Barabus wrote:
JAC3510,
I have wasted pages and pages debating you on other forums.
Other forums? I don't believe we've ever spoken?
Your tactics haven't changed. I'm not surprised you so quickly jumped to cheap debate tactics. I didn't dodge your question. It was my way of telling you that you don't know what you are talking about. Pardon me if I'm skeptical of a theologian's view of science.
Are you using the word "skeptical" on purpose, or is it just a nice one to toss around? If so, you can add a genetic fallacy to your tu quoque. If not, then you can feel free to post which part of my view of science you disagree with.
As to the rest of your post, again, why waste time going down a road where I know it will end. On this forum, it will likely get me banned. On the last one, it took pages of arguments until you finaly gave up dodging my questions and moved on with your life, mysteriously disapearing into some other corner of the internet.
Again, I'm not sure when we have ever had a discussion? As of now, you have posted 18 times. You haven't had the time to go "pages and pages."
Yes, there are other ways to come to a conclusion other than science. I'd still like to know why one dismisses a line of reasoning, in this case the scientific method, while accepting others that are no more valid.
Where did I say I did? Quotes, please.
No where did I see a case made for that.
Precisely. I made no case for it because I never asserted it. With that cleared up, how about you get back to the points I did make?
All you said is that science doesn't apply to God just like it doesn't apply to history. Was that your attempt at a strawman, or did you just misunderstand the point i made?
I said quite a bit more than that. jlay made a specific point as to evolution's lack of observability and testability, the hallmarks of the physical sciences. Your rather weak response to that objection was to claim that belief in God is not observable or testable, and therefore, he had the same problem (hence, the tu quoque, as if proving jlay had a problem would resolve your own). Against that, I proved that you erred in your response to J by implying that ALL knowledge must be observable and testable, a claim he never made. He said
scientific knowledge (of which, you claim evolution to be) must be observable and testable. I, however, distinguished between scientific and philosophical facts, the latter being just as real as the former without, by their nature, being subject to observation and testing. Thus, jlay (and others) DOES have a basis for believing in God, even though such beliefs are not grounded in observable and testable data.
That is hardly a straw man. It takes your point on directly. Further, it shows your response to j is inadequate, requiring further engagement on your part.
Pardon me, but I wish no more discourse with you unless you directly answer my question.
If you can't see how your questions have been directly engaged, perhaps the problem is on your end?
I know you are smarter than this, but likely assume that I am not.
And let's add an ad hominem to the list. Barabus, I must say, you are racking up quite a list of logical fallacies. You do know that people who come to conclusions based on fallacious reasoning are irrational, and that by definition, don't you?
1. You did not present an answer, but rather a non sequitor.
Either you have misdefined a non-sequitor or you didn't bother to read my post. Nothing I said did not necessarily follow from the premises. In fact, the first problem you responded to was a simple statement of fact. That
can't be a non sequitor. The fact can be false (you can try to show where you had responded to my arguments), but it most definitely cannot be a non sequitor, and thus, your rebutall fails, and you still have the problem
2. No it didn't. You gave an incorrecet definition of science and merely displayed your own misunderstanding of the subject.
Ah, it was incorrect. So science is NOT a branch of knowledge that comes from the observed (physical) world, based on tests and observation?
Well, since I am only a theologian, let me give you the benefit of the doubt and look it up in a standard resource somewhere I'm sure you will respect. Let me try the
Encyclopedia Britannica. I'm sure that's a little better than, say, wikipedia? So, what do THEY say?
- any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation.
Hmm... I wonder if they know they have a bunch of theologians on their staff?!? Well, I suppose I'll just go with them. So, since you disagree with them, would it be safe to say that you are the one who "merely displayed your own misunderstanding of the subject"?
Or, perhaps, being the theologian I am, I should point out that your definition of faith as "belief in something absent of concrete substantial evidence" most definitely shows your ignorance on the subject? I've already given you the correct definiton here. So, if you don't understand what faith is, and you don't understand what science is (or at minimum, you have some understanding of science that goes against what something so basic as Britannica has to say), then why should any of us continue responding to anything you have to say in this thread?
3. If you can grasp number 1, you will understand your error in number 3.
If I can grasp the non sequitor, then I can grasp the error in #3, namely, that "The counter argument you tried to give (which I answered, and you ignored) is irrational in the first place." Well, considering the fact that it is logically impossible for #1 to be a non sequitor, and since I've shown AGAIN that you have this problem, I am going to give you the chance to respond again.
I'm waiting for my questions to be answered.
Ditto.
So, here's the deal: if you want to engage my points directly, feel free, and we can have a rational discussion (assuming, of course, you can drop the logical fallacies). If you choose not to be so kind as to answer my questions, as I have so fully engaged yours, then you can continue to argue with Gman or whoever else will put up with your rants. After all, without engagement, your "arguments" are really nothing more, are they? Without engagement, you are nothing more than a preacher.
