10 Things Science Cannot Prove
FEATURES
- “Crawling Over, Under, or Around Section 132”: The Debate Over Joseph Smith and Polygamy by Daniel C. Peterson
- A Mother’s Memories: Those Things Happen by Maurine Proctor
- The Quiet Voice of Heaven: A Legacy of Listening to the Spirit by Tanya Neider
- The Man Who Entered Alone: How Israel’s High Priest Pointed to Christ by Patrick D. Degn
- Gathering Israel: Special Moments Need to be Shared by Mark J. Stoddard
- What Are the Most Cited, Recited, and Misunderstood Verses in Deuteronomy? by Jeffrey M. Bradshaw
- Your Hardest Family Question: How can I say “no” and still be Christ-like? by Geoff Steurer, MS, LMFT
- Hastening Now: A Weekly Church Report by Meridian Church Newswire
- The Fiction of Self-Knowledge by C.D. Cunningham
- The Intellectual Life of A Stay-at-Home Mother by Public Square Staff
-
Your Grand Connections Are Both Powerful and Tender
By Mary Bell -
Becoming Brigham, Episode 17 — Was Zion’s Camp Formative or a Failure?
-
New Video Offers Rare View Into Missionary Training Center
-
The Parable Project, Episode 5
-
“Crawling Over, Under, or Around Section 132”: The Debate Over Joseph Smith and Polygamy
















Comments | Return to Story
PopsMay 12, 2017
In my view, the underlying principle behind all of this is that everything we claim to know relies on stuff we can't know (axioms). It is because "we", or our minds, are not connected to the universe except through fallible senses. Thus arises the assertion that it is not possible to determine whether the universe really exists, or if I am simply a participant in an elaborate simulation in which my senses are provided input by some sufficiently-advanced computing device. Richard Feynman expressed it this way: "The best a scientist can ever say is 'I'm not wrong yet'."
HalMay 11, 2017
I always fall back on the reality that we are constantly finding out that past scientific "proof" are found to not be true after all. Scientists from 50 years ago based their hypotheses / theories / proofs on what they could observe with the instruments of their time and have since proven to be incomplete at best and down-right false in many cases. I personally expect that trend to continue. I would hope we can be humble enough to know that, just because something is unexplainable by us doesn't mean it's unexplainable.
ADD A COMMENT