DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
No, my argument is I believe in God, who acts as my Absolute point to reference scientific propositions on and therefore I can use it to say that Potterism is wrong.
That's exactly the same thing as I said, only using different words.
Let's rephrase my statement to match your own jargon:
Your evidence against Potterism is "I already believe something mutually exclusive".
This is downright bizar.
What I think you miss is that to hold to science you must accept that matter exists and is observable.
You don't accept that matter exists and is observable?
In the same manner a faith based system has to assume that its God/s etc. exist.
Let me get this straight............................
You are really comparing "assuming god exists" with "assuming matter exists"?
And you really consider both assumptions to be of equal value and validity????
That's no just bizar, that's downright disturbing.....
Our only evidence for matter is our sometimes (or always?) faulty senses. For faith it is our sense of the divine (or 'beliefs') which are sometimes (or always?) faulty.
So the evidence for both matter existing or any belief I at all hold, are functionally the same. We can try and organise it in nice systems like theology or Scientific method, but at heart its truth is equivalently unknowable and therefore equally valid, but again they need not be exclusive one to the other.
Yeah. Ok. Sure.
I think you're done now.
Upvote
0