|
|
Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"
Kai Henningsen (kai@khms.westfalen.de)
04 May 1995 21:32:00 +0100
Yasha@bigraf.tamu.edu wrote on 01.05.95 in <Yasha-0105952036480001@wildmaciici.tamu.edu>:
> In article
> <Pine.SOL.3.91.950501174004.28098C-100000@gladstone.uoregon.edu>, China
> <hilary@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>
> > fine. however, I'd hesitate to allow that the scientific realm
> > encompases all existence. As in, as you say, there is no basis to prove
> > or disprove the existence of God. So if God exists, it is at a level as
> > yet inaccessible to science.
>
> Not quite. The existence of God is not a scientific question. It cannot
> be addressed by the scientific method. This is fundamental to the method,
> not a limitation of current technology or of scientific understanding. If
> God exists, science cannot prove it. If God does not exist, science
> cannot prove it. If God existed once, but doesn't any more, science
> cannot prove it. If God will exist in the future, science cannot prove
> it...
Not quite. If God exists _and_causes_no_observable_phenomena_, then
science can't tell us about that. If he _did_ cause such phenomena,
science _could_ tell us about it.
The interesting part is that religions often _do_ claim that he causes
observable phenomena ...
Kai
--
Internet: kai@khms.westfalen.de
Bang: major_backbone!khms.westfalen.de!kai
http://www.westfalen.de/~kai/
## CrossPoint v3.02 ##
|