DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Atheism and Nonexistence

That almost waxes poetic. In my hood we just say "He tucked tail and run".

So to make it short and simple, please let me know what I did not answer, and I will be glad to answer it.

...and maybe you can answer the questions that Gage failed to answer...let's start with

a. What evidence exists that abiogenesis occurred by purely naturalistic causes?

b. Where did the matter that composes the universe come from?

c. Is there scientific evidence to support the assumption that the matter that composes the universe came about through purely naturalistic means?

d. Deleted in order to have all questions related

e. Is there a possible explanation for the origin of life and of the Kosmos that is neither

1.purely Naturalistic

2. Supernatural in all or part of the cause

f. If so what is it or what are they?

g. If the answer to e is no, then does it not follow that to flatly reject supernaturalism is to endorse Ontological Naturalism by default?

There are more, but this are a good start.

not to mention that Ire conveniently ignored the fact that the reason given by Gage for not continuing the discussion was not because I was "clinching" as Ire charges, but rather because Gage accused me of being dishonest and "lying for Jesus"

Not to mention that Gage did not present much of an argument, but mostly falsely accused me of fallacies and resorted to ad hominems and attacks on my character.

An example of falsely accusing of fallacy was when he charged that a simple multiple choice question of being a loaded question, even though there was an option for "other" included in the options. He said it was a loaded question because no matter how he answered, I would focus on that. Sorry, but that is not what loaded question means.

Then he brings up alien seeding, and when I respond to it he says "oh, what made you think I believe in alien seeding". Why was it brought up then.

...and then he took issue with my word conjecture, because it was not his view. Yet for someone who suggests such a thing, it is a conjecture...and he was saying it is suggested by some.

Talk about ducking and dodging

Not to badmouth Gage (not my intent), but Ire charge of me "clinching" in my discussion with Gage is ludicrous

Too long winded for my taste but I stick by my opinion both on the argument and religion. Maybe your fanboy can heap some more accolades on ya to ease the pain that my opinion surely must give you . You have just proven again , as if that were needed, that you can't prove your God exists and I can't prove it doesn't . Enjoyed the back and forth for awhile though.

I don't need to prove God exists. Did you ever notice that the writers of the Bible don't set out to prove God exists? So if they don't, why should I?

I am not here to prove God exists. I am here to question Ontological Naturalistic assumptions. Someoen was once asked to give evidence for God, and his answer was "the absurdity of the antithesis"

THAT is all the answer that is needed.

Whether you choose to believe in God is your business. I don't feel the need to prove God to you. No prophet or apostle never felt the need to prove God, so why should I, a mere layman.

You guys are sorely confused.

I am not trying to prove anything. I have not provided any evidence to prove anything (though I could provide much evidence for what I believe.)

...and you are right, it is impossible to prove scientifically that supernatural does not exist. SO the pertainent question is this. IF science by definition cannot answer questions regarding supernaturalism, why do so many so called scientists preach "ontological Naturalism", which is not science but is rather a philosophical framework

You mean the way the scientific method is treated like rubbish by people who affirm abiogenesis and a purely naturalistic cause for the Kosmos as if there is evidence they have actually occurred that way?

I saw that on the internet too! Isnt that amazing!

Like "the universe can and will create itself" and "we know abiogenesis occurred because life exists". People who say things like this spit on the scientfic method when they say such things.

I want to go on record and say I don't believe in dark matter because I've never seen it.

So what many astronomers say composes like five sixths of the universe has never been seen. I guess that makes it a myth, right?

I might as well believe in the flying spaggettin monster as believe in dark matter.
iver
Same for abiogeneis, multiverses, self creating universes, etc

SO now that everything is on a level playing field, we can properly consider Cosmology

Good night now.

^^^
This right here. These online debates do end up being pointless. I genuinely thought LA Brown fan had a well thought out opinion, perhaps even willing to talk about the science as it regarded his faith. Yet he brought up very specific terms that had no meaning to me, but have very deep meaning to him and the ID community. As I learned more about this community, I realized that LA Brown fan is doing nothing more than executing the "Wedge Strategy." This strategy is deliberate obfuscation of religious intentions so ID can appear as legitimate science. He executed the strategy very well: using big words to appear to be a legitimate scientific source, drawing correlations that do not exist, and redefining known scientific results and methods when convenient. To use one of these big words in a sentence; my exegesis of the Bible may be rusty, but I never read anything claiming that it's okay to deceive people.

