To add one point though,
Ergo it is not within the realm of Science therefore not a topic of
scientific investigation.
larry
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:57:23 -0400, Michael Dinowitz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1.The existence of God is a personal issue that is verified (on a per person
> basis) based on anecdotal evidence. I know that God exists due to the
> evidence, but I could not prove it to others as the evidence is mainly
> personal and has no meaning to others.
> 2. You can never 100% prove a scientific theory. You can only test it
> successfully and say that in all tests, it works out. Science writes 'wiggle
> room' into their methodology to accept that a theory, even one considered a
> fact, may not be the final answer and there may be places/times where it
> does not apply.
> 3. There is no way to test for God's existence. Any test would require God's
> interaction with the caveat that it is God interacting. Nature, the physical
> structure of the universe, the pattern of creation can all be seen as
> evidence of God, but would have to be discounted by any test of God's
> existence. Bottom line is you can't test for God without knowing that God
> exists and getting his word that he will interact. It's like testing a
> catatonic for cola preferences, they're just not co-operating. God has not
> overtly stated his existence to a mass of people since biblical times
> (according to those who believe) and his covert interactions can always be
> explained away.
>
> _____
>
>
> The most fundamental point to me seems that if a person put the mind
> to it and had the time, they could research, test, and prove the
> scientific theories. On the other hand, no matter how much time,
> work, or research you put into it, you'd not be able to prove there
> is/isn't a god. That's where the difference remains.
>
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:32:40 -0400, Won Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At 14:21 9/29/2004 -0400, you wrote:
> > >If the data adequately supported the conclusions, and were considered
> > >to do so by the relevant scientific community, then I would
> > >tentatively accept the conclusions. The watchword is tentatively.
> > >Otherwise I freely admit it would be beyond me and goes into the realm
> > >of Don't Know.
> >
> > OK so you have made a decision to tentatively accept the conclusion of one
> > scientist based on the recommendation of another group of scientist.
> > That sure sounds like you have FAITH in that group of scientist. Or maybe
> > you have FAITH in the verification process the scientist's ideas go
> through.
> >
> >
> _____
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
