Quote:
the essence of the discussion is that he believes that one cannot perform a scientific test for a creator, therefore a creator does not exist. Hence scientific induction is not compatible with religion.
Hi Jacob thanks for the help.
|
My response would be as follows:
"Please show me the scientific test that will prove that only those things exist that can be proven with a scientific test."
If he/she says "I cannot show such a test" than his/her epistemological starting point is then destroyed.
If he/she says "I can show such a test" then tell them every peer-reviewed journal would love to publish the findings of such a study as it would be new territory for science to answer such a question. In fact, this would not be science at all, but the logical conclusion of an
a priori position about reality. The sooner he/she admits that, the sooner you can get on with genuine discussion.
I've often wanted to write a satire on science in the vein of Pilgrim's Progress. Have characters like Observation, Hypothesis and Reproducible. Then have a character called Materialist who constantly keeps putting Observation, Hypothesis and Reproducible into situations where they do not fit. And have them getting annoyed and fed up with Materialist by saying things like, "Have we not made enough progress for your ends?? Why keep asking us to perform miracles we were never intended to do?? Loose us from your service so that we can be free to function as a tool and not a blueprint for the world!"