The Daily Static
  The Daily Static
UF Archives
Register
UF Membership
Ad Free Site
Postcards
Community
Geekfinder
UFie Gear
Advertise on UF
Forum Rules
& FAQ

Username

Password


Create a New Account

  
 

Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
Is science based in fact or belief? by subbywan2007-01-22 16:28:58
  Science is based on belief supported by fact. by hadji2007-01-22 16:35:24
    but could it be the reason it's faith-based by subbywan2007-01-22 16:36:58
      That's a pointless statement though. by hadji2007-01-22 16:39:05
        But per the scientific method, by subbywan2007-01-22 16:47:26
          Sounds like a semantic problem. by vetitice2007-01-22 16:55:09
            It may very well be. by subbywan2007-01-22 17:01:28
              Who's this 'we', kemo sabe? by vetitice2007-01-22 17:13:50
                But very large portions of science have by subbywan2007-01-22 17:22:55
                  OK, I think I see where you're taking this. by vetitice 2007-01-22 17:38:50
If the gods are 'intelligent designers' as the creationists like to hide behind - suitably advanced technology, or a manifestation of the physical universe, but not outside the material universe - then yes, as science advances, we should be able to spot them.

That's one possible explanation for gods. The more traditional one for Abrahamic religions is that god is outside the physical universe. If that is the case, then science can never find it with tools that are designed to describe the physical universe. By the very definition of science it can't see anything outside the box.

I'm a strong agnostic, or honest atheist. I don't think there will ever be proof there is a god, and believe all current religions are more likely explained by a combination of human psychology and the odd coincidence. However, I understand the limits of science and cannot PROVE there is nothing out there with science. Any atheist who says science Proves there is No God does not understand science.
[ Reply ]
                    ARGH!! you did it!! :P by subbywan2007-01-22 17:40:59
                      That depends on the scope of the box. by hadji2007-01-22 17:44:52
                        There's always a bigger box. by vetitice2007-01-22 17:51:03
                        Thus my point by subbywan2007-01-22 17:55:25
                          But the point is that you never CAN prove it. by hadji2007-01-22 18:21:28
                            We don't KNOW we cannot prove it. by subbywan2007-01-22 18:26:02
                              The fact that the possibility exists means we by Arachnid2007-01-22 18:27:56
                                True, but if we're wrong, by subbywan2007-01-22 18:29:13
                                No, we can't prove his non-existence doing that by Arachnid2007-01-22 18:32:33
                                Then we may prove his existence by subbywan2007-01-22 18:49:47
                                We might by Arachnid2007-01-22 18:52:08
                                I'm interested in God. by subbywan2007-01-22 18:54:52
                                Fair enough. by Arachnid2007-01-22 19:05:37
                                Yes, but when I spawn by subbywan2007-01-22 19:06:23
                      Talk to Goedel. by vetitice2007-01-22 17:46:18
                        Nothing to be sorry about. That's the point of the by subbywan2007-01-22 17:56:33
                          What godel proved is that there are some things by Arachnid2007-01-22 18:00:45
                            Proved? by subbywan2007-01-22 18:02:30
                              Not exactly. by vetitice2007-01-22 18:10:48
                                That would indicate a limited model. by subbywan2007-01-22 18:14:02
                                The very definition of 'universe' is that it's by Arachnid2007-01-22 18:18:20
                                That merely shows *we* were wrong by subbywan2007-01-22 18:24:28
                                Then once again you're arguing about nothing more by Arachnid2007-01-22 18:26:38
                                We already covered that up here: by subbywan2007-01-22 18:31:14
                                It's still a matter of semantics by Arachnid2007-01-22 18:35:30
                                only everything we know. by subbywan2007-01-22 18:52:04
                              No, he's proved it. It is in no way an assumption. by Arachnid2007-01-22 18:11:49
                                By that article itself, it lists there are limits by subbywan2007-01-22 18:20:32
                                Certainly by Arachnid2007-01-22 18:24:57
                                I agree. The universe might be one by subbywan2007-01-22 18:28:18
                                We don't need to prove it is one. by Arachnid2007-01-22 18:38:16
                                How much of what we have proved do we by subbywan2007-01-22 18:53:58

 

[Todays Cartoon Discussion] [News Index]

Come get yer ARS (Account Registration System) Source Code here!
All images, characters, content and text are copyrighted and trademarks of J.D. Frazer except where other ownership applies. Don't do bad things, we have lawyers.
UserFriendly.Org and its operators are not liable for comments or content posted by its visitors, and will cheerfully assist the lawful authorities in hunting down script-kiddies, spammers and other net scum. And if you're really bad, we'll call your mom. (We're not kidding, we've done it before.)