Pics For Sharing & Debating

[JoeRedskin]

Not even close. First and foremost, I am attempting to prove nothing. I am simply posing a question and making a scientifically veriafiable answer a precondition for providing you with scientific, peer reviewed proof that an infinite being exists. The question posed is an expansion on or corolary of the ancient kuan "If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, does it make a sound?" and I pose the question simply b/c I believe the science to be similar to that for which you demand proof. I am hopeful that your answer would provide the blue-print for the science needed for finite beings to fully prove the existence of an infinite one.

To be clear, I have always contended and will always contend that humanity's understanding of God must conform to the scientific discoveries we make. In my opinion, however, the scientific method to understanding the universe is not the panacea you appear to proclaim it to be.

From what I gather, you assert that anything currently unverified through the scientific method does not exist until such verification occurs. If this is not your opinion, please correct me. Inherent in your statement is the assertion that all things in existence can be proven through the scientific method. As such, it is your belief that science can prove the existence of "life, the universe and everything" (to paraphrase Mr. Adams) because that which cannot be proved does not exist. Since there is no way to prove that science can do so, however, your belief in this assertion is, by definition, an article of faith.

I fully accept science and the scientific method as valid tools (and in most cases the best and only tool we have) of understanding the great "I AM" of the universe. At the same time, however, I suggest that the existence of a thing is not determined by the ability to perceive it through humanity's five senses (or any enhancement to the same). To me, the truth of this assertion is found by the fact that things which can only be perceived through one of our senses do not "cease to exist" if our ability to perceive through that sense did not exist. For example, the color orange would exist if the entire world was sightless and no one could see it (or any other color). To fully understand "orange" you must have the physical sense of sight. Sure, it can be explained as an expression of light waves, but, ultimately, it's tangible existence cannot be "proved" to a sightless person.

So, again I ask, please explain how to prove the existence beauty in a painting to a sightless person. I just want to see the math.