RE: Argument against atheism
December 23, 2011 at 8:45 pm
(This post was last modified: December 23, 2011 at 9:01 pm by amkerman.)
No logic needed. Just add water. You claim that in order for science to exist people, observations, and the scientific method are needed. In the next breath you claim the science can exist without people, observations, or the scientific method.
So assumptions are not "assessments of what appears to be"? I thout that definition worked quite nicely.
I'm not trying to put any words in your mouth rhythm, but I have to ask. Do you believe we are living in the matrix? Is this all a simulation where nothing actually exists as it appears? If so, what do you base that belief on? It's obviously not science.
So assumptions are not "assessments of what appears to be"? I thout that definition worked quite nicely.
I'm not trying to put any words in your mouth rhythm, but I have to ask. Do you believe we are living in the matrix? Is this all a simulation where nothing actually exists as it appears? If so, what do you base that belief on? It's obviously not science.