[deltaonefour]

Putting two underscores around the word "_know_" doesn't lend any credence to your claim.

Nothing can be known or proven in science. We don't know in the same way as we don't know whether or not Christianity or any other major religion is correct or "_incorrect_".

[epgui]

The underscores are used to indicate italics in markdown. I wasn't being flippant.

> Nothing can be known or proven in science.

Since we're trying to be pedantic, on the contrary, things can very much be known or proven in "natural science" (I am assuming that you are not talking about "formal science", because then your comment would be even more unreasonable). Of course whether something is provable or knowable depends on the nature of the thing itself.

> we don't know whether or not Christianity or any other major religion is correct or incorrect

Theology is a big can of worms, but these big objects should be broken down into smaller pieces: whereas science cannot possibly prove or disprove the existence of a "God" (depending on the definition we use, and the characteristics we ascribe to such an entity), science does very much inform us on the boundaries within which, or outside of which, theology can reside. For instance, we know that it is impossible to transform water into wine, at least in any real sense and in conditions relevant to biblical texts.

[deltaonefour]

>I am assuming that you are not talking about "formal science", because then your comment would be even more unreasonable

I am talking about formal science. Nothing can be proven in science. Proof is the domain of logics and maths not science. Nothing in science is axiomatic as every supposed "law" is subject to a contrarian observation at any point in time.

This isn't pedantry. Astrology has not been proven or falsified. Neither have religions. That's why religions are so popular. Maintaining an unbiased outlook towards all things including things that sound fantastic is the epitome of neutrality. Heliocentricism at one point in time sounded just as absurd as astrology. Galileo was exiled for his ideas. To make sure we don't exile a man for presenting a previously unknown truth we must listen to the other side despite how contrarian it sounds.

>Theology is a big can of worms, but these big objects should be broken down into smaller pieces: whereas science cannot possibly prove or disprove the existence of a "God" (depending on the definition we use, and the characteristics we ascribe to such an entity), science does very much inform us on the boundaries within which, or outside of which, theology can reside. For instance, we know that it is impossible to transform water into wine, at least in any real sense and in conditions relevant to biblical texts.

Science cannot prove that you can't turn water into wine. This is an assumption you made by stringing together tidbits of anecdotal knowledge. That is not science. It is just a reasonable assumption, but an assumption nonetheless.

Put it this way. What sort of scientific experiment can you run to prove definitively that water can't be turned into wine? What sort of trial should be run and how many times do these trials need to be repeated before you can say definitively that water can't be turned into wine?

You likely can't think of a way. And this is because it's impossible. Literally. At this point in time you may not be able to put your finger why it's impossible, but even without knowing why you'll find that your unable to think of an experiment that can pull off a proof.

To bring it back to the main point. Your assumption that astrology is not true is reasonable, but it is still an assumption. Due to the fact that it is an assumption we must always be open to alternative explanations to make sure we don't make the same mistakes we did in the past.

[saganus]

Wouldn't our current understanding of chemistry be enough to prove that turning water into wine is not possible? Or viceversa, be able to prove that it is possible?

I.e. if we had the capability to transmute elements (which I think is theoretically possible, given enough energy and technology?), could we turn H2O molecules into all the other molecules needed for wine?

[deltaonefour]

> Wouldn't our current understanding of chemistry be enough to prove that turning water into wine is not possible? Or viceversa, be able to prove that it is possible?

This is just stringing together random facts and figures to form a logical deduction. That's not science.

To do science you need to be able to run a trial and observe an event that supports your hypothesis. Then you need to run this trial several times to make sure that the observed event is consistent. Even after this at any subsequent time after the experiment there can be new observations that contradict the hypothesis.

My question is what is... what is the experiment you would run to prove water can't be turned into wine. Science involves evidence that must be observable in some form.

The medical industry does not simply use our knowledge of biochemistry to engineer medicine and give it to people. They run trials and testing to increase confidence around the efficacy of the medicine. That is science.

[saganus]

I think I was still asleep. You are correct.

I don't think you could prove that.