Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Be Nice

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on May 20, 2003 22:18:03 UTC


Your a good guy, so why the fluff all of a sudden?

***I just finished telling you I have more legitimate reasons in support. YOU DID NOT SEE THAT in my original post. I stated it AGAIN.
I'll state it a THIRD time: "Therefore I reject the supernatural, not because I assume it is non-existent a priori, but rather because I have no evidence of it." What part of "no evidence for it" don't you understand? There is no fog, other than your inability to see what I said the second time around. Want to make that three?***

Read my post again. Here's just one quote from it:

I contest the notion that there is some philosophically correct preference for the rejection of dualism due to a lack of current scientific evidence, Occam's razor, because it doesn't fit in with a naturalistic explanation, etc. In other words, I reject that there is a 'scientific ontology' which is a phrase that is an oxymoron from my viewpoint.

My argument on your position is that you choose to think you are holding a 'scientific ontology' when in fact there is no such ontology.

Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins