Science is UNPROVABLE but God is TRUTH

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: DBCowboy

Just in case you don't understand (obviously you don't) how that phrase is regarded by scientists:

No science is ever “settled”; science deals in probabilities, not certainties. When the probability of something approaches 100%, then we can regard the science, colloquially, as “settled”. The skeptics say that results must be double-checked and uncertainties must be narrowed before any action should be taken.

Look covid proved that the "science" is never settled.

But look at every damned pundit and scientist on the tv saying it was.

No one ever said the vaccine was settled science. You only have to read the patent application for the vaccine to know that. The risks were clearly outlined. It was turned into a political football, ignoring the real science. I understand that the media is all most people have. But that's not an excuse to call it "settled science". It isn't. It wasn't. I never will be.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: DBCowboy

Just in case you don't understand (obviously you don't) how that phrase is regarded by scientists:

No science is ever “settled”; science deals in probabilities, not certainties. When the probability of something approaches 100%, then we can regard the science, colloquially, as “settled”. The skeptics say that results must be double-checked and uncertainties must be narrowed before any action should be taken.

Look covid proved that the "science" is never settled.

But look at every damned pundit and scientist on the tv saying it was.

No one ever said the vaccine was settled science. You only have to read the patent application for the vaccine to know that. The risks were clearly outlined. It was turned into a political football, ignoring the real science. I understand that the media is all most people have. But that's not an excuse to call it "settled science". It isn't. It wasn't. I never will be.

But "they" said the science was settled.

They said it about covid, they said it about global warming.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I don't know who you're talking about. As I said, it became a political football. But the evidence and risks were clearly outlined in the patent application.

Here's an excerpt from Modern patent application ( 10 ) Patent No . : US 10 , 064 , 959 B2
( 45 ) Date of Patent : Sep . 4 , 2018:



The msm doesn't expect the general population to read the details. That's why you get suckered in.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: neoholographic

Every age of mankind has been the "pinnacle" of science.

We (as a species) are so arrogant to think the "science" is complete and that there is nothing more to learn.

Wouldn't it be interesting if science proved thew existence of God.

You used the right word, arrogant. That mostly comes from message board atheist and materialist. When you debate, most Scientist will freely admit science can't answer many of these questions and they agree with what Einstein said:

The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says "Yes" to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says "Maybe," and in the great majority of cases simply "No." If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter "Maybe," and if it does not agree it means "No." Probably every theory will someday experience its "No"—most theories, soon after conception.

We're a type 0 civilization stuck in 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time so it has to be the case that are science is very limited so if you tie your atheism to science you're in a very weak position. This is why none of the responses from atheist/agnostics have answered my question. They just blindly repeat themselves.

Most of science points to the existence of God but as limited beings we need Faith, Belief and Truth that transcends are limited, type 0 civilization science.

a reply to: Phantom423

Fine then.

The science is not settled, science cannot disprove the existence of God, science cannot prove climate change is real and science totally dropped the ball on Covid.

This is interesting.

You and your pal Cooperton spend your entire time trying to prove that 'science', as you call it, was in the bible all along but now you say it's all unprovable?

a reply to: TerraLiga

I'm sure you spend your time on quality if you had to explain it.

a reply to: Untun

I spend my time trying to understand things and people.

a reply to: TerraLiga

In a way we should all try to understand what is real about things and people, it would make us be present.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
This is interesting.

You and your pal Cooperton spend your entire time trying to prove that 'science', as you call it, was in the bible all along but now you say it's all unprovable?

Let me walk you through this.

A scientific argument is different than a metaphysical argument.

The point is, if you deny the metaphysical then all that you can know is the physical and this is limited. This is based on a posteriori truth which is contingent and a shadow of Transcendent Truth.

So look at the double slit experiment, we may find out the nature of dark energy next year which changes what we know about the quantum field. So it's a contingent truth that's unprovable. Like Einstein said all of their "maybe's" might eventually become "no's."

Transcendent Truth is necessary in all possible worlds. It contains the knowledge of all truth. This is why the Bible talks about the knowledge of good and evil. Transcendent Truth knows the difference between good and evil, hot or cold or wet and dry. It has knowledge of all things in all possible worlds.

In a single world, you can have some combination of these Transcendent Truths which will give you a posteriori truth which is contingent but points to the source of all Truth God.

Here's an example, you can imagine a world made of just liquids and gases. In this world scientist suspect there could be another state of matter so they call it the dark state. In this world they don't know what a solid is but they have contingent truth that might lead them to discovering a solid.

Transendent Truth knows what a solid is even though those who have contingent truth don't know. So this is why it's unprovable but can lead you to contingent truth about the world you occupy but if this contingent truth is the sum of all you can know because you deny Transcendent Truth and the source of all truth God then your knowledge is very limited.

a reply to: neoholographic

The root of the issue is this: You believe your god (putting aside all the other gods with the same claim for now...) created the universe and everything in it.

I don't believe that.

I find it humorous that every significant scientific discovery is somehow miraculously 'decoded' from your religious books to substantiate your claims - you and your pals have dozens of threads in this section doing exactly that, and then there is this one.

Ultimately, neither of us can prove beyond any doubt that the totality of their belief is fact, or the other side is false. That is the only truth.

a reply to: TerraLiga

I have threads in science, metaphysical, philosophy forums and more. I always connect science to God who transcends science so there's nothing humorous. Like these threads:

Science finds more evidence of God's Creation
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Bible predicts what science discovers
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So I connect what I say about science and contingent truth to the source of all Truth God. Nothing new.

