Philosoft

And then what happened? The moon-capture theory was discredited. By whom? Scientists, right? Isn't this precisely how science is supposed to work?

Look, I'm about ready to be insulted, Charles, because I simply don't believe you buy most of this crap. I certainly hope you're not content to rely on trickery to try to make some cheap points.

And, if falsifiable, also scientific.
Present a falsifiable model, then try to falsify it.

JCS

When I say it won't rain today, I'm saying it won't rain today. I'm not proclaiming snow, sleet, sunshine, or good old CA smog. I am in fact only stating no rain. The fact other types of weather are possible is irrelevant since I made no claims concerning what that weather outcome will be beyond no rain.


Yes that is what my claim is and have stated as so repeatedly. As I said before in this thread, I claim there are no gods and I make no other claims concerning existence or consciousness beyond I don't know. The god-did-it explanation explains nothing and as it is, may just as well be a I don't know response also.

Painful is right. What evidence and exactly how does this evidence demonstrate exactly which god and by what method? I live at the foot of the Sierras so if your mountain is as big, why have I obviously missed what I can't look around? If the evidence is a faith supported assertion then can your mountain even be seen with a microscope?

DMB

CD: I am getting very disappointed in you. You seem not to note what people tell you and you keep on saying the same thing about atheists, the weather, and so on, even when people tell you that atheists don't believe XYZ or that saying it won't rain is not the same as saying one knows what the weather is going to be.

I think your fundamental problem is that you convince yourself that you can provide two propositions A and B such that B must be equivalent to ~A, whereas the rest of us see other elements of ~A besides B.

Thus one commonly finds creationists arguing that

• A=Evolution is false
• B=Biblical creation is true
• I think I can prove A
• Therefore B!!!!!

You wrote:
Well we don't accept that, but no doubt this belief is one of the things that makes it difficult for you to have a meaningful dialogue with any of us. What I suggest you should do is to start a new thread in the EoG forum and set out some of the "mountains of evidence". Then we can all focus on that in the proper forum.

Likewise, I would strongly suggest that you set out your evidence against evolution in the E/C forum, which is the proper place for such discussions.

Perhaps in this forum you might like to enlarge on what you mean by "the spirit realm". You appear to be suggesting that "love" belongs to this realm. I'm not sure that I understand what you mean.

enfant terrible

Why should I believe this? Your argument is completely circular.

Not at all. In case you don't notice how silly your claim is, let me ask you: is boyscoutism a religion?

The essence of the San Diego case is religious discrimination. Public funds should not be provided to organizations that exclude people on religious grounds.

If you form a chess club that does not accept Jews as members, you wouldn't expect to get a room in the City Hall for weekly meetings, would you? But does that mean chess is a religion?

You couldn't be more wrong in your interpretation. Not only do I not assume a "radical separation between the spirit and material realms", I don't even believe there is any separation. And all I have said to your proposition is that I have no idea what you are talking about. Moreover, I am unlikely to get a clue unless you provide an example of a phenomenon that "cannot be described by science" and explain why it is so.

enfant terrible

So where is my fallacy? How do you expect to argue successfully by talking nonsense unrelated to the argument?

enfant terrible

BS, A+.

It was not declared to be a church. It was declared to be a religious organization for the purpose of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. If you don't understand the difference, go do your homework before arguing.

enfant terrible

Yes, so what? It is impossible not to use naturalistic models. Every religious claim depends on naturalistic models. Religion is impossible without those.

You don't believe this? Hint: what does the Bible (or pick any religious scripture of your choice) say? Can you give an answer without first accepting essentially all basic principles of science?

Biff the unclean

as paleontologist Robert Carroll

Paleontologist? ROTFLMFAO. That would be a guy who studies fossilized souls.

Charles Darwin

Yes, except for the first part where a ridiculous theory is posited to begin with. I don't take poison just because my body is capable of dealing with it.

Charles Darwin

CD quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand your position is that there is no God, but you are simply begging the question here when you say God can't or won't provide evidence. There are mountains of evidence making it painfully obvious. I understand you would reject that evidence, but that doesn't mean God can't or won't provide it.

You're overstating my claim. The evidence (not proof) is in things like consciousness (try explaining that without hand-waving), theh DNA code, hemoglobin, the cardiovascular system, our solar sytem, and a million other complexities which do not evidence naturalistic origin.