The question, then, of whether a creator exists or does exist must fall within the domain of science.
Well, Terry, "evidence" has more than one definition, and isn't confined to the field of physical science. Law, for instance, uses evidence that often isn't physical. Science itself must rely on epistemology for its own definitions; the procedures of the scientific method are themselves argued in the field of epistemlogy.
Science doesn't "judge" the evidence for a creator, because the sort of "evidence" offered for a Creator isn't subject to the procedures of science; there's no weighing or measurement involved, no experiments to set up, and none to repeat. The argument is about the existence of a being that transcends space and time, unless you're arguing for pantheism. The "evidence" is really a series of philosophical arguments, Transcendental, Cosmological, Ontological, Moral, First Cause, Necessary Cause, and so forth. Christianity also employs historical arguments, which are subject to the rules of evidence for any historical claim. Johnny is confusing categories when he argues that science is the proper field for arguing about the existence of God. |
