"How could you believe that?"

[TheBeardedDude]

Right, because evidence gives credence and support for a claim. I don't quite understand how using evidence to believe something undermines ones ability to come to a correct conclusion. Whereas not using evidence makes it impossible to demonstrate the validity of a claim.

What exactly are you trying to say by saying that to a scientist, empirical evidence is unshakable?

[kingschosen]

(07-12-2012 12:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  

(07-12-2012 11:58 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  No, I get that.

But that's the difference of having faith and not having faith.

And, it's still not mixing theology with science.

Using the scientific method, Christians can still say "I don't know". Because they don't; however, there is an overarching theme that God does know.

...and that is theology.

But saying God did it is not science. You can't have it both ways.

But, I'm not using God as an answer to science.

In science, the answer would be "I don't know".

In theology, the answer would be "God did it."

Science never crosses over to theology and theology never crosses over to science.

[kingschosen]

(07-12-2012 12:06 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Right, because evidence gives credence and support for a claim. I don't quite understand how using evidence to believe something undermines ones ability to come to a correct conclusion. Whereas not using evidence makes it impossible to demonstrate the validity of a claim.

What exactly are you trying to say by saying that to a scientist, empirical evidence is unshakable?

I'm saying that their empirical evidence forms their answers. The concept only. Make sense?

[Chas]

(07-12-2012 12:09 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  

(07-12-2012 12:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  But saying God did it is not science. You can't have it both ways.

But, I'm not using God as an answer to science.

In science, the answer would be "I don't know".

In theology, the answer would be "God did it."

Science never crosses over to theology and theology never crosses over to science.

Wrong, again.
When theology makes claims about the physical world, it has come under the purview of science.

[TheBeardedDude]

(07-12-2012 12:11 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  

(07-12-2012 12:06 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Right, because evidence gives credence and support for a claim. I don't quite understand how using evidence to believe something undermines ones ability to come to a correct conclusion. Whereas not using evidence makes it impossible to demonstrate the validity of a claim.

What exactly are you trying to say by saying that to a scientist, empirical evidence is unshakable?

I'm saying that their empirical evidence forms their answers. The concept only. Make sense?

Right...so they have evidence to back-up their answers and those answers must further be testable and if they fail, they were bad/incorrect answers and they go back to the drawing board because only through testing and evidence can one attain any information about the validity of the answer.

I still don't get why that matters to you. Why would that ever not be considered enough? How is it better to speculate on the answer to a question you can't answer? The opinion provided can't even be said to be potentially right or potentially wrong. It just has to be said to be an opinion based on...nothing.

[kingschosen]

(07-12-2012 12:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  

(07-12-2012 12:09 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  But, I'm not using God as an answer to science.

In science, the answer would be "I don't know".

In theology, the answer would be "God did it."

Science never crosses over to theology and theology never crosses over to science.

Wrong, again.
When theology makes claims about the physical world, it has come under the purview of science.

Answering "I don't know" to anything isn't of this physical world. It is metaphysical because there is no answer. It's a metaphyscial assumption to answers of the physical.

This is the same thing with saying that "God did it". It is a metaphysical answer about the physical. Theology deals with the metaphysical; thus, answering unknown questions about the physical world is, indeed, theology.

[TheBeardedDude]

"I don't know" isn't a metaphysical answer, it is the admission of the lack of an answer rather than the assertion that you have an answer.

[TheBeardedDude]

It is the placeholder before an answer can be found. Scientists are willing to admit that they may never be able to answer these questions and that any answers they do provide may never be 100% verifiable.

"God did it" is an assertion that A) an answer can be known B) an answer is known C) justification for such an answer is not needed (evidence-based) D) that this opinion is better (or at least on par with) "I don't know"

All four of these premises fail however.

[Chas]

(07-12-2012 12:17 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  

(07-12-2012 12:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  Wrong, again.
When theology makes claims about the physical world, it has come under the purview of science.

Answering "I don't know" to anything isn't of this physical world. It is metaphysical because there is no answer. It's a metaphyscial assumption to answers of the physical.

This is the same thing with saying that "God did it". It is a metaphysical answer about the physical. Theology deals with the metaphysical; thus, answering unknown questions about the physical world is, indeed, theology.

You are getting more wrong with each answer.
"I don't know" is not a metaphysical statement.

[TheBeardedDude]

It is an arrogant response to a question that seems to assert that the person providing it is capable of mental feats I am not. And that is not feasible as no one possesses mental powers I do not. And if they have information I don't have, I ask for it so I can see it for myself. To date, none of the information given to me has been able to lead me anywhere near the answer of god or the opinion that "god did it."