RE: Science vs. Theology

From: Don Perrett <>
Date: Thu Apr 14 2005 - 01:38:48 EDT


Perhaps I did miss your point. I apologize if I've misunderstood. It
appeared to me that you were stating that truth needs proof. Something
which is not proven, may or may not be true. Something which is already
proven, by whatever means, is true already. This is perhaps my view. Maybe
I am not actually here. But as far as I can tell, I am. "I think therefore
I am". As for the assumption that anything unproven equates to a "I'm
right, you're wrong" situation, I cannot agree. Not everyone is determined
to be right, nor to prove others are wrong. Some things are simply a matter
of not being wrong. Confused. Sorry. Just quoting Kung Foo Tse. If I
state an opinion that does not make me right, nor does it make some else
wrong. But neither does it make me wrong. Of course without "proof" it is
not necessarily true either. While the "sun" remark may be tautology, it is
still true. Some things do not need "scientific proof". Which is what the
discussion was about. Direct observation by everyone would conclude that
the sun is real and true. No science needed.

Don P

-----Original Message-----
From: []On
Behalf Of D. F. Siemens, Jr.
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 12:56 AM
Subject: Re: Science vs. Theology

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:32:41 -0400 "Don Perrett"
<> writes:
> Dave,
> While I would agree on certain issues, what one would call a truth
> is
> actually an opinion. But if I told you the sun was the sun. Would
> you say
> this was my opinion. The only thing that could be debated the use
> of the
> word or the language being used. One cannot debate whether there
> in
> fact/truth there is a sun or not. To do so, would mean that nothing
> could
> be proven. Even science relies on instruments to measure things.
> If the
> reason for measuring something is to find out how or why it behaves
> a
> certain way, this is acceptable. And with time and sufficiently
> acceptable
> proof, one then can call the theory truth. If one is trying to
> measure
> something which can be detected by natural means (senses) then you
> can no
> longer rely on the instrument itself than the thing being measured.
> How do
> you know that anything actually exists. Must all things be measures
> and
> analyzed before determining its true existence, or are there things
> which
> can be easily determined (just by looking) to be true? If so, then
> you have
> just agreed with my original point.
> Don P
If you are saying 'the sun is the sun,' then you are uttering a
tautology. But I don't think that's what you mean. So I have to conclude
that I'd have to back up and expalin a great deal. You've missed the
Received on Thu Apr 14 01:40:26 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Apr 14 2005 - 01:40:28 EDT