For an enlarged, easier to read index click here . To "google search" this site, scroll to the bottom of this page. (This site is best viewed with "Firefox")

(Tips: F11 key enables full screen viewing & Ctrl-F to search the index)


EMUNAH & BITACHON-----what is criteria for proof


izzy2k Posted - 13 August 2002 17:37

As far as belief in G-d, there are many respected scientist who believe in g-d, while there are many respected scientists who believe that the world came about in some way that didn’t involve a "higher power".

Since I cant even begin to understand some of the issues at hand, i.e., the nekudas hamachlokes (such as the rate of the expansion of the universe and many other issues that are way beyond the scope of my scientific knowledge and understanding) how can I possibly be mevarer the machlokes?

It seems to me that this point is fundamental to emuna. moderator please respond because this is really bothering me. thanks

MODERATOR Posted - 14 August 2002 15:22

The issue is black and white simple.

The scientists who believe in G-d do so because it is clear form nature that there is a Creator.

The scientists who do not, do so because even though it is clear that there was a creator, that conclusion has "undesirable philosophical implications" (that’s a quote from an atheist scientist I saw quoted in Time magazine a while ago). Meaning, they will have to be religious, and they have no interest.

Scientists are no better able to resist temptation or to think past vested interests than lawyers or businessmen. The evidence is there ,in front of their eyes. It is up to their strength of character - not their scientific abilities - to accept it or not.

Unfortunately, their degrees are NOT in strength of character. In that area, they are the same baalei taavah as anyone else.

They still have no answers at all against the proofs to G-d from nature. they just have no interest in bringing those proofs to their logical philosophical conclusion.

MODERATOR Posted - 05 September 2002 19:52

Because the scientists who do not believe have not yet found anything to answer the proofs of those who do.

The point is not the scientists the point is the proofs.

Moshe00 Posted - 04 November 2002 16:49

Moderator, how should we respond to this argument from scientists?

""Because the existence of G-d is not a 'falsifiable' theory, meaning that there is no possible experiment or observation which would provide conclusive evidence that He does not exist [c"v], the whole issue of the existence of G-d falls outside the province of science""

The whole argument doesn't make any sense, does it?

MODERATOR Posted - 04 November 2002 17:06

The question confuses two diff definitions of "scientific":

(a) solid, logical, rational, and

(b) acceptable by the official self-imposed rules of the scientists.

Scientists have created self-imposed "rules" regarding what proofs they will accept and what they won’t. This was done in order to ensure that scientists don’t cheat. But it does not mean that those proofs are less correct.

Example: If something cannot be reproduced in a laboratory, that is not acceptable as scientifically "proven".

But of course, if 100,000,000 witness a miracle, their testimony is logical proof, even if the scientists cannot officially let it go on record, since miracle cannot be "reproduced."

So in other words, the scientists decided on their own that they will not accept anything supernatural or miraculous into their list of proven items (miracles by definition are not things you can reproduce in a lab) but not because the proof is any less reliable.

In a court of law, you cannot "scientifically" prove someone guilty, since witnesses are not considered scientific proof, and you cannot reproduce the scene in a lab, but still, logically, it is considered "proven beyond a shadow of a doubt."

So the response to the scientists is that not all logical proofs will be considered officially proven by "science", but that is due to the self-imposed rules of the scientists, not because of any problem with the proof.

No comments: