Evidence for God from Science

Already did. Ya been dealt.

I recommend a big slice of Be boppa rebop rhubarb pie.

I do love rhubarb pie

PaulSacramento wrote:I do love rhubarb pie

Do you understand why I'd say that speaking of "scientific facts' beyond maybe
a researcher saying "it is a fact that this is my data"

or

speaking of "inviolate laws" is strictly for people who really dont know their subject matter?

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I do love rhubarb pie

Do you understand why I'd say that speaking of "scientific facts' beyond maybe
a researcher saying "it is a fact that this is my data"

or

speaking of "inviolate laws" is strictly for people who really dont know their subject matter?

Yes, but do you understand that anyone that subscribes to a naturalist view is,basically, doing just that.
And that is what the statement is addressing.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I do love rhubarb pie

Do you understand why I'd say that speaking of "scientific facts' beyond maybe
a researcher saying "it is a fact that this is my data"

or

speaking of "inviolate laws" is strictly for people who really dont know their subject matter?

Yes, but do you understand that anyone that subscribes to a naturalist view is,basically, doing just that.
And that is what the statement is addressing.

I understand that some will choose to construe it that way.

I get the feeling you are saying indiredtly as it may be that all who do not hold to
views that include the supernatural are irrational.

materialist view that events contrary to the laws of science just can’t happen is a metaphysical doctrine, not a scientific fact.

I am not sure you do understand my objection to those rather weird statements quoted.

As said earlier about facts. This view is only for uneducated people. Going after "naturalists"
has all the charm of me going after "christians' for some view I might choose to say they have.

Whatever a "naturalist" is supposed to be besides a label to stick where one will.


What’s more, the doctrine that the laws of nature are “inviolable” is not necessary for science to function.

The veriest beginner knows that "laws of nature' are human constructs based on limited data. "Doctrines" are for the religious.

The concept of inviolable laws being necessary to science is so upside down and backwards, who even comes up with such things?

Audie, did you see the definitions of naturalism?
The naturalist philosophy claims such things, that is the point.

The comment that "events contrary to the laws of science just can’t happen is a metaphysical doctrine, not a scientific fact" is true.
To state that an event outside the KNOWN scientific laws simply can NOT happen, is a statement that is metaphysical. It is not a scientific fact ( or anything scientific) even though naturalist state it as such.

There are NOT comments against science ( the writer of the article IS a scientist), these are comments against naturalism ( epicureanism even).

PaulSacramento wrote:Audie, did you see the definitions of naturalism?
The naturalist philosophy claims such things, that is the point.

The comment that "events contrary to the laws of science just can’t happen is a metaphysical doctrine, not a scientific fact" is true.
To state that an event outside the KNOWN scientific laws simply can NOT happen, is a statement that is metaphysical. It is not a scientific fact ( or anything scientific) even though naturalist state it as such.

There are NOT comments against science ( the writer of the article IS a scientist), these are comments against naturalism ( epicureanism even).

"Naturalism" seems to subdivide in ways that do not entertain me to read about.

What’s more, the doctrine that the laws of nature are “inviolable” is not necessary for science to function.

Keeping it simple here, can some "naturalist" somewhere be demonstrated to hold to such a silly idea as "inviolate laws of nature" or think they are "necessary for science to function".