Which Comes First?

[Eilonnwy]

@ E:

You deny the non scientific. I don't. Logic would suggest that science doesn't answer every question in human understanding. I've already shown why scientific tests would not show anything. You haven't countered that just repeated your statement. Maybe you don't understand how God answers.

If God answers prayers, he interacts with the world in a tangible way, which means it can be tested. Simple as that. All you do is repeat your statements that about God not applying to science, yet he can be tested. As Luke said, outline the test, or are you just blowing smoke?

---

To Eilonnwy:

I read your link; quite interesting.

I just said what I said because you claimed everything you believed was from science.

Its fair enough to what evidence, so what to you counts as evidence? An example?

---

Yes, well I thought we were referring to beliefs systems and not every single thing in your life. Of course I'm not gonna question someone who says their name is John and they work for Friendly's. I'd go crazy.

As far as evidence for the "big things" or "supernatural" things, evidence that meets the rigors of the scientific method with claims that are falsifiable.

---

[...]
Genuine prayers are answered? Ha! That's called the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Something fr0d0 should be all too well familiar with by now. Oh well.

Good post btw.

Baseless & unsupportable assertion. Repeatedly pointed out to you yet still you persist with it.

Not at all. My claim that your assertion is a fallacy is spot on. You can keep denying it, but that doesn't make it not true. You've essentially insulated the test of prayer from being falsifiable, which means it's fucking useless to test scientifically. You know that of course, you want to have it both ways. Claim it's true and can be tested, but refuse to tell us how, and deny it the possibility of being tested by science which just happens to be the best method for discerning what is true about the world. Go figure.