Science confirms the Bible?

[Silver]

Or vice versa.

Correct, just look at what your supposedly holy church did to Galileo.

[Esquilax]

So, your saying science is use to prove the existence of God?!? Do you have any supporting documentation?

It could be! That's the great thing about science: anyone can do it. So Drich, if you wanted to formulate a falsifiable, testable hypothesis about your god claim, you could do it. You could also test that hypothesis and submit the results of your experiment to any scientific journal or publication outlet, and have it peer reviewed; good science is repeatable with consistent results, after all! After doing that, the paradigm shifting notion of a provable god- one that you claim is obvious and at work in the world, so you should have no trouble doing this- would be open for debate, and further experimentation, and correction, and additional peer review. You would have discovered an entirely new field of science!

Because there's no ivory tower here, no barrier of entry beyond correct experimentation and honest discussion. Scientists aren't generally in the market for performing wrong experiments using faulty measures and coming up with incorrect results; the pathway to success and fame in science is not to get things wrong and then continue doing so without correction. If you think your god exists, then you have nothing standing in your way, if you want to use science to prove he exists. Go for it.

Contrast that with the major religions, that have a history of suppressing any thought that runs contrary to their doctrine, outright ignoring any discoveries they can't simply quash, and worse still, polluting real scientific discourse by throwing chaff and the worst kind of dishonest "research" out there in the form of intelligent design, among others.

Only one of these fields is guilty of going about their business fraudulently or with an agenda, Drich, and it's not science. You can't claim some form of massive bias when both recent and far flung history shows that your own camp is routinely and proudly guilty of that very accusation.

[fr0d0]

So, you're saying science is useful to prove the existence of God?

It could be!

No, it couldn't.

That would be forcing science into metaphysics. ie not science.

[Silver]

No, it couldn't.

Actually, it could. Your reluctance to believe that science could prove God's existence is strangely linked to the unknown. As long as man has no real knowledge of God's existence, he can continue to have faith and use its unreliability as a chain that tethers the brilliant mind. You are merely afraid that science may one day prove that God does not exist, because goodness knows that science has made strides beyond primitive religious understanding. After all, if those strides could be made, why has the stride toward God not been made? Simple, because perhaps it cannot due to God not being real.

[Esquilax]

It could be!

No, it couldn't.

That would be forcing science into metaphysics. ie not science.

Then you need to get together with your fellow believers and figure out a coherent doctrine about your god; either he tampers with the physical world and can thus be tested for, or he doesn't, in which case the bible has some serious factual errors, and besides, what's the point?

But you can't have it both ways, and as Maelstrom said, this whole "god is beyond science!" schtick is just a way to preserve beliefs that don't have any evidentiary support; you're just lying to yourself if you claim god can't have any.

[fr0d0]

And absolutely everything is evidence of God. But how do you prove it? How do you become god like and run the tests?

A scientifically proven god is a logical trap. Actual science acknowledges this limitation.

[Silver]

And absolutely everything is evidence of God.

So speaks the the imagination. Does it ever become tiring to always be so wrong?

[Esquilax]

And absolutely everything is evidence of God. But how do you prove it? How do you become god like and run the tests?

Ugh, is this seriously the level of argumentation you're going to provide here? "Look at the trees!" Christ...

Look at the different standards of evidence here:

Science: Countless testable, repeatable, falsifiable experiments and observations subject to incredible scrutiny both within the scientific community and without from naysayers, providing demonstrable results and constantly improving, while accepting any demonstrable idea into the fold of peer review.

Religion: "Everything is proof of god! ... But you can never test it..."

A scientifically proven god is a logical trap. Actual science acknowledges this limitation.

Or more accurately, science acknowledges that it can't prove anything for which there is no demonstrable evidence, and thus refuses to bother. I wonder why?

[fr0d0]

Please prove that Maelstrom.

To you, logic is "imagination". i wonder how you manage to function in life at all.

[Silver]

Please prove that Maelstrom.

To you, logic is "imagination". i wonder how you manage to function in life at all.

When religion displays logic in its apparently imaginative beliefs, then you can claim I am held to the burden of proof. Otherwise, enjoy attempting to prove your extraordinary claims are based on anything more than faith. I will be waiting.