|
|
Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"
Yasha Hartberg (Yasha@bigraf.tamu.edu)
Mon, 01 May 1995 20:36:48 +0300
In article
<Pine.SOL.3.91.950501174004.28098C-100000@gladstone.uoregon.edu>, China
<hilary@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote:
> fine. however, I'd hesitate to allow that the scientific realm
> encompases all existence. As in, as you say, there is no basis to prove
> or disprove the existence of God. So if God exists, it is at a level as
> yet inaccessible to science.
Not quite. The existence of God is not a scientific question. It cannot
be addressed by the scientific method. This is fundamental to the method,
not a limitation of current technology or of scientific understanding. If
God exists, science cannot prove it. If God does not exist, science
cannot prove it. If God existed once, but doesn't any more, science
cannot prove it. If God will exist in the future, science cannot prove
it...
Note, however, that this limitation applies to both sides of the
argument. In other words, it is NOT legitimate to make converse
statements like, science cannot prove God does not exist, therefore God
exists. The existence of God must be taken on faith. There can be no
proof.
Science simply deals with the laws of nature. Anything supernatural, BY
DEFINITION, falls outside the realm of science. The most science can say
on the subject of God is that, to date, there is no evidence that the laws
of nature require a supernatural being to work.
Yasha Hartberg
Texas A&M University
"The most beautiful thing in Tokyo is McDonald's." Andy Warhol
|