| Zoombael said: No, not really. I was very clear and direct. And i quote: |
So Basically... What you are saying is because Science doesn't exclude God, that God exists?
Do you see the problem with that kind of thinking?
| Zoombael said: If you dont have any idea whatsover shouldnt you refrain from making any fantastic assumptions? Not very sciency, is it? Not... rational. No, not at all. |
Why can't I make assumptions if they are true? Fact is, there is zero evidence for any God, unless you disagree with that? ...Then I ask you to present empirical evidence, it's not a difficult concept, I am not asking for much.
| Zoombael said: Science isnt standing still, yet you act like it has come to a dead end and with it religion. And i ask again, who is my God and what is my religion? If your reply as before. And what did i reply to your response? Exactly. |
Who your God/Religion is... Is irrelevant.
The point you are missing is that zero God/Religion has justified it's claims with Evidence, that's a fact.
| Zoombael said: But to quench your curiosity: Hardly. Since science isnt anywhere near solving the mystery of existence. Secondly, importantly, whatever the outcome, that is my religion. Muahahaha! |
Good one.
As for Science itself... We can go back as far as the Big Bang, that is what the evidence has brought us towards.
| Zoombael said: It's strange that I'm asking you very clear and straightforward questions to clarify your position, and you refuse to answer. |
Just because you ask a question doesn't mean:
1) I will answer it.
2) You will get the answer you desire.
| Zoombael said: Which may be the reason why this is going nowhere. And, reductio ad absurdum is a well regarded form of argumentation. |
Correct, provided you are staying within the boundaries of the argument, which you have not.
| Zoombael said: You've said that you believe pigs qualify as atheists. However you presented a definition that would exclude them. So, what are your qualifiers for what should or should not be considered an atheist? |
Oh for christ sake. I have not.
I am not going to repeat everything I have stated again, I have dumbed it down enough as it is in plain black and white. - This is endless circular rhetoric, go back and re-read everything, the answers have already been provided. Skedaddle.
| Zoombael said: I'm making it exactly as complicated as it needs to be. A good definition has to be specific. You're ignoring something I put quite a bit of thought into explaining to try and oversimplify it. |
False. A good definition is one that is logical.
Because there are many definitions in Physics that the average person isn't going to care for.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
