(December 6, 2013 at 12:05 am)Rational AKD Wrote: tested in what manor. if you mean tested by experiment, then you will have to show why that is true... and that's something that can't be proven by experiment. the position you're presenting is not a scientific one, but a philosophical position called positivism, and it's self refuting since the statement "it must be tested by experiment to be shown true" can't by tested by experiment and thus can't itself be shown to be true.
Science doesn't deal with truth. You can never prove something. It deals with evidence that either support a hypothesis or do not. All the evidence suggests that science does work. Me talking to you via a computer is evidence of this.
I do get what you are saying but I think you are mixing this with logic, much like the difference between mathematics and science. In maths you prove something, in science you gain evidence to support a hypothesis. You wouldn't try to prove pythagoras' theorem by making hundreds of triangles and measuring them, but you would if you took a scientific approach (but you wouldn't be "proving", you'd be gaining evidence to support the Pythagorian hypothesis).
For example you said "time has a cause", which is an assertion. Time is a physical property, which in order to understand you must examine. How the hell can you come to a conclusion about something without examining it? You could come to any conclusion about anything, purely based on your assumptions of it.
You are doing what theists tend to do. Reduce everything to a point where anything goes and you can just state something and it is just as "truthful" as anything else. It becomes absurd.
