RE: Four proofs of the nonexistence of God
July 19, 2017 at 9:17 pm
(This post was last modified: July 19, 2017 at 9:24 pm by Jehanne.)
(July 19, 2017 at 6:59 pm)Lutrinae Wrote:(July 19, 2017 at 6:58 pm)Jehanne Wrote: If the soul truly existed, then it is reasonable that there would be scientific evidence for it.
Not necessarily, at least not yet. Science can only do so much, and it has a great deal to discover yet.
It's like saying that astronomers will discover the planet Vulcan somewhere between the orbit of the Sun and Mercury? Perhaps Vulcan is there but just invisible and is made of matter that is invisible? Maybe there are intelligent lifeforms there who are watching us?
(July 19, 2017 at 7:08 pm)Lek Wrote:(July 19, 2017 at 6:58 pm)Jehanne Wrote: If the soul truly existed, then it is reasonable that there would be scientific evidence for it.
Since the soul is supernatural, not natural, it would be impossible for science to find evidence of it. Science only deals in natural evidence.
This is just abjectly false. Consider the AWARE studies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Parnia...E.29_study
(July 19, 2017 at 7:33 pm)Lutrinae Wrote:(July 19, 2017 at 7:30 pm)mordant Wrote: If there were a soul and it were supernatural, I'd say that you got that right.
Alas, there is no other kind of evidence than natural evidence.
'Member when there was no evidence of gravity or relativity until there was evidence?
No, things were much deeper than that. Within Maxwell's equations there was evidence of the principle of simultaneity, which lead Einstein to develop special relativity. After the experiments by Michelson and Morley that were not able to detect the luminous ether and the failure of Lorentz's ideas of "ether dragging" was relativity, slowly, accepted. But, yes, as with the multiverse, the lack of empirical evidence over something divides the physics community, and like religion, you get all sorts of fragmentation. With things that have evidence (such as neutrinos), however, there is absolutely no fragmentation; you get from the community universal acceptance. This is an example of how science differs from religion, in that scientists can come to agree and accept things that are strange and counter-intuitive based upon evidence and observation.
