Re: Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against ID's Theology


"snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1157812683.098213.179640@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

roger_pearse@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
snex wrote:
VoiceOfReason wrote:
the evidence is overwhelmingly against miracles.

Another unsupported assumption. Absence of evidence is not evidence
of
absence.

absence of evidence indicates that reasonable people refrain from
believing until evidence arrives.

You need to decide whether you are arguing

1. That the "evidence is overwhelmingly against miracles."

or

2. That there is no evidence of miracles.

if you hadnt dishonestly snipped my next paragraph, youd see that your
question is already answered.


Just for the record, this is the snipped portion.
and the fact that magicians can fool people is positive evidence
*against* miracles, but i suppose you missed that part.




Neither position is true, but you need to be consistent, surely?

I wonder if you could offer any evidence for what you no doubt
proselytise for, conformity to some subset of the societal values of
the period in which you happened to be born. If not, your comments
about absence of evidence would seem to need qualification.

where do i proselytize for this? how is promoting logic and science
proselytizing anyway? we already know that they work.


Let's look closely at this last claim. "Logic and science work." Now, "work"
in this sense means to expend effort to achieve a desired goal. If the
desired goal is understanding of the natural world, then certainly science
has shown great utility in this regard. If you want to juggle abstract
ideas, then logic has been found particularly useful. But if you want to
understand the human condition, meaning the subjective reality that humans
directly experience, then science and logic have exhibited only limited
power to reveal these answers. Sometimes poetry and metaphor may contain
more wisdom in this regard.

Your claim is an example of Petitio Principii. You have entailed your
conclusion in your premise.




do you believe that god exists? yes or no?

do you believe that the bible is his inspired word? yes or no?

I notice that you don't want to discuss your preferred alternative!

im merely trying to get VoU to stop engaging in pagano-style sophistry
and state his position.


you mean you dont want to answer my question, yet you still think your
views should be respected.

Can you even state the views by which you live your life, other than in
words borrowed from the media of our day?

how is this relevant to anything?


Basically, it is relevant because of the suggestion that our philosophy or
world-view is entangled with our cultural milieu; yours, as much as
anybody's. You say you are trying to get VoiceofReason to state his
position, but won't admit to your own subjective experience.




you admitted to belief in the resurrection. you are a science
denier.

Another unsupported assertion. Dude, you're getting boring with this.

your science denial is boring. stop pretending that creationists should
accept evolution when you dont accept basic anaotmy of humans.

Another non-scientist. If you knew anything about science, you would
know that it does not commit to religious opinions such as "the
resurrection did not happen." Your 19th century rationalism is
amusing, but scientists are not rationalists.

"the resurrection did not happen" is not a religious opinion.


Out of any context, it certainly could be. Or it might be a tentative
scientific assertion.


--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/



it is a
statement about actual historical events. science requires that
historical events obey the laws of nature just as much as it requires
current and future events to.


All the best,

Roger Pearse




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... I would call those historical events. ... There is no evidence that such an event happened at all. ... Then it is clear that you have a view of science that is not reflected ... They were in no way using your definition of religion however. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... I would call those historical events. ... There is no evidence that such an event happened at all. ... Then it is clear that you have a view of science that is not reflected ... They were in no way using your definition of religion however. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... Some that are observable and that repeat, ... I would call those historical events. ... It is only clear that we disagree on the definition of science. ... What you call evidence is evidence of the effect not the cause. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... I would call those historical events. ... There is no evidence that such an event happened at all. ... Then it is clear that you have a view of science that is not reflected ... They were in no way using your definition of religion however. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Bush Remarks On Intelligent Design Theory Fuel Debate
    ... > "I am certainly well aware of the advances of science. ... The question is - in the absence of evidence to the contrary, ... > design and creationism, ...
    (soc.retirement)