Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
Well, to begin ...
|
Tristan, that is a very interesting reply.
You are approaching the question of proof of Gods existance as a scientific endevour. If the scientific community launched a study on the existance of God, and found sufficient proof of His existance then you would accept those findings.
Even if you did not participate in the study yourself? you would accept the findings of scientists (assuming of course you were allowed knowledge of the raw data, equations used, methods employed...) ?
Are you aware that science as a discipline deliberately chooses not to include the possibility of Gods existance in all of its fields of study? Science studys that which is physical in nature (matter and energy), and is observable, and is repeatable (control-able in the lab, or controlled observations). God is none of these.
In physics labs you run experiments, and you run them over and over. If you drop a ball ten times and it accelerates at 32'/S^2, and you record the velocity over time, but one of your trials has very different results - they teach you to ignore that data. That trial is tossed out, and attributed to sensor error, operator error... and the remaining trails are averaged to get the 'right' answer.
Why? because the one trial that produced 'unacceptable results' cannot be repeated. It cannot be explained. We dont know what caused it (impact with a mason, black hole flying by the earth, or the hand of God) so science ignores it and pretends it didnt happen.
In a way you have slammed the door shut. Science is not attempting to prove or disprove the existance of God, and you say that is the only proof you will accept. That would be like saying I will only belive OBL exists when the FBI finds him. The FBI does not look for people outside the United States. They never will look for him. The CIA will, the military will, Interpol will, but not the FBI.
Science, as a discipline, assumes there is no God - not from a moral sense, but for the sake of being able to run controllable and repeatable experiments and observations. Science would not be able to draw any conclusion otherwise unless they tacked 'God willing' onto the end of every theory or law - so they simply assume there is no God.
Its also interesting that you focus on evidence of Gods existance, but for some reason you dont even consider finding God Himself. If God came to your door and revealed Himself to you personally, you would reject Him? You would drag Him off to the nearest university to have Him tested by the physics department?
You would not be able to determine by yourself if you were standing face to face with the Creator of the Universe?