Bob Calco wrote:
>> It always bugs me when people try to "prove" supernatural stuff
>> using
>> science. By definition, science does not address supernatural things;
>> otherwise, they would be natural things.
>>
>
> I actually totally agree with Ed on this. And so does God (1 Cor 2:14).
>
>
>> Science also does not exclude Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny,
>> Zeus,
>> Spiderman, Thor, Apollo, Shiva, or the Tooth Fairy. Nor does it
>> exclude any of the fantastic images you saw in your dreams last night.
>>
>
> Science unfortunately limits its inquiry to the least common denominator of
> human experience, i.e., the five (often unreliable) senses. And even with
> these in common men of goodwill disagree more than they agree.
>
> The scientific process as a logical framework is awesome, and God's all for
> it ("come let us reason together" in Isaiah 1).
>
> The difficulty is in the most basic assumptions about reality that you start
> out at (often unconsciously)---this is where men diverge, starting with "God
> exists" vs. "God does not exist". They are, as atheist radical Ayn Rand
> would call them, "metaphysical givens," from which further reasoning
> proceeds, but which no amount of reasoning can deduce logically. Federalist
> Paper 31 calls them "primary truths and first principles, on which all
> subsequent reasoning must depend".
>
Not always so. I believe that if god exists, His wish is for me to be as
authentically me (the one he created) as possible. If I don't know if He
exists, or what his will is, then it's because he does not WANT me to
spend time thinking about him, if I try to guess what he wants I'll
probably mess His things up.
So as you can see, the existence or not, of god will make NO difference
in my behaviour.
> At best science has to admit its ambivalence about the existence of God, and
> confess the inadequacy of its tools, techniques and methods for addressing
> spiritual things.
Let's see. This is as if I told a nuclear scientist at CERN that his
accelerator and other tools must confess their inadequacy at nailing a
picture to the wall. Science has absolutely NO ambivalence about god,
science does NOT CARE about god (it doesn't care about your favourite
colour either). Science cares about the observable natural world and
it's prediction (not even it's understanding, just predicting is ok).
> At worst, it becomes arrogant in its presumptions, wise in
> its own conceit, and hostile to the living God.
>
It's presumptions by definition have nothing to do with god. Different
fields.
How can calculating the speed of light be hostile to god? Are you nuts?
SCIENCE DOES NOT CARE ABOUT YOUR GOD (nor any of the thousand other gods
there are)
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
