Red Fox Ace
New member
In the 1600s and 1700s, scientific discoveries were being rapidly made and previous concepts that had been held up as scientific truth (i.e., it was once believed that insect larvae spontaneously generated from rotten meat, rather than being laid as eggs,) were being refuted by new knowledge.
Since this is the case, why is "science" always held up by atheists as a be-all-and-end-all answer to many questions? Isn't it possible that 200 or 300 years from now, many scientific "axioms" that are currently believed today will have been refuted by then, or at least changed in the light of new evidence?
Another example: The Big Bang theory used to be held up almost as absolute truth. But in the 1990s, if I recall correctly, some scientists doubted it and began to suggest "micro-bangs" or alternative theories. So what was once held as unswaying truth in its heyday was also questioned later on.
My specific reason for asking this is the constant answer, "There is no scientific evidence or proof of God."
There is a saying, "Faith and science are not at odds. Science is simply too young to understand." Isn't it possible that, 200 years from now, there will be uncovered new evidence that will make science and faith align as one?
@ Pete: By "faith", I mean faith in God.
The point of my question is: Science is not 100% reliable.
There are often those who argue against religion by saying, "Science says this, or science says that, therefore your religion is bogus," but science itself isn't a 100% accurate or authoritative source. It is continually being corrected by new discoveries.
Since this is the case, why is "science" always held up by atheists as a be-all-and-end-all answer to many questions? Isn't it possible that 200 or 300 years from now, many scientific "axioms" that are currently believed today will have been refuted by then, or at least changed in the light of new evidence?
Another example: The Big Bang theory used to be held up almost as absolute truth. But in the 1990s, if I recall correctly, some scientists doubted it and began to suggest "micro-bangs" or alternative theories. So what was once held as unswaying truth in its heyday was also questioned later on.
My specific reason for asking this is the constant answer, "There is no scientific evidence or proof of God."
There is a saying, "Faith and science are not at odds. Science is simply too young to understand." Isn't it possible that, 200 years from now, there will be uncovered new evidence that will make science and faith align as one?
@ Pete: By "faith", I mean faith in God.
The point of my question is: Science is not 100% reliable.
There are often those who argue against religion by saying, "Science says this, or science says that, therefore your religion is bogus," but science itself isn't a 100% accurate or authoritative source. It is continually being corrected by new discoveries.