🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov2.202538.18997@ichips.intel.com> bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>Science is the natural foil to the persistent, evidentiary
>arguments of Theism. 

I take what you mean to be that Science is the natural foil to the
erroneous scientific predictions of Theists, an idea which goes at least as
far back as Augustine.

>Much of Theology is borne by
>historical events (miracles, who begat whom, etc.), but
>such things are hearsay and hold no water for logicians.

Strictly speaking, the scientific literature is hearsay, and it may
cut no ice with logicians either. Science is an extension of the
senses, and, as Descartes points out, you can doubt your senses (and
therefor Science) without losing your logic.

>So in debate theologians resort to physical evidence (or

Not in the manner you seem to be pointing at - in fact very few theologians
spend a lot of time on existence proofs. From the mathematician's point of
view, this is something they have in common with physicists.

>The only sufficient refutations of such arguments are
>observation and experimentation; i.e., science.

I think you will find that the existence proofs still 'in play' are aware
of, and consistent with the conclusions of science.

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt