I didn't say that either the gods or the fairies don't exist (thought I
*don't* believe in either and I *know* you don't believe in *one* of them).
I said--and meant--that when you use a supernatural explantion for something
you have no compelling need to inquire further. If you leave the question of
the supernatural to one side (whether you believe in the supernatural or
not) you can continue to enquire about ANY subject to your heart's content.
>SB>Science is a method of inquiry. Science is always provisional
>>pending new evidence.
>
>Except that in the case of *origins*, the "inquiry" rules out God
>*absolutely* before the "evidence" is even considered! This is metaphysical
>naturalism.
there is *evidence* for supernatural origins? Measurable, observable evidence?
>For example, it is hardly "provisional" when Michael Ruse, the leading
>Darwinist philosopher states that:
>
>"Evolution is a fact, fact, FACT!" (Ruse M., "Darwinism Defended," 1983,
>p58)
when you watch something happen in front of your face, it tends to be a bit
more compelling than when someone asks you to take on faith something that
can never be demonstrated.
>SB>The earth can cease to rotate for a time. "The Bible says it, I believe it.
>>Period."
>But actually the Bible doesn't say that "The earth can cease to rotate for a
>time." What the Bible it says in Josh 10:13 is that "the sun stood still, and
>the moon stopped..." While I have no problem if God did cause the earth to
>"cease to rotate for a time", it is possible to legitimately interpret this
>passage literally that the sun and moon only *appeared* to Joshua to stand
>still. Ramm points out that there are at least four possible interpretations
>of this passage, only only one of which is that the earth ceased to rotate
>for a time:
So only Genesis I & II are *literally* true. I hadn't realized that.
>And even if the Christian does say "The Bible says it, I believe it. Period"
>what is wrong with that? The vast majority of Christians haven't got the
>ability or training to decide what in the Bible should be accepted and
>what rejected. In those circumstances, the soundest approach, in the first
>instance, is to accept it all on face value, and then work at increasing one's
>understanding and resolving difficulties. This is in fact analogous to what
>scientists do.
as Chris pointed out, this is the exact *opposite* of what scientists do.
For a scientist none of it's true until supporting evidence can be found.
That's why so many scientists cling to evolution. There a ton of supporting
evidence for it.
>Given the Christian's original premise that the Bible is the unique written
>revelation from God, it is reasonable that it should be believed to be true,
"it's true because it's true" just isn't enough for me, sorry.
Susan
--------
Life is short, but it is also very wide.
http://www.telepath.com/susanb