pearljammer said:
steverhcp02 said:
pearljammer said:
|
maverick40 said:
haha that was funny. I don't feel superior to both at all. As a scientist i need proof about all these things and there is no proof that god does or doesn't exist. |
In the context of science though, there cannot be proof of the nonexistance of something. Asking one to do so with the consequence of calling them ignorant (as you did in your first post) is highly unfair.
Not making unproven assumptions is what makes somebody atheist. I don't think any (reasonable) atheist would argue that there is no chance of there being any diety, intervening or not - just simply that from what we know, that is highly unlikely and that there is absolutely no reason to make the assumption that there is.
|
But scientific proof is rather cyclical not only in our immediate past but obviously our distant past. I am no scientist but i do take a general interest in things such as astronomy and what i constantly read is the ability to define or discover things is only relavent to our current knowledge at that snapshot in time. To me a great scientist doesnt belittle others with their "science" and they readily admit that science is merely the skyscraper built on the basis of what we consider fact at this time based on our knowledge of the universe. If something were to shift that base the skyscraper would wither crumble or need to be rebuilt at some point, thus our science at this time is dependent on the actual base at this time...and its by no means a permanent base.
The fact that we are able to view galaxies as they were nearly 10 billion years ago based on their distance, that there are billions of galaxies like ours in existance that our galaxy is over 100 million light years large and we are in 2015 just going to have a drone near pluto, the dwarf planet on the edge of our solar system, to me shows how much more our "science" will change.
Each generation is fixed on an ever distant part of this universe. Imagine how much has changed from the 1700's to now. That is predicted to exponentially increased in 300 years based on the advancement in technology. Hell, even the aforementioned number of galaxies or distances between them, movement of them, expansion of the universe may change in the future based on what we discover...
All these things considered it reminds me of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. When Zaphod is captured and put into the machine which actually shows him how insignifcant he is in the scope of the entire universe....and hes the only one to survive based on his ego. Science is well and good and great in context of current knowledge, but acting like its not evolving or moveing and/or changing at the expense of others is rather unscientific.
|
There's no belittling going on here, certainly not on my part. I don't wish to sound rude but I'm not quite sure what prompted you to post this - I haven't implied that science claims to hold great answers.
Science readily admits when it cannot sufficiently explain something. Any reasonable atheist would be shortsighted to say that they have all or even most of the answers - Hell, we know incredibly little. To claim any differently would be arrogance. That arrogance is displayed by those who actually do claim to know. Atheists are not the ones making the assumptions here. They simply say that from what we know, which is very little, there is no reason to assume an, especially intervening, higher power.
|
Sorry for the confusion. I meant it in response to the previous poster whose text i put in bold. I forgot to delete your response. Which i do in fact agree with which is probably why my response sounded strange if you thought it was directed at you.
