Why Science Fails to Explain God-Part II 

Aparthib

 

From: aparthib <aparthib@y...>
Date: Sun Jul 15, 2001 5:09 am
Subject: Re: [eSHOMABESH] Why Science Fails to Explain God - Part II

 

(contd from before)
[...]
The Muslim sits... Because that is what a chair is for. (End of Part I)

Part II:

Then another student interested in science stands up and speaks:

"Both the professor and the Muslim student is flawed in their conclusion
about
what the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol of science
says"

The professor was wrong on two counts. First, Science DOES NOT say that
anything
not perceived by our senses do not exist. The professor might get some help
from
his colleague who specializes in the philosophy of science or his colleague
friend
in the department of Physics to straighten it out". By that flawed logic,
even
electrons do not exist, as we do not perceive individual electrons by our
senses.
So by that logic science will make itself non-existent, since much of
scoience's
principles base on inatngible entities like electrons, quarks, photons etc.
Science
only proves the existence of anything by logic, evidence and observation
(through experimentation). So science cannot prove or disprove "God" as it is
not amenable to scientific study. Second, The definition of God itself is full
of contradictions and inconsistencies to be amenable to even judge its
existence or non-existence. It is
like arguing about the existence of a human that is invisible at all times.
It
is
meaningless to even say it does not exist." One has to have a clear definition
of an
object before its existence can even be debated. God has never been defined
without contradictions/inconsistencies to be universally agreed. Its like the
definition of an invisible human, except this human is endowed with infinite
strength, infinite compassion, infinite knowledge, infinite this and infinite
that etc.
On the other hand, brain is a well-defined object and logic, evidence and
observation
do testify to its existence. Doctors and medical students see brains on a
roiutine basis.

The professor and the muslim student both scratch their head.

Then the science student speaks to the Muslim student:
" By the way your were incorrect about cold being the absense of heat.
Cold is

not a scientific term, but a term to reflect our subjective perception of
temperature. Heat and temperature are not the same thing. So it does not make sense to say
cold is the absense of heat. Cold is relative term to mean something is lower in
temperature than another. So your saying that cold or darkness does not
"exist" is not a meaningful assertion. Its like saying that sorrow does not
exist because sorrow is the absense of happiness, or that night does not eist
becaseu it is the absense of day etc.. You were pushing the word exist to a
bizarre extreme. This was not any informative analogy at
all in the debate.

You also made another mistaken remark, that electricity and magnetism
is not fully understood by science. In fact is is one of the few areas of
science that is fully understood. Again you can consult our physics professor to confirm that.
You made another flawed remark about evlution. It goes back to the issue of
whether we need to "see" something with our own "eyes" for it to be true. Obviously
not as I showed earlier. Do you see a flower suddenly pop up in front of your
eyes? So does it mean it did not evolve from a bud? What about an oak tree. It took
years for it to evolve from a tiny seed to a big tree. Do you see it with your eyes
every moment?
Biological evolution is even much slower process than all of these. Again, it
is evidence and observation. There is no debate among biologists about the fact
of evolution. Any debate is on the exact mechanism, time scales etc all technical
issues. The evidence lies in the fossils and in the bedrocks with layers of layers of
ancient plants and animals. Even human embryo shows evolution on a miniature scale.
Before becoming humanlike, it goes through several forms, at times developing
gills like fish and shedding it off later. These have all been observed through ultrasonograph images. We would have never known about this had utrasonograph
imaging not been discovered. So one need not see evolution with their eyes
for evolution to be true. Like electron, it is evidence through observation that
lends truth to it. Evolution happens over a much longer time span (millions of
years). By the way humans did not evolve from monkey. Rather monkeys and huamns evolved from the same primate ancestor millions of years ago. Human and chimpanzees have 98% in common in their genes.

The Muslim student looks puzzled and awed. The philosophy professor
also seems awed at the science student's depth and says: "I am yet to learn
so much myself. I will certainly read up more on science to be more
knowledgeable about it"

All leave the classroom, more humbled and knowledgeable.

---------------------------- :-)) ---------------------------------