Her comment was:
LOLOL! I laugh at the arrogance of science.And in another post she stated:What happens on this earth is insignificant over the age of the universe much less eternity.
A thing only matters if God wills it. His opinion is the only one that counts.
To God be the glory.
The most certain - and therefore, highest priority - type of knowledge for me is divine revelation.To me this is not suggesting that "methodological naturalism is a fine tool within its proper scope." It is turning one's back on science.
One who turns one's back on science has no right to opinions on science as they do not have the qualifications to justify such opinions. And if one is doing philosophy or some of those other squishy subjects, most scientists simply don't care what they have to say anyway.
On the other hand, I often get the impression reading you that you believe anything that is not physical or directly observable -- anything, that is, that the scientific method cannot be applied to -- simply doesn't exist.
Explaining or interpreting things that are not physical or directly observable involve matters of opinion or a priori belief. When opinions or beliefs differ you have no objective way of discerning among them.
It has been mentioned on one of these threads that philosophers, for example, have been debating the same questions for 2,500 years with no progress toward an answer. Why don't all of you philosophers take your debate over into the back corner of the classroom and get back to us when you actually have something?
This would make you a philosopher, or even a theologian, in a certain way; but I notice you do not seem to recognize that.
Don't talk dirty!
Of course you do! You look at their respective "fruits," or effects, in the real world, and make a comparison; from which one can draw reasonable inferences.