I think we agree less than you assert.
I do not conceed scientific knowledge is irrelevant and I do not agree that I am usurping logic with science. That does nothing to refute the premise. Genuinely not being awkward I just sense vagueness with the rejoinder and I am searching for your refutation.
I do not agree that philosophy has nothing to say about the physical. And in addition there are many logical arguments relying on supporting premises directly from observation. Struggling to see your point here.
I understand that it is hard to put together an argument outlining hoe god acts. But if you assert his existence a rough sketch would be useful else we return to mystcism.
I do not conceed scientific knowledge is irrelevant and I do not agree that I am usurping logic with science. That does nothing to refute the premise. Genuinely not being awkward I just sense vagueness with the rejoinder and I am searching for your refutation.
I do not agree that philosophy has nothing to say about the physical. And in addition there are many logical arguments relying on supporting premises directly from observation. Struggling to see your point here.
I understand that it is hard to put together an argument outlining hoe god acts. But if you assert his existence a rough sketch would be useful else we return to mystcism.
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
