But the problem with
scientific proof is that it demands replicability regardless of the observer
We'll leave aside for the moment the fact that the new evidence of observer influence on experiments means that this principle of scientific proof has now been abandoned as a universal principle.
The more important principle is that the concept of scientific proof is limited to the field of science. Religion is not science, any more than art is. Science is nice stuff, but it is not universal.
Are Jackson Pollock's paintings magnificant expressions of feeling, or mistakes of spilled paint? Science can't tell us.
Under your definition there is no scientific proof that any human originally wrote Shakespeare's plays (leaving aside the question whether Shakespeare did). Now that they have been written, nobody can ever replicate their original composition. So if I were to claim that no human wrote them, but a horse wrote them, there could be no scientific proof that I was wrong.
And perhaps most important, does love exist? Science can't prove it, or disprove it, any more than science can prove or disprove that God exists.
The fact that certain things can't, at least at present, be "proved" by the rules of science to exist doesn't mean they don't exist. It just means that the tools of science are limited to the physical world.
BTW, the "big bang" theory isn't, under your definition, scientific since it can't be replictated. The process of the formation of our sun can't be proved scientifically. There are many aspects of our phyical nature which aren't susceptible to replication.
What you are doing is using an inapplicable tool to analyse the question of the existence of God. Of course you'll get the answer you "want." But is it a true answer? That you can't be sure of.
P.S. until ~1500 nearly everyone believed the Earth was flat (some still do). That's a myth. Columbus knew perfectly well that the earth was round, the Greeks knew it, the Chinese knew it. Many other cultures I'm not aware of also knew it. |
