> If you define God as being a > super-natural phenomena (which you have) and there can be no direct > proof of this being's existence, then the belief in such a being is > irrational.
The problem here is that you seem to be defining rationality as that which can only be proved beyond a shadow of any doubt. Logic and reason are often called in play very much in cases where such does not exist and one is asked to look at what is known and draw a conclusion based on that. I'm not going to rehash everything I said in the older thread on this, but basically the fact that one person's logic and reason (thus rationality) leads them to draw one conclusion does not therefore mean someone else's conclusion must therefore be incorrect and irrational. > The people that not-so-politely told scientists to butt the hell out were > proven > provincial and wrong time and again. Perhaps science can explain the > existence of God. Perhaps not. I don't know and I'm pretty damn well > sure that you don't either. You can look at either side of the coin. If there isn't a God, can science ever prove that? You would always be able to make the argument that a supernatural being exists that acts outside the natural realm, and thus outside the realm that science defines. If there *is* a God, could science ever prove that? Only if by god you are defining it as a being that acts within natural laws, which certainly isn't the definition most people use. Science doesn't prove things beyond a shadow of any doubt, it proves things by a preponderance of the evidence, and the only way to show evidence for a supernatural being is by saying something cannot be explained solely by natural law.. That's certainly an argument that isn't going to fly by any one that doesn't believe in a god, anything unexplained is simply something we haven't learned enough to understand within natural law yet. There are certainly a copious number of websites today that claim science *proves* that God exists but you will find many people that would disagree with those conclusions, on these and other grounds. So yes, I find it *very* hard to believe that science would ever be able to prove that God exists. > You seem hell bent on defining what science cannot, in your mind, do. > Why is that? You believe. That's great. No, it has nothing to do with what I believe or not....I have argued the same thing for many years, and disagree just as much with people that use bad science to push their religious agenda as I do with those that feel it proves otherwise. > But why are you so adamant that science has > absolutely no place here? Whoa, I never said science had no place here. I have no problem at all with science studying anything that may be supernatural in origin to find other explanations, studying the scientific basis of life, evolution, etc. That's not the same as saying that we can scientifically prove the existence (or lack thereof) of God. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:308348 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
