socratic dialogue

Socratic Dialogue Reflection During the Socratic dialogue there were many interesting questions brought to my attention. Overall I really enjoyed the chance to argue with my classmates about topics. One of these questions was; is Feynman’s idea that science is a widely excepted idea? The most interesting and largely debated question asked; if you can prove there are atoms and molecules but you cant prove there is a God, why would you believe in God and not Evolution? After having time to think and ask questions about both of these questions I have formulated my own opinion and answers to both. For the first question brought up about, if Feynman’s idea about science was a widely excepted idea at the time, I found out that it was not widely agreed upon. Although at the time Feynman wrote about this his idea was becoming more popular, and today it is now commonly accepted. It is interesting to know that during the time this article was written it was kind of seen as a radicle idea and not containing much logic. Lastly the second question asked; if you can prove there are atoms and molecules but you cant prove there is a God, why would you believe in God and not Evolution? After having time to think about this I found a big problem with the logic of this idea. There is obviously no way to prove that the Christian God is real, you can argue that there are many things in the world that lead to him, but ultimately it comes down to an element of faith. But by saying there is now way to prove God is real the opposite must

be true as well, that the existence of God cannot be disproven. The problem I found with the previous statement is that, you cannot compare God to molecules or atoms. Just because it can be proven that both these things are real does not aid the argument of evolution or hurt the argument of Christianity either. It is impossible to prove either evolution or the creation of the world by the Christian God. Both beliefs boil down to a leap of