29 Jun 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadthe thread refers to a specific set of sciences usually called the 'natural sciences' and this does not include Theology.
You have corrected my opinion of the definition of the word science. I admit I was wrong. However usage of the word in the title of the thread refers to a specific set of sciences usually called the 'natural sciences' and this does not include Theology. Theology is also not studied via the 'scientific method.' Also, although some may say 'the science of T ...[text shortened]... tural sciences and not the social sciences or whatever other sciences are out there.
True.
Theology is also not studied via the 'scientific method.'
Three of the four steps of the scientific method are employed in systematic theology, which itself has its own methods.
29 Jun 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHProve that it is, in fact, God's faithfullness...
For instance, we see God's faithfulness as He perpetuates the laws of nature and preserves the universe for His intended results. These same laws also indicate His genius, organization and efficiences.
You cannot. Religion is faith. It is not fact.
Stop trying to PROVE to everyone that you are right and admit that it cannot be proven and that you believe because you have faith and that is all that matters to you and you will be a happier person.
29 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by sasquatch672I agree with your point. Trying to prove the uniqueness of a supernatural thing with the natural is silly (except in the case of the proof for Muffy)*. Either you believe or you don't, and it's pretty much arbitrary what you pick (geography has a lot to do with it).
Let me add to the chorus of voices that finds it ridiculous to the point of offense that so-called religious people try to prove the existence of God. I believe in God. Why? I do. That's all I have to say, and that's going to have to be good enough for everybody. (Not that anyone at all is interested in what I believe.) But by trying to prove the would cease your utterly ridiculous and ham-handed attempts to prove God exists.
I would say that your analogies to oxygen and China are a little misleading because they equivocate on the word "see." Perhaps we could use something like "detect empirically". Sure, it's a bit more cumbersome, but I think it more accurately captures the essence of the conflict. Also it is completely harmonious with your point.
* - maybe with something really incredible, like the stuff written in the Old Testament, I'd be more inclined to believe.
29 Jun 06
Originally posted by sasquatch672You could empirically detect oxygen and China if you really wanted to.
I'm good with that. Okay - I cannot empirically detect oxygen or China, but I know they're there. Similarly, I cannot empirically detect God - but I know He's there. What form is "He"? We'll know in the next world. Very good Tel. I think we've come to a confluence of our collective cranial matter.