Replies

"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."

You're the one playing games. When was philosophical naturalism proven? You made the claim and have nothing to show for it. You are committing the fallacy of equivocation by trying to equate evolution w/ genetics, chemistry, physics, statistice/math, etc. You will commit the fallacy of equivocation again when you try to 'prove' philosophical naturalism. You can't even distinguish between proof and fallacy.

"Semantic hokum."

Not at all. You just can't recognize logical fallacies when you commit them.

"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."

That's because you assume philosophical naturalism 'a priori'. Your surety is based in belief, not empiricism.

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

Wrong again. I used to believe in macroevolution when I didn't understand it. After I started looking at the evidence, I realized it was nothing more than a philosophy supported by fallacy.

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

Yes, I 'm waiting for your proof of philosophical naturalism with evidence, not fallacy. Also waiting for you proof of macroevolution with evidence, not fallacy. Then I will show that you commit multiple fallacies arriving at your 'proof'.

"Knowledge only ever serves to erode what you believe in."

You commit the fallacy of equivocation again. Philosophical assumptions and logical fallacies are not knowledge.

You're the one playing games. When was philosophical naturalism proven?

Every single day. The universe is governed by natural law and everything that happens follows those rules.

Of course that's only clear to people who remove the blinders of religion and actually observe reality rather than believe what they are told.

You made the claim and have nothing to show for it.

I have the universe to show for it. Perhaps even a multiverse.

You are committing the fallacy of equivocation by trying to equate evolution w/ genetics, chemistry, physics, statistice/math, etc.

There is no fallacy there. All are scientific disciplines that rely on observation, data and proof.

A fallacy would be if I tried to equate Evolution with something like theology or any other dogmatic, proof-free nonsense.

You will commit the fallacy of equivocation again when you try to 'prove' philosophical naturalism.

There is no need to prove that which is self-evident.

The only examples you will ever be able to proffer as counters to "philosophical naturalism" - aka reality - are things that you simply don't or can't understand.

You can't even distinguish between proof and fallacy.

And yet I seem to be far, far better at that than you.

That's because you assume philosophical naturalism 'a priori'. Your surety is based in belief, not empiricism.

No, it is based on the careful analysis of facts and the realization of how well they fit reality, how predictable they are and so on. Science, not dogma.

Yes, I 'm waiting for your proof of philosophical naturalism with evidence, not fallacy. Also waiting for you proof of macroevolution with evidence, not fallacy. Then I will show that you commit multiple fallacies arriving at your 'proof'.

Don't hold your breath. I don't feel the need to prove reality to the unenlightened or any other incorrigibles.

You commit the fallacy of equivocation again. Philosophical assumptions and logical fallacies are not knowledge.

Again, no. Face facts, man: religion is incapable of standing up under scrutiny. The stupid little fantasy is clearly a human fabrication and is just as clearly unworkable in the real world.

Virtually every time religion has ever took a scientific stand (the Earth is flat, the Earth is the center of the universe, etc.) they have been proven embarrassingly wrong.

The evolution debate is just one more example of that.