I have been in a discussion with a friend of mine, recently. He's an atheist and he relies on the scientific method and the empirical world for almost all of his proofs. Recently in our discussion, he put forth this idea:
You could literally call energy whatever you want, it will have the same quantitative measurable value. Just like we label ourselves Homo sapien, when it's just arbitrarily what we've named it. The only way to tell the difference is in some quantifiable way, like DNA. We found that many of our labels were wrong after we began sorting through the cache of life's genetic history, and we found that many times our perceptions even in science were quantifiably wrong. But that's the beauty of science, because it is progressive and self correcting the more that is learned, not dogmatic even in the face of evidence.What my friend doesn't understand is that this is a way to show the development of Christian doctrine. He is just using terms which are different. If you were to exchange the science for theology, it still works. The problem with his view is that he refuses to see that God can enter into the equation, because there is no empirical proof for God, even though there is recorded history of God speaking directly to man on more than one occasion.
I would also challenge him on this. There is no way to empirically prove George Washington, but will he accept him as the first President of the United States? If so, why? If not, why not? There is no scientific way to prove Washington lived...just like there is no way to prove that God lives. Except that God does live and so did Washington.