Originally Posted by bigthinker that's ludicrously stupid. Science make arguemnt to defend hypothesis that you don't know underscores how little you know about science. Science doesn't prove things it can only disprove. read Popper. science does not give you a big fortress of facts because it can't prove your world view.
science is not opposed to God. there is no science that says "there can't be a God." so you are just turning scinece into something its not, ideology.
Yep. And science deals with evidence. And science is sufficient and is the correct tool for determining the existence and nature of things that exist outside the mind. Arguments deal with ideas and logic forms the guidelines for dealing with arguments.
(1) God is outside of time, how are you going to get outside of time to see if he's there?
(2) God is beyond the basis of reality because the world we live in is a thought in his mind. how you are going to get outside your mind to check that you are not hallucinating and then outside the reality of the world to make sure its' not a thought in a mind?
you just can't do it. so you have to just guess based upon your biases which are not good.
Rather god can't compete with science because science actually does something; science produces actual results, God doesn't.
god doesn't have to compete with science because they have different domains. Science couldn't out explain God because it can't explain most things.
science can't solve the basic epistemological dilemmas that I mapped out.
Science puts God in its proper context.
There is no evidence that God exists outside of the mind and there is only evidence that God exists within the mind.
So even after I informed you about circular reasoning, you STILL don't know what that is? sheesh dude, you might consider some education!After I showed that his arguments are circular he began saying mine are. I said his were because he would assert God is only a concept in the mind, the argue that he had proved God is only in the mind (he never actually made an argument but merely asserted it) therefore since God is only in the mind he had proved there's no God. His premise rests on his conclkusion, circuklar reasoning. He still hasn't given a reason why my arguments are circular.
I showed that your reasoning is circular. YOU CAN'T EVEN TAKE THE CLUE AND LOOK AT WHAT i SAID TO KNOW THE DEFINITION!