« first day (2 days earlier)      last day (25 days later) » 

4:09 AM
@NotThatGuy I propose that reliable isn't the right word for the scientific method here. A process that constantly proves that yesterday's results are wrong/incomplete isn't giving reliable results, it's giving improved results. This is not dissimilar to codebreaking--the goal of most optimization approaches to code-breaking is not to give a reliable answer every time it is run--the goal is to give an answer that is an improvement on the previous answer.
It's the corrections that make the scientific method powerful
If you're arguing above that a good process/method/machine can still be misused via user error, I don't see any reason to dispute that point.
It appears to me that you have experience with theology that is unwilling to accept correction (or new information). I have no interest in such a theology. If I believe in an Omniscient God, why in the world wouldn't I want Him to provide me with correction or new information or correct me when I'm off course?
 
4:32 AM
I didn't want you to feel like I'm blowing you off, but I do confess I've got a pretty heavy-duty week at work coming up and I probably won't be able to maintain the pace of back and forth here in the near term, so I'll have to call this discussion a wrap for now (Btw even though the hours go well past 40 I do not define my purpose or reason for being by my employment =) ). I'll offer the following parting thought:
In my own understanding of theology there are just a handful of axioms I consider irrefutably well-established, and most else then derives as inferences from them. If there is an Omniscient & Omnipotent Being, would it be possible for Him to make Himself known in a way that is unmistakable? In a way that is not subject to the limitations of our physical senses? Unless we want to play word games with "omniscient" & "omnipotent" the answer would have to be yes. He has. I have the axioms on the most epistemologically sure basis possible (for a non-omniscient being like myself); the inferences
Thanks for the discussion, TTYL
 
5:01 AM
Oops - got timed out and one of the thoughts above was left incomplete ^^. The scientific method has axioms (reasonable ones, I believe), it continously reevaluates all inferences which come from them.
 
5:50 AM
@HoldToTheRod Why do I say "reliable"? If I aim to get to a store 5 minutes before it closes, then I do not reliably get there before they close. If a method is reliable, then, in repeated attempts to get to the store, I will usually (but ideally always) get there before it closes. Similarly, for a method that aims to demonstrate the existence of God to be reliable, I expect it to usually or always demonstrate that God exists for anyone who follows the described process.
As far as the test for God is concerned, "usually" by definition excludes some people who follow the process perfectly, and "always" seems to dismiss the experience of others, so neither seem too compelling.

Certainly the fact that science has means to correct itself is what makes it a powerful tool to obtain reliable knowledge about reality.

It's good that you're willing to accept corrections, but why does an all-knowing God, who presumably knows how exactly how his creation will interpret his words, need to correct himself? Why didn't he create humanity with a better ability to understa
Yeah, thanks to you too. I guess we can end it about there, if you're not inclined to give any additional response. There has been a few too many branching tangents here that all seemed to turn out a lot longer than I originally planned...
 

« first day (2 days earlier)      last day (25 days later) »