Over a hundred and fifty years ago astronomers were baffled by the observation that they could not calculate the orbit of Mercury accurately. For every other known planet at that time, their calculations using the tried and true Newtonian model were spot-on. In 1859 the French mathematician Urbain Le Verrier proposed that the reason for the unusual orbit of Mercury was the existence of an unknown planet, coined "Vulcan" soon after.
The scientific community set about discovering Vulcan, and for many years the disputes were whether this planet was observed. This was mainstream science, and involved reputable scientists.
And this is the crux of the matter, because in 1915 Einstein's theory of relativity, an entirely different approach to understanding gravity from classical mechanics, solved the problem, and the required precision was attained.
The point is this: that even with all known facts and an internally consistent argument, that is not proof. It is still a proposition and requires confirmation.
But our story is not complete. Einstein's Theory of Relativity was novel and appeared to solve many questions. The solution on the orbit of Mercury was interesting, but not concrete proof that the overall theory was valid.
But 29 May 1919, Eddington resolved this theory definitely. He had taken pictures of a solar eclipse, and had caught sight of a star that should be behind the Sun. The only explanation was the the gravity from our Sun bent the light waves, confirming Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
And this is the second part of my summation, that no matter how sound a proposition is, it must still past the acid test of confirmation, to be able to be tested and proven.
These are the standards science operates under, that for any proposition to be accepted as a genuine theory, it must have more than a valid and logical internally consistent story, and it must be able to be tested and proven/disproven.
From this atheist's viewpoint, no matter how valid and internally consistent your argument is, that is not enough. And if any theist submits proof, that proof must be testable.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
@David Killens: "Preaching to the choir brother."
I know Cognostic. But I hope that may offer a standard of reference for theists.
@David: Theists don't read. They are allergic to research. They wait for divine inspiration.
Re: Science vs. Theism
As I may have mentioned in another thread somewhere along the way....
Science: "We do not yet know the answer, but we have a few ideas we are considering, and we will be working diligently to find the answer no matter where our research leads."
Theism: "We already know the answer, because God told us. And we will work diligently to maintain that answer, no matter where the research of godless heathens leads."
This is how you explain in vulgate how science works. Fine.Fine.
I agree, but I've yet to see an internally consistent argument presented for a deity anyway.
The apologists on here seem almost proud that their belief is held without any objective evidence to support it. I'm at a loss as to why, as they don't accept any other beliefs in such a biased closed minded way.
Kelsey Johnson: TIME TO SAY "BYE BYE". "BYE BYE!!"