parsmnium writes:
If irrefutable evidence was found for the existence of God, then scientists would accept it.
Unless, upon further examination, original sin was proven to be part of the human condition. What I mean by this is that the premise of original sin includes the presupposition that humans are predisposed to refute.
We always look for further clarification, further elaboration, and absolute clarification. This is a good and useful trait in the realm of scientific observation. It was good that cyclomates were found to cause cancer before too many people ingested them as artificial sweetener, for example.
When it comes to the faith issue of God, however, humans are predisposed to go one "God" further. The usual question is this:
"Who created God?" By nature, we find comfort in our OWN conclusions over what may actually be so. We refuse to allow irrefutable evidence to impress us.
parasomnium writes:
It's the interpretation of the evidence that's different.
True. As a scientist, one must suspend any emotionalism tied to the topic at hand. So in this sense, you are right, Parasomnium.
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-23-2005 08:04 AM
™ Version 4.2