Arkathon,
Well in this case, inductivity and current deductively should be inducted into the hall of shame! Certainly not the kind that rules Him out first anyhow!
You're pulling my pisser, right? That teeny little scientific rule that requires evidence is a problem for you? That you have no legitimate evidence of a god is your tough, not ours. Live with it. That science requires evidence/testability is perfectly logical & reasonable, the rules aren't going to get changed to be: science requires evidence except for god which it must simply accept as being true. It's not consistent, equitable, or logical.
More than Granny! His Son also banged out miracles left right and center, and raised from the dead to boot. So have most of His writers of the bible, and even some followers over the centuries. The rocks scream out His story, and the heavens declare His glorious creation. So don't blame Him that you can't 'deduce' His existance!
I am becoming concerned for your sanity. You make a habit of blatant unsupported assertions, don't you? There is no scientifically valid evidence that ANYONE or ANYTHING banged out miracles. Certainly, you have presented no reason to accept that as being true here. Another baseless assertion. You want to change the rules
again?
Science is a process by which we inductively derive a hypothesis, & with the exception of anything arkathon wants to be true, we must have evidence for & deductively test that hypothesis. Yeah, that sounds reasonable.
I know science will catch up in spades one day under His Personal guidance, and these dark ages will only be humor.
You hope rather than know, & as a point of fact, the Dark Ages are long gone & were filled with the kind of christianity you long for. You were born 1,000 years too late! TO you the renaissance was something that happened to other people, wasn't it?
The moment you make an exception for something scientifically, it becomes pseudo-science. No amount of whining & crybabying is going to change the fact that you require science to change into something that relaxes its standards for your beliefs it ceases to be science.
It goes back to your original statement.
Anyhow, I think a philosophy, however well intentioned, that says God can not be included in science is fatally flawed! There needs to be some method that allows for an inclusion of the creator.
The reason god can't be included in science is because there's no evidence for them, & not because there's an actual rule against gods
per se. This is what is meant when people tell you that gods aren't amenable to, or aren't subject to scientific enquiry. If there were, he/she/it would be a valid scientific fact.
This reduces your argument to being against a scientific methodology that requires evidence.
If you can't see what's wrong with that you're truly beyond help.
Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
™ Version 4.2
