|
Glad we are back on civil speaking terms...
You wrote -
"I never said they are proof of no God! But I have stated before that they are not proof of God. There is a difference."
Yes there is a huge difference between those two statements. You also said, in a joking manner to our resident dullard Clifford the friendly christian, that "you didn't come from no God". Were you saying in that statement that you are atheist? If so, are you using the current scientific evidence in cosmology as a ladder for those beliefs?
You wrote -
" Also, how does God fall outside of science but is well within the bounds of philosophy? They both rely on logic."
Science relies on empirical evidence. The funny thing is that the fist assumption of any scientific endeavor has to be that what we observe is reality. Science is flawed to a certain extint and it is been discussed in this forum at exhaustive lengths. The great thing about science is that you must have tangible evidence to support your claims. As others have stated, most of today's cosmology is based on mathematics that cannot be observed in the "real world" at this time. Do we throw it out the window? No. It is what we have for now, and it acts as a stepping stone to lead us further along, or it can be torn down in place of a new theory. Science cannot test for God, so to speak. God is intangible, or maybe God is tangible in the things that are all around us. Either way we cannot comprehend God with instrumentation or scientific methods. And when we try we see nothing is there. That is why religion and science cannot get along, because science can never validate the existence of God and if it tried it would have to say, "sorry, I don't see or hear anything".
As far as philosophy goes, I think it depends on your definition of the term philosophy. Is christianity a philosophy? Was Nazism a philosophy? Is the republican platform a philosophy? If so, then I think we can all agree that there are some illogical ideals in each of those areas.
Scott
|
