It's important to keep in mind that former JWs, and Dawkins-type atheists often have a very particular kind of Christian believer in mind when building refutations. The Catholic Church and many other churches (representative the vast majority of Christians) accept evolution and do not see science and faith in competition.
In point of fact, JM is using a poor understanding of science, cherry picking and quote mining to support his Christianity.
It's actually his view that scientific discoveries can tell us about the likelihood of God which is a marginal philosophical position.
Well that's just a lie. And one you've been called out on several times at this point.
But this misunderstands what science is. Science can tell us how something probably happened. It cannot tell us why it happened or its meaning.
A perfect example of YOU not understanding science OR language. You are saying "why" in the sense of "reason for this" or "purpose" for something. Science asks "why" in the sense of "how". It doesn't seek to assign meaning or explain purpose.
Please, for the love of all that's holy, stop talking about things you've no clue about.
Yes it does! Of course it does! If it happened all by itself, then this proves God had nothing to do with the origin of life! How can you be so thick! (Comes the retort)
The retort is that what you wrote is not Cofty's position. You've been made aware of that over and over. Please stop lying.
I am not representing an extreme philosophical position here
Oh, no you aren't. You're not representing any philosophical position. Philosophy is the practice of improving our thinking. That's definitely not what's going on.
It is actually Cofty who holds an extreme and marginal philosophical position: scientific and materialist reductionism. In this view only matter exists and science is the only true source of knowledge.
Again, not true, something you've been informed of.
Also that's not what materialism is. Seriously, do you just pick words out of a book and use them without knowing what they are?
You or I might think euthanasia or abortion, for example, are complex ethical dilemmas that admit a number of perspectives and solutions. Not for an adherent ofscientific reductionism. All such issues have definitive scientific answers which can be discovered. That's how extreme his claims for science are. So if we want to talk about flat earth type nonsense that's where we could start.
Well, there it is. The dumbest thing I've read all day, and I've already read a lot of dumb things. This is so far off base, it's hard to tell if you're outright lying, trolling, that thick or a combination of all of the above.
That is some serious weapons grade bullshit you wrote.