Evidence for God from Science

Mathematics is the most pure of sciences. That's quite a thing to say. The only mathematics that even approaches the ambiguity of science would be maybe probabilistic reasoning. Computer science is a science in name only as proofs are still used. Nothing in science is proven. Everything in mathemat...

The main premise which is in question in this proof is whether "existence" is a positive quality. Would you disagree with that? I disagree with almost every premise. Namely: Axiom 2: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive Axiom 3: The property o...

His claim has overstepped the bounds of 'pure' mathematics and logic and has tried to make existential claims. Maths are a strange thing in that they never really necessarily correlate to existence. This leads some to wonder where maths come from if not reality. Now as for his proof.. of course it w...

If you're referring to Godel's incompleteness theorem, you should note that this only applies to certain axiomatic sets not all. For instance, if you take addition, identity, and some other basic axioms across the natural numbers, every true statement will be accounted for in this set by the axioms...

I almost believed in fallibilism, but I thought it might not be true. :mrgreen: Does anything else need to be said? Beany, it was a play on words. Falliblists don't believe in things because they're afraid those things may be found to be untrue. I know, I was praising your criticism. I think the po...

RickD wrote:I almost believed in fallibilism, but I thought it might not be true.

Does anything else need to be said?

A lot of nonsense in this thread (transitional fossils, micro/macro evolution, egad!), but I just want to address one thing. things it has actually "proved" (if that word can actually be used in the science field) Things can be said to be proven when they approach a high enough confidence ...

Exact Sciences use Logic every day to reach to conclusions. Logic cannot prove anything, as prove by Godel. PS. If mathematicians are not scientists, what are they? I'm really not sure what you're talking about, Godel proved no such thing. Mathematics is wholly and entirely seperated from science. ...

Beanybag, Yes, you understand. God, as it is in your understanding, is not a set. You're making yourself look foolish saying that. Limitations are imperfect, sir. You understand this just fine. I didn't say there was an infinity. Where did you get that? There is no perfect deception. That's an oxym...

Exact Sciences use Logic every day to reach to conclusions. Logic cannot prove anything, as prove by Godel. PS. If mathematicians are not scientists, what are they? I'm really not sure what you're talking about, Godel proved no such thing. Mathematics is wholly and entirely seperated from science. ...

I'm not, to be honest. Did you notice me citing Wikipedia? :ebiggrin: Yeah, I'm quite ignorant as far as abiogenesis and experiments associated with it are concerned. Neige, here is why that experiment has been debunked many times that even evolutionists dont use it anymore. http://creation.com/why...

There is no limit to science, there is however limits to our ability to understand the universe and our perception of reality. Not all science is "created equal" of course. Science is simply the observation of nature, so the issue is HOW to we understand what we are observing and how do w...

because I never asserted that anything absurd, nor did I assert anything that you didn't understand. What I mean by Perfection is the Reality of another mind (other than my own) that has ALL POSSIBLE PERFECTIONS! It is a perfection to be eternal. Temporal existence is an imperfection. It is a perfe...

The question I have for Mr. Harris is why stop at animals and humans? Where is the scientific sense of morality as relating to ANY type of living beings including bacteria and plants? That's a good question - Harris usually addresses it early when he talks or writes about this topic. Check out his ...

However, I don't need to justify numbers in order to use them much the same as I don't need to understand a motor in order to drive a car. Sorry, don't mean to interrupt the dialogue. had to point this out. Justification and understanding are not the same thing. I may not understand a motor, but I ...