Rob, most of us aren't English proficient enough to correctly comprehend fortune cookie language or to read people's minds.
Sorry rgb. I have a tendancy to speak things that are spiritually discerned. As C.S. Lewis has mentioned somewhere, 'it is great fun', to be able to say things so exclusively understood. Such wonderful things, and in such a tempo as are the writing of the Apostle Paul.
Even so, and assuming such insight is real and true, it does not help to play games with, or abuse such ability while conversing with non-believers.
As you said, it is not you're fault that you cannot read my mind, and that is why I apologized for any confusion.
It sounds like you understand my meaning now, and that is good. I think it is an important point as regards the differences between varying assumptions of the limitations and definitions of science.
Any attempt to see clearly, the meaning or factual relevance of anything that exists, will not be fullfilled unless one can assume first, the bias for the existence of all things. The facts themselves can be interpreted through any number of assumed biases...
What I find particularly useful is simply recognizing that since all things exist, then all things have a bias for existing. The only question answered that can ever truely show the proper way to view the facts, or any set of them is the question, 'what is the truth?'
To answer that question in general, one needs to abandon any incoherent truth assumptions within the varying disciplines. If one's coherent naturalist assumptions about the universe, do not in turn cohere with one's coherent philosophical assumptions, then the whole system is broken. Either the philosophcal assumptions are incorrect, or the naturalist assumptions are incorrect, or both are incorrect.
I believe this is why [the discipline of] morality was the method our Lord used to open the eye's of the blind (blind in the spiritual sense). We all are forced to accept a moral doctrine of some kind. As Ravi Zacharius so simply states, 'without a moral law, life is simply unlivable.' In a naturalistic framework, morality is utterly invented by man and is therefore not coherent.
Morality is either exists, or it doesn't. If it does not, then the problem with man may well be his attempt to be something other than natural...
Many will say that the definition of science has nothing to do with these arguments. Personallyt, I think everything has something to do with everything.
You may wish to read the Great Debate between Sidelined and myself, for more to come on this particular angle (something) of the defintion of science (another something) as it pertains to everything.
As I have showed in message 98, the definition of science if misapplied can cloud the vision of more important matters...
And I repeat, this thread is about the definition of science. I won't help you draw the thread off-topic. If you'd like to discuss the misapplication of science and scientific principles to non-scientific realms then you might consider proposing a new thread.