hand are not a problem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Calculated, rather than measured. Sorry to be pedantic, but we can't measure what we can't observe.

We can observe it indirectly. Also please note, all observations are indirect. When it comes to observing dark matter it is a bit more indirect than other observations.

 

[questfortruth]

Calculated, rather than measured. Sorry to be pedantic, but we can't measure what we can't observe.

God is Dark Energy. We have observed DE through its gravity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Does something exist before science discover it?

Is it impossible that something that seems invisible do not exist because science has not discovered it yet?

What if something, is impossible to exist if science have not yet discovered it?

Seems like it's time for the Steven Novella quote again:

What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?

The universe is what it is reardless of our beliefs. Our beliefs about the universe can be held to various degrees of rigor and evaluated systematically, ad-hoc, or not at all. "Science" is just our word for evaluating claim for evaluating claims systematically to a high degree of rigor.

... and if someone trying to sell you a claim argues that it's "beyond science," remember that what they're really arguing is that it can't be demonstrated to be true - or even likely to be true - if there's any rigor involved in the demonstration, and then ask yourself whether it would be wise to accept what they say as reliably true.

 

[RestlessSoul]

We can observe it indirectly. Also please note, all observations are indirect. When it comes to observing dark matter it is a bit more indirect than other observations.

In what sense do you mean that all observations are indirect? Certainly we can directly observe electromagnetic radiation, reflected light, gravitational lensing etc. Perhaps you are referring to gravity, the strong and weak nuclear force, and the electromagnetic force? In which case I agree, the forces of nature cannot themselves be observed, only their effects can.

In astronomy and cosmology, what differentiates dark matter and dark energy from baryonic matter and electromagnetic radiation, is that the existence of the former is hypothetical. They are theoretical phenomena extrapolated from the evidence, and therefore speculative. Though you could of course argue that the standard cosmological model is speculative in it's entirety.

 

[Altfish]

So God can exist even critiques say no?

Yes, but science has looked very hard to find her. She's hiding well.

 

[Yerda]

Yes, but science has looked very hard to find her.

Has it?

 

[exchemist]

Now you're just being stupid

Yes it came to mind since "unicorn-hunting" is a fairly widespread term, in the thinking press, for what Brexiters do. Rees-Mogg was until recently unicorn-hunter in chief and found himself forced to resort to asking the public to write in with examples of things that go better as a result of Brexit. I have yet to read of anything coming out of that.

 

[George-ananda]

Well, the Higgs-Boson must have existed before science discovered it.

In the same way I believe the Soul exists before science will discover it.

 

[Father Heathen]

Science is the method of gaining knowledge and understanding. Of course things can exist before we humans have gained any knowledge or understanding of it.

Not believing something due to insufficient evidence isn't the same as asserting it's nonexistence.

 

[Altfish]

Has it?

Discovering god through science would win you a Nobel Prize, fame and fortune for ever, that is surely enough insentive.
Additionally, there are the likes of The Templeton Foundation that sponsor such research.
Then of course Henry Morris, Answers in Genesis, Michael Behe and many more all try to prove god through science

 

[Truth in love]

Does something exist before science discover it?

Is it impossible that something that seems invisible do not exist because science has not discovered it yet?

What if something, is impossible to exist if science have not yet discovered it?

All discoveries exists before being found. Inventions don’t.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

if someone says "it can not exist because science has not found evidence for it" they are actually incorrect, because something can exist but not be detectable for science.

Yes, but we should distinguish between that which is contingently undetectable, and that which is undetectable in principle (necessarily undetectable). The former is just waiting for the right detector to be in the right place. Those things exist whether discovered yet or not. The latter can be said to be indistinguishable from the non-existent, since they cannot impact on experience, and can be treated as such. To claim that things exist that are causally disconnected from our reality is a meaningless metaphysical statement - not correct and not (even) wrong.

Incidentally, the word science, if it is used to mean the formal study of nature in controlled settings like laboratories and observatories, is far too limited a concept for how we decide what is true about the world. Empiricism is a better term, since it includes the learning that results from every day personal experience. Most of my useful knowledge comes from that, knowledge like where to go for good Italian food, how to get there, and what kind of experience to expect there based on prior experience there.

