Originally Posted by frosty
Just use scientific evidence (observation) without resorting to memory or reason (which are two non-scientific knowledge sources).
At the time I read your challenge [prove conclusively what you had for breakfast this morning] I could.
1. Induce vomitting.
2. Look at the vomitus.
3. identify food type foods.
There is no memory involved.
There is no knowledge involved beyond knowledge contained within the question itself. ie
1. That breakfast is food eaten in a particular time frame
2. That food was found to be in me.
3. The "what" is undefined in your question therefore it does not need to be answered, and I can say that the breakfast was in fact, the "what."
4. The only "reason"ing (logic) involved is accepting that that there is an arrow of time which places one event in time relative to another event.
Really? Please explain how logic is based in science ... if it really is, then you ought to be able to show how someone can do science without using logic, and then derive logic from science.
Read again. I said
philosophy - not "logic" was based on science.
Practical science has a structure. How that structure functions is
called the the Philosophy of Science. However, the act of philosophying about science, absolutely requires that
there be some science before being able to start philosophying.
What is that bit of science? That bit is the
observation part in the process of science. From that point onwards, philosophy aids science and science feeds philosophers. So closely do the two work, that it appears to be an unsolvable chicken and egg problem.
How does this apply to the orginal god question? I assume
* that your god is the be-all-to-end-all. Your god is a fundamental - a fundamental as fundamental as: zero, existance, field, and dimention(s), and time. As such your god is as examinable as quarks and chaos.
*I must assume, because you have not answered my previous question, "What is your definition of "God?"