RE: No verifiable evidence is the Christian position
August 12, 2013 at 7:56 am
(This post was last modified: August 12, 2013 at 8:01 am by fr0d0.)
Hey Esq, I think I have to leave you to work out your conflicts. To you, science is wrong. I'm on their side. Your philosophy makes no sense to me.
Help me out? (I have no idea what you're alluding to)
1. Yes they have to be don't they? Otherwise they are surely not supernatural? /how can you claim to naturally have evidence of something supernatural?
2. Sure without any thought you should assume everything is purely natural.
3. logic requires thinking. Unless you are making a rule that it shouldn't.
(August 12, 2013 at 6:55 am)NoraBrimstone Wrote: That's not what I meant at all. Try again...
Help me out? (I have no idea what you're alluding to)
(August 12, 2013 at 7:52 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: So you're saying that even supposedly supernatural occurances are indistinguishable from non-supernatural occruances?
Well doesn't that just mean that Occam's razor eliminates the requirement for anyone to view them as anything other than natural, non supernaturally inspired occurances in the first place?
So really, me not seeing 'miracles' as miracles is entirely logical, even by your own logic (if the above holds true).
1. Yes they have to be don't they? Otherwise they are surely not supernatural? /how can you claim to naturally have evidence of something supernatural?
2. Sure without any thought you should assume everything is purely natural.
3. logic requires thinking. Unless you are making a rule that it shouldn't.
