Replies

"No, there is no difference. That's what I do know."

Yes, there is a difference. You commit logical fallacy to support your position. That's what you don't know.

"No, again, I have more than enough sense to see that you are uttering gibberish and calling it something else."

No, you don't have enough sense to know that you are engaging in logical fallacy to support your beliefs.

"There is no evidence for anything but. None. Nada. Zilch. Zero. 0bama. Feel free to prove that my assertion is wrong. Maybe you can get your invisible friend to do it for you. Then again, maybe not."

What you mean is that there is no evidence that you will accept under methodological naturalism. That's a different thing altogether. But, let's assume for sake of argument that you are correct and there is no evidence at all for anything but. It is still a logical fallacy to assume philosophical naturalism because natural physical laws are all that you have evidence for. Always has been, always will be. That's what you can't comprehend.

"True that, but I'm not here to teach. I'm not on trial. The difference is that I could, if need be, prove my beliefs."<'/iu>

No, you can't. That's what you don't understand. Your beliefs are based on the logical fallacy of assuming philosophical naturalism because natural physical laws exist. Any 'proof' you would claim will be based on assuming that fallacy is true 'a priori'. That makes it still based on fallacy.

"You cannot and will never be able to. They are, by definition, unprovable which is what the entire concept of faith is all about."

You are no different. Which is what assuming logical fallacies is all about. That's the point.

"Funnier still since I didn't go to a religious school. . . perhaps I really did learn how to think."

Neither did I but I have seen no evidence of your ability to think yet.

"Oh, but I can. I recognize it in your beliefs quite readily. Fortunately for me there is none in mine."

You deceive yourself. Your beliefs are based on fallacy as I have pointed out time after time. You just refuse to admit it.

Yes, there is a difference. You commit logical fallacy to support your position. That's what you don't know.

Incorrect.

What you mean is that there is no evidence that you will accept under methodological naturalism.

No, what I mean is there is no evidence period.

All that you will ever be able to bring up is contrived nonsense akin to what you've been using to "argue" to date.

It is still a logical fallacy to assume philosophical naturalism because natural physical laws are all that you have evidence for. Always has been, always will be. That's what you can't comprehend.

You really should look up the definition of fallacy to figure out how silly you sound.

The reality is that you can say that I'm wrong all you want, but the burden of proof is on you. You need to prove that I am wrong to substantiate your accusation of fallacy.

You simply cannot do that, logically or with evidence.

My position happens to be scientifically supported. Sure, as science goes that may change, but until there is documentation your assertion, and thus your whole argument, is just so much BS.

The real tragedy here isn't the disagreement, it's your inability to reason your way out of the tiny little corner you've backed yourself into with your nonsensical position.

All you are capable of doing is responding to legitimate opposition with "fallacy," "fallacy," "fallacy," because you refuse to (or are incapable of) understanding opposing positions.

I've rejected creationism rationally. I've seen the "evidence" and "theories" that have been put forth and reject them based on reason, logic and science.

You, on the other hand, look at the evidence and science behind evolution and reject it dogmatically without ever really considering it and almost certainly without understanding it.

That is nothing short of pathetically sad.

You deceive yourself. Your beliefs are based on fallacy as I have pointed out time after time. You just refuse to admit it.

I also refuse to admit that the moon is made of green cheese because it is, in fact, not.