>>Materialists believe all of nature can be explained by science. (and
> >probably described mathematically) It is a position which can not be
> and is not especially true. It *is* true that you have to assume
> "materialism" in order to examine nature. If a supernatural influence could
> change the rules at a moment's notice, then you can never really know
> anything. Since we like to know things and are curious about things then we
> need to believe that the world is consistent, rational and isn't being
> stirred by capricious gods.>>
>What makes you think that supernaturalism equates with the action
>of capricious gods?
>the gods can make things happen outside of the laws of physics, gravity,
>etc. If you could change water into wine with a wave of your hand, someday,
>sometime, you will. You'll do it for your own reasons which you probably
>won't discuss with anyone.
And, uh, how do you know this? That you might personally *believe*
this is not important.
>Theists contend that not only is there someone
>who is capable of doing that, but does, upon request, if you pray hard
They do? That's an awfully broad brush you are using. In fact,
it is so broad it fails to accurately convey reality, don't you think?
>Frankly I like the laws of physics, gravity, motion,
>electromagnitism, exactly like they are. I like the idea that they can be
>understood, that it's possible to figure them out.
So do I. And we can thank Christian theology for helping to birth these
>If you see an anomoly, or
>something you didn't expect, you can study it and maybe find out what it is.
>If the anomoly was caused by a bored Zeus entertaining his latest girlfriend
>we can *never* understand it. It'll be just some god moving in mysterious
Perhaps this explains why there has never been a scientist who believes
in Zeus. But does all theism reduce to belief in Zeus?
Seriously, Susan, your attempt to describe theism and its relation to
the natural world is woefully flawed. Even some basic level theology would
have cleared up your mistakes.