How can you believe in something that can't be scientifically proven?

[OzSpen]

This is one of the questions that many secular people will ask.This is one of the questions my brother used to ask.He was a scientist.What would you tell them?

What do you mean by 'scientifically proven'? Do you mean empirical repeatability? There are many things in life that cannot be 'proven' by the empirical method of repeatability.

It is a scientific fact that Captain James Cook discovered the east Coast of Australia in 1770? How will you prove that scientifically?

How will you demonstrate anything from history, whether that was what happened yesterday or thousands of years ago, using the scientific method?

This demonstrates that what is meant by the scientific method needs to be carefully defined.

Before I wrote the above information, I thought about it before writing. How can my cognitive thinking that I have just used be analysed scientifically?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Is there anything that science has actually proven? Why do they refer to everything as a theory? Because nothing in this world is truly absolutely understood by mankind.

But I'm sure glad that the scientific method of empirical repeatability was used to discover penicillin and other antibiotics I use when I have a virus.

I'm pleased that science has demonstrated that the drug of warfarin helps to stop clotting with my artificial heart valve. Not 100% proven, but jolly close enough for me to live on my daily dose of medications.

And with history, we work in the world of probability also.

 

[TOG]

This is one of the questions that many secular people will ask.This is one of the questions my brother used to ask.He was a scientist.What would you tell them?

Sorry for being so late to reply to the first post, but I just noticed this thread.

If someone says they won't believe anything that can't be scientifically proven, just ask them "Do you believe your mother loves you?" When they say "Of course I do", you ask them to prove it scientifically.

The TOG​

 

[OzSpen]

Sorry for being so late to reply to the first post, but I just noticed this thread.

If someone says they won't believe anything that can't be scientifically proven, just ask them "Do you believe your mother loves you?" When they say "Of course I do", you ask them to prove it scientifically.

The TOG​

 

[eddif]

Boy! Now if I can be casual about one of my passions. LOL

How can you believe in something that can't be scientifically proven?
Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Kathi, Thursday at 3:30 PM.

I thought that the scientific proof was given that we might believe. I reckon that might take some explaining. Romans 1:20 basically says that the things of God can be seen through the examination of His creation.

Jesus gave physical healing so that spiritual healing might be believed.

If you only see the daylight photosynthesis formula you might think that the plant had one formula, but there is a night formula too. Jesus had a productive light operation and a nighttime (death) formula too. Although his life seemed to be burned yet eternal life still happened. Moses wanted to see the miracle of the burning bush, and we see the miracle of Jesus not destroyed.

My kidneys removing toxins are similar to the removal of sin. Different kind of laver but still a washing. Without the physical it is hard to describe the metaphysical.

God speaking in the book of Job seems to speak of concrete creation, but this was an answer to the abstract comments about sin that Job and his friends discussed.

eddif

 

[reba]

What do you mean by 'scientifically proven'? Do you mean empirical repeatability? There are many things in life that cannot be 'proven' by the empirical method of repeatability.

...
Oz

Yikes simple english please ?

Scientific Method – Why is it important?
The scientific method can be divided into two primary categories: (1) empirical science and (2) historical science. Empirical science entails a systematic approach to epistemology that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves. It finds its implementation in such disciplines as immunology, rocket science, molecular biology, etc. Historical science involves the interpretation of evidence and the deduction of past occurrences, which is normally based upon an underlying supportive paradigm.

still lost

 

[Edward]

Anyone ever read that book, "The Nine Billion Names of God" by Arthur C. Clarke? It's a pretty good short story.

On topic, it's easy to believe in things that are not scientifically provable. Even scientists will agree that there is a lot more to this world than meets the eye, or provable. Once one begins a walk with God, it's so easy to see His fingerprints everywhere, and as brother taylor mentioned, God WILL reveal Himself and 'prove' to you individually that He is real and there. The more you seek Him, the more He reveals. But He is such an amazing and above genius God, that He will do it in such a way that it can not be taken into a laboratory and tested or proven, because He wants us to have faith, as brother I Love God noted.

