Ann, certainly ONE MRI is not going to prove anything! Replication is a big part of the scientific belief system (-:
So let's hook up 100 people claiming to be united with God and see if their brains all fire up in the same area. Even then, we'd need other bunch of people to say yes, I think those 100 persons are united with God. I think we live like little scientists, according to probablity though we like to think that we have 100% proof. We never do. Welcome to Planet Earth! On Monday, February 17, 2014 10:56 AM, "awoelfleba...@yahoo.com" <awoelfleba...@yahoo.com> wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: It's hardly an error to ask people to prove things if they are making such big claims - if you are in the business of providing explanations that is. If the ambition of theology really is to provide arguments for the existence of god without ever resorting to science then it's even more pointless than I thought. For a start they should lop the suffix "ology" off the end. It must be like painting yourself into a corner "No we can't claim that, it could be tested, be more oblique" Doesn't sound very satisfying to me, give me a decent particle accelerator any day.... I am wondering what examples of "evidence" you would consider proof of God. Certainly not an MRI showing how someone's brain is working. And certainly not anyone's vocalization of an experience of God. So how do you envision irrefutable evidence of God, other than some Being actually appearing before you? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote: > > >"No sympathy for theology" is perhaps not the best phrase here. More to the >point would be "lack of curiosity as to what theologians are actually saying." >Classical theists do not claim there is any scientific evidence for God--could >not be, by definition. The demand for such by the New Atheists is a function >of the category error that pervades their arguments. > >>>stand the language that theologians use.