Without God, you can't transcend the physical then you're just stuck with contingent truth that's unprovable. Let me repeat Einstein:

The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says "Yes" to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says "Maybe," and in the great majority of cases simply "No." If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter "Maybe," and if it does not agree it means "No." Probably every theory will someday experience its "No"—most theories, soon after conception.

People seem to think faith means without evidence. The Bible says this:

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

THE EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN!

As you're on your walk with God and you grow in faith He will give you evidence of things not seen. He will give you evidence of the reality that transcends the physical.

Jesus said, I'm not of this world, Paul went to the Third Heaven, God is outside of our perception of time, there's highest Heavens and everlasting to everlasting.

The Bible says this reality holds our universe together. Jesus holds all things together visible and invisible. I did a thread about that:

The Bible says the universe is held together
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Like I said, if the sum of all you can know depends on science without God to transcend the physical then you just have unprovable contingent truth.

a reply to: neoholographic

THE EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN!

Oxymoron: a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction.

Do you ever consult a dictionary? What the hell is "unseen evidence"? Got any I can take into the lab?

a reply to: Phantom423

That's what most do, twisting things like evidence of things unseen into unseen evidence.

No, it's not all the same.

a reply to: neoholographic

I'm telling you I have a dog painted red, white and blue, being ridden by a monkey wearing a cowboy hat.

Would you take it on FAITH that I'm telling the truth or would you require something more than evidence of things not seen.

btw....I also went to 3rd heaven like Paul. Buy the ticket, take the ride....

a reply to: olaru12

Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen

a reply to: Phantom423

Sure there's unseen evidence. This is why you have been dodging my question for 4 pages now. I will ask it again:

So this is proof a God-like being is a necessary truth in all possible worlds unless you can show evidence that a possible world can exist without Transcendent Truth. Is there a possible world that can exist without Transcendent Truth?

The reason you keep obfuscating is because you can't answer.

Science is showing the 3rd dimension is falling apart at the seems just like the Bible said it would but you keep holding onto the illusion. Science in the 3rd dimension is contingent and can only point to Transendent Truth which is Necesarry.

Let's look at this science that you act like is so rock solid:

Why More Physicists Are Starting to Think Space and Time Are ‘Illusions’

A concept called “quantum entanglement” suggests the fabric of the universe is more interconnected than we think. And it also suggests we have the wrong idea about reality.
link

The Universe Is Not Locally Real, and the Physics Nobel Prize Winners Proved It
www.scientificamerican.com...

The wave-function is real but nonphysical: A view from counterfactual quantum cryptography
arxiv.org...

Time is NOT real: Physicists show everything happens at the same time
www.express.co.uk...

The Illusion of Time: What's Real?
www.space.com...

A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality
www.technologyreview.com...

Is the Universe Conscious?

Some of the world's most renowned scientists are questioning whether the cosmos has an inner life similar to our own.
www.nbcnews.com...

I will stop there and if anyone wants to see more you can check out my thread:

The Bible says the universe is held together
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is what the Bible says. It says the universe is held together by Jesus Christ the Word of His Power. Also Jesus said I am not of this world.

This world is crumbling in front of your eyes and you want to remain on the Titanic. The Bible tells us the veil between this world and the reality outside of this world is going to be removed.

Revelation 6:14 “And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.”

It says Jesus will then enter this world on His Throne and sadly people will see Him and they still will not repent.

How much hate in your heart do you have to have to see Jesus and still deny Him?

Science is discovering that there's the science which we have come up with to describe the illusion and then there's fundamental reality which is Transcendent Truth. So you hear more about this is an illusion or it isn't objectively real.

Let me say that again:

Science is discovering that there's the science which we have come up with to describe the illusion and then there's fundamental reality which is Transcendent Truth. So you hear more about this is an illusion or it isn't objectively real.

Finally, I will ask the question again that you have failed to respond to in 4 pages on this thread. Stop obfuscating.

So this is proof a God-like being is a necessary truth in all possible worlds unless you can show evidence that a possible world can exist without Transcendent Truth. Is there a possible world that can exist without Transcendent Truth?

a reply to: neoholographic

Is there a possible world that can exist without Transcendent Truth?

Answer: Yes. Because there is no such thing as transcendent truth. BTW, where's that sample of unseen evidence that I can bring into the lab? Got any? Think not.

If scientists used your logic we wouldn't have flushing toilets.

originally posted by: Untun
a reply to: TerraLiga

In a way we should all try to understand what is real about things and people, it would make us be present.

I think most people take things for granted. We are too busy with our lives to really give much thought to things that behave or operated as expected. It is not until the unusual comes into play that we take pause, and if that unusuality is not unusual enough, it will likely be ignored.

There are massive amount of things that are outside of what we we would call normal that occur daily. Things that go unwitnessed, or our brain just does not process. Because I have a visual impairment, I am often pointing out oddities in our environment that others don't see, until I point them out to them.

It is not just what we see and what we don't see, it is what we accept, and what we don't accept, that will often engage or unengaged what our brain processes as relevant.

Having an open mind, being curious, and being willing to accept possibilities outside of what is accepted as normal, increases your ability to perceive what is thought to be impossible.


My personal opinion.

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: neoholographic

Science itself, will prove to you...God Exists...and that's "Truth"

Odd how that works, science and philosophy naturally lead to ID.

The problem is the linears can't amalgamate...

Lacking gestalt even if equipped with knowledge of the sciences and philosophies.

originally posted by: Phantom423
If scientists used your logic we wouldn't have flushing toilets.

*Correction -- "they" wouldn't have flushing toilets

because you're obviously not a scientist...