Personally, I believe that science can essentially prove the existence of a God, through archaeology and the dead ends that they run into about certain things which highly suggest that ID from a higher power do exist, such as where does consciousness originate in the brain. They have no clue. So the scientists work in darkness most of the time, while some obviously intentionally cover up the truth.

 

[Stan1953]

But I'm sure glad that the scientific method of empirical repeatability was used to discover penicillin and other antibiotics I use when I have a virus.
I'm pleased that science has demonstrated that the drug of warfarin helps to stop clotting with my artificial heart valve. Not 100% proven, but jolly close enough for me to live on my daily dose of medications.
And with history, we work in the world of probability also.

Me too Oz. Saved my life when I had a heart attack 10 years ago.
I think the problem arises when something that is or has not been empirically repeated, is proclaimed to be. In any even I am also on an off label use of a drug that the manufacturer will not acknowledge works but medical professionals do.

 

[eddif]

Revelation 21:22
Basically says there is no temple in the New Jerusalem.

In the mind of Christ is the realitty of the Father and the Son and no need of symbols. Science proves they can not find a physical place God exists. Seems that science confirms scripture. Now just outside the New Jerusalem unseen presence of God, are all sorts of symbols ( IMHO because some do not think the cerebellum can be seen as the tree of life, and do not believe the prosperity of belief shows forth the spiritual reality of God).

The heart (described as desperately wicked) has the natural pacemaker (looking like a crucified man). So to me science confirms the physical needs a physical salvation (symbol).

To me science is the physical symbols brought forth as physical creation (confirmed by IMHO scripture). Then God reveals creation as an image of the nature of God (the hidden realities ). The study of true science is the way to understand what we do not see.

To me this is just an ordinary subject for daily discussion. Others seem to see the subject as something to be placed in a book, and placed on a shelf to be checked out by (those) special people. Just ignore me if possible. LOL

I will give it a rest.

eddif

 

[OzSpen]

Yikes simple english please ?

Scientific Method – Why is it important?
The scientific method can be divided into two primary categories: (1) empirical science and (2) historical science. Empirical science entails a systematic approach to epistemology that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves. It finds its implementation in such disciplines as immunology, rocket science, molecular biology, etc. Historical science involves the interpretation of evidence and the deduction of past occurrences, which is normally based upon an underlying supportive paradigm.

still lost

I'm sorry for my unnecessary use of the terms 'empirical method'. This is an explanation given by 'Explorable: Empirical Research':

Empirical Research can be defined as "research based on experimentation or observation (evidence)". Such research is conducted to test a hypothesis.

The word empirical means information gained by experience, observation, or experiment. The central theme in the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical which means it is based on evidence. In scientific method the word "empirical" refers to the use of working hypothesis that can be tested using observation and experiment.

Empirical data is produced by experiment and observation.

In my case, some scientists tested an hypothesis that could be worded something like this: 'When a person has had a heart valve replacement, the drug warfarin will stop the clotting of blood [to prevent heart malfunction]'. This kind of hypothesis was found to be true with testing using observation and experimentation with the drug warfarin. The observation and experimentation normally starts with animals (e.g. mice). It's less dangerous and there are less law suits if mice die in the experimental stage of development of drugs for a particular medical problem.

 

[OzSpen]

Me too Oz. Saved my life when I had a heart attack 10 years ago.
I think the problem arises when something that is or has not been empirically repeated, is proclaimed to be. In any even I am also on an off label use of a drug that the manufacturer will not acknowledge works but medical professionals do.

The things that come out on a Christian forum. I've been taking warfarin for 31 years since my first heart valve replacement surgery. I've had 5 of them, the last one being 12 months ago. I'm indeed grateful for the scientific method that has tested that drug warfarin, but my cardiologist tells me there are better drugs than warfarin but bleeding cannot be stopped quickly if there is an accident with extreme bleeding.

Back to the topic:

Some in the scientific community do not like to lump empirical science with historical science. Here's an interesting article on, 'Historical science is empirical and is scientific', by Craig Rusbult. Obviously something from history cannot be observed in the present and it cannot be repeated in experimentation.

