|
Is science based in fact or belief? | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 16:28:58 |
|
Science is based on belief supported by fact. | by hadji | 2007-01-22 16:35:24 |
|
but could it be the reason it's faith-based | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 16:36:58 |
|
Can't ever get there. | by vetitice | 2007-01-22 16:41:07 |
|
Why can't we ever get there? | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 16:44:37 |
|
Because you can always say | by vetitice | 2007-01-22 16:50:05 |
|
Not yet, I agree | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 16:53:07 |
|
Not ever. | by vetitice | 2007-01-22 16:59:59 |
|
That's the catch. | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 17:04:23 |
|
But we know exactly how we'd go about that. | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 17:06:15 |
|
Only because we've *done* it. | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 17:10:03 |
|
We haven't landed probes on jupiter's moons | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 17:16:25 |
| Yes. But we don't know how to get them back |
by subbywan |
2007-01-22 17:29:46 |
yet. Our technology has not yet advanced to the point we can counter Jupiters gravity. Conversely, we don't yet have a way to land probes on the moons without crashing them.
The first folk who believed in germs didnt' have evidence of *germs*. they had evidence of something they didn't understand, couldn't see, and didn't have any tests for. In the same vein, there are events we currently call miracles -- cancer inexplicably going into remission, people being cured (and I'm not talking about the charlatan "faith healers" here) in a way current science cannot explain nor even offer an opinion on.
Now, it is entirely possible those cures were the result of something perfectly logical that was either missed, or we simply cannot yet understand because we haven't yet come up with the tech to identify it.
You ask "How can you possibly prove the existence of something that can undetectably modify the results and your own perceptions such that you think you found nothing?". The very question pre-supposes that the results can, and will be modified. It's an unfounded assumption. It's like saying "Blackholes are tears in the fabric of space-time".
It may or it may not be true. We don't *KNOW* enough to say it is one way or the other, and that alone should be cause enough for us to explore it, simply because we generally tend to be wrong with such assumptions.
|
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Yes we do | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 17:36:46 |
|
Are we omnipotent? | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 17:53:51 |
|
No, we're not. | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 17:57:05 |
|
Hence my point. | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 17:58:36 |
|
So you can disprove small gods. Woohoo. | by vetitice | 2007-01-22 18:04:10 |
|
How do we know Gods go beyond science? | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:08:43 |
|
And now you're not talking about proving the | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 18:15:01 |
|
Who says they WEREN'T what we call God? | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:34:33 |
|
Definitions again. | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 18:41:25 |
|
Neither. | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:45:54 |
|
Glad I could help. | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 18:49:47 |
|
Go right ahead :) | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:55:43 |
|
You can NEVER prove they don't! | by vetitice | 2007-01-22 18:18:46 |
|
That's because you think I'm trying to actively | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:38:32 |
|
No, it's useless to go searching... | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 18:43:02 |
|
The whole tangent thing again. | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:48:44 |
|
Like I said, if it's not omnipotent, it's not god. | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 18:04:22 |
|
Why not? | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:10:57 |
|
Then we have a disagreement in terminology | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 18:16:35 |
|
That's fair enough. | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:42:13 |
