Keith McGuinness wrote:
Tom C wrote:
No I wasn't actually making the statement. And I wasn't intending to
make the paraphrased statement.
What I was intending to point out was, that 'science'/*some*
scientists turn a blind eye to the possibility of a creator. They
exclude that at all turns.
It must because God is, by definition, a supernatural being and science
deals only with natural phenomena. By natural we mean phenomena which we
can observe, either with our senses (perhaps agumented by
instrumentmentation). God cannot be so observed, so cannot be studied or
be the basis of a science.
Science is about patterns and explanations for them. God, as he/she/it
acts in arbitrary and unpredictable ways, has NO explanatory power and
adds nothing to any theory or hypothesis.
Precisely so!
I don't believe science can or ever will discover the true nature of
God. On the other hand when it comes to determining cause and effect,
if it turns out that the cause of the universe as we know it is a
person, and not just a thing or cataclysmic event, then science would
*never* find that out because they exclude that possibility. *If* they
ignore the possibility of a creator when it comes to the origins of
life on earth, and *if* they are wrong, then they are simply piecing
together a bunch of facts, creating circumstantial evidence because it
fits the result they wish to conclude, as opposed to letting the facts
lead them to the conclusion. If science is supposed to be a search
for truth and knowledge, yet some scientists stubbornly refuse to
consider all options, how will that further the cause?
God only becomes an option when he/she/it is included in a testable
hypothesis. God cannot be detected, therefore the only possible evidence
for or against a God hypothesis are the results of actions performed by
God.
Uhhh, by whom? If nothing can be tested, how can some God be sensed or
perceived, or for that matter, believed?
When somethng happens that some attribute to a God's action or
interaction, it's only so because some human wanted it to be so
attributed. In other words, it's only "obvious" when some human points
is out and explains why it can only be a result of divine intervention...
Uh huh...
Some claim that "intelligent design" is such evidence but plausible
alternative explanations, not requiring God, exist for such "design".
Adding God adds nothing to such explanations.
We have scientists behaving in the same manner that the Catholic
church did with the Copernican view of the solar system.
Tunnel-vision does not serve the cause of truth.
It is NOT tunnel vision to ignore something which, by definition, cannot
be detected. If something cannot be detected, then the only reason for
believing it exists is faith and that is not a sound basis for science.
I'm actually trying stay out of this thread...
Me too! We must both try harder... 8-)
Keith McG
Nevertheless, well said and all valid, far as I'm concerned!
keith whaley
