Replies

"Not assumed - proven."

Dude, philosophical naturalism hasn't been proven. It's based on a logical fallacy, which you commit next.

"Exactly. The fact that things are rational, predictable and provable is assumed much like the sum of 2+2 is "assumed.""

Nope. That's you committing the fallacy of equivocation for equating the existence of natural physical laws with philosophical naturalism.

"That's a far cry from attributing that which we don't (or, in some cases, can't) understand to the great ugga bugga in the sky."

As opposed to attributing that we don't (or, in some cases, can't) understand to nothing that is nowhere. You actually think that's an empirical position or are you back to your logical fallacy?

"The difference is that if they do they are eventually found out and the results corrected as happened with the Piltdown man hoax."

'Eventually' being the operative term that permits the fallacy of argument from ignorance to persist. How long will you wait until they 'eventually' figure out that macroevolution won't and can't ever work? Be kinda tough when that happens after you're dead and it's too late to change your mind. I'm sure 'science' will be sorry to have misled you though.

"The biblical hoax hasn't been fixed yet. . ."

The hoax of philosophical naturalism obviously hasn't been fixed yet either. I guess you aren't able to understand that.

Biblical creation is equivalent to philosophical naturalism. Both are philosophical positions that are not empirically provable.

In effect, what you believe is no more empirical than what I believe. The only difference is that I understand that and you don't.

Dude, philosophical naturalism hasn't been proven. It's based on a logical fallacy, which you commit next.

You're playing semantic games. Reality is that the universe is rational and predictable. Evolution is an offshoot of that rational nature via genetics, chemistry, physics, statistics/math and so on.

Nope. That's you committing the fallacy of equivocation for equating the existence of natural physical laws with philosophical naturalism.

Semantic hokum.

As opposed to attributing that we don't (or, in some cases, can't) understand to nothing that is nowhere. You actually think that's an empirical position or are you back to your logical fallacy?

There is no logical fallacy - at least not in my argument.

The "nothing that is nowhere" concept is yours. I am sure there is a rational explanation waiting to be discovered and I am equally sure that it will never be a supernatural being.

'Eventually' being the operative term that permits the fallacy of argument from ignorance to persist. How long will you wait until they 'eventually' figure out that macroevolution won't and can't ever work? Be kinda tough when that happens after you're dead and it's too late to change your mind. I'm sure 'science' will be sorry to have misled you though.

Macroevolution has and does work. It's well documented and fully understood by those who bother to try.

In effect, what you believe is no more empirical than what I believe. The only difference is that I understand that and you don't.

Except that I can prove what I believe with evidence and can further substantiate with any additional evidence we find.

Knowledge only ever serves to erode what you believe in.