IbnAbdullah
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2018
- Messages
- 1,584
- Reaction score
- 9
- Country
- Location
Aoa
Asking for scientific 'proof' of God umplies a misunderstanding of how science works.
The fact is that the universe exists, and regardless of how you put it, science has much to say about the happenings after the big bang but nothing before.
Science as a concept may have a vast scope however, in reality it is always limited by both technology and the scientist. There are physical limits to what may be known through the scientific method and what cannot.
If something cannot be tested it cannot be considered scientifically provable. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it simply means that it is currently beyond the reach of science.
Mathematics is sort of language of numbers, it may define something irrespective of whether it exists or not. Theoretical science. There were mathematical proofs backing the steady state theory. That didn't turn out to be true regardless of the maths behind it.
...
Consciousness hasn't been scientifically detected and thus proven to exist in any object manner. The scans can show electrical and chemical activity in the brain and we link it with the subjective experience of consciousness. However, science has yet to objectively detect and understand the 'experience of consciousness'.
Does that mean that it does not exist? If we have yet to find our own consciousness, that each individual experiences, how can we say that since science hasn't proven God, God must not exist?
...
Existence of dark energy has been proven, scientifically. We may not know what it is completely. But we do know something like this does exist. Is there any scientific or mathematical proof of god's existence?
Asking for scientific 'proof' of God umplies a misunderstanding of how science works.
The fact is that the universe exists, and regardless of how you put it, science has much to say about the happenings after the big bang but nothing before.
Science as a concept may have a vast scope however, in reality it is always limited by both technology and the scientist. There are physical limits to what may be known through the scientific method and what cannot.
If something cannot be tested it cannot be considered scientifically provable. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it simply means that it is currently beyond the reach of science.
Mathematics is sort of language of numbers, it may define something irrespective of whether it exists or not. Theoretical science. There were mathematical proofs backing the steady state theory. That didn't turn out to be true regardless of the maths behind it.
...
Consciousness hasn't been scientifically detected and thus proven to exist in any object manner. The scans can show electrical and chemical activity in the brain and we link it with the subjective experience of consciousness. However, science has yet to objectively detect and understand the 'experience of consciousness'.
Does that mean that it does not exist? If we have yet to find our own consciousness, that each individual experiences, how can we say that since science hasn't proven God, God must not exist?
...