 

[Danus]

This is one of the questions that many secular people will ask.This is one of the questions my brother used to ask.He was a scientist.What would you tell them?

I'd say; "You're absolutely right, & that's the difference between the believer and the nonbeliever.

The believer seeks God to find him. The believer is looking for God, & he does find Him. God reveals Himself to the believers heart. Along the way the believer begins to see God more and more, not just in his own heart, but also in nature, and in the lives of others.

We do not believe in something we can not see, or experience in some real way. Only the nonbeliever believes we believe in the unseen, & that's only because they've yet to see anything they are not looking for; Who would?

So the statement is true; "how can you believe in the unseen?"

 

[OzSpen]

I'd say; "You're absolutely right, & that's the difference between the believer and the nonbeliever.

The believer seeks God to find him. The believer is looking for God, & he does find Him. God reveals Himself to the believers heart. Along the way the believer begins to see God more and more, not just in his own heart, but also in nature, and in the lives of others.

We do not believe in something we can not see, or experience in some real way. Only the nonbeliever believes we believe in the unseen, & that's only because they've yet to see anything they are not looking for; Who would?

So the statement is true; "how can you believe in the unseen?"

You say that 'we do not believe in something we can not see or experience in some real way'. But we cannot see God. Here are '10 verses that indicate that God is invisible' and we believe in Him.

 

[Danus]

You say that 'we do not believe in something we can not see or experience in some real way'. But we cannot see God. Here are '10 verses that indicate that God is invisible' and we believe in Him.

There is seeing, and there is seeing. A person can have sight and not see, or be blind and have vision. I see God every day.

 

[th1b.taylor]

You say that 'we do not believe in something we can not see or experience in some real way'. But we cannot see God. Here are '10 verses that indicate that God is invisible' and we believe in Him.

Oz,
As Danus put it there are natural eyes and there are spiritual eyes. In the natural perspective I have not seen God but in the spiritual perspective... every day, It is possible for every human to open their spiritual eyes... as long as they can and do surrender everything to God.

 

[MusicAddict]

Every child starts off with an imaginary friend without a name, but when you become an adult, you discover he had a name, its god, and hes not imaginary only invisible .

 

[MusicAddict]

They grew up without being spiritually taught, but i on the other hand was read the bible as a bedtime story all my childhood..

 

[Stan1953]

I'd say; "You're absolutely right, & that's the difference between the believer and the nonbeliever.
The believer seeks God to find him. The believer is looking for God, & he does find Him. God reveals Himself to the believers heart. Along the way the believer begins to see God more and more, not just in his own heart, but also in nature, and in the lives of others.
We do not believe in something we can not see, or experience in some real way. Only the nonbeliever believes we believe in the unseen, & that's only because they've yet to see anything they are not looking for; Who would?
So the statement is true; "how can you believe in the unseen?"

I'm not really sure what you are saying here. The OP is about believing in something that cannot be scientifically proven. I believe in the unseen as I believe in the wind, or electricity or radio and TV waves, but I can't see them. I believed in God also before I became a born again believer. The Pharisees believed in God as well. Maybe it's a matter of being sure we agree on what a 'believer' is in context to the OP.
There is an apparent paradox in the NT that says;
"No one comes to the Father except through me." and, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them."
There is also an apparent paradox that people who are not born again do not believe. Both are NOT, but appear to be.

 

[OzSpen]

There is seeing, and there is seeing. A person can have sight and not see, or be blind and have vision. I see God every day.

Or do we see what God does every day? How can you we see the God who states in Scripture that he is invisible? First Tim 1:17 describes him as 'to the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen' (ESV).

 

[Barbarian]

Science doesn't deal in proof. Logical certainty is beyond the reach of science, which only gathers information, becoming increasingly confident, as the evidence accumulates.

You can prove, in flat space, that a triangle has interior angles summing to exactly 180 degrees. But you can't prove the moon circles the Earth by the force of gravity. You can be very, very confident that it is true, but you can't prove it.