5 Questions...

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
So the best explanation for something by your beliefs is always scientific explanation, correct?

---

No its the one that isnt totally lacking in evidence....

quote:

---

So that would explain how God, something that is not provable thus far by science, is not your best explanation.

​

But, if science says that matter can not be destroyed and can not be created, how can it's existence be scientifically explainable without redoing our whole concept of science?

---

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that science claims God does not exist and that it would be a catastrophe for science to reevaluate and strengthen its opinions....Firstly as we have tried to explain the scientific position is that with no evidence for God there is no subject to discuss....Secondly while it would be a hammer blow to any system of knowledge not based on observations (i.e. its in this 2000 year old book so it is true) science is free to reassess its position as it is based on observation and a "survival of the fittest" (theory) philosophy....

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 12-13-2001]

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
I understand what you are saying. I hope that you understand that I am saying that the whole concept of God precludes him from being defined by science.

---

Ok once more unto the breach....All I am trying to debate with you is your original claim that God was above science...This is not the precursor to any attempt by me to disprove God due to a lack of evidence for his existence. I personally believe this is poor reasoning (I argued against a similar line of thought in our "inevitable sin and free will" debate).I merely wish you to consider that given that God affects the universe in any way then these interactions are as a consequence of their effect observable. Thus through these interactions it is possible to observe God....