Again, Jfreddy, you continue to evade the central issue. John Galt does
not entirely disagree with the definitions and relationships of
epistomology to science you've expressed. John Galt needs no classroom
instruction, here, Jfreddy, so spare me your book. The problem is a
central one: "If the question to the existence of a Creator cannot be
established in Science, than where can it be established?"
Somehow, you have already concluded that the 'Creator' has no physical
nature, that it cannot be quantified or measured in anyway. Even Science
makes no such leap! Science, of course, dismisses the question altogether
as what exactly it is one is looking for in a 'Creator' is not clear. That
is not to say, however, that it is not the domain of science to determine
what is and what is not. And to determinine what is and what is not is
based on established rules and principles of what constitutes acceptable
'evidence'.
It is enough for epistomology to struggle with the problems of what
constitutes 'evidence'. The question of a Creator belongs to Science and
Science has dismissed it. Your solution, Jfreddy, is rather than to
dismiss Science, you spare the question by dumping it upon another, less
stringent, school. But the question of a 'Creator' belongs in the school
of dimwits and bonehead philosophers.
Please note: Father Terrence acts only as medium for the spirit of John
Galt upon these threads. He is of his own mind and may or may not agree
with John Galt statements. Please do address John Galt when responding to
his statements. Thank you.
John Galt |
