However this is not what I have heard before on this list. I've heard
science should assume NO supernatural rather than leaving it to one side.
>>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?
Do you think there can be measurable, observable evidence of supernatural
origins?
>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.
More compelling, but degree of attractivity of some tenet does not help in
assigning a truth value to it. And to borrow from Chris, even though he
wouldn't use it this way, how do you know something you're watching isn't an
illusion?
>For a scientist none of it's true until supporting evidence can be >found.
Oh? Doesn't science usually take data and fit theories to it, then study
further under the assumption the theories are true? Or try to prove theories
wrong by assuming they're false?
Jason
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com