From: jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 00:30:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.152857.6800@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:

>You are getting one of my points entirely!  My faith impacts my
>interpretation of phenomena.  Your faith in science (probably just as
>strong as my faith in God) impacts your interpretation by demanding only 
>natural phenomena to exist.  That's fine as long as you understand your
>assumptions.
>We both have faith that clouds (I prefer "influences") our interpretation. 
>It's called having a paradigm.

Well, speak for yourself.  I don't have faith in science, I trust it based
on a proven track record.  This is called reasoning based on experience.  I
have yet to experience anything supernatural, so combined with other
evidence I conclude that it doesn't exist.  You start with the assumption of
God which clouds your interpretations, while I start with observations which
lead me to conclusions about the world.  You can hardly call them
equivalent.

>If you read my posts again, I have never stated that I believe in the
>super-natural.  I proposed that, if the supernatural exists, it does not
>contradict the claims of science.  I thought it was pretty obvious and
>should threaten no one.  Apparantly I was wrong on both counts.

How can you believe in God and not in the supernatural?
You said that science can't examine the supernatural, and I said that this
is only a problem if the supernatural actually exists, so we are left
waiting for your evidence of the supernatural.  If the supernatural doesn't
exist then the fact that science can't examine it really doesn't matter.

>I inadvertantly deleted your Occam's razor comment.  You feel I need to
>prove
>that the supernatural exists.  But, to say that something doesn't exist is
>the statement that demands evidence/proof because it is the stronger
>statement.

Wrong.  You really lack a basic understanding of both science and logic, so
I can easily see why you think the way you do.

>I have claimed that the supernatural may or may not exist.  You have
>claimed
>that it doesn't.  You have drawn a conclusion whereas I have not.  Drawing
>a conclusion requires support, stating a possibility does not.  Occam's
>razor
>does not come into play.

Read my comment above.  Occam's razor says remove unnecessary assumptions. 
Unless you can prove the supernatural to be logically necessary, then we are
reasonably justified in assuming it doesn't exist.

>Evidence for gravity is not proof of gravity.  One cannot prove anything in
>science because everything in science is based on assumptions which are
>stated
>without proof.
>  -- Scott @Brandeis

When combined with our theoretical understanding of physics and our everyday
experience with gravity, yes we can take this evidence as proof that gravity
actually exists.  Are you going to deny that gravity exists?  Can you prove
that it doesn't?  What are these assumptions which are stated without proof?

Jim Copeland
-- 
I sink like a stone
That's been thrown in the ocean
My logic has drowned
In a sea of emotion                   -- Sting