Fandom Forums - View Single Post - Jesus, not the first
View Single Post
Old 03-07-2012, 06:47 AM   #308
Scientia's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: FL
Posts: 313
Thanks: 1,060
Thanked 207 Times in 126 Posts
Scientia is on a distinguished roadScientia is on a distinguished road
Re: Jesus, not the first

Originally Posted by Human Rasengan View Post
There are parts of science that show evidence to something absolute zero yet are never obtained.. there's significant evidence of things such as dark matter but it can't be measured or quantified.. why are these know unknowns accepted and not the know unknown of a higher being or life form?
Because its not a "known unknown." It's simply an "unknown." It's a possibility with no scientific evidence or models to support it. Meanwhile, there IS evidence and scientific models to support the "known unknowns" of science, just not enough for it to be 100%. And -this is the best part, SCIENCE is so awesome that even when things seem like they are 100%, it realizes it could still be wrong, and it is always intellectually honest and logically rigorous with its "hypothesis" and "theories" and "facts." It'll always tell you how much evidence and models it has, and will always admit if they are proven wrong or don't know the answer to somethng. Science is simply "knowledge." It goes with positive concepts that we can prove and know. It's always changing, unlike most religions that don't go with what positive concepts that they can prove, and simply go with random speculation and generally don't even change it when new facts come along.
Originally Posted by Human Rasengan View Post
As religions put it or what people assume it to be is false but since matter can't be created or destroyed why hasn't the scientific community come up with it's own sterilized form of heaven.. or it's own take on the afterlife..
Matter not being created or destroyed does not = people living on after they have died. Science does measure our matter changing, our body decomposes and our matter changes- it is not fully destroyed. It does not mean there has to be another life. You could say there IS a natural "after life", once our life is over stuff happens after it. =/ It's not going to randomly assume our consciousness gets replicated through a newly made medium in some other place that we have no indication of existence for. Science is intellectually honest, like I said. They aren't going to make up stuff and consider it even partially credible without evidence to back it.

The reason for this is because, theoretically, positive concepts that have no evidence either way are unfalsifiable; there's no way to ever prove that an afterlife doesn't exist no matter how many times we test for it, IT COULD just be in some other place we can't look for some reason. Meanwhile, there IS a way to prove than afterlife does exist, we actually find some evidence for it. Therefore, it is better to take the negative, falsifiable position. Otherwise we'll be proposing and "believing in" completely useless theories that can never be proven wrong. Once real evidence comes into play it is a completely different story.

Last edited by Scientia; 03-07-2012 at 06:49 AM.
Scientia is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Scientia For This Useful Post:
ask me anything (03-07-2012), Human Rasengan (03-07-2012)