[EnderWiggins]

"That’s an interesting objection. Most of what we know of history is anecdotal. Do you discard all the rest of history as well, or just the parts that aren’t caught on film? Give us a hint of some history that isn’t based on anecdote."

Well... you have now rather dramatically changed the subject, haven't you? I was speaking of science, and you suddenly are switching to history. But that's okay... having identified and been explicit regarding this particular feat of verbal legerdemain, let's talk about history.

In the first place, only certain periods of history come down to us as anecdotes. Some are exclusively data, particularly when we are speaking "prehistory" (understood as prior to writing). But even the most anecdotally rich periods of history also provide us with data. I (for example) collect Roman Republican coins and weapons. The excavations at Herculaneum and Pompeii provide a wide assortment of relevant artifacts and remains. Even the documentary evidence provides us with multiple independent sources that can be used to check and cross check accounts in the effort to reach some sort of confidence regarding the probable truth.

And in the process, yes, we discard a vast amount of historical anecdote as false, unlikely, tendentious or impossible. See how that works?

" Jaki is interested in the implications of Goedel for attempts, as Hawking tried, of proving that the universe could define and create itself. Jaki says Goedel proves it’s not possible, something that reinforces theistic arguments for the universe and something that creates a problem for materialist explanations."

And of course Jaki reached that intended conclusion precisely because he inserted that desired outcome into his assumptions. It is a classic example of the circulum in probando. The universe is no more obviously created than God is obviously created. So the very premise of anybody (let alone the universe itself) creating the universe has already assumed facts not in evidence.

But it is necessary for Jaki, lest his arguments find no evidence for his faith.

"The methodology of science isn’t applicable to the events of Christ’s life, the rules of evidence are. It’s a simple epistemological distinction, and one you fail to make."

The methodology of science is applicable to everything. Some applications are just harder than others.

[AndyTheBear]

The universe is no more obviously created than God is obviously created.

Well, there is certainly something that was not created. Because there is, well, "stuff". Logic gives us two choices as to the nature of that thing (or those things):

A) That thing which was not created is a natural part of nature.

B) That thing which was not created transcends nature itself.

The obvious reason to reject A is why even my daughter (who was 4 at the time) rejected naturalism. We all do. As Paul points out there is no excuse. We know the nature of God from what was created.

When I asked where milk came from, she said the refrigerator. I followed up and asked how it got in the refrigerator, and she said it came from the store. When I asked how it got in the store, she said that God put it there.

She was correct, albeit she left out some steps. Her logic was otherwise dead on. Now matter how we study nature, and learn additional milk data points...we can not escape this conclusion.

[Pelham]

“Well... you have now rather dramatically changed the subject, haven’t you? I was speaking of science, and you suddenly are switching to history.”

No, you switched to history when you decided to dismiss the events of Christ’s life as being anecdotal. There is nothing being measured there, it is a judgement that involves the rules of evidence. You quite obviously haven’t studied epistemology and you like to to scurry to the cover of “science” even when it’s not appropriate to the subject in question. Again it’s what Hayak criticizes as “scientism”, the inappropriate attempt to apply the tools of hard science to social phenomena, and history is social phenomena.

“And of course Jaki reached that intended conclusion precisely because he inserted that desired outcome into his assumptions”

Of course Jaki did nothing of the sort and I’m quite certain your sole familiarity with his work was to read his wikipedia page last night. Goedel’s Theorem demonstrates the necessity of mathematical systems to draw upon information outside of the system itself. The same mathematical systems are used in theoretical physics to describe the universe. Jaki pointed out that this necessitates that the universe draws upon information outside of itself, a fact that parallels Aristotle’s concept of the unmoved mover and theistic conceptions of God outside of creation.

“The methodology of science is applicable to everything. Some applications are just harder than others.”

Illustrating again that knowing nothing of epistemology you try to get by with scientism rather than science. The methodology of science is applicable to empiricism where we can observe and measure. It’s non-applicable and second order to disciplines like mathematics and logic.