Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Science studies God, and how God is & functions.
Religions describe God & how God functions metaphorically and allegorically...and provides a modality for the reverence of God.
I will not fall for the set-up...though you keep trying.
It certainly warrants noting that "Nature" should be studied by science, and revered...as it is Something of Supreme Value & The Ultimate Reality.
I will not fall for the set-up...though you keep trying.
It certainly warrants noting that "Nature" should be studied by science, and revered...as it is Something of Supreme Value & The Ultimate Reality.
No set-up. Just a statement of fact, and in direct response to what YOU said.
Studying nature (and I mean more than just trees and flowers etc., but the nature of the entire Universe and all the forces, energies, matter and their interactions etc., contained therein) is what science does.
Revered is not a term I would apply, but things like "understood" and "respected" certainly are.
Much of what science has and will discover gives us great insight as to the falsity of religions - ALL of them, including the Wiccas.
He said: "I believe there is valid information out there for me to conclude that that there is a*possibility*of the existence of a higher intelligence."
So...that covers it, pretty much.
A "belief" the information that's out there for ID (most are familiar with it) is valid to provide for the possibility of such.
I guess some would like a listing of things like "Irreducible Complexity", etc....assuming that is the information being noted.
Sure. Okay. Fair enough, but I'm just curious to know what that "valid information" might be.
Anything so wrong about that?
If I'm trying to sell you a plot of land, and I tell you there is valid information to suggest there is gold underground, are you going to buy the land without asking what that valid information might be?
Most Atheists admit they have no evidence, yet use that to draw conclusions as to what position to take as regards the existence of a God Entity. In fact...that is the premise most use (no evidence) to base their argument on. elamigo uses evidence (believed information) to base his conclusion on.
I'm not assessing who is right or wrong...just what each uses as the premise they argue from to reach their conclusions.
Do you really believe that lack of evidence is not good reason to decide what to believe and/or what not to believe?
There is a lack of evidence you had sex with a farm animal. Should anyone suggest there is good reason to believe you did anyway? Simply because there is no proof you did NOT have sex with a farm animal?
Do you really believe that lack of evidence is not good reason to decide what to believe and/or what not to believe?
There is a lack of evidence you had sex with a farm animal. Should anyone suggest there is good reason to believe you did anyway? Simply because there is no proof you did NOT have sex with a farm animal?
Most Atheists admit they have no evidence, yet use that to draw conclusions as to what position to take as regards the existence of a God Entity. In fact...that is the premise most use (no evidence) to base their argument on.
Yes, no evidence for a god. They have their instinctive rule of thumb based on what they do have evidence for, even if they do not understand this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
elamigo uses evidence (believed information) to base his conclusion on.
Does he use evidence? He has not posted any that I have seen, just a misunderstanding about science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
I'm not assessing who is right or wrong...just what each uses as the premise they argue from to reach their conclusions.
Do you really believe that lack of evidence is not good reason to decide what to believe and/or what not to believe?
There is a lack of evidence you had sex with a farm animal. Should anyone suggest there is good reason to believe you did anyway? Simply because there is no proof you did NOT have sex with a farm animal?
Who thinks like this?
That you used such a disgusting analogy, of all the comparisons you could have used, shows how your mind works and what it dwells on.
Any determination (in any way you want to describe the assessment) that is made based upon a premise of "a lack of evidence"...is a Logical Fallacy.
Of course, that doesn't mean the determination is false/wrong...just that it was made in a way that didn't follow the protocols of Pure Logic.
A true conclusion is guaranteed to follow only a formally flawless argument, based upon a perfectly true premise.
Any flaw in the form of the argument or the premises...invalidates the deductive guarantee. The conclusion can then either be true or false.
You cannot logically base a conclusion (ANY conclusion what-so-ever) on the absence of evidence, rather than the presence of evidence. "No evidence" cannot *be* evidence.
Not even the conclusion that you will adopt a position of disbelief can be logically taken...since that is STILL a conclusion.
If you find (for YOU) "no evidence" for a claim ...the ONLY *logical* conclusion/determination you can come to is either, "I find no evidence", "I don't know", or what you believe is the potential probability of any position you posit.
ANY other conclusion/determination is a fallacy based in The Argument from Ignorance.
A premise of "no evidence" is not a valid premise to make any determinations or draw any conclusions off of.
That you used such a disgusting analogy, of all the comparisons you could have used, shows how your mind works and what it dwells on.
Any determination (in any way you want to describe the assessment) that is made based upon a premise of "a lack of evidence"...is a Logical Fallacy.
Of course, that doesn't mean the determination is false/wrong...just that it was made in a way that didn't follow the protocols of Pure Logic.
A true conclusion is guaranteed to follow only a formally flawless argument, based upon a perfectly true premise.
Any flaw in the form of the argument or the premises...invalidates the deductive guarantee. The conclusion can then either be true or false.
You cannot logically base a conclusion (ANY conclusion what-so-ever) on the absence of evidence, rather than the presence of evidence. "No evidence" cannot *be* evidence.
Not even the conclusion that you will adopt a position of disbelief can be logically taken...since that is STILL a conclusion.
If you find (for YOU) "no evidence" for a claim ...the ONLY *logical* conclusion/determination you can come to is either, "I find no evidence", "I don't know", or what you believe is the potential probability of any position you posit.
ANY other conclusion/determination is a fallacy based in The Argument from Ignorance.
A premise of "no evidence" is not a valid premise to make any determinations or draw any conclusions off of.
I admire your patience and tenacity in dealing with these guys, Gldn. (of course, I know you enjoy the entertainment value of it all.) You DO know there is virtually no chance at all of getting through to them, right??? Like the fundie theists, they are locked into their belief in their unbelief about God but they seem unaware of it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
