On Hell and Forgiveness

[RoadRunner79]

Ok, so you are saying that we cannot just insert "gnomes" in, and call it delusional.

Perhaps just the things claimed of evolution, which are not testable and repeatable.  Those which are arrived at through inductive logic.  We can insert "garden gnomes" there, and call them delusional.  This would allow for the evolution, that pretty much no one disagrees with, while still calling the rest delusional.   Would this work for you?

Inductive logic is inherently risky. That is why science (including biology) requires testability of its theories (including evolution). Any part that cannot (even in theory) be tested cannot be held as verified. At *best* such ideas should be eliminated. At worst, they should be acknowledged as useful fictions for building our models.

Ok, I will concede the things of evolution that you can demonstrate.    Which would not count your just so story in the other thread concerning morality and evolution, as well as most any claim of common descent.  It excludes historical sciences as well, as history, cannot be repeated.   It also seems that your assertions for an actual infinity cannot be demonstrated by the methods that you suggest here. I believe you defined math as a set of assumptions based on assumed rules, to reach a conclusion.    So we will just replace them with "garden gnomes" and call them delusional.  

Note:   I can see the appeal of this method, it takes very little thought, understanding or effort really.