This seems to contradict your statement in post 66,
"Science is not making the absolute statement. Science is a tool we use to determine things, not an answer to all things."
Incidentally, wouldn't you think that the accuracy of your statement is affected by who one is attempting to view the results / predictions of science? I.e., for science to be "absolutely true" one ought to insist on no supernatural; for science to be "hey, we don't know for sure, but it works pretty well in the meantime" Deism or theism with only rare miracles, which make sure to keep themselves out of the lab would be sufficient, for "we'll we're building models to generalize observations based on limited observations under controlled conditions, but make no claims to TRUTHTM", then the supernatural doesn't affect things too much.
So, in a snide way, the author states that.
It came across as more than just snideness to me -- more like Lucifer in the beginning of Paradise Lost:
"But what if he our conqueror (whom I now
Of force believe almighty, since no less
Than such could have o'erpow'red such force intelligence as ours)
Have left us this our spirit and strength entire
Strongly to suffer and support our pains
That we may so suffice his vengeful ire"
Of course, your mileage may vary. Close cover before striking, offer not valid in Alaska, Hawaii, or Puerto Rico. Void where prohibited, consult your doctor if you experience an erection lasting more than four hours and you are not in bed with Bar Refaeli or Marisa Miller when this occurs.
Cheers!
>>Science can only labor inside a materialistic world.
This seems to contradict your statement in post 66,
“Science is not making the absolute statement. Science is a tool we use to determine things, not an answer to all things.”<<
No, the fact science labors within a materialistic world does not say that it knows all about that world.
Incidentally, wouldn’t you think that the accuracy of your >>statement is affected by who one is attempting to view the results / predictions of science? I.e., for science to be “absolutely true” one ought to insist on no supernatural; for science to be “hey, we don’t know for sure, but it works pretty well in the meantime” Deism or theism with only rare miracles, which make sure to keep themselves out of the lab would be sufficient, for “we’ll we’re building models to generalize observations based on limited observations under controlled conditions, but make no claims to TRUTHTM”, then the supernatural doesn’t affect things too much.<<
You lurch into the philosophical, which, although fun, is off-track from my main point. There is no process in science, no theory, no mechanism, no place for “here a supernatural being does something.”
The supernatural as a wrapper around science is perhaps a valid pursuit or concept, but that is also and completely in the realm oh philosophy.