David Thuleen wrote:
> >
>
> In the cases of Newton and Einstein, these details about apples and
> beer and merely biographical trivia, and have absolutely no bearing on
> the truth or falsehood of the assertions (i.e., theories) that they
> inspired. The only information that matters is whether the theories
> make correct predictions that other theories do not make. Since the
> apples and beer are recognized as irrelevant to the evaluation of the
> truth, it does no harm to include them.
>
> If the inspiration (apples, beer, waterfalls) were used in any way to
> try to justify the assertion, that would be a serious mistake.
>
Well, yes and no.
If you are asserting that the inspiration provides some sort of
scientific, physical proof, of course it doesn't. The only kind of
proof, however, that has any sort of spiritual meaning is the sort of
experiential proof such moments provide. God picks His spots, there is
an instant when there is an almost audible 'SEE' . An intellectual
acknowledgement that some superior being exists may leave the door open
for God to come in, but it does not, in itself, accomplish anything
useful. In this case then, the inspiration may justify the assertion,
there is communication; communication is self evident proof of a
communicator. Of course you can always hang up the phone.
Daryl
>> Stay informed about: Re Science and God