By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
LuccaCardoso1 said:
WolfpackN64 said:
I'm Catholic, so that quickly answers that. Furthermore, I find there to be many metaphysical arguments to the existence of God. Aside from that, the necessity of hard proof is questionable. 

For religion, sure, hard proof is not necessary at all. After all, faith is only required when you don't have proof. When you have proof, you don't need faith anymore. But for scientific knowledge, yeah, a hard proof is needed (or at least many pieces of evidence that point to a thing being the most plausible).

WolfpackN64 said:
Many of our scientific principles stand on probable (but not absolute) hypotheses.

Yeah, they start as hypotheses. Then they're tested enough times and put against enough contrary ideas for them to become theories. No scientific principles stand only on speculation without testing and experimenting. 

The fact that these hypotheses are tested over and over is what makes them valid. They remain however, inductive reasoning, meaning they could always be wrong (but since they have been succesful in the past, we don't have any reason to mistrust them unless we encounter aromalies). As for faith. You only technically need faith, but ideally, you still have supporting grounds for that faith (usually metaphysically).