Shelby,
I don't have much time for a detailed answer as I would like. I am working in the office today.
However I will hit some high points.
So, something MUST be seen in order to be proveable?
No, science has measured unseen things. But must something be able to be measured or evaluated scientifically to be proveable? For the sake of trying to define universal facts, I'll say yes. Beliefs and experiences are not proveable, despite how true they may seem or actually be.
But what I've been trying to emphasize here, in line with the title of this thread, is what makes a FACT that people can universally use and apply, without prejudice or interpretation.
As to either, whether there is/isn't a God... or which is the right One. You folks here are not the first to have called for proof. Pharaoh called for proof some 3-4 millenia ago. And some before him did so, too. As did some after him. And proof was provided each time.
I haven't been asking for proof. I have been saying there is no actual way we on this planet can prove or disprove the existence of a God.
As for your claim that proof was provided each time, that is merely a claim (I don't mean to be harsh). On the other side, there are people who take the existence of evil in the world as proof that God doesn't exist. So there are strong assertions of proof on both sides. In the end, it cannot be factually and universally settled. The question of fact will remain.
Some of the proponents of science here believe THEY have all the facts and so aren't interested in searching for knowledge, either.
While the word "some" may be true, those in the fields of science in general are not dogmatic. However when they have strong reasons and have done a lot of research to back up published science, scientists and academics will defend scientific theories and/or facts with vigor against unresearched or unproven claims to the contrary.
Religion has fostered MANY universities and centers for learning... as well as taken the lead in a LOT of medical/nursing areas. They own a LOT of hospitals and fund a LOT of medical research...
Yes religions have hospitals, like the two main ones I use here in St. Paul. However hospitals are not their main business or area of concern. When I talk about religions searching for information chiefly to confirm their belief system, I'm talking about their discussion of doctrines and how they use facts.
if somehow we develop the tools/means to consider something we don't believe exists now at some FUTURE time, well, then, doo-dah... NOW that thing exists. Yes? Yet, the FACT is that it was there all along. How do you reconcile that?
I've consistently stated that science will uncover new facts in the future. For now, such things are theoretical and cannot be stated as fact. For example, the idea that we can get 1000's of songs onto a device that fits into the palm of your hand is now fact - and it was always true that it could be done, but it wasn't yet "fact". Science is exploring so many current phenomena as well, they're finding out new facts and developing new theories, for example about our universe in the field of astrophysics.
Me: Fraudulent ideas like "cold fusion" have been exposed as hollow and have been sent to the wayside. The scientific process is self-correcting as it is exposed to constant peer reviews and re-evaluation.
You: And that's a good thing, IMHO. How, though, can we applaud that... and not do so when religion "adjusts" as well? Again, I'm not a proponent of religion; I am also not a proponent of hypocrisy..."
Religion adjusting --- like when Mormonism finally allowed black men to have positions of authority in their organization in the 1970's, finally admitting to the scientific truth that there is no innate inferiority in black people? Or when the Catholic church at their highest level finally allowed for the idea that the scientific theory of evolution was not a bad thing, and they adjusted to it while still holding their faith in original creation? I'm trying to think of an important adjustment religion has made without being prodded from the outside.
I'm not seriously asking you to defend religion, BTW.
The scientific community has been deliberately designed to self-adjust, review, and to expect new things - even surprises that make them dramatically adjust former ideas. Science exists to keep prodding and poking around for new understanding. Organized religion by its nature is not that way. Religion exists to teach a received faith (which many of them even refer to as "truth"). I'm not saying I would expect organized religion to mirror the scientific view of the world - I'm just saying there's a difference. I don't feel hypocritical when pointing out the difference.
