Reincarnation

[Edwardo Piet]

Well seeing as I have looked at the evidence I don't see how this is related to my argument. I of course believe reincarnation is absurd as you do, but I base this on the evidence (or lack thereof) for it. The point I am making is that when someone presents me with what they claim is evidence, I will not just fall back on my previous belief that it is absurd; I will evaluate the new evidence. My mind may change, it may not.

To reject something outright without even considering evidence for it is ludicrous, given that we know hardly anything about this universe, and science does not reveal truth, it reveals probable truth

Indeed. So I guess it's whether "X has no evidence" or "X doesn't exist" is a claim of absolute knowledge or just an expression of a current disbelief based on the improbability of such a thing having evidence or existing.

Science is constantly improving its answers, and if this is to continue, nothing must be rejected.

And that's of course one of the reasons (if not the primary reason? Or perhaps even the reason that it's all pretty much built on??) for why science is so awesome.

Why do you think we keep pressing the Discovery Institute to publish a document on I.D for peer-review? It is not just making a point that no evidence exists as of yet, it is making the point that if the Discovery Institute (or anyone else for that matter) were to publish such a document, it would meet the same standard of scientific scrutiny and evaluation as any other.

And I think what's good about that, is that the matter of I.D covers all Gods including the deistic. If any God in particular was singled out then the problem with that is that there are countless Gods or God-type-things to single out...the FSM, etc, etc, etc, included. It's not really testable by science is it? If only because it's far better because it's infinitely more practical to cover "God" as a whole. And how can the differences really be tested?

Perhaps I.D is testable but theism isn't then? Is that what is implied there? I could also imagine there being a prime-mover but that's not really a "God" in the sense of a supernatural creator though... so I still wonder how Deism could be tested by science without it being simply a singularity + a metaphor that uses the word "God"?

Very good post btw.

EvF