Why 'Science' tries to separate the beginning from Evolution!

[Succubus#2]

... please show god interacting in some detectable manor to refute methodological naturalism ...

I agree with methodological naturalism, doing science in a way that explores nature without reference to God.

And yet you are a proponent of evolutionary creationism, aka intelligent design, aka creationism, aka goddidit.

But you also claim to be a skeptic and a science advocate.

How does that work? You can't have it both ways.

[brewer]

And the tediousness of the philosophy begins.

[GUBU]

Religions don't like science because ...

False. Even if you modify that to say, "Religious people don't like science," it would still be false.

Oh, I'm perfectly happy to stand by my statement. Throughout history the greatest impediment to science and persecutors of scientists have been those in a position of religious authority. From the Greek priests stamping down on the beginnings of a nascent scientific revolution, to the persecution and murder of scientists by christian sects since its conception in 325CE. to the modern movement of creationism which is trying to replace science with lies in the classroom for religious motives, you'll not find a single other mindset as hostile to scientific inquiry as the religious power one.

---

Sun shines down and plants grow.  There's our baseline.  Above aside and in concert with that..is whatever gods explicitly do.

So, if I understand you correctly, what you're asking me is whether I acknowledge that the natural world operates independent of God. In response I would say that this proposition (1) is not a scientific one, and (2) is in dire need of evidence or valid justification. Does the natural world indeed operate independent of God? I can't acknowledge that it does if I haven't been given any good reason to do so.

Here's one very good reason, it currently operates as it does, with no evidence of either actions by a god or even evidence that a god exists. On William of Ockham's razor alone that is sufficient to state that nature exists with no divine input, without some compelling evidence to the contrary turning up.

It is your obligation to provide said evidence for god if you wish others to accept the existence of* your god.

*I was going to say "believe in" here, but then remembered that belief is what you have when you make a positive claim without evidence, like for example a belief in a god.

[Rhizomorph13]

Sure, independent of god.  

We both know that grass grows.  If grass grows in a universe with god, grass grows.  If grass grows in a universe without god....grass grows.  Grass grows either way, grass neccesarrily grows regardless of whether or not there are any gods.  

Simple.

This is the opposite of the "Look at the trees" argument for god. The usual form is, "hey look at all this oddly planned stuff, there must be a planner." Or the watchmaker argument.

If you are saying that it is apparent that no god was necessary to grow the grass you bear a burden of proof, after all, it is very in line with some forms of theism that the very rules that govern grass growing are part of god's code or god is the embodying thingy that potentiates grass growing AND those claims bear a burden of proof!

So what evidence do you have to to support your claim that grass grows WITHOUT the assistance of a god?

Also, you said earlier in this thread that gods exist. I thought you were an atheist, or have I misunderstood your stance this whole time?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Help me out here, what's it called when people add unnecessary things to a process?

[Anomalocaris]

Help me out here, what's it called when people add unnecessary things to a process?

Occam’s spiked club.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Help me out here, what's it called when people add unnecessary things to a process?

Occam’s spikes club.

Okay. Filed for future use.

[purplepurpose]

I don't see a point in endless Holy North Korea, where I praise the Leader like some puppet and get Holy Cookies in return. So even if there will be proof of God someday, it doesn't change the fact that being an eternal north korean is pointless.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, independent of god.  

We both know that grass grows.  If grass grows in a universe with god, grass grows.  If grass grows in a universe without god....grass grows.  Grass grows either way, grass neccesarrily grows regardless of whether or not there are any gods.  

Simple.

This is the opposite of the "Look at the trees" argument for god. The usual form is, "hey look at all this oddly planned stuff, there must be a planner." Or the watchmaker argument.

When, in reality, there's oddly shaped stuff regardless of whether or not there are gods.  Another necessarily true statement.  

So what evidence do you have to to support your claim that grass grows WITHOUT the assistance of a god?

Grass growing is all the evidence required to state with absolute certainty that grass grows regardless of whether there are gods.  Grass growing is the non-negotiable unit of fundamental agreement between me and a god botherer.

Also, you said earlier in this thread that gods exist. I thought you were an atheist, or have I misunderstood your stance this whole time?

Positing that gods exist for the purpose of discussion, likely.

[Rhizomorph13]

This is the opposite of the "Look at the trees" argument for god. The usual form is, "hey look at all this oddly planned stuff, there must be a planner." Or the watchmaker argument.

When, in reality, there's oddly shaped stuff regardless of whether or not there are gods.  Another necessarily true statement.  

So what evidence do you have to to support your claim that grass grows WITHOUT the assistance of a god?

Grass growing is all the evidence required to state with absolute certainty that grass grows regardless of whether there are gods.  Grass growing is the non-negotiable unit of fundamental agreement between me and a god botherer.  

Also, you said earlier in this thread that gods exist. I thought you were an atheist, or have I misunderstood your stance this whole time?

Positing that gods exist for the purpose of discussion, likely.

To remain intellectually honest though one cannot say, "Grass grows without god." That statement is a claim and needs to be supported by evidence. Now is a person says god makes the grass grow you can say, "I reject that claim." and you haven't shouldered a burden of proof. That was my point. Your phrasing earned you a burden of proof!