Summations Only

Science goes farther than that, however. Science then compares the fingerprints at the crime sciene with the fingerprints of the defendant to determine if they are a match. If they match, then the forensic scientist uses this evidence to conclude that the defendant was at the crime scene and left those fingerprints. That is the science. Believing that GOD could have produced those fingerprints without the defendant ever being present directly casts doubt on the science. It requires the scientific conclusion to be thrown out. That is a problematic worldview.

You have already stated that it is impossible to get this evidence, so it must always be considered. Therefore, the scientific conclusion should be thrown out as being forever untrustworthy. That is a problematic worldview.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Indeed. So do you personally consider that which can never be evidenced?

Then I will rephrase. You say that we should not consider that which can not be evidenced, such as the GOD planting finger prints at a crime scene. However, it seems that you do believe that unevidenced supernatural actions on the part of GOD do occur. That is your position, is it not?

According to what you said earlier, one should not consider entities that can not be evidenced. Here you are saying that you do. I don't mean to single you out, but it is your personal beliefs that I am trying to discuss with you.

In Message 315 you stated:"If it is impossible to get the evidence why should it EVER be considered?"This seemed to be a general statement, but perhaps I am missing some important context. From what I have read, the worldview you are describing is a very conflicted one. On one hand you advocate the view that we should not consider things for which there is no evidence. At the same time, you are professing a personal belief in things that can not be evidenced. I understand that you are NOT prescribing the way in which we SHOULD think. I am merely discussing the way in which you DO think.Am I getting this right? Am I missing something? This example keeps getting hung up on the letter of the law so let's move back to one of your earlier examples. If I am reading it correctly, you believe that God inspires people to have certain thoughts, such as not to step in front of a bus or a sudden inspiration to run a specific clinical test. You also seem to indicate that we have no way of evidencing this inspiration. So why do you even consider that this inspiration even occurs since you have no evidence for it, or are you saying that you do believe in things for which there is no evidence?

So it is possible to evidence the supernatural, it just happens to be subjective evidence. Is this correct?

Pearls before swine.