The issue of chance... (Evolution)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, June 13, 2009, 00:23 (5641 days ago) @ David Turell

Dr. Turell, - That is some amazing-sounding chemistry. It very likely is a step in the right direction. - I have to ask you again however, how do you determine what theological claims are valid? - This is vitally important for me to understand your position. Because you assert that life must have had a creator... but I will stress again (as I also wait for dhw to come back from holiday) that such theological claims need to be evaluated objectively--and there are no ways to do so. Science operates under the assumption that we cannot differentiate from natural and supernatural events, and science cannot work without that assumption. - Assume we CAN differentiate. How do we do so? What kind of measurement do we use? What kind of objective things can we test? Surveys? - Thus, we cannot use science when we discuss theology. Because science is neutral in the question of God(s) it cannot really inform either an atheistic or theistic position. Think about it. When we discovered lightning and explored Mt. Olympus, did it really say that Zeus doesn't exist? No. We just have an explanation that doesn't need Zeus. It didn't actually inform us at all about the existence of Zeus, only the properties of lightning. We do however have a reason to doubt him. - What I'm trying to say, is that we may indeed have a creator, but we have no reason to assume he's not natural, and plenty of reasons to assume he is. However, there is no way to evaluate this theistic claim as any more or less valid than yours, or any other theism, for that matter. Because science gives us reasons to believe one thing over another--but not concerning theology and I have yet to find a theological position that has a way to truly differentiate itself. - So again, what do you use to determine what kind of theological claims are valid and invalid?