Which question? You asked a bunch of them. All of them were irrelevant, though. You seem to believe that classical theism and science are in competition--but they aren't, couldn't be. Classical theism doesn't pretend to "improve on science." That would be silly. Remember Gould's phrase, "nonoverlapping magisteria"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria Remember how this started? My point has always been that if you want to defeat theism, you have to address its strongest arguments. But you need to realize that the consequences of not defeating theism are not that science will be defeated. You don't have to defeat theism to protect science, unless you're talking about, say, Creationism, which does challenge science (or aims to do so, unsuccessfully). Classical theism doesn't claim it can be observed or measured or any of what we require of science. But that doesn't mean the God of classical theism isn't "real"--depending on what you mean by "real." What do you mean by "real"? Define it, please. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : You mean, the post where I pointed out to Salyavin that he was hanging his hat on metaphysics rather than science? I was impressed, it was a damn good way of getting out of answering the question. Again. And laden with your usual insults to cover your embarrassment too perhaps. BTW, I haven't noticed that Salyavin has any hesitation about paying attention to me. He did start this discussion, after all, and he sure doesn't seem as though he's ready to quit. But he does seem to be more interested in blathering than engaging, so I'd be perfectly happy if he just gave it up. I bet, it's a tricky question to answer because it requires invoking things that can't be observed and that don't fit in with what can be observed. Be as metaphysical as you like! But if you want to drop it fine. I couldn't answer it. Finally, imagine someone who, when called on this, has nothing to fall back on but trying to "correct" the person they're trying to get attention from about a nitpick.
