No, idiotic strawman fallacy. You have now demonstrated yourself to be an idiot of the highest order. Science does not "assume itself true" as proof of all its claims.
There are two crucial differences between science and Judeo-Christian-Muslim religion:
1) Science employs logic. Judeo-Christian-Muslim religion does not.
[/mass ignorance]
If you believe that logic is axiomatic, then you must believe that
everything "employs logic."
If religion is alogical, how can you claim that logic
defeats religion? In order for religion to be disproved, it must be accessible to logic, from which proofs are structured.
2) Science observes objective reality in order to prove/support its claims. Judeo-Christian-Muslim religion references its own claims (ie- scriptures) in order to prove/support its claims.
What is "objective reality"? How do we discover its nature and properties? How do you know that what science observes is indeed objective reality? You cannot respond with "science," obviously, but what else is there for you?
So science observes "objective reality,"
authenticated as such by what means?
Sorry, but the only circular logic around here is yours.
Really? I understand that you disapprove of my reasoning, but how is it circular?
I didn't define logic as being "what feels right", nor is logic ever defined as this. Logic is based on real world observation. You can make a logical statement like "all humans are mammals, but all mammals aren't humans"... and verify the structure of these reasoning with real world examples.
Logical statements generally "feel right" to a logical person. However the inverse isn't always true. If A implies B, B doesn't necessarily imply A...? Assuming statements that "all feel good statements are logical" isn't correct; as the statement "I am a millionaire" makes me feel good, yet it isn't true.
Its rather amazing that you can formulate an entire post based on this logical error.
You must have misread my post, because this has little to do with what I was saying.
You cited "logic and observation" as establishing that any God (presumably, any
thing) which is based on our own knowledge and what feels right has no grounds for existence.
My point was that there is no cognitive existence or dimensionality which is
not based solely on "our own knowledge" and "what feels right." After all, truth, logic, and science are only as functional as our ability to perceive them. "Our own knowledge" and "what feels right," more aptly denoted as our thoughts and our feelings, are all we have. There can be no other means of ascribing a basis for existence to anything than through
our own beliefs and discernments.
The computer screen in front of you has a basis for real existance.
But a computer screen has belief of existence invested in it
only because of my own knowledge and because it feels right. How then, does it have a basis for existence?
Very basically, I can say the "based on observation and past experience, visually seeing the computer screen in front of me means it exists". This rational statement "feels right to me".. ok
Also very basically, I can say that, based on observation and past experience, spiritually perceiving God all around me means that He exists. This rational statement "feels right to me."
Now, we have an inconsistency. You probably do not believe that my God exists, but I believe that your computer screen exists. We have used the same criteria for the affirmation of our respective propositions. Why have we then not reached the same conclusions? One of us must change one of our beliefs.
Should you alter your beliefs to include belief in my God? If so, then we must hold that the experiential or communicable proof for one's beliefs, or the claim thereto, is also proof for all other individuals for the belief, necessitating that everyone share all of everyone else's beliefs. I do not imagine you want to do this, for you would then need to adopt every belief in the world.
Or, should I alter my beliefs to exclude belief in your computer screen? If so, then we must hold that even truistic propositions may not be believed unless the self perceives experiential proof for their veracity. This would mean that no communicable evidence is ever reliable, and any belief would have to be verified by one's own experience.
A terrible dilemma. In the first instance, experiential evidence is to be accepted as equally and universally valid for all persons. In the second, experiential evidence is the
only evidence which can be accepted, and then, only by the experiencer. I do not think you would find either option agreeable.
Of course, all this is working under the pretense that observation and logic determine,
for all minds congruently, what has basis for existence, and what does not. It seems to me that assuming to know what provides basis for existence for
anything makes a real mess of things. Learn some humility.
*were to show* ??
Science needs only show that all languages did not originate in Babylon to invalidate the bible.
And even if this were true, it would not show that God does not exist.
I take the science as true because its been verified with real world observation.
How can you be sure that science observes the real world? How does it then follow that science is true?
Sorry, but observation does not require intuition. It simply is, like the universe simply is. If you seriously deny the validity of the observable universe, you are just an outburst away from being clinically insane.
Just where do you get the idea that "what feels right" is intuition?
Anyway, if you know anything of epistemology, you know that all anyone believes and understands can really be based only on what feels right. That it feels right is precisely why we have not abandonded current reasoning methods. We embrace logic because it makes sense to us; that is, it feels right. Even if you deny this, you deny it because denying it feels like the right thing to do - the
rational thing to do.
Mind you, I am not saying that logic
itself, in essence, is based on what we think feels right. Rather, I am saying that our own
perceptions of logic and our own reasoning capabilities, which are really all that matter, rest upon the fact that our thought processes feel right in doing so.
"We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."
2 Corinthians 10:5
And you cannot disprove Santa, period ; you decry logic and reason as inferior to faith when it suits your purpose to, and then immediately take the exact opposite position and say that faith in Santa is invalid because his existance cannot be proven ?
