: : However, there is a difference between hunting for a dodo and hunting for a square with five sides.: And in this, another scientist makes another empirical claim of no God - unless, of course you meam to imply that there is a five sided square someplace.
There could be a five-sided square. I've never seen one; and according to my understanding they don't exist; but I'm not the ultimate authority. Sorry, Stuart, I thought I'd made myself pretty clear there.
I can never say 'there are no five-sided squares' without invoking synthetic a priori assumptions or definitions (i.e. what the definition of a 'square' is.)
However, everyone knows what a dodo is; the common perception is reasonably well understood; a big turkey-like bird. There is indisputable scientific evidence that dodos have existed at one point; even if it is held that they are extinct.
As such, there is more empirical justification for a belief in surviving dodos than there is for believing in the existance of five-sided squares (which cannot exist in the commonly accepted physical world).
Is that clear? - I can't say 'God doesn't exist'; in much the same way that you can't say 'God does exist' - the statements are unprovable.
The statement 'rain is wet' is also unprovable and subjective; but is generally held to be correct since it is backed up by a considerable amount of observational evidence.
It's a question of which statement is more reasonable according to the evidence; and since any physical evidence can never refer directly to an infinite God, the physical world is a poor tool with which to justify God.
(You are essentially subscribing to the notion of an eternal soul; but all your perceptions of this 'eternal soul' are filtered through your own sense perceptions; which is like asking someone colourblind to tell red from green; by definition, no finite physical process can discern the infinite and/or eternal.)
: See, this is the problem, Farinata, you claim that God cannot be scientifically proved or disproved then you go and say something like that.
Which you promptly misinterpreted...
: Where is your integrity? What am I to do (having some intelligence along with belief) when I am disparaged in this manner?
Ask yourself if you read the text correctly. Don't automatically assume the worst of everyone...
: : We'll hunt the dodo; you hunt the five-sided square.
: I'm only believing and hoping but I will take a minute or two, now and then, to point out hypocracy if it's at hand.
: : (It is conceivably possible that a perfect scientific theory could be found; however unlikely; but any God that could be proved wouldn't be infinite; and therefore any proof of God is ultimately unfounded.)
: Agreed, on both counts but there there must remain room in this world for belief and philosophy.
I wouldn't dispute it for a second. Hasty and unwise scientists like Stephen Hawking are only too ready to declare 'the end of science' when everything will be known; this is an illusory and impossible goal. We will *never* discover everything to be found out about the Universe. Scientific and philosophical research will go on for ever; or at least, as long as life does.
(I think it was Tacitus who first declared that further progress was impossible since everyone had had every idea under the sun already...)
: Many here disparage belief as being unscientific and therefore, unworthy.
Nyet. However, there are beliefs that square with the physical observations and those which don't; and there are beliefs which can *never* be justified physically, such as yours.
I've never seen an atom directly; but the evidence is strong enough to imply a very strong probability of their existence.
: The problem is that science is far cry from explaining us and I believe it can never do so.
All science can do is build models; and the best thing to say about a scientific theory is that it explains the observed data elegantly and enables you to make predictions about the probable results of future experiments.
: The problem of origins will always exist, however small the time period becomes between nothing and everthing.
Depends what you class as 'origins' and how firmly you believe in causality as an absolute, really.
However, when using physical senses to discern the physical world, the physical sciences are far more applicable and useful to describe it than, say, the complete works of Purcell.
Farinata.
