""Intelligent people do not pretend that this (rational scientific) world view is "Truth"--or even that "Truth" is ultimately a valid concept." "...make the reasoned observation that there is no evidence for any...""
If you want to throw science and reason under the bus then you can't turn around with the next breath and use observation and reason to prove anything at all.
__________________________
Greg or e...I think EVERYBODY would appreciate that if you are going to collate a post from a post that is NOT the one you are responding to with an actual post from the one you ARE responding to (thus ensuring that the original post will seldom be retrieved by anyone for context or accuracy) AND if you are going to additionally (and with intent to mislead and misrepresent) insert your own bracketed comments (without informing the readers) into that said collation...that you would more profitably simply stick your head back back up your ass, instead. Everybody is getting sick of your deliberate attempts to obscure the discussion and rewrite the assertions.
Now what I said (in the post you were NOT responding to) was:
"we have constructed a scientific world view that complements our particular ideas of reason. Intelligent people do not pretend that this world view is "Truth"--or even that "Truth" is ultimately a valid concept."
What that means is the world view is CONSTRUCTED from science and reason and science and reason never stop and stand on ULTIMATE TRUTH. They hypothesize, test, verify, and advance.
So to go to your false allegation that I cannot make a reasoned observation that there is no evidence for any God--YOU ARE WRONG. I can make any reasoned observation I want to make! If it becomes a reasoned observation that there is some evidence for a God, THEN I will embrace THAT outlook.
"That's a lot more than an iota of evidence but it's all I need to show that your claim fails and fails miserably"
It wasn't one iota of evidence. It did not even pass as intelligent speculation! It was incredibly stupid! It was akin to a primitive saying, "the sun is travelling across the sky or it is standing still. We can see it travelling and therefore deduce (like a policeman) (LOL!!) that therefore it is pulled by an animal or people. There are people on earth but people can't fly so it is pulled by a bird or a person--a person who CAN fly. Evidently Apollo (the God whom we already know exists) is a better explanation than a bird!! Therefore, if Icarus tries to fly like a bird and emulate a God it is hubris punishable by over 38,000 Christian sects whom all have the ULTIMATE TRUTH of APOLLO--but ALL in a DIFFERENT WAY!!
"I didn't say that"
Sorry, but that is the EXACT rendering of your statement into logic. As to the rest...people can indeed use facts and observations to solve problems. But we are a long way from solving the problems of the universe regarding dark energy, black holes, origins, relationship to other universes or to other anti-universes or anything else. On earth we can solve some problems. Other problems elude us because the footprints were 5 hours older in time instead of 5 minutes. We are not talking about 5 hours when we speak of the universe--and the IMPOSSIBILITY of massing more than a few facts to deduce from puts us in the position of mapping China by analyzing one atom of air in Kansas City.
"one would never guess your IQ from what they read."
You still can't stay with the posts, eh?! All that bottled up rage and that infantile fragility just keeps oozing through your pinkish fingers and out into cyberspace! Poor Boy! |