I used to believe in creationism. I grew up baptist and would look at awe in the sunflowers in my yard, and proclaim there is no way this could have just happened. Just no way. My path that led me from being a staunch creationist and bible fundamentalist, to being a true agnostic and believer in science, took the course of decades. The idea of actually conducting a 'winner and loser' debate on this topic is preposterous. I am however upset. Upset that I caught myself talking to a fraud, who follows an ideology created by someone who believes that HIV does not cause AIDS.

It does appear some people are upset that the internet has atheist memes. I apparently posted a bigoted picture! That picture must have been horrible. Don't go to page 5. But I do want to create a safe space for creationism and ID pseudoscience. Let me be your personal Google and link you to some great bastions of the internet for clean ID/Creationist Memes and communities. I look forward to great meme postings!

https://www.facebook.com/creationistmemes/ - Beautiful photographs and memes
https://www.reddit.com/r/creation - You need to be invited, because all safe spaces require a way to isolate debate
https://www.reddit.com/r/IntelligentDesign - Not much activity but maybe you can be the catalyst!

TRIGGER WARNING
My posts of dogs have been known to trigger sensitive people, so I'm putting a warning here and spacing out my post a bit. May your safe spaces stay safe!

You don't need to believe in God.

I believe that something created all that is on this earth. Wolves included. And I don't believe a "big bang" did it.

That's just me though.

J/C

I've watched this thread progress; theological topics rest close to me. I grew up in the church, went to private school from preschool till eighth grade, but then transitioned away from the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) for various reasons. At one point I felt compelled to train as a pastor for our denomination, but much chased me away. I got tired of seeing churchgoing adults act like children, find ways to put others down by judging them, and families who did the most get vaulted upon due to their "good works" where they sap up all the glory.

Gandhi once said, to paraphrase, that I like your Christ, but not your Christians. I think many get away from sharing the glory of God, and inadvertently push others away by zealous proselytizing, or flaunting some godly life style. The kicker to all of that? It's quite the opposite of what Christ preached. He wants all of us to follow his example. but not boast. Anyhow...

My faith journey took me to a road of agnosticism for quite awhile. My university education helped introduce many rich ideas, viewpoints, and culturally diverse experiences that expanded my knowledge. I soon realized the small box that my LCMS church tried to keep me in couldn't hold me any longer. Same-sex individuals deserve the same treatment as others, the poor deserve heaps and bounds of compassion, and there's truth to much of the science that always came across as "Oh, that's hogwash...don't listen to it" when I was still in school.

I'm not here to rack the coals of the science-religion debate. Too many immovable objects on both sides of that argument. However, I'm malleable; I still won't accept individuals like Ken Hamm who do far more damage than good to Christianity.

Enough happens in my life that I can't necessarily deny some higher power, but we're allowed to doubt. I'm certain there's room in Christianity for doubters like myself, but I try my best to follow what I know.

I could never commit myself to atheism for the same reason I can't commit myself to ferverent Christian fundamentalism. There's no solid proof on either edge of the spectrum. However, I'll go by what I've discovered on my own journey.

A path to the way however we're supposed to live is a personal journey. Only on our own can we find the way we're being nudged on by Whoever it is that guides us.

There's the whole "Rocket, why not just go off of biblical text!", but that's a different topic for another time. There's enough verses lost in translation that I'm not sure the finite details stay the same. Look up the translation controversies on the seven passages referencing same-sex relations; it's quite an eye opening read.

Or find the good inside yourself, accept that you are flawed and do the best you can do to be a good person. Everything else is window dressing.

Ad hominums galore. Attack a person and making vague accusations about the persons argument without actually addressing the person's argument. Well played!!!

As you can see from Gage's post, a Christian better not dare to challenge naturalistic dogmas like abiogenesis, pure naturalism, etc, or they will be villified and their arguments ignored. They will be accused of phantom fallacies, and even other Christians will view them as unnecessarily divisive.

It's called suppression of another person.

Atheists get to create thousands of memes and posts mocking Christianity, but when a christian challenges the Naturalistic pillars of atheism they are basically tarred and feathered. Accused of being anti science, when the tenets that they disagree with are not scientific at all, but are rather philosophical assumptions.

If you read my posts, you will see that I am not even trying to prove God or Christianity. Gage even called me on it, and he is right, I have not even tried to provide "proof for God". That is because THAT IS NOT MY INTENT. The Bible does not try to prove God, it begins with In the beginning GOD...God is known through revelation, and I am not able to reveal God to people, God reveals Himself to whom He will when He will.

