Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
No, you can use models and observations- they generally work quite well. I never said you couldn't. I'm a big fan of the science.
|
I meant I could not use them as a basis for the argument.
Quote:
|
I think that with all anyone knows about science, it would be just as scientific to predict that some sort of omnipotent diety would catch your apple.
|
Then I would have something concrete and would stop this merry -go-round.
Quote:
|
The only reason the subject came up is that it is fallacious to criticize theology based on notions of absolute provability when there exists a gap in the provability of science... many fundamental things that are still unproven, and while it so far has been convenient and utile to treat reality as if these unproven aspects are irrelevant, the fact remains that they exist... All i am attempting to point out is that it is fallacious to criticize theology for it's reliance on the unprovable whilst holding up science as some sort of alternative.
|
Viola! And here is the hang up... Thank you for putting it this way. It isn't science that I praise (well it is but that is shadowed by the passion for reality) but reality itself.
Can I make the statement that there is a reality around me? Yes, I can't prove my observations as fact - BUT I can work towards it. I have something I can put thought into and find answers. When I search for god, I (and obviously other people here) do not find anything other than suspiciously human ideas in the way.