Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicato
[CONTINUED...]
If, as you say, the first-cause could be filled by the equally unknowable string hypothesis and multiverse hypothesis, then both of those hypothesis are on par with yours.
|
Yes! Finally, you got something. My belief in God is not a conclusive claim. That should be abundantly clear by now, considering how many times I've spelled it out.
Quote:
|
You're asking me to prove a negative when all I've ever said was that there was no evidence for design. Again, you're proving that you can't grasp a simple argument.
|
I didn't ask you to prove a negative, I pointed out that your perception of the "un-design" of the byproducts of evolution is based on an inherent assumption you have about evolution.
Quote:
|
You clearly agree that declaring limitations isn't evidence of a beyond.
|
Again Nic, you're simply misunderstanding. You misconstrue a lack of "positive evidence", as in observable, measurable naturalistic proof, to conclude that there is no rational reason to skeptically (rather than conclusively) assume the existence of something. But science can't inquire about things that may or may not exist, only observe that which is known to exist.
In this case, the sponaneous coming-into-existence of an ordered universe that allows for us to exist, and its finite points of being, are not "positive evidence" of anything because "positive evidence" merely observes that which is already contained
within the universe. That doesn't mean we can't see reason why something extrinsic might and should exist. Hell, that sort of logical inference is the whole foundation of String Theory. I refer you back to the dark matter analogy in the previous post.