[Neb]

Originally posted by Aviendha: Neb, I wonder where these “true” physical laws that you speak of originate from. Can you please tell me what the “true” physical laws are, because I obviously have not been made aware of them.

The "true" physical laws are quite simply whichever physical laws are the ones actually governing the universe.

Originally posted by Aviendha: It is very easy for you to make a statement like “science is not proven”. What you are actually trying to suggest to me is, that since many things in science are not definite, and that there are many things in this universe that we cannot understand, God more than likely exists. I find this sort of statement rather irritating as you have not in fact made any statement at all. I know that there are many things in this universe that we do not yet understand, which we may never understand. But that doesn’t prove that there’s a God any more than a packet of Coco Pops does just because it’s just like a chocolate milkshake only crunchy.

My point is that so often the argument against anything supernatural is: "It cannot be proven, it isn't proven, science is proven, science can be proven." And that the problem with that argument is that the exactly same thing can be said about Science. Except of course for "God is proven, God can be proven." which cannot be said about Science either.

Originally posted by Aviendha: I do not need to prove science to anyone to be happy with my assessment of life. I follow the rules of science, because if I do not, I will more than likely not make it through a day. I can’t walk in front of a car because it will hit me hard. Science says so. If I light a match and throw it on a piece of paper, it will burn. Science says so.

"If I sin I will go to hell, the Bible says so." "If I light a match and throw it on a piece of paper, it will burn. Science says so." Notice a similarity? [img]tongue.gif[/img] While the effects might be true, the why could quite easily be wrong and therefore the effects might suddenly not be true.

Originally posted by Aviendha: If there is a particular part of science that you don’t believe in, I suggest you raise that as an argument rather than just saying “Science is not proven”. And even then, if you can totally disprove something about science, you still will not have taken a step closer to proving God. If you can disprove evolution, that does not prove the existence of God.

Like I said earlier, I am not trying to disprove Science in favour of God, I am merely saying that there is as little proof of the "Natural" as there is of the "Supernatural".

Originally posted by Aviendha: Regardless, I do not need to prove science to disprove God. Also, disproving science does not prove the existence of God. I really do feel that you should be trying to prove the existence of your God, as disproving science will get you nowhere, and as I have stated earlier, nobody has ever proved the existence of God to me. Aviendha.

First of all I am not trying to prove the existence of "My God". For one thing I'm not a Christian, and disproving Science will get me to the point that you cannot prove yours so therefore you should not whine about people being unable to prove theirs.

Nobody has ever proved the existence of God to you, then tell me, how have they proved the existence of all of Science's precious little laws?

I AM religious but I am not Christian, I am personally of the belief that most of Science IS correct. But that it has some.... Loopholes, of some sort, or that it is radically different, somehow, so that the supernatural DOES exist.

I should know better than to try to write a good post at 3 am, please don't throw things if it's a piece of utterly incomprehensible junk [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Neb