Puppyroach said:
ninjaman003 said:
Puppyroach said:
I don't have to claim that it doesn't exist, I can assume it doesn't since there is no proof for it. Likewise, I can assume there is no god that created the big bang since there is no proof of it. I can assume however, that there is a scientific explanation since it has shown to be an excellent method of explaining the world around us. This is a completely other matter than knowing what that explanation is. For example, the earths rotation around the sun. If we would have had this conversation a thousand years ago, I would claim that we can assume a scientific explanation for its rotation around the sun, even if I didnt know what that explanation is. There is no need for a hypothesis of a god in that case, since science has shown to be quite adequate.
|
You're trying to imply that science is opposed to God? Do you even know what science is? Science could very well prove the existence of God. You're only saying that you know there is a reason. What if God created it and it was simple as that? Science is knowing and proving something. If it can't be proved it is not science; therefore, there is no scientific explanation for the Big Bang. Also for the Sun example, you would have made a blind guess. One intellectual actually hypothesized this, but the SCIENTIFIC community ignored him because he had no proof.
|
Where did I write that science is opposed to the concept of a god? Btw, science is not knowing something, it is the constant search for knowledge, but you must always be prepared to question your own conclusions. And regarding the example with the heliocentric world view... well it was actually the church that opposed the Heliocentric world view, since it opposed their concept of God...
|
Hundreds of years ago, yes the church would be opposed to the idea. Thousands of years ago( that has to be at least 2000) people had no proof or even a reason to believe the earth traveled around the sun. The "church" back then did not really mean religion. It was honestly more of a way to control people. They came to illogical conclusions that can't be found anywhere in the Bible. I agree that science should search for knowledge,but science is really about proving things to be true. This can be and usually is a search for knowledge. According to that logic, the periodic table is not science because we already know about it, only the undiscovered elements are science.
I answered underlined question with underlined answer.