So it begins with a gross misunderstanding about the INTENT of my posts. My posts are not intended to prove God. My posts for the most part are merely a CRITIQUE of NATURALISTIC PRESUPPOSITIONS that are uncritically accepted apriori of any real evidence. These Naturalistic presuppositions include abiogenesis, self creating universe (as espoused by Hawking), eternal matter (espoused by David Silverman in his debate with James White https://youtu.be/a4oNDSg_g-8 at 3:03:23 forward), etc.

So it is not evidences for creationism (or lack of it) in my argumemts that Gage is objecting to, it is my critiques of apriori commitments to naturalism that he is objecting to, critiques that he has not addressed. Instead of addressing the critiques, he has instead resorted to ad hominems and false accusations of phantom fallacies, for example calling a question a "loaded question" and then proceeding to misdefine the term loaded question, and other such tactics.

So my posts were misinterpreted because the INTENT of my posts was misinterpreted, causing Gage to call me dishonest because he misunderstood the end and purpose of what I was saying, and that is why I appear to be obfuscating and/or avoiding by presenting an argument and not providing supporting evidence. But since the intent of my posts was not what he thought it was, he was badly mistaken.

In the meanwhile, no one has presented an argument in support of Naturalism, and if there is no God or no supernatural, then Ontological Naturalism is what is left by default.

Atheists critique Christianity all the time, but when a Christian critiques the apriori naturalistic presuppositions that some atheists hold, they are told "the burden of proof is on you". Yet my dear friends, the burden of proof is not on me, for I am not arguing FOR Creationism, I am arguing AGAINST philosophical naturalism. So if you want to try to touch what I say, the burden of proof is on you to prove that Ontological Naturalism (ie that the Kosmos and life came to be by purely naturalistic means) is a valid part of science.

No one has EVER been able to do so, yet atheists claim "we don't need a Creator, because we know that the universe can and did create itself, and we know that life can and did come about by naturalistic means alone. I say poppycock.

I always found this fascinating. It shows simple elements end up creating some tantilizing results. Sure, we get to the "Now where did it all come from" argument...but at least science proves elements can create things.



Another interesting take on what Sagan demonstrated.

Yes, I know about the Miller Urey experiment. Two objections...

a.it does not even come close to giving evidence that abiogenesis occurred.

b. Even if it did produce life (which it didnt, not by a longshot), it would not be unguided abiogenesis (which is what it's proponents assume), but would be "guided" abiogenesis, that is abiogenesis by intelligent design *scientists in a lab controlling the envirenment.

Point b is actually moot though, because no life has been produced from non living matter in nature or in a lab. So abiogenesis has never been observed, meaning it cannot be accepted as scientifically valid. Abiogenesis is ASSUMED,as is the idea that the Kosmos came into being through purely naturalistic processes. These are ASSUMPTIONS, nothing more.

The goal of the Miller Urey experiment was not to create life, and of course it did not create life, so it is not evidence for abiogenesis. And even if abiogenesis could be accomplished in a lab, (which it has not), that still would not prove it actually occurred. Proving that someting is possible is not the same as proving it actually happened. You could say it is possible that I am a serial killer, but that is not evidence that I am a serial killer. This is one problem with many people's thinking. They assume that proof of possibility equals evidence. Far from it.

Anyways,they havent even proven that unguided abiogenesis is possible. I don't even know if they have proven that guided abiogenesis is possible. As far as I know, they havent. But maybe I am missing something. If so, I am open to correction on this point. I doubt if I will receive any, based on the history of this thread.

Therefore my point is that there is no real evidence that life came about through purely naturalistic processes. Same is true for the Kosmos itself. So if the Kosmos and life did not come into being by purely naturalistic processes, how did they come. Gage mentioned "alien seeding", not that he believes that, but he did mention it. Yet alien seeding would still be a naturalistic explanation of origins, unless the aliens existed outside of nature, which would make them supernatural

So there is really only three possible explanations for the kosmos and life existing

a. caused by pure naturalism
b. caused by a supernatural designer.
c. caused by a combination of supernatural and natural causes (ie a God that used evolution and or other means in creation.)

When you break it down further, A is an Ontological Naturalistic view, and b and c are Theistic views. So there are only two possibilities that I know of, pure naturalism and the belief in a supernatural first cause.

If anyone can give me a third possibility, I'm all ears.


If not, the debate is between supernaturalism and Ontological Naturalism. So I am applying criticism to Ontological Naturalism.

