This is the great flaw in your reasoning and why you have to make up a case instead of going out and finding a real one. You seem to think that psychiatrists are somehow experts in the supernatural. They are not. They are experts in mental illness and emotions.They can only testify that a patient believed that a possesion occurred. They cannot testify that a possession happened. It would be objected to and thrown out of court.
I have a question just out of curiosity. If or when science has the opportunity to present scientific findings, supported by concrete evidence, that would dispel permanently the notion/belief ,of the religious, that God created all things, would they present the evidence or keep it suppressed? Do they tell the world that, here’s the proof that there is no God, or do they keep it hidden to protect the belief that has existed for thousands of years. I know that there are several scientific findings that raise the question and support other theories, but at this point they are theories and even science doesn’t know for “Fact” how it all came to be. If they do find out something that would completely change the beliefs that have existed, by many, for thousands of years does science release this information to finally put all the pieces together, without question, of how all things came to be, or do they bury this information to preserve the religious beliefs. You know, “tell a truth that brings a tear, or support a lie that brings a smile”.
Fair enough. First of all, Science has not made any attempt to dispel the notion of God. It's a waste of time and effort. Science accepts that there is a notion of God, it only rejects those who claim that science accept the existence of God based solely on faith. Secondly, if a scientist was able to find real evidence of the existence of God, it would be the scientific discovery of all time! Why would anyone suppress it? It would, as Swerved has suggested, make acts of God a natural phenomenon and open a new realm of scientific study. But . . . it hasn't happened and seems unlikely. It is religion that is dogmatic about their beliefs, not science. Science is dynamic and evolves. It accepts that we are still gaining knowledge and sometimes new knowledge means that old concepts must evolve too. Science is not about protecting beliefs, it is about expanding knowledge. It is religion that clings to old oral traditions that were comprehendible to primitive and illiterate people several millenia ago. But science has constantly grown, developed technologies, gained insight, and is always willing to revise and renew itself . . . demanding only factual evidence to so so.
Fair enough, but that doesn’t answer my question. I believe that if science found evidence that supported, without question, the existence of God they would release that. As you say, that would be the find of all time. I want to know what they would do if the findings were the other way. As you say they aren’t trying to do this, for it is a waste of time, but what if the evidence presented itself through their findings, intentional or not, then what would they do?
accuracy of the Bible wsn't my point. my point was to illustrate how un-reliable eye witnesses can be. 4 guys. All witnessed the same events. yet all 4 saw something different. and what mindset might that be? and I was merely pointing out that eye witnesses suck. even if they're experts in their filed.
I don't understand. How could science find evidence that a faith concept doesn't exist? It's hard to conceive, if not impossible. :huh: And if science could find any evidence at all, it would be huge! Why do you imagine that science harbors dogmatic beliefs that they must protect? In any case science is not homogenous like religions. They do not have faith doctrines. Each scientist does his own thing and the whole point of it is to get published. It is very competitive and ones credibility depends on one's research. Hiding a discovery is completely counterintuitive. The scientist suceeds if he gets his findings published in an accredited journal, no matter what his discovery suggests. The only time that scientists don't trumpet a major discovery is when (A) he works for industry who considers the data proprietary until they get it patented and a product is offered. Or (B) he works under government contract on classified military or intelligence data.
Ok, well you pretty much provided an answer that I was looking for, in that science cannot prove one way or the other the existence of God, but you are saying that if it could be done that the findings would be released changing the beliefs of many in the worlds perception of a belief. Now, if it could be done, you really believe that a scientist would be willing to present this information that could change the world order, change entire countries belief structure, change entire countries core foundation, pretty much change humanity. Don’t know if the information would be a negative finding for humanity or not. Could it start wars, could it create a separation in the human race, having those that refuse to accept the findings and those that adhere to it. I know this is all hypothetical and a complete improbability, but just want to know what others think. I mean, at this point and time, time travel isn’t possible, but the concept is there. What if it becomes possible, and science has the ability to go back in time and see what really happened. I know that some would say that time does have a limitation, and that God is timeless, and that before our world was created time didn’t exist, but to this we simply don’t really know. What if?
A scientist would KILL to be able to do this scientifically, properly, and have it accepted. Scientists don't try to preserve beliefs, they try to discover something unknown.
science cannot prove one way or another that i am not god. thats weird. why cant they prove i am not god? because i dont exhibit any evidence that i am god. i simply like to keep it quet, so i make it so the fact that i am god is undetectable by scientists. the flaw here is that because we cant prove something one way or another, that the thing is at all likely to be true. there are infinite things that cant be proven one way or another. we need to stop getting caight up on this idiotic idea that because something cant be explained away that is has any merit at all. two possibilities, either x is true or it isnt. we dont know. but there is no evidence for X. why would we randomly believe X over Y or Z, both of which are also entirely unsupported by evidence? because we cant prove them false? are you asking would the scientist want to be the most influential kickass scientist of all time? would he want the unlimited money status respect and women that would result? what if indeed? what are you saying?
