It's funny how you always have a way of justifying yourself whereas you are doing no better at debating than we are. Like I said, that's why I am done. And in all honesty, I don't even remember you saying I don' think like a scientist, which is an assertion I have heard for the first time. People tell me all the time I think too scientifically that I ignore other ways of thinking. I guess, I'll go with the masses and those who I trust. You can have your opinion, but I guess it's not shared by many. I'm not going to try to convince you that I am what I think I am. You're going to think what you want t think regardless. It's interesting to me how you think that using alternate examples is a logical fallacy. I guess, I would like to know the name of the fallacy you are talking about. because I have read many philosophical argument in mathematics that use alternate examples to show faulty math processes. I never once altered the structure of your arguments. I just put them into a different light. You calling my argument a fallacy just tells me that yours don't make sense by your own admission, and that you have nothing better to say than, "irrevent" or "logical fallacy". If they are so irrelevent, and fallacious, then why were most of them created by philosophers? Let me guess, philosophers are fallacious. Of course they are, they don't agree with you.
Well, you don't read very well, and you didn't even get the point about comparisons: you can't compare two entirely different things as though they're the same. I even gave examples.
Listen to those people: your problem in this discussion, besides starting out with insults to believers, is that you treat science like a god -- you assert that there's no other way of knowing things (but claim you don't believe that), so you demand that ways of knowing besides science are invalid... because you've tried to see how to learn those things scientifically, and can't. But the attempt itself is foolish, because it isn't scientific; it relies on a blind faith belief that only science will provide knowledge. As a result your attempt is a self-fulfilling prophecy, creating the conditions to make it true.
Created by philosophers... So? Everything you've advanced has also been demolished by philosophers. It has nothing to do with being fallacious, it has to do with applying reason.
Resorting to the "because they don't agree with you" ploy is just a way of saying you're not actually interested in learning anything. On that... get back to me when you've studied Christianity enough to be able to make a mathematical model which explains all the attributes ascribed to God in the Bible (omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.).
BTW, I've never dissed anything for being irreverent. I happen to like irreverent things, so long as they aren't meant to be insulting. IMHO it isn't possible to be a very good Christian without appreciating a little irreverence from time to time -- and definitely not possible if one gets upset at irreverence from unbelievers; one should take as an axiom that they'll be irreverent.
If you do understand the scientific process as much as you say you do. Please explaiin to me how you apply it to your belief in a higher power...... I am really curious how you go to the experimentation part.
The scientific method doesn't require experimentation; there are areas where that isn't really possible, and observation has to be relied on (maybe someday we'll have Star Trek technology for inducing a nova, but until then astronomy is stuck with observation.
I went about examining the matter of higher powers by conducting a thought experiment, asking myself what I should expect to find in a real deity, a Supreme Being. The singleness was one, which I drew from my love of mathematics. Omnipotence was another, since any claimant without omnipotence would just be another piece of Creation. Having a written revelation was another, because without such there would never be a possibility of anyone knowing for sure what the Deity had to say (at least without intruding on human free will). Ancientness was another -- of the religion and revelation -- because it seemed illogical for a deity who desired to communicate to not do so until late in the game.
Having done my thought experiment, I had as the result a model of what to look for -- just as is done in particle theory, though not as rigorously since I had no way to make a mathematical description of what I sought.
So I started checking out the claimants -- examining religions. All the polytheistic ones went out the window, as did the dualistic. Those where the deity was plainly part of creation went out the window, because if they were part of the game, they weren't the Creator. Those with no written revelation went out the window, because without an objective standard for "measurement", nothing could be relied on.
Then I looked at Creation stories. They were all fantastical and/or mystical, except one: Genesis. The God there had all the right qualities, but He was God to three different religions. I threw out Islam because it came later and was really sort of a Jewish heresy, and also because if the God of the universe would call a murderer, terrorist, and robber to be His prophet, I didn't particularly want anything to do with Him.
So I came down to Judaism and Christianity. Ancientness wasn't a factor, because the origins go back to the same place (though the Jews might disagree). What decided between the two was something not in my model, because on that basis I was stuck; there was no way to decide because both met all the criteria. But there was a "ring of truth" in the New Testament, in one very large point: if God ever came down to the earth, it seemed that the Gospels were right on target -- He'd have to show up as one of us, and He'd end up getting killed for His trouble, because humans really aren't happy to face any expression of justice, yet mercy, righteousness, and perhaps most important, truth.
But I sought, and after a time bumped into, Jesus (I wasn't much enamored of the Old Testament God, so I didn't go looking, and besides, if God had come among us, it seemed the thing to do would be pay attention to that appearance). And at that point I stopped being afraid of death (which is why the contrary so puzzles me, besides the fact that the Gospel is the ultimate in removing that fear). And my interest in science skyrocketed; it was no longer just a matter of learning how the universe worked, but of prying into how my new Friend's Dad had set things up. Running into the Big Bang was a delight, because it was a beautiful
ex nihilo job.
BTW, the Trinity bothered me a bit, until it hit me that it's just basic arithmetic, two different operations for two different conditions:
1 + 1 + 1 = 3, for the operation "persons"
1 * 1 * 1 = 1, for the operation "God"
And I actually am a scientist. I study science and am active in the scientific research. So I guess, according to traditional definitions. I am a scientist. My research is in applied structural genomics. It's a biology thing.
Well then I'm a former scientist, for the same reasons, plus I've taught it (which I've mentioned here in connection with having to deal with Y.E.C. students).
I have no problem debating religion. I actually quite like it. But I like to debate those who are willing to talk. Some of my friends, for example, are well aware of their beliefs and where it stands on the grand scheme of things... We have interesting discussions. Here, there's nothing interesting.
I'd say there's nothing interesting because, first, all you were doing was being an atheist evangelist, and second, you haven't shown any willingness to listen to any criticism.
I don't like getting attacked, and I get snappy -- but I stand by my points.
You didn't make one mistake in this whole argument!! PROPS TO YOU!!
