What makes you unbelieve Crash ?

Mike,Let's clarify something here. Scientific methodology makes no statements about God's existence because there's no way to conclude scientifically about something that can't be defined. "Supernatural" entities aren't excluded from MN just because they share some attribute of supernatural-ness, but because there's no reason to assume they're even there at all.Methodological Naturalism could in fact conclude that there's a God if there were any objective evidence of His existence. The absence of such evidence leads most of us to assume that God is either nonexistent or just irrelevant to scientific inquiry, but believers are adamant that this pretend (excuse me, supernatural) entity must be considered as part of empirical evidential inquiry. However, the terms empirical and evidential pretty much mean that science ignores any claim that can't be supported with empirical evidence. If scientific methodology were to introduce invisible, undetectable entities, where would the list end?This is why creationism at its basis is anti-scientific. If I have to assume the existence of a creator, and assume that there is an objective way to verify this creator's existence, and assume that belief in this creator expands our understanding of natural phenomena, and assume that everything is the way it is because that's the way the creator wanted, and assume that scientific data which don't support any objective notion of purposeful design should be ignored, and assume that natural law can be nullified at any time through the intervention of the creator, and assume that nothing in Nature is the product of mindless processes even if it appears to be, then I might as well give up any hope of meaningful scientific endeavor.regards,
Esteban Hambre

Mike,No, you misunderstand. Of course Methodological Naturalism says nothing about things that can't be defined, verified, or tested. If that silence sounds mocking or scornful of your precious beliefs, it should. Not only does it conclude God's nonexistence, it assumes that as a matter of course. Good for you if you want to believe 'personal evidence' (whatever that is), but if something has no objective support for its existence or influence on natural phenomena, then MN makes a point of ignoring it.regards,
Esteban Hambre

Mike,

quote:

---

MN doesn't say God doesn't exist but you do. Science cannot judge that which it cannot see.

---

Oh, but it does. If science can't 'see' something, it judges it irrelevant. How else could you conduct scientific investigation? In essence, Methodological Naturalism is concerned with relevant factors in explaining natural phenomena. If a factor can't be detected, verified or tested, then MN ignores it. I don't know why this is so difficult for you to conceive.I already said that MN could in fact 'see' God if there were any objective physical evidence that He exists. Plenty of believers here claim to have such evidence, but in every case it turns out to be wishful thinking. I'm fed up with being accused of dogmatism because I say science demands evidence, as if empirical evidential inquiry can be conducted without empirical evidence.Since you want to assert the existence and relevance of God but admit that the only evidence supporting your assertion is personal, you'll just have to accept that MN has no need to recognize God. The only reason we use terms like 'metaphysical' and 'supernatural' in describing God is because there's really nothing we can say about the concept that's based in what we know about physical reality.regards,
Esteban Hambre

Mike,You're the one who seems to want it both ways. You conclude from Nature that God exists? I'd say you're just seeing what you want to see. You pay lip service to the things that are beautiful or impressive, and just ignore the aspects of Nature that are cruel, wasteful, or unfair.Are the thousands of species of tapeworm proof that a loving God exists? How about children born with disabilities due to genetic mutations? Does the extinction of millions of species throughout Earth's history testify to a purposeful intelligence in the universe? Should the fact that the overwhelming majority of organisms on Earth are bacteria convince us that we have an eternal soul?Don't misunderstand me, I never claimed that these things prove there isn't a God. However, these things must be considered if Nature is your evidence of God's existence.regards,
Esteban Hambre

Mike,I only asked why you'd consider Nature evidence of God if so much in nature is cruel, wasteful or unfair. Your answer seems to be that God must be cruel, wasteful, and unfair. I should have known.{added by edit}
So the tapeworm is evidence (personal evidence, por supuesto) for God because people who have them pray to God to be delivered from the tapeworm that God created so people would pray to Him? Am I getting warm?regards,
Esteban "Ant Bible" Hambre[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 04-15-2004]

"Speech is just conditioned behavior." Francis CrickMike,I'm with Lam. I don't think it's worth it to continue this, since we're obviously not on the same wavelength. Blame your Bible-thumping for your inability to get through to us. Adults use logic and reason to connect with others, Miguel, but you just spit out borrowed rhetoric and expect us to accept it. You mistake being able to explain something with being able to rationalize anything. We've heard it all before.regards,
Esteban Hambre