2007-09-27 18:15:56 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
How is it that finite scientists can use their finite fractal infernal temporal tools to quantify infinity, qualify divinity, measure the duration of eternity, and know all that there is to know about the totality of existence? They cannot. Just because they cannot does not mean that our universe is an entity on to itself. Maybe it means that an infinity, divinity, eternally one remains hidden to scientifically reproducible discovery because scientists are too limited in their abilities to gather evidence, make inferences and draw conclusions. Scientists devote much of their energy, space and time to using the finite fractal infernal temporal tools of science to gather truth about what we can know and profiting by applying an understanding. Scientists generally don't concern themselves with myth and fantasy based on mystery in their work.
2007-09-27 18:24:14 · answer #1 · answered by H.I. of the H.I. 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It doesn't, and it couldn't, by definition of the words intangible and indescribable.
So why does religion claim not only that the force exists, but also that the force is in fact tangible and describable? That's most of what religious rituals and gatherings are for... to pretend to describe something that they already acknowledge as indescribable... and then they don't notice the irony.
2007-09-28 01:19:22 · answer #2 · answered by Buying is Voting 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
If you are asking how does science explain something that gives no evidence of existence, I think the answer is self-evident. Scientists would say there is nothing to discuss. Religion, on the other hand, may draw conclusions and fabricate a mythology surrounding something that exists only in the imagination of man.
2007-09-28 01:28:34 · answer #3 · answered by BAL 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Science could not draw any conclusion as to the existence or otherwise of a thing that can't be described or detected.
I'd be fascinated to hear what source of knowledge could.
On the other hand, it's not difficult to conclude that such a proposition is meaningless and without relevance to a reasoned life.
2007-09-28 01:21:19 · answer #4 · answered by Voyager 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It doesn't... science doesn't prove negatives. It is incumbent upon those making the claims that something exists to provide proof.
2007-09-28 01:19:00 · answer #5 · answered by Rogue Scrapbooker 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Science can't explain it so to science it is unscientific and illogical. It won't say it does or doesn't exist. that why I don't get Atheist logic on this matter. Evidence is inconclusive, not exhausted.
2007-09-28 01:20:46 · answer #6 · answered by sunscour 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Well they still hold on to the theory of evolution. I thought science was about something you can acutally observe or measure.
2007-09-28 01:42:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Science can only explain that for which there is evidence.
2007-09-28 01:22:55 · answer #8 · answered by October 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
how can anything describe the indescribable?
2007-09-28 01:29:49 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
All this requires is logic, it's called an "argument from silence".
2007-09-28 01:19:25 · answer #10 · answered by neil s 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