Both are BELIEF SYSTEMS, yet one(O.N)is accepted at large and the other is excluded. My question is, "what is the basis of this widespread acceptance of Ontological Naturalism?

I dont see any self reflection among Naturalists, just a apriori commitment to a philosophical structure, the very thing they accuse theists of doing.

So Naturalists point to the kosmos and life as evidence of abiogenesis and naturalism (like the book that said "we know abiogenesis occurred because life exists, circular argument.) Theists see the Kosmos and life as evidence of God. Both sides are based on PRESUPPOSITIONS. The presuppostions of Ontological Naturalists are no more valid than the presuppositions of Theists. Yet Ontological Naturalism is widely accepted among science and educators.

My question once again is this, "what is the basis of this widespread acceptance of Ontological Naturalism?

I would make my usual post here about the simple fact that there are some groups that it is still ok to publicly mock and ridicule while others are totally off limits... but when I do that I get accused of being a whiney white Christian in the majority.. so I won't.

Deleted

Stop me if you heard this before...too late...

Did you hear about the top 10 Scientists on the planet getting together and challenging God, saying, "We can also create life from nothing like you did, so we claim equal status with You!"

God said "I shall take your challenge!" "Begin!"

So the Scientist began man's creation of new life, they gathered 5 gallons of dirt, super heating and hitting it with electricity to simulate lightening. The entire container took on the look of a primordial ooze as it began to bubble and heave. Soon they saw signs of DNA beginning to form when God suddenly interrupted the entire experiment saying,
"Hold on a minute guys, get your own dirt!"

The experiment proved that elements can mix together, form amino acids, nucleotides, and other building blocks of life. You're correct there is no "life" in the experiment, but many theorize it took a vast amount of time for something to suddenly live. We don't have thousands of years to try and see what happens in these chambers.

Science isn't looking to dispel the notion of a Creator, LA. Science just looks to find evidence that could support a creation myth..

It seems most creationists miss this point. Science can explain how things happened. Creationists can also say because got made it happen that way. A definitive answer on how life formed does not have to be mutually exclusive.

Good one!

What they got in the Miller Urey experiment was to life what a pile of scrap metal is to a jet airplane, (actually that mine is not a good analogy, for the jump from gooey tar with some amino acids to life is FAR, FAR, greater than the jump from a pile of scrap metal to a jet airplane

Which makes the whole thing conjecture. So why is it when I talk to people they act like abiogenesis certainly occurred. Like the textbook that said "we know abiogenesis occurred because life exists". That's quite a leap, isnt it. Where I come from, we call that circular reasoning.

I am not trying to attack science. I am just pointing out that a lot of things are accepted by faith and called science.

1. Biogenesis is science. Abiogenesis is faith

2. Studying the Laws of Nature is science. Ontological Naturalism is faith.

3. Studying causes and effects is science. Attributing the cause of the Kosmos to purely naturalistic processes is faith

You can disagree with me if you what, but until someone gives good evidence otherwise, this is what I hold. And so far, NOONE has ever given me good reason to believe in abiogenesis, Ontological Naturalism, or pure Naturalism.

Just like atheists say they don't believe in God for lack of evidence, I don't believe in these three things for the same reason. ...and faith in God comes through REVELATION, both natural and supernatural revelation, so I don't expect to convince anyone of God, they will not know Him UNLESS He REVEALS Himself (and if they submit to His revelation)

But the whole Kosmos is proclaiming the Glory of the Lord, and many don't have the ears to hear it or the eyes to see it. It takes a supernatural miracle to make a true believer. So I can stop here, unless you or someone else wants to continue. Either way, I'm content.

Deleted

By the way, I do appreciate how you have discussed this topic in a civil manner, and have actually brought some interesting/ things to the table without using adhominems and personal attacks. Thank you for that.

j/c

This has to be the most nonsensical debate I've seen in a while.

To believe in God and that he created this world takes faith in a supreme being. Those without faith in that belief will never believe it and there's no way you can actually prove it.

Those on the other side of the debate try to use theories as fact when they are most certainly not.

It's much like a dog chasing its own tail IMO

It's more like being able to get a computer to randomly write the letter W, and saying, "See, it's just like 'War and Peace'. (The whole novel, not just the title) It proves that the author wasn't really necessary!"

Not if you know what my intent is.



Unless God reveals Himself to them.



True. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. And the revelation of God is needed to make a believer.



