HOME | DD

Description
"Science killed God." I hear this statement so many times, it's become very funny. People need to realize that science does not work like that. Science itself cannot disprove the existence of a diety that is defined as a supernatural and abstract being.

You would be shifting from science to metaphysics if you were to assert that only what science can investigate directly is real. Making a philosophical statement, such as "If you can't see it, feel it, or hear it, it doesn't exist", is not scientific, since you can't or refuse to test out the very statement. This can lead the person into making circular reasoning fallacies. Saying that science can only expore the physical natures does not show that anything abstract is non-existant. The statement only threatens to contradict itself, since words themselves are abstract, and are very real.

Could it support the non-existence? Maybe it can. However, the scientific method is to observe what is happening in the present, form a hypothesis and to see if something can be recreated or retested. There are many theories and many hypothesis, but even the most concrete theories can change dramatically as new technology progresses new tests and even more discoveries.

There are many scientists who have opinions based on their presupposed beliefs and they go about interpreting evidence to support their beliefs, so that means if you already are convinced that God does not exist and cannot exist, you probably wouldn't be that open to the evidence that supports otherwise.

Just my opinion. *tail swish*

BLAH, I feel like I didn't do a good job explaining myself in the description, just sooo tired and still trying to get back into the controversial crowd lol

Other Stamps:

Description
"Science killed God." I hear this statement so many times, it's become very funny. People need to realize that science does not work like that. Science itself cannot disprove the existence of a diety that is defined as a supernatural and abstract being.

You would be shifting from science to metaphysics if you were to assert that only what science can investigate directly is real. Making a philosophical statement, such as "If you can't see it, feel it, or hear it, it doesn't exist", is not scientific, since you can't or refuse to test out the very statement. This can lead the person into making circular reasoning fallacies. Saying that science can only expore the physical natures does not show that anything abstract is non-existant. The statement only threatens to contradict itself, since words themselves are abstract, and are very real.

Could it support the non-existence? Maybe it can. However, the scientific method is to observe what is happening in the present, form a hypothesis and to see if something can be recreated or retested. There are many theories and many hypothesis, but even the most concrete theories can change dramatically as new technology progresses new tests and even more discoveries.

There are many scientists who have opinions based on their presupposed beliefs and they go about interpreting evidence to support their beliefs, so that means if you already are convinced that God does not exist and cannot exist, you probably wouldn't be that open to the evidence that supports otherwise.

Just my opinion. *tail swish*

BLAH, I feel like I didn't do a good job explaining myself in the description, just sooo tired and still trying to get back into the controversial crowd lol

Other Stamps: