> Marsha > Greetings Micheal, Hi :-) > > > Marsha : > > > Would it be acceptable to argue that the sun is in the center of the > > > solar system with someone who believes the Earth to be in the center > > > of the solar system? Yes. > > > >MP: Yes. A true statement, but I don't see that its applicable to theism; > >where > >you can objectively/mathematically disprove (as much as one's acceptance of > >reality permits) that the sun circles the earth, you can't do that with the > >existence of God. > > There is not a special category of knowledge that should remain > untouched by inquiry, challenge and debate.
MP: Absolutely. I'm just saying that the (nb: scientific/intellectual) inquiry, challenge and debate you propose can only go so far up the theistic construct chain because it is a specific (nb: scientific/intellectual) language that becomes more and more irrelevant the closer you get to the pure concept of theism itself. At some point prior to theism itself, science becomes irrelevant *unless* it can prove god(s) something about the existence of god(s). For instance; scientific inquiry is relevant where theistic manifestation lay claim to a scientific field. Literal creationsim for instance. Or the earth/sun orbit issue. Totally open to scientific inquiry and challenge because it is a clearly scientifically relevant topic. When discussing why the big bang occurred, the field is less slanted to science, and it becomes equally valid for theistic fields to put science under similar scrutiny instead. When it comes to whether or not a god or gods can exist, science is powerless. Its not a scientific field. To put it simpler; theism is not really a "category of knowledge." Its a belief specifically *absent* knowledge. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
