Absolutely correct. However, when nothing wrong is stated about science but the argument is "Just go read some anthropology or something", that is a fallacy. Interestingly I was not even commenting about science when this was brought up. I was stating that both theist and atheist use logical fallacies. I gave a specific example from a textbook. Instead of discussing the claim, it was brought up, "Well that book was from 1996. It's not in use anymore." Nothing about the comments it made. And the line of thinking degraded into "You know nothing about science."
a book seemingly ditched nearly 20 years ago that iirc from the synopsis claimed to explain all sorts of stuff with math and what have you.
either way, i humored your little exercise in rhetoric and the more things went on the more you made it perfectly clear you didn't understand the scientific method.
It was bizarre. And I don't think hades was even reading my posts closely. He thought I was arguing in favor of the rapture and miracles. All I was asking was IF those things WERE true, would that be enough evidence? If not, what sort of evidence would it take to believe in God. That was it. What would be enough evidence. Atheists love to say, there is no evidence of God. So I was asking, Well what evidence would be enough for you?
i think you clearly have things mixed up.
you said:
No, again you aren't reading my posts, are you? I said that there is very little in the way of "proof" that an atheist would take and admit to God. Even if millions of people vanished in a supposed rapture, as some teach that the Bible says, the atheist would refuse a belief in God and instead believe in aliens or government technology. The same would've been done if many atheists were present to the supposed miracles of the Bible. There would have been ANY other reason other than God that an atheist would give credit to. I gave the example of Elijah and the Baal prophets. If one of you guys were there, I could imagine that you would claim that it was some sort of weather phenomenon that generated the fire to come down from the sky.
i then had to walk you through how any atheist/scientist would come to believe in "god" if the rapture or miracles occured by way of the scientific method. the very nature of the scientific method requires collecting data. yet you don't know what it would take...
if fire came from the sky and it was explained with hard data that it was a natural phenomenon and not god then guess what? sheesh. people used to think comets were harbingers of doom. hard data shows us it's not.
THATS why i keep saying go back and review. you're absolutely misapplying the scientific method from step 1, automatically looking for ways to prove it's god, rather than looking at all the data and drawing conclusions from there.
the very nature of being a believer with the absolute absence of any evidence there is a god is understandable, but by it's very nature violates basic logic. no data, no evidence, no proof, no dice.
