(November 13, 2011 at 2:13 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Yes logic works that way blam. If you ask for scientific evidence for God according to the principles of the scientific method, you are commiting the fallacy of question-begging, for God is not within the scope of investigation of the scientific method, according to it's own principles.if I had to push scientific methods on the existence of god, it'd be wasteful of time. However, if we had to push scientific methods on the bible [in where all of concept of god based on]. It'd be easy to conclude god may not involved.
(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 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.
