Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Father Terrence who wrote (13668)	11/17/1997 9:59:00 PM
From: JF Quinnelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

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.