Changes
/* 'Weak Atheism' */
::::Actually, that's not quite correct - you use the evidence to, in effect, 'rule in' possibilities. You start from the basis of nothing at all. Starting from the idea that God exists is not doing that. Starting from nothing means that you have to see solid evidence of the existence of God before you accept that. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: I'm not suggesting starting from the basis that God exists. I'm suggesting starting from the basis that God ''might'' exist, rather than ''exclude'' that possibility ''a priori''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::So you ''a priori'' rule in the possibility of God existing BEFORE looking at the evidence. THAT is doing science based on a 'world view'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:58, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::: "''Now that I point out how absurd that argument actually is...''": Given that that wasn't my argument, you've only demolished a straw-man.[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Then it's a 'straw man' you constructed yourself. What is your actual argument, then, given that everything you have stated above seems to be concerned with the idea that there is no absolute proof of the non-existence of God? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: I've explained my argument numerous times by now: that if you ''a priori'' rule out considering the possibility of God being involved, then you are putting ideology ahead of the science. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::And the reason you believe that is, apparantly, discounting the possibility that God exists due to a lack of evidence is down to a 'world view', not science. Unfortunately, you haven't explained your reasoning as to how you came to the conclusion that following the evidence is not scientific, considering that examining the evidence is the whole basis of scientific enquiry. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:58, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::: "''...you now seem to be changing the argument to 'scientifically testing the existence of God is impossible, even if He does exist'''": No, I've ''acknowledged that'' all along (that is in [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]]), but I'm not "changing the argument".[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Ah, right, so I'm supposed to have read all your essays, and rely on them rather than what you say here if the two seem to be advancing different arguments. Sorry about that(!) Of course, the other point is that if, as you say, it is utterly impossible to scientifically test if God exists or not, I fail to see how you can argue that it is scientific to base anything on the idea that God exists. Yes, you can have a religious faith this is so, and you can say that this might be so from a philiosophical point of view, but you simply cannot say this from a scientific point of view. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: I said nothing about reading all my essays. Perhaps this is an example of you not reading me properly? I referred to a specific essay that I have linked to before in this discussion (i.e. one that you would have already read) and merely did so to support my point that I've long acknowledged that God's existence cannot be ''scientifically'' tested.
::::::But you were originally arguing that it is unscientific to follow the evidence, basically. You did not actually reference that essay until well into this discussion. Does this mean I should have already read this essay, so that I knew what you were apparantly arguing wasn't what you were REALLY arguing? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:58, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: How do you ''scientifically test'' that there were people in England capable of building Stonehenge at the time that it was supposed to be built? You can't. But does that therefore mean that you can't propose such people as builders of the monument? Of course not. But you would argue (if you are being consistent with your arguments about God) that you can't propose that people built Stonehenge because you can't scientifically prove the existence of such people! Instead, you are forced to conclude that Stonehenge is a natural phenomenon, presumably carved by the wind and rain over thousands of years! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, where this argument falls to pieces is that there is pretty damn clear-cut evidence of the existence of man in Britain at the time. If you were saying hypothetically what if there was no evidence of man in Britain, then yes, you would be correct - we couldn't scientifically test it. However, from the evidence we actually have, if man didn't exist in Britain at the time, neither would Stonehenge. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:58, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::: "''...if you try to do science on the basis of something that is not proven, ... that is still unscientific''": Not at all. You seem to be saying that the solutions have to be proved before they can be proposed. Science is about ''proposing'' solutions then trying to determine if they are correct. Sometimes you are unable to prove them one way or the other, which means that (in a scientific sense) the solution remains tentative. But you don't rule out a solution/explanation ''a priori'' on the basis that the solution/explanation hasn't (yet) been proved.
::::You almost got that correct. Science is about proposing solutions <u>based on evidence</u>, then trying to determine if they are correct. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: Yes, but you don't rule out potential explanations ''a priori'' just because those explanations have not been "scientifically proved". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::You missed the part about proposing solutions <u>based on evidence</u>. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:58, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
