Religious Belief and Scientific Proof

[izzy88]

i saw a thread today, where a theist asked an atheist for proof of something. its interesting that some people can't see themselves in the reflection of other.

For proof of what?

 

[Fool]

For proof of what?

i would rather not say. it would give away the thread and posters. it seems ironic that a person would want their belief, or faith, but want proof from another.


if god were that persons father, they would not ask of another what they themselves wouldn't give. a cup of the milk of human kindness can go along way to refresh the Spirit of Love.


you can thank the @The Hammer for the video. the song got stuck in my noggin

 

[Thief]

Science does not provide 'proof' of anything. It can only provide limited, relative, functional validation (or invalidation) for a proposed theory. So expecting science to 'prove' anything would be irrational.

so experiments to prove something
are futile?

 

[Thief]

I can create just about any spiritual realm I want. Great if you stick to one spiritual path but it tends to get eclectic if you take on several different beliefs.

Spirituality doesn't require consistency, at least not between you and me. That's why there as so many different beliefs existing. Science tries to make knowledge consistent between everyone.

and in the next life....there might be interaction with so many believers
having so many different beliefs

could be very entertaining
or chaos

also? entertaining

 

[Thief]

i saw a thread today, where a theist asked an atheist for proof of something. its interesting that some people can't see themselves in the reflection of other.

I believe heaven is not seeking humanity

it is seeking a reflection of It's Self

 

[izzy88]

it seems ironic that a person would want their belief, or faith, but want proof from another.

It all depends on what exactly is being discussed. If somebody makes an empirical claim, they should support it with empirical evidence. If somebody makes a logical claim, they should support it with logical argument.

If a person makes an empirical claim but refuses to provide empirical evidence, then they don't have the right to demand evidence from others. The same goes for logic.

But if a person simply holds religious beliefs, that does not deny their justification in expecting people who make empirical claims to provide evidence.

Since you won't give specifics I can only speculate about the subject matter you're referring to, but simply holding religious beliefs does not make a person a hypocrite if they ask people making claims to support the claims with evidence.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Science does not provide 'proof' of anything. It can only provide limited, relative, functional validation (or invalidation) for a proposed theory. So expecting science to 'prove' anything would be irrational.

Scientific method uses experiments to prove things. Then from those proofs, they reach conclusions which may or may not be true depending on other factors. But certainly, the experiments do prove things!

 

[ratiocinator]

so experiments to prove something
are futile?

Yes. Experiments to test a hypothesis or theory are very useful because they will either falsify (disprove) it or provide supporting evidence. You can't prove a theory no matter how much supporting evidence you have. Proof is for mathematics and logic, not science.

But certainly, the experiments do prove things!

Only in the trivial sense that when you did that experiment you got that result. Experiments (and observations) provide raw data that can be used to falsify or support existing hypotheses or theories, or used to build new ones.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Believing is knowing. Absolute thought is faith.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

is it hypocritical and ironic to expect scientific proof while holding a belief in something unproveable?

I would say no. It is not at all hypocritical and ironic to expect scientific proof of anything - whether is provable or not.

First, in order to request scientific proof of something a person would need to make sure they understand the concept of proof, depending on the discipline, and also using the proper evaluating results not based on someone else's standard but their own personal standard. If their standard is logical and is reached by investigating the physical world it would only make sense that if a beleif is correct it would match how reality appears to be based on the best facts. (Yes, it is true that various experts may disagree on various points and throughout history but it would still seem logical for a logical reality to be in line with a logical universe.)

For example, if something is a required "beleif" it would stand to reason that at the end of the day it should not be "unprovable" - it would stand to reason that it would provable using the tools that it sets forth, or set forth about it. Even if that proof is not mathamatical, chemical, etc. and is basic it makes more sense for most rational and normal people to recognize it and conlude on its reality whether they be primative or advanced no matter how it takes to make said conclusion.

I.e. if it is required to respect and recognize that there is a type of element to the universe that can be titled "gravity" in English, and different names in different languages, it would seem logical that something as important as gravity would require some level of proven-ness to be established if one must beleive in it to gain some type of benefit from life/existance.

 

[`mud]

hey Thief,
Describe a day in heaven ?
Or....an hour and a half would do !


now prove it !

 

[PureX]

so experiments to prove something
are futile?

Experiments don't "prove" anything. They simply show whether or not a theory functions when tested within a very specific set of physical parameters. If you want to take that as "proof", that's your business. But no scientist would.

 

[PureX]

Scientific method uses experiments to prove things. Then from those proofs, they reach conclusions which may or may not be true depending on other factors. But certainly, the experiments do prove things!

Scientific experiments don't "prove" anything. They simply validate whether or not a theory functions within a very specific set of physical parameters. Every scientist understands this. You, apparently, do not.

 

[Samael_Khan]

is it hypocritical and ironic to expect scientific proof while holding a belief in something unproveable?

Not necessarily.

It would be hypocritical if a person criticises another believe system because science disproves them yet don't hold the same standards when it comes to their own belief.

 

[Thief]

and if I look for a definition of proof
would it be yours?

Experiments don't "prove" anything. They simply show whether or not a theory functions when tested within a very specific set of physical parameters. If you want to take that as "proof", that's your business. But no scientist would.

Scientific experiments don't "prove" anything. They simply validate whether or not a theory functions within a very specific set of physical parameters. Every scientist understands this. You, apparently, do not.

 

[Thief]

hey Thief,
Describe a day in heaven ?
Or....an hour and a half would do !


now prove it !

and you have …..no doubt
drawn a line of doubt

and to erase that line would take what?

 

[PureX]

and if I look for a definition of proof
would it be yours?

"... the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact ... something that induces certainty or establishes validity."

 

[Hawkins]

is it hypocritical and ironic to expect scientific proof while holding a belief in something unproveable?

Sorry to tell you that you are indoctrinated. Science can only prove a repeatable phenomenon, while in reality most things are not repeatable. Say, you ate more than 10,000 meals by the age of 31. Science can prove nothing about the food contents in those 10,000 meals as they are historical and non-repeatable. When you tell people what you ate in your birthday party 10 years ago, they won't ask for evidence. They believe or not. They believe they have a fact or a lie. They don't believe then they can never have a truth.

In a nutshell, humans in reality don't rely on evidence to approach a truth as you suggest (you suggest so as a result of indoctrination by our secular education). Humans in majority approach a truth of any kind by faith. Even science, that's why 99.99% modern humans who know for a fact that black holes exist don't have the evidence. Only a few scientists can get to the evidence by means of expensive equipment, the rest rely on faith but not evidence to get to the fact (ultimately it is a fact from the testimonies of the few scientists as only they have witnessed with evidence).

 

[`mud]

hey Thief,
They don't make an eraser that size,
even your `God`, can't lift that one !

 

[Thief]

"... the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact ... something that induces certainty or establishes validity."

yep ….I saw that...

but....

acceptance of mind
is a cop out
when you have already committed to a belief
or lack of one