Replies

Except you are claiming to have knowledge that you could only have if you were an omnipresent, omnipotent, all knowing being that reads minds.

Nope. It's knowledge I have because I am capable of thinking and because I am open to it.

Hey, your the one who used a double negative.

Actually just a vernacular expression.

Interestingly, it is your position that we have been discussing.

Come now, don't be coy. We wouldn't be having this discussion if you agreed with my position. As such yours is perfectly clear.

Seriously, I'm starting to think you know nothing about logic.

I know more than enough to know that people like you can play games with it in the guise of being thoughtful when, in fact, there is no thought involved.

Do you think that scientists should try to eliminate religion?

Religion has nothing to do with science. It's not up to them to "eliminate" it. While it's true that scientific knowledge, by its very nature, effectively crowds out ignorance it shouldn't really be a stated goal to eliminate specific forms of ignorance.

Prove that its not in the center 1% of the entire universe.

Prove that it is.

Meanwhile, we've already documented quite thoroughly that we are on a fairly insignificant speck of damp dust circling a common star far from the center of a galaxy filled with tens of billions of other stars in a local group of a dozen or so such galaxies in a universe filled with billions of other such groups and galaxies.

If that doesn't put us well away from the center of it all I don't know what does.

Are you saying that religious people are stupid and unlearned?

Effectively, yes.

Which isn't to say that learning and religion are inherently incompatible, but if the indoctrination into religion weren't started at a young age most people with brains and learning would never come to the conclusion after being properly educated (i.e. with facts, not dogma.) By educated do you mean people who reject God and subscribe to philosophical naturalism?

By educated I mean people who learn facts and not dogma, as stated above.

Exactly what is my type?

Science rejecting 'thumpers.

The fact is, an origin of the laws of physics is by definition a super-natural origin that was not governed by the natural laws of physics because at the point when the aforementioned laws came into existence, there were no natural laws of physics in which a naturalistic process capable of creating the natural laws of physics could have operated.

Nonsense circular reasoning.

Either the laws always existed or they came into being because of other laws.

Some theorize that the laws were set during the earliest parts of the Big Bang, others think the Big Bang was governed by extant laws.

Regardless, Science will, someday, answer those questions credibly. Religion never will, or can.

Religion is nothing short of the ultimate cop out.

Except you are claiming to have knowledge that you could only have if you were an omnipresent, omnipotent, all knowing being that reads minds.
“Nope. It's knowledge I have because I am capable of thinking and because I am open to it.” [excerpt]

When you said … we've never seen a non-naturalistic answer … you used the word we not I

You cannot say what we haven't seen.

“Come now, don't be coy. We wouldn't be having this discussion if you agreed with my position. As such yours is perfectly clear.” [excerpt, bold emphasis mine]

Specifically (and only) that my position doesn't agree with yours.

Which is a non-issue.

Seriously, I'm starting to think you know nothing about logic.
“I know more than enough to know that people like you can play games with it in the guise of being thoughtful when, in fact, there is no thought involved.” [excerpt]

Unfortunately that hasn't stopped you from making one logical blunder after another.

Are you saying that religious people are stupid and unlearned?
“Effectively, yes.” [excerpt]

Do you believe that science would be further advanced and better off if religious people couldn't interfere?

Exactly what is my type?
“Science rejecting 'thumpers.” [excerpt]

Was Karl Popper a ‘science rejecting 'thumper’?

“Nonsense circular reasoning.” [excerpt]

Hehe, you might want to reconsider...

“Either the laws always existed or they came into being because of other laws.” [excerpt]

IOW, they didn't self create, which is exactly the point I was making. (A point you called ‘Nonsense circular reasoning’)

However, you are up against a problem here.

If the natural laws of physics were created by other laws that were not exactly identical to the ones we have now, then the current ones have a non-naturalistic origin, because naturalistic is defined by the laws of nature as they exist now.

This also brings up the possibility that the ‘other laws’ that may have brought into being our current ones, may in fact be the very essence of God himself.

“Some theorize that the laws were set during the earliest parts of the Big Bang, others think the Big Bang was governed by extant laws.” [excerpt]

The Big Bang is a super-natural event because it violates several known natural laws.

“Regardless, Science will, someday, answer those questions credibly. Religion never will, or can.” [excerpt, bold emphasis mine]

The way you authoritatively speak of what will and won't happen, I can't help but wonder, are you now a prophet?

“Religion is nothing short of the ultimate cop out.” [excerpt]

Do you think religion interferes with science and should be disallowed from influencing it?