Piper:Ok Gideon as i see it science is based upon logical induction. e.g. -Newton's law of gravitation: 'All bodies attraxct each other in proportion to their masses and in inverse proportion to the square the distance between them'.
What then is logical induction?
It is the infering from a good reason to a conclusion. Thus i might infer from the fact that the vegestables have been cooking for 1 hour that they have boiled dry. Although what we infer from here gives a good reason for what we infer to it is not conclusive. I may be cooking at altitude and as such water has a lower boiling point.
Similary Gotch's statement: "I did that earlier when I quoted from Romans that the invisible things of God are clearly seen from the visible things which are seen" is an inductive inference.
One might criticise this inference on the basis that it does not supply a good enough reason to draw such a conclusion. As such we could say that it is an inductively weak inference. Similary, with Newton's law, we could say that it is an inductively strong inference (we have good reasons for thinking it so).
As regards deductive logic, well this could be used to prove some point of christianity. Say for instance if i have an 'unquestionable' text such as the bible, i could use this to deduce certain truths.
As regards science i fully accept that one cannot use this to prove the supernatural. It deals only with physical occurances.
As regards proof of the moon, well i regard this as different to scientific proof. What concerns us here is the proof of a heavenly body, not regularities. Now, if i could give it a good kick, i would offer that to you as proof of its existence, as i cannot i am afraid that my perceptual sensing of a moon will have to suffice.
