Replies

I will think about this more, but here is one thing that I would tell her: "There are lots of things that we believe in that science simply cannot prove."

Here are a few examples:

1-Science cannot prove that you love someone.

2-Science cannot prove that something is beautiful.

3-Science cannot prove that something is funny.

4-Science cannot prove that you miss someone.

5-Science cannot prove that something is noble or inspirational.

6-Science cannot prove why something makes you sad.

7-Science cannot prove what makes us happy.

There are lots of things that we believe in life that science cannot adequately explain. Clearly we do not say to our loved ones, "I don't love you because love can't be proven."

So it's probably a bad idea to disbelieve in God just because we lack air-tight scientific proof of His existence.

1-Science cannot prove that you love someone. 2-Science cannot prove that something is beautiful. 3-Science cannot prove that something is funny. 4-Science cannot prove that you miss someone. 5-Science cannot prove that something is noble or inspirational. 6-Science cannot prove why something makes you sad. 7-Science cannot prove what makes us happy.

That's not true, science can prove all those things, or even if it doesn't entire, at least it has the potential to do so. The logic that "since science can't prove one thing that exists, then everything science can't prove does exist" is not very sound. By this logic, purple fairly monkey-elephants exist. So, try again.

Science cannot prove that you love someone, that something is beautiful, etc.

This is only true in cases where the terms haven't been well-defined. The fact is, things such as "beautiful" and "love" ARE becoming well-defined as technology improves because we can extract coherent definitions from the environment even though people have a hard time describing them. The results have been very good. Mathematics has long held that it was possible to derive process definition in theory, even if people can't describe the process, based on the results. Now that fact and capability is catching up with the theory, this is turning out to be as true as many theorists believed. I find it intriguing that computers are able to create real and useful definitions for things that humans have poor facilities for expressing.

All of the things you say science cannot prove are stemming from HUMAN emotions. Now I ask you, do animals have emotions? No? I think they definitely have emotions (of course I can't prove this). I doubt scientific evidence would satisfy you. You say "So it's probably a bad idea to disbelieve in God just because we lack air-tight scientific proof of His existence." I don't think it's necessarily a GOOD idea to believe in something intangible, but it all goes to faith, and emotions, and how you handle your emotions.

Here are a few examples:
1-Science cannot prove that you love someone.
2-Science cannot prove that something is beautiful.
3-Science cannot prove that something is funny.
4-Science cannot prove that you miss someone.
5-Science cannot prove that something is noble or inspirational.
6-Science cannot prove why something makes you sad.
7-Science cannot prove what makes us happy.

I think this is a perfect intuitive approach and can make a great beachhead against materialistic reductionism.

You could also ask, "How much does love weigh?" Or "What color are your thoughts?" Or "How big is the beauty of a rose?" All of these questions are logically fallacious "category errors." In these examples, qualities of material things are ascribed to non-material or spiritual things.