I am not worried about anything that might happen at CERN. I believe the Baha'i teachings that all humanity are moving towards a world civilization based on peace and justice that will last for thousands of years into the future.
We can help it come faster - by being kind to all - or we can be the source of pain and suffering by espousing violence and hatred. We can confinue the myth that science and religion are opposites and never the twain shall meet, or we can recognise that each in its own way is attempting to explain the mysteries of Creation.
No, it is impossible for science to prove that God does not exist. After all, Who created science in the first place!!
"All praise to the unity of God, Who out of utter nothingness, hath created the reality of all things." Baha'i Writings
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
Scientists created science and no doubt could actually prove anything using it
How can you believe anything without any evidence to back it up?
"No one can prove an unrestricted negative" is the reply usually given to those who claim that science can prove that God does not exist. An unrestricted negative is a claim to the effect that something doesn't exist anywhere. Since no one can exhaustively examine every place in the universe, the reply goes, no one can conclusively establish the non-existence of anything.
The principle that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, however, is itself an unrestricted negative. It says, in effect, that there are no proofs of unrestricted negatives. But, if there are no proofs of unrestricted negatives, then no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative. And if no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, then it must be logically possible to prove an unrestricted negative. So the claim that no one can prove a universal negative is self-refuting-if it's true, it's false. What I intend to show here is not only that unrestricted negatives can be proven, but that a number of them have been proven.
Parmenides realized over 2,500 years ago that anything that involves a logical contradiction cannot exist. We know that there are no married bachelors, no square circles, and no largest number because these notions are self-contradictory. They violate the most fundamental law of logic-the law of noncontradiction-which says that nothing can both have a property and lack it at the same time. So one way to prove a universal negative is to show that the notion of a thing is inconsistent.
To prove that God does not exist, then, one only has to demonstrate that the concept of God is inconsistent. Traditional theism defines God as a supreme being-a being than which none greater can be conceived, as St. Anselm would have it. We know, however, that there is no supreme number because such a notion involves a logical contradiction. Every number is such that the number 1 can be added to it. If there were a supreme number, it would be such that the number 1 can and cannot be added to it, and that's impossible. Many believe that the notion of a supreme being is just as incoherent as the notion of a supreme number.
Consider, for example, the claim that god is all-good and thus both perfectly merciful and perfectly just. If he is perfectly just, he makes sure that everyone gets exactly what's coming to them. If he is perfectly merciful, he let's everyone off. But he can't do both. So the notion of a supreme being may be internally inconsistent.
Your reasoning using infinite numbers, whilst interesting, is itself fundamentally flawed. If you can imagine a being more powerful than a postulated 'supreme being' then that is not *the* supreme being, obviously. It still does not prevent a supreme being existing, and indeed only goes to show that God is greater than we can imagine.
Similarly, for an all-merciful Creator who is at the same time just to all. You are judging by your view of justice. I see an essential part of justice being an understanding of circumstances and mitigating factors. So we get justice tempered with mercy. This is not inconsistent to me.
"Scientists created science" - actually they did not. The body of knowledge which we call science is simply the result of accumulated observations repeated by different individuals over many years. If observations established the existence of a soul, then science would simply be expanded to accept that knowledge.
My evidence is what I observed. The fact that it cannot be bottled, weighed or otherwise measured does not make it any the less real to me.
All very interesting stuff.
You say "If you can imagine a being more powerful than a postulated 'supreme being' then that is not *the* supreme being, obviously. It still does not prevent a supreme being existing, and indeed only goes to show that God is greater than we can imagine."
But therein lies the gist, imagination is an extremely powerful thing. An individual can always imagine something greater to any demonstrable power, however awesome, by simply "adding one", as it were. "Yes your ability to fly and laser vision is fantastic Superman, but can you travel in time?".
The logical inference of this is that either God's power is not demonstable, or imagination is the supreme being.
There's certainly a touch of the Douglas Adams about this whole discussion (Yes I too have read the "Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy").
Incidentally, on that subject. I wondered what you thought about children's author Eoin Colfer being commissioned to continue the series.
Is this the continuation of a good thing or a worringly lazy literary trend (Sebastian Faulks/Ian Fleming and Erik Van Lustbader/Robert Ludlum)?
Thanks
D
Godfrey
You are clearly a man who knows a thing or two about science. So I have a question if I may.
What is it with diabetics?
One minute they're on the floor with a loved one standing by screaming "Give him some chocolate! Give him some
chocolate!"
The next day someone offers them a piece of chocolate and quick as a
flash they say "No thanks, I'm diabetic."
I wish they'd get their story straight.
Post a Comment