| timmah said: 1) All of those things have either been stated or strongly insinuated at least by some. Based on his hostility, it's very clear that at least the OP has this view. 2) We agree on something! :D 3) We've already debated evidence, I still see much of the evidence on those specifics we discussed as weak. This is my view, not designed to prove God. 4) Scientific and logical are two different things. Logic can be applied to abstract or non-scientific ideas. Science studies the natural world, while the idea of God is supernatural, these things are not mutually exclusive (for example, I could take my wife to the doctor, but still pray for her to get well), but one cannot be used to prove or disprove the other. I have stated logical arguments already, we will never reach agreement on this. I disagree that I failed to present an argument, you disagree with it but it was presented nontheless. What I've said over and over (and will say only one more time) is that we cannot prove or disprove God or faith through scientific process. |
1) Some have had harsh criticisms, probably as a result of having dealt with many uneducated theists. You aren't uneducated at all.
2) =D
3) We have debated evidence for abiogensis, but not ID. ID hasn't even really been discussed, other than lumping it in with a way to rebrand religion as science.
4) Science requires logic. Not all theories can be described through science. That's why I ask for logic.
Show me where you provided evidence for ID or God that wasn't anecdotal or burden of proof.
