(March 26, 2014 at 4:30 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: There's a big difference between making a mistake and telling a lie. I didn't read the posts as carefully as I should have and went off half cocked. Even still I find it hard to understand the difference between assuming there is a natural but as yet unknown cause and never accepting something as evidence of God. But I never tried to decieve anyone. Unless you can prove that someone means to decieve others by knowingly misrepresenting the facts, then calling people liars is baseless slander.
Well, if you made a mistake then fine, I apologize. That said, I did point out your error in the thread you initially made it, on the same day you made it. From my perspective, the issue was settled.
As to your contention, what we had suggested doing- giving any supposed evidence of god a thorough investigation- is exactly what we would want done to evidence for any other claim. The whole idea behind science is to never just go with assumptions about the nature of things; any conclusions we draw would be tentative and subject to change via other evidence. We might find signs that point to god, but not enough, from what had been suggested, to unreservedly accept that conclusion.
This isn't an inconsistency, or an unfair privileging of naturalistic explanations; it's just treating god-evidence the same way we would treat the regular kind.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!