« Last post by Jag on Today at 10:30:24 AM »
I said explicitly that if you feel the need to correct my science then you are missing the point.We tend to feel quite strongly that if you are using science to make your point, the science needs to be correct or your point is speculative, at best.
Yet Most of the objections were about how I don’t get science.Actually, a lot of the objections about you and science are that you are using terms that have explicit definitions incorrectly, making assumptions about things you admit you don't understand, and resisting all efforts to clarify your errors related to science. To support that, I submit your own words:
Granted I simply and am maybe a bit loose with some definitions and descriptions – I DID claim poetic license –Poetic license and science do no belong in the same discussion without very clear and explicit distinctions between "science" and "poetic license". I would actually advise against this approach - it hasn't worked very well so far, as you are making clear with this post.
but the point is rather:
* Even science has to rely on logic and reason to build frameworks and theories. It is therefore a part of the truth seeking process.
* But when you insist that I give ‘evidence’ of the natural kind then I must simply point out that it is what science is for.
Ah yes, the ever-present problem with evidence and theism.
Lacking evidence (as in evidence, not testimonial, not apologetics, not feelings, not opinions, evidence) you have very few tools at your disposal (identified parenthetically in the preceding clause) , and none of them are likely to convince a non-theist of anything.
It's been pointed out to you that you presuppose the existence of a god in your defense of your beliefs. Are you familiar with The Outsider Test for Faith? Briefly, it's presented like so:
Since the presumption of faith we start out with is something we accept by "accidents of history" (i.e., where and when we are born), how likely is it that a believer will ever truly evaluate his or her faith? How is it possible to rationally evaluate the believers faith when they can only do so from within the presuppositions of that faith in the first place--presuppositions which he or she basically accepted by the "accidents of history." If you had been born in Saudi Arabia, you would almost certainly be a Muslim - and trying to deny that is ridiculous.
Test your beliefs as if you were an outsider to the faith you are evaluating - look at your own christian faith with the same critical thinking you would bring to bear on examining Islam, or Buddhism, or Mormonism, or any other faith tradition not your own. If your faith stands up under critical, thoughtful evaluation, then you can have your faith. If not, abandon it, for any God who requires you to believe correctly when humans have an extremely strong tendency to believe what we were born into, surely should make the correct faith pass the outsider test. If your faith cannot do this, then the God of your faith is not worthy of being worshipped.
In the 1980's , Ronald Reagan told the world that Americans are God's Favorite. I think that's pretty funny, considering God couldn't get across the Atlantic Ocean without hitching a ride with the incoming Europeans.
|1.||I did a little editing and trimming for clarity|