| Puppyroach said: Well, not necessarily. We would never know if a higher power could be proven or disprove. However, if we were to assume some force existed that would resemble the concept of god, would not that being then become part of science? This is why rational thinking is the only way forward. If this "power" exist, then It is part of the natural world. Otherwise, it does not exist and therefore there is no god. I tend to believe in the latter. Example: if I would have described the force that exist within nuclear energy for a person 200 years ago, that person would have said it to be false. It would be hard for me to prove or disprove it but when we discovered this energy a 100 years later, this immense power became part of how we can explain the world around us. The premise of a god is very farfetched, but the moment we prove its existence, it becomes science. |
The natural world is what is observable. This is what rationality has domain over. Religion isn't rational. The premise of God cannot be proven, science can't cover it because its out of our observation.
And according to the scietific method, that person that said it was false would be wrong, because it wasn't disproven. That's why the Big Bang is still a theory, although its bascially accepted as fact, until we prove it remains a theory, but it might be unprovable by its very nature.
Also see my above post, the really long one.
In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank
