Present arguments for your trust in science, without using your scientific texts...

Accepting your first two paragraphs above as being reasonable responses, but reserving my right to scrutinize them further and potentially submit further comment: I move on to the final paragraph.

Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, and many of the others who fashioned the foundation of science, are also unknown in the sense that there are no birth or burial records,,, just a lot of stuff written on parchment, stone or whatever; For all that we really KNOW about any of them, they could have been potential comedians of their time.

You speak of several claims that have been proven to be false. Where is that proof and what specific claims have been proven to be false? Whereas you still have not been able to provide any PROOF of your claim regarding the birth of this universe. Where is that proof? The "Big Bang" is also unobservable, as it (if it was the actual cause) happened more than 2 months ago and is a thing of the past... no longer observable.... that instant flash of the bang is long gone....

As for the description you desire to place on 'faith' and 'belief', That is your prerogative. but be assured, that as long as there are people out there like you who desire to throw rocks, you can be certain to have some rocks thrown right back at you. With me KNOWING that you cannot disprove the existence of God (by the admission of people more reputed than yourself), then I stand steadfast in my faith and my belief. Of course, my belief and faith in God is no worse than your faith (confidence and trust) in science which cannot even come to a mutual agreement on the meaning of the term "life'; and holding a belief in things that have not and cannot be proven (BB).

BTW: thanks also for the admission that you cannot produce those items requested in the OP.

 

No, I am not going to use the words proof because it just adds confusion. I've already admitted that natural sciences are incapable of mathematical like proofs. What we rely on is purely evidence and that's the way it always is going to be. Your religion and your God have no evidence to back up their claims, so why even begin to believe them?

 

OK! Evidence. What evidence do you have regarding the birth of the universe? What is the source of that evidence other than 'observation' as obviously you were not there to observe that event?

 

Agreed. However, religion will never be able to prove the existence of God. But why should it? People who are looking for God are not looking for proof, they are looking for something bigger than themselves to believe in.

I think that there would be a lot less problems if science stayed out of religion and religion stayed out of science. Anyone agree with me?

 

Your equivocation of scripture and science texts is not valid because all texts are subject to peer review where a scripture is not.

Not sure why your so defensive by the way. Science does not really care about religions because they involve supernatural elements. Which is something science does not deal with by definition.

 

Science does stay or of religion (By definition - see above). The opposite is not always the case.

 

Indeed I agree with you. However, it is really doubtful that you will be able to cause the Atheists and other non-theists to stay out of 'religion'. Example: If a group of theists are holding a discussion regarding 'creationism', there is the utmost in expectancy to have at least a few non-theists jump into the discussion, if for no other purpose than to disrupt the flow of discussion.

But for all intents and purposes that you have mentioned... I concur.

 

Proof without observation is done everyday such as in the court room. We can deduce what must have happened by observing what was left behind from whatever event is in question.

 

Yes, but this is an example of religion meddling with science. It's hardly up for debate whether or not evolution is the case, so trying to "teach" an "alternate theory" is in bad taste. (I mean this in context of the classroom)

 

Yeah, I guess it's human nature. Heck there are still people out there who try to force science classes to teach ID.

 

The big bang can still be observed. I leave it to the reader to verify this on their own time.

 

On the contrary. Scripture was subject to 'peer review'; both from the scientific community and by the Theological community. Science dealt with the issue of the validity of the artifacts and the Theological community dealt with the contents of the artifacts.

You might throw that question at the non-theists who make demands for scientific proof of such things as are related to scripture. Defensive? I would venture to say that most people on this forum would suggest that I am more offensive than defensive. But I feel the same way about those on the other side of the fence who cast stones at my beliefs.

 

If we couldn't learn anything from our ancestors and had to re-invent the wheel before we made a car or something. We'd be lucky not to be extinct.

If this is the basis of this thread it ridiculous. You shouldn't even be using a computer to post here because you have not invented it yet. Even if you did, the language you are using was established by people living before you. And the skills you have for work were taught to you out of books you didn't write so you should be a bum on the street somewhere.

The reason the Bible and other books are not good teaching aids is because most of the contents can not be verified by other sources. If a particular story has some relevance to you. Great, think about it an apply it as you see fit. But it should not be said that a scripture is an undeniable fact simply because it says so.

 

No it wasn't. Science (as we know it) did not exist when the scriptures were written.

And it may have been read by the philosophers, but it was not reviewed in a way that could have verified the claims they make. This would not have been possible because of the supernatural nature of some of the scripture and could not have been validated.

 

According to the stated facts presented by non-theists, it is logically a fallacy for those non-theists to be arguing against the existence of such things that they are convinced do not exist. That is the 'ridiculous' part of this thread and almost 99% of the threads on this segment of PF... the involvement of non-theists in discussions of things that they don't believe in.

The non-verification by science of things found in the Bible, simply shows the inability of scientists to deal with things beyond their capabilities. Whereas, a peer group of theists have no problem verifying spiritual things to other like minded, like spirited Theists. Well of course you can deny scripture, just as others can deny particular aspects of science. However, that denial does not necessarily create a 'truth'. Only PROOF will create the truth in a denial.

As for your first paragraph... pure conjecture. Not based on any given set of facts that will support the assertion. Just look around the world at all of the surviving uneducated animals. That is evidence of the error in your suggestion.

 

Asking for scientific proof the events mentioned in the Bible is setting up an impossible standard because even with all the evidece we could ask for, this is still impossible becuase science does not deal with the supernatural. There are many reasons why I don't believe. But as for proof, I'd like to see more historical accounts of these events. I don't think there is even 1 account of Jesus or any of the crazy stuff that happened by a historian.

 

I made a conjecture? To what are you referring?

 

"If we couldn't learn anything from our ancestors and had to re-invent the wheel before we made a car or something. We'd be lucky not to be extinct."

See the highlighted text above. Very clearly ... a conjecture.

 

Oh ok, it's not really worth arguing about. But I don't think it's an unreasonable claim. We are exceptionally slow and weak as an individual.

 

"unreasonable"? "we"? "exceptionally slow and weak as an individual"?

You seem to speak in riddles, not making clear the items in quotations above. The terms "we" and "individual" are diametrically opposed without clarification of terms; especially when the two terms are used in the same sentence referring to seemingly the same entity.

 

Yes, it's neither confirmed nor denied by science (for reasons already mentioned). A circle of like minded people agreeing with each other however does not succeed in our quest to verify the claims of the Bible. If something has truly been verified it should be possible for non-believers to come to the same conclusion. It's in this sense that you are not so different from an atheist: you reject Islam as do they, you reject Jainism as do they, you reject Judaism as do they etc. etc. etc.

 

Your reading into this too hard my friend. We (humans) are weak as an individual (1 human).

 

Then for all intents and purposes you don't have the verification available and therefore it remains non-existing. You made the claim (as stated above) now it is up to you to prove the claim. But of course, the OP restricts what means you have available to prove such claims.

 

We can't run fast, climb trees well, or fight off a bear, lion, wolf, gorilla, chimpanzee, bob cat etc.. Slow and weak.

Anyway, this is not an important point as I said earlier.

 

The irony of the OP asking this on one of the fruits of science.