(July 2, 2018 at 5:04 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:(June 30, 2018 at 7:20 am)SteveII Wrote: For any of this to be valid, you would have to show that science has disproved/called into question religious experiences. It has not come even close, not a little, at all. You are repeating a theory that you backed into: religious experiences are not true, therefore their must be a scientific reason for them, therefore there is a scientific reason for them. This is question begging.
Science has not come close to proving those experiences are supernatural, involve contact with disembodied minds, or are actually divine. Not a little, not at all. This is asking for disproof of something not in evidence in the first place.
I wasn't asking anything at all. I was pointing out Mathilda's mis-step as she relies on her underlying scientism/logical positivism philosophy sprinkled with a healthy dose of circular reasoning.
