Truth.Seeker
posted on Apr 19, 2008 - 06:45 PM
Tony,
When I said "The fact that someone hasn't taken calculus isn't an insult or bad, it just is," the "it just is" part was referring to the fact, not that "it just is an insult or bad."
In other words, the fact isn't an insult or bad, it is just a fact.
I did not mean to insult you, but I recognize I could have chosen better words. I apologize and I'm going to try to delete and/or edit my post.
What I was getting at is that it seems this is your first exposure to this idea of scientific theorems and induction. I say this because of your response to my post. Since these concepts are difficult to grasp, I said my attempts to explain them would be futile because ANYONE would need some time to process it for themselves.
Again, I apologize.
Now, let me address your post:
Quoting Tony:
"As far as I am concerned, it defies logic for a dead man to come back to life. Especially since there is no reason, other than a miracle, for the body to come back to life. God gave us science so that we can understand how things work. How can you say that science does not prove anything? That is not true. I would however agree that science can not prove everything. Anyway, coming back from the dead is impossible, but not with God. Tell me how to bring a man back from the dead, or how to turn water into wine. You can not. Why? Because it defies logic...dead people can not come back from the dead; water can not become wine. Only God can do this; only He can defy science."
A dad man rising from the dead does defy science, but it does not defy logic. This is what mikokiko said by "sience and reason are not synonymous." In other words, it IS a miracle, but a miracle only "defies" logic in the mind of an atheist. In other words, if someone doesn't believe there's an omnipotent God and sees a miracle, he/she will be baffled. However, for those that believe in God, a miracle is not baffling since we know God is beyond our scientific advancements.
In another thread, mikokiko was asking for opinions on how to prove to an atheist that science is not the only way to prove something. I responded with (and mikokiko had already told the atheist this), "Tell him that he cannot use science to prove that science is the only way to prove something." What am I implying? I'm implying that logic and reasoning are beyond science. So, when God "defies" our scientific advancements, He's not defying logic, He is merely defying science, which is not synonymous with reasoning.
This doesn't mean that science isn't important, it just means there are things beyond science but within the realm of logic.
