I actually have another quote in place of the science being able to mislead quote. Simply put if anything can be wrong then it can mislead, that is if people don't notice the wrong and accept it. That is the case with science at times.
True; however, this does not in any way prove that science is invalid, or that faith is valid.
For example, there are some conflicting and totally new views between classical physics and quantum physics.
Classical and quantum physics don't conflict, they merely have different purviews. Classical physics deals with systems which are made up of so many tiny quantum systems that dealing with those systems in terms of quantae would be impractical. As such classical physics accepts a loss of precision for a gain of practicality.
The "observer effect" in Quantum Physics imples that some subatomic particles don't exist until they are observed. Worse yet, some of them pop in out of existence or even worse, a subatomic particle can be in two different places at once. If all these findings maintain their accuracy, then this could mean that the physical universe is a direct result of consciousness (mind over matter???) and there seems to be some dice playing going on with the Universe, which is contrary to what Einstein thought.
This is a misrepresentation of the observer effect. The observer effect is not so much that observation affects the system, but that the tools by which we observe interact with the system, producing an effect.
For example, if we observe a system visually, we do so by bouncing photons off of it. Comparatively gigantic things like atoms aren't affected significantly by the photon hitting it, but if we are observing a photon, bouncing a photon off of it is like seeing if a car is there by crashing another car into it. Of course this has an effect on the car (or photon).
For all I know maybe some superconscious source like God or the collective conscious of all of us observing the Universe causes it to exist???
Nope. My explanation of observer effect above refutes this idea.
For the second or last quote, by it's very nature science does not make "absolute" statements. Saying that *everything* is natural is an absolute statement. Science deals in terms of probability, not absoluteness. Besides that I'd question making an absolute statement, w/out first having absolute knowledge, i.e. omniscience of the Universe which science clearly falls short at. This is not to disprove naturalism, but only to show that it is assumptious, unproven, and thus not yet having any logical basis to it.
Probability
is a logical basis. Faith
is not a logical basis.
Your argument seems to be, "science doesn't generally make absolute statements, faith does, so faith wins!"
