(June 17, 2009 at 6:50 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:(June 17, 2009 at 4:45 am)fr0d0 Wrote: The limit of your scientific philosophy is that it only deals with questions relating to empirical data. We can establish that proof of God may or may not be in the artifacts that are the physical universe. Scientific method finishes in it's usefulness there, unless you want to talk about the reasoning for (for example) biblical guidelines which I find to be tried and tested and work.
Conversely the limit of any other philosophy (math excepted is that they cannot validatably demonstrate a single thing and therein lies your problem ... whilst I can be reasonably confident science works you rely on faith alone.
Science is as impotent as faith on the questions of faith as you'd like to know. Faith/ theology at least answer the questions.
(June 17, 2009 at 6:50 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:(June 17, 2009 at 4:45 am)fr0d0 Wrote: If you don't want to discuss whether or not God exists then we have no problem. If you need to then yes, we do. And science will not deal with such abstract thought because it lacks the ability to do so. We can use scientific method to dismiss impossible scenarios easily, but that leaves the vast majority of questions still unanswered.
I don't agree that science lacks the ability to do so, I think it is simply a matter of technical resolution, that our current level of technology is not sufficient to the task.
Science of the gaps you mean.
(June 17, 2009 at 6:50 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:(June 17, 2009 at 4:45 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Just to show that I am very seriously considering your argument.. Maybe I'm using scientific method to reach my understanding of God. The biblical statement of "God" = "I am" works scientifically for me. God 'just is'. He doesn't exist in linear time. It's an idea that is more scientific in nature than theological. Perhaps that's why I have no interest in religious forums because my language is more philosophy of science than pure theology.
I don't see how you think you might be using science to understand your god ... "God" = "I am" is the antipathy of everything science is about. It also highlights why I cannot accept your claim to doubt being key to your faith ... if your god "just is" then you're not doubting it at all are you?
Kyu
No - "God = I am" isn't saying God "just is" - it's saying God is timeless. God doesn't have a begginning and an end. that what the original text says.
