mike the wiz writes:
If you say that you can't include God in science - I agree. If you say you can continue to assess "truth" about nature - without God, I don't agree, because logically, you can now only come to a false conclusion, based on premisses which do not involve a Creator.
So your argument here is that God exists because science is wrong. You argue that science is wrong because it requires an assumption that there is no God (this statement is incorrect).
This is not logical. First, the entire argument is circular reasoning; it assumes a god exists (for no apparent reason), then concludes that viewpoints contrary to that are incorrect, then uses the supposed falseness of those viewpoints to justify the first premise. It is circular reasoning, false dilemma, evidenced claim, and all based on a profound lack of understanding of science in the first place. You are so staggeringly wrong it boggles the mind.
Science does not presuppose that a creator does not exist. There are no assumptions *at all*. Everything comes from observation, even the logical system by which we extrapolate things that are not observed. Gods and other creators do not have credible evidence pointing toward their existence, so science does not conclude that they exist. Thats all there is to it.
mike the wiz writes:
Rest-assured, I have thought it all through, as per usual.
Bwahaha! Do you mind if I use this as my sig?
™ Version 4.2
