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

[The Grand Nudger]

It's intellectually honest, and factually true, that grass grows regardless of whether gods exist.

Seeing grass grow is the only evidence required to make this claim, and we do see grass grow.

A god botherer and I might disagree about the existence of gods, but if we can't agree to the growing of grass, no further discussion is possible.

[Rhizomorph13]

It's intellectually honest, and factually true,  that grass grows regardless of whether gods exist.  

Seeing grass grow is the only evidence required to make this claim, and we do see grass grow.

A god botherer and I might disagree about the existence of gods, but if we can't agree to the growing of grass, no further discussion is possible.

Yes line one is true and line two follows on and line three makes sense as well.

Earlier you said grass grows without god and if you don't add or with god part then you shoulder a burden that is all.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

But let's hear what OP has to say about this...

[The Grand Nudger]

It's intellectually honest, and factually true,  that grass grows regardless of whether gods exist.  

Seeing grass grow is the only evidence required to make this claim, and we do see grass grow.

A god botherer and I might disagree about the existence of gods, but if we can't agree to the growing of grass, no further discussion is possible.

Yes line one is true and line two follows on and line three makes sense as well.

Earlier you said grass grows without god and if you don't add or with god part then you shoulder a burden that is all.

There's a burden on any statement, no matter what we include or exclude in any statement.  Moot point, since any burden that the statement could possibly have has already been met.  Grass grows regardless of whether gods exist.  Statement made, burden accepted, burden met.

Understanding that this statement is in-arguably true may assault a god botherer's belief in the logical necessity of the divine - but that can only be their own problem. Between gods not existing and not having anything to do with grass growing..and gods existing and not having anything to do with grass growing, and gods existing and having something to do with grass growing, I'm entirely unconcerned about the third being an accurate description of the state of affairs in reality.

I was asked whether there were grass djinn. There aren't. It really is that simple. I find it completely astounding that people of faith posit such questions. Next they'll wonder how dew gets on the flowers in the morning? Do I know that it's not fairies with paintbrushes?

[Rhizomorph13]

I reject your assertion that there is a burden on any statement.

The statement above bears no burden of proof.

You now have to support your assertion that "any statement" bears such a burden.

I just made a statement that bears no burden of proof

not all statements bear a burden of proof.

QED

[The Grand Nudger]

Of course it does. To say that grass grows is a statement with a burden. If we looked and didn't see grass growing we couldn't say that it was true that grass grows regardless of whether god exists.

Carl Sagan put it beautifully. The simplest idea, like the concept of the number one, has an elaborate logical underpinning. Can you think of any assertion to truth that doesn't have some burden, if you're rejecting that statement?

[Rhizomorph13]

Of course it does.  To say that grass grows is a statement with a burden.  If we looked and didn't see grass growing we couldn't say that it was true that grass grows regardless of whether god exists.

Carl Sagan put it beautifully.   The simplest idea, like the concept of the number one, has an elaborate logical underpinning.  Can you think of any assertion to truth that doesn't have some burden, if you're rejecting that statement?

Yes to say that grass grows bears a burden and is rather quickly provable through observation. If I then said, "God made it grow" That statement bears a burden. If you then said, "I reject your claim." That statement does NOT bear a burden BUT if you then went on to say, "Grass grows without the assistance of God." THAT statement bears a burden!

Ok philosophy 101 over now? great.

[The Grand Nudger]

Three statements, all three of which have a burden. Even the statement "I reject that claim" has a burden. It could be true or false that you actually reject the noted claim.

I don't think that you actually reject the claim that all assertions to truth carry a burden, for example. The closest we can get to statements like that are axioms, but even axioms can be assessed on the basis of their claim to self evident truth.

[Rhizomorph13]

Ok, I'm done

Agree to disagree I guess although how you think rejecting a claim shoulders one with a burden of proof I'll never understand.

[Abaddon_ire]

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

Pretty sure it was something to do with shaving, hmmmm.