(November 13, 2011 at 4:52 pm)Blam! Wrote: It'd be easy to conclude god may not involved.I think I know what you are saying, but could you clarify please.
(November 13, 2011 at 4:52 pm)Blam! Wrote:The evidence we have of God is what we can logically deduce. We can test that for logical soundness.(November 13, 2011 at 2:13 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You must use the method appropriate to the subject. If the unicorn is meant to be a physically evidenced creature then it would be appropriate to expect physical evidence.What is appropriate word to explain the existence of god? Faith, right?
(November 13, 2011 at 4:52 pm)Blam! Wrote:Well at some point they have to meet. But yes, you get the picture.(November 13, 2011 at 2:13 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: If you requested the same of a methematical equasion, for example, then requiring physical evidence of that equasion would be absurd.
But mathematical equations are one of theories to describe of our understanding of the universe. The mathematical formula like kinetic energy - explaining how much energy in traveling projectile or amount of energy produced by asteroid crashing into ground.
I understand what are you trying to say that science and faith is mutually excessive.
