2006-11-03 06:57:59 · 13 answers · asked by Sara S 4 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Earth Sciences & Geology
Yep. It's called metaphysics.
Why do you think Einstein introduced his 'fudge factor' in his first Theory of Relativity? Because he didn't like the metaphysical implications of the truth. Fortunately, his contemporaries called him on it and he 'fixed' it and won the Nobel prize.
Said differently, if E=MC (squared), then energy can be converted into matter and vice versa. The necessary implication is that neither can come from nothing, which is scientific evidence of there being something supernatural that created the known universe.
I call it God. What do you call it?
2006-11-03 07:03:11 · answer #1 · answered by TheSlayor 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. Such does not follow. For science belongs in the world of Mind, a created thing found to be a powerful servant of truth but an extremely poor master of same, much less an innovator of it. The Higher Being has no need of nor depends on Science in order to be the Higher Being... And evidence does oftentimes mean dogmatism...or worse, another word for insecurity or diffidence, in either case one masquerading as brilliance.
2006-11-03 11:54:24 · answer #2 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hi Sara, atheist scientists wont admit to this and they seem to get the most exposure, but there are many believing scientists who are rarely noticed and these give loads of evidence of a higher being whom they even say is God.
2006-11-03 07:09:13 · answer #3 · answered by Sentinel 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I guess it depends on what you consider evidence. Many people consider the complexity and "order" found in nature to be evidence but others accept them as a result of the laws of nature.
2006-11-03 18:00:14 · answer #4 · answered by minuteblue 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no direct evidence.
Some people consider biochemical structures of "irreducible complexity" within living organisms to be indirect evidence of "Intelligent Design" and thus indirect evidence of intelligent being(s) other than ourselves. To learn more about this viewpoint, read
Darwin's Black Box
by Michael Behe
2006-11-03 07:19:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
There isn't any scientific evidence (yet). However, don't forget that 1000 years ago was no evidence that gravity exists either so keep your mind open.
2006-11-03 07:04:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, what do you need?
Some would say nature is your evidence; others feel it is borne of superstition.
What would constitute irrefutable evidence?
2006-11-03 07:09:35 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is none and scientist will never admit to any if they find it either. Faith is believing in things unseen. Science is believing only what is seen.
2006-11-03 07:00:49 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you're trying to use science to prove the existence of God, you're using the wrong tool for the job.
2006-11-03 07:05:48 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Nope!
2006-11-03 07:05:56 · answer #10 · answered by Wounded duckmate 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