Joe:We don't have two competing scientific hypothesis,we have a scientific hypothesis that checks out and that's proximate cause. Then have a distal cause which a totally different concept and can;t be compared as a scientific hypothesis.

- What we have is a scientific hypothesis and a religious hypothesis that makes assertions about reality, but has proven to be wrong over and over again. Every time that occurs, the religious hypothesis is eventually pruned down. It still makes claims about souls an the immaterial nature of mind, but those claims will be pruned away in due time. What's left after all that is the simple assertion of a God who has been stripped of any explanatory role in the workings of nature. A God that can't be observed or detected. A God for which we have no remaining reason to believe.

Joe:Both sides have things they can;t make good omn ,'string theory is unprofitable. we have demonstrated miracles happen, religious repentance is the presence o 'god and many other things,of course I speak in temrs of prima facie evidence not absolute proof.still a hell of a lotbetter tahn anythiung you woilladmit.

youdid not answer my three argumemnts om AW.

they don't answer the same kinds of questions Christian theology dosed not ask why did the volcano blowup? we don't care.

- The only reason they don't answer the same kind of questions is because science has shown the religious answer to be wrong over and over again. Religion has been forced to retreat into the gaps of scientific knowledge. But those gaps are closing.

Joe:No that is shitty analysis the reason kinds because they deal deals with totally different kinds of issues sickness deals with empirical,l only because it;s te physical reoigion dealswoiti metaphysical thats mcuhi harder


that is is fortress or rather it's a derivation of the fallacy, you are extending from the premise :we have a bigger pile of facts: to argue fro specific application.
- When it comes to facts vs. unsubstantiated belief, I'll take facts. You can go on living in your for

Joe:yes you will take them from bull shit and lie about them.you have not answered my three issues,not anywhere close I kicked your ass i notice you ha e not been back.


Joe:at the very heart of the FOF that's what he;s saying our pile of facts is bigger

- You completely fail to see the point of Coyne's statement. At the very heart if it is epistemology. Empirical evidence gives us warrant for belief.

Joe:you don;t have it you have empirical evidence from science about things that have nothing to do with God, you have no empirical evidence abouit god, we do have empirical evidence that lends support to belief,we have it in spades you can't touch it. like the three you have not answered, you have no ability to answer, you can't deal with the facts,you have no real facts as they pertgain to religion,

 You are crying in your beer because naturalists have empirical facts on their side and you don't.

Joe:is that why you haven't answered my three arguments? you don't even know what the M scale is much less can you answer it,.

 So you try to make that out to be a bad thing. Here's something for you to consider. If you had the facts on your side, you would be shouting it from the mountaintops.

Joe:I am that is why I wrote my book genius, but unlike you I make careful well thought out statements not blundering in alleging I have big pile of facts, look you are arguing for the pile of facts, get it? you just said it, you are arguing the fortress of facts, this is one of my better job of baiting,

yes we do those three examples [of the supernatural]
(1) The universal nature of Mystical experience
(2) Lourdes miracles
(3) irritability of mind to braim
- (1) is just emotional feelings that reveal no knowledge of any kind. They simply reinforce what people already believe.

Joe:that's disproved by the research I point that out in the book (Trace of God by Joseph Hinman on /amazon)

(2) is unsubstantiated hearsay. Your panel of experts are nothing but yes-men for the church.

Joe:you are just refusing to accept the evidence becauise it disproves your ideology, youh have no argunent you are dogmatically rejecting it,

(3) is what you believe, not what is true.

That;'s the problem. you shouldn't use a standard \dictionary because the damage was done so long ago all the dictionaries go by the hi jack concept, The real issues are historical we need historical evidence

- All your examples are natural events or unsubstantiated stories. What Coyne asked for is something observable, as I explained. What part of that don't you understand? We just want to see the evidence. We are not so gullible as to believe unverifiable stories. We need something real.

Joe:my authority figure says os that;s not proof, that fallacy of appeal to authority, improper appeal to authority, Cyone has expertise in researching mystical experience,

Yes according to the major researchers say we do not know. I didn;t say there is no answer I said we don;t know it, the answer is not reduce to brainfunction,

- The vast majority of people in the cognitive sciences believe that mind and consciousness are purely physical. While you can come up with a few names of scientists who are not naturalists, you certainly can't claim they hold the consensus position.

Joe:you have no proof of that quote your study,