My knowledge that comes from science isn't really very useful except as stimulation. I love to watch the shows like How The Universe Works, and I do learn a lot from them, but it's not directly useful information in my life.

science has not yet discovered the realm of God

This is where the distinction above comes into play. Is this realm necessarily or contingently undetectable? If the former, you will never detect it because functionally, it doesn't exist.

What is definition of existing?

Good question. My answer is that to be said to exist is to be said to occupy space and time and to be able to interact with other objects and processes that exist,like a wolf. To exist is to be real (synonymous), and reality is the collection of existent things. To be nonexistent is to lack all of that, like a werewolf.

So until science discover it, it does not exist?

Did you mean discovered by the senses? Either way, no.

one has to look at religious belief and science as two different aspects of life

I'd generalize that further. I've already explained why I prefer the larger category of empiricism to science, or the means of acquiring evidence-based beliefs about reality. I would expand religious belief to include all faith-based belief. These two are justified and unjustified belief, and these are two different paths to belief. Only one is capable of generating demonstrably true statements about reality.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Knowledge or insight gained experience, can only be truly shared if the experience is shared. This is why, in my opinion, it is impossible to prove the veracity of a spiritual experience to a third party. That doesn't make the experience any less real, it just means that no sceptic can be persuaded by evidence, because the evidence can only be obtained by experience.

I don't doubt that you have experiences that you call spiritual and interpret as evidence of something objectively real, perhaps a god. And I have similar experiences, but understand them differently.

When I was a Christian, I attributed such experiences to the Holy Spirit. I have had similar experiences since returning to atheism, but I no longer interpret them in the same way. They are my mind giving me its opinion about reality, the way my mind tells me what's beautiful or delicious. I could also interpret those apprehensions as indicative of some reality beyond merely how my brain interprets some experiences, and claim that I'm experiencing a god then as well, but I don't. I don't see it as so much a matter of unshared experience, as when the believer exhorts the skeptic to try harder searching for God and He will come to you, but as an unshared understanding of what that experience is of.

I came to this insight as a Christian following my discharge from the military and return to my home state. I visited a half dozen congregations there, but never had that spiritual experience again in any of them, the one I had understood as the Holy Spirit. With greater experience, I came to understand that I had been experiencing my mind under the influence of a gifted and charismatic preacher, my first.

"Does a tree falling in an uninhabited forest make a noise?"

I say no, not even if the event is mechanically recorded. Sound is a psychological interpretation of acoustic energy impacting the eardrum. No ears and conscious auditors, no sound.

God is Dark Energy. We have observed DE through its gravity.

You're making the same mistake Newton made. You've reached the limit of your understanding, and then invoked God. Apparently, you have God holding the galaxies intact and drawing galaxies into filaments divided by great relative voids. That's a pretty simple task to require a conscious agent for - to generate a gravitational field. Newton did the same to give his model of the solar system stability as well. He had God nudging the planets back into their orbits, which his math showed to be unstable. LaPlace came along to show that no gods were needed, and the god of the gaps was squeezed out of yet another job.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well, the Higgs-Boson must have existed before science discovered it.

In the same way I believe the Soul exists before science will discover it.

The difference is the factual sea of scientific data leading to the discovery of Higgs-Bosen.

There is no factual sea of scientific data leading to the discovery of a soul.

 

[Polymath257]

Science is simply observation and testing. That is all. So we have several categories:

1. We have observed something. That means it definitely exists.

Example: I see a dog in my room, so I know that dogs exist.

2. We have not observed something, but it is implied by our best descriptions. That means it probably exists, but the existence still needs to be verified.

Example: Dark matter

3. We have not observed something, but if it exists, we should have according to our best descriptions. In that case, it most likely does not exist.

Example: The electromagnetic ether. A famous experiment failed to observe it when it was expected to be seen.

4. We don't know enough to even ask if it exists or not. In this case, we simply can't say either way.

Example: The Higg's boson prior to 1950.

Example: Quarks before 1900.

5. No attempts have been made to observe it. In this case, we cannot say either way.

6. Claims are made of observation, but they never actually can be done under controlled circumstances, in spite of hundreds of years of claims. In this case, there is probably a psychological need that is met by belief, but the thing doesn't actually exist.

Example: Loch Ness monster, Big Foot