Quote from: Saltzman Alaric on November 20, 2014, 04:22:13 PM

This whole debate is stupid.

1. Human science is soooooo premature that humans don't even know how big the universe is, how does gravity and electromagnetism work and many other very very simple and basic parts of physics. If science can't even understand the physical world that is observable, it really has no business commenting on the unobservable (yet), and anybody trying to use it to prove or disprove God's existence probably doesn't realize how silly they look. Like a monkey trying to understand the complex grammar of a Shakespearean play when all it knows is sign language signs for simple verbs and simple nouns.

2. Science at this early stage is inevitably usually wrong about most things that have been "proven". Scientist are always right in their own mind until 10 or 50 or 100 years later another scientist comes along and shows that were magnificently wrong in a few assumptions.

I am not arguing that there is or isn't a God here. What I am trying to say is using today's science to discuss this topic is about as stupid as using first century astronomy and mathematics knowledge to explain why the Earth is bigger than the sun, why the Earth is flat, and just how far away the sun is as it rotates around the Earth.

1) Correct, science is not equipped to conclude about that which cannot be observed. So yes, it's basically an irrelevant thread as there never could be empirical proof for God. The debate should instead center around 'a priori' knowledge and not 'a posteriori' knowledge.

2) Correct, the continuing refinement of theories is why science is awesome for its intended purposes.

Good post, although the only thing I would say is that you should remove the "(yet)" from your post as empirical methods of study can never possibly conclude about that which cannot be observed. For that we have philosophy, mathematics, and metaphysics.