Re: What is SCIENCE?

Christopher A. Lee wrote...
> 
> >Such evidence would be part of a larger explanation of reality that
> >includes atheism.  Scientific Naturalism is the common view. 
> 
> Nope. The ex-atheist you lie about being would know that this is  
> at most a conclusion, and incidential. It is not the a priori
> philosophical commitment you pretend.

What do you mean?

> The ex-atheist you lie about being, would know that this is simply
> reality.

Scientific Naturalism is not simply reality.  It seems to be obvious
to you.  But it is not simply reality to everyone.  Reality to me is
there is ultimate morality, there is obvious design in the universe,
mere chance is not an adequate explanation...  I have seen no support
from you to accept Scientific Naturalism.

> The ex-atheist you lie about having been would also realise that it's
> the theist's premise and as such the theist has the burden of proof so
> there's still nothing to rebut.

I've mentioned this before that the true issue here is not theism vs
atheism.  It is Christianity vs Islam vs Judaism vs Secular Humanism
vs Nihilism vs Scientific Naturalism vs Hinduism vs Buddhism vs... 
But let's just limit it to Christianity vs Scientific Naturalism. 
Neither is the default position.  Why would one be?  They are all
explanations of reality.

> The ex-atheist you lie about being would know that this is a fact, not
> a claim.

Sorry, you're wrong.  You're claiming that no evidence has ever been
presented.  What do you base that claim on?

> The ex-atheist you lie about being would also know that remarks like
> yours are simply dodge-ball, attempting to cop out of their not
> parovinding this alleged evidence.

You know, it's ironic that you say that because I honestly think you
are doing just that.  I'm being totally serious.  I think you are
avoiding the issues I am raising.

Dan