THIS is the point of my argument. This and nothing more. This sums up the entire premise and intent of everything that I am saying. You understand this, but others either don't understand it or ignore this fact, as evidenced by the fact that some Naturalists assume things like abiogenesis and purely naturalistic causes the Kosmos, which is Ontological Naturalism.



It is because some refuse to address the real issue that I am talking about. Talk about what you like, but some who reply to me are talking about something entirely different than what I am talking about

The only person who is offering relevant data from the other side is Rocket Optimist (at least as far as I can remember)

good analogy!

To add to this...in your analogy there is an explanation of where the computer came from, where the electricity came from, and where the alphabet came from...in naturalism, all of these elements (the one's that correspond to them, I mean), are unexplained.

Not to mention getting your computer to randomly do something may be random, but it is not the computer operating alone. There still would be a mind behind it if you got it to do something, as you said.

Too many impasses not overcome by naturalists

But they have great Faith in what they believe.

Pit, I'm gonna just ride your post, hope that's ok.



I agree with this. The cornerstone of religious freedom is allowing people to share their strongly held convictions honestly and without fear. I get riled up when someone tries to Jim Jones their way into a religious discussion, but most religious posters on here proudly share their faith, and I think people should recognize that.



Lose the salt. I've tried to shrug off your garbage comments to me in jest, but to continue to play the victim here is ludicrous.

My school science classrooms were full of funny and mocking pictures of evolution and quote mines from Darwin in an attempt to discredit evolution as LOLZ. I still laugh out loud when I think of (or see) the drawing of the fish with human legs with the caption "Evolutionists really believe this." You are telling me that mock and ridicule is okay as long as it's religious people doing it? Get a better argument.

Better yet, if you're that easily offended by satire, don't enter a forum thread titled Atheism and Nonexistence.

You claim that i'm a bigot*, which if we unpack that term, is meant to imply that I posted the picture I did because I'm prejudiced against Christians. Yet I grew up Baptist. How can I be prejudiced against Christians when that is literally what I was for ~20 years? Just because I see the folly now doesn't mean I lost my memory.

* - I know you said bigoted picture, but I can't think of an example where a non-bigot would post something bigoted. If you provide me an example I'll let you off the hook.



Until scientists can synthesize a human from nothing, God wins. Get used to it Proving that God exists is like proving there is a Teapot orbiting Jupiter. You have one side of the aisle asking for evidence, and the other side of the aisle demanding that the other side disprove the teapot exists. This is what we call an impasse.

Intelligent design charlatans cling onto debunking abiogenesis as if the entire scientific community would fall like a house of cards. Yet when asked to provide their scientific model for genesis, none is found. RocketOptimist, why do you think that is?

The scientific community has mountains of experiments, hypothesis, and evidence to support numbers behind the age of the earth, how humans arrived, and even how the universe itself works. Some of these items are counter to the stories of the Bible, which I can appreciate as being unfortunate for some. But what ID proponents don't realize is that every scientific discovery is open to debate and further refinement. Some scientific discoveries are later found to be completely false. The scientific community at one point believed in Phrenology. Scientists believed at one time that ether was the substance that transmitted light through the universe. Even the late, great, Albert Einstein believed the universe to be stationary. In a strange twist of fate, he briefly considered steady state theory (what we now consider to be the working model) but discarded it for an incompatible theory.

All ID proponents have to do is provide alternative experiments that debunk common descent of life and provide explanations that support an intelligent creator. But we never get these scientific documents. These papers don't appear to exist. Instead we get a broken record that is only capable of repeating 2 or maybe 3 trains of thought, and demand (unscientifically) that we disregard known science in favor of their psuedoscience. This is moving the goalposts. Science can not prove anything, it can only disprove. If intelligent design was actual science, we would have scientific experiments that debunk evolution and abiogenesis. But since ID cannot, it is therefore not scientific. End of story.

Fun little bit of history: Christians believed in "spontaneous generation" during the middle ages, and used Bible verses such as Genesis 1:20 to support this position.

If you're more interested in abiogenesis, there are some papers and articles to read up on:
- A research group produced all four RNA components by simulating an asteroid impact in primordial conditions link
- NASA scientists reproduced 3 components needed for RNA using space conditions link
- Chemical precursors for the synthesis of all the materials required in a primitive cell could have arisen simultanously in UV conditions link
- The philae comet lander found organic compounds on the comet, many of which are life building blocks. link



I haven't seen anyone here say they know with 100% certainty that they are right. All I've seen is both sides argue their case to brick walls. There is a rogue element within this thread that is intent on falsifying what science is, but the majority of posters here are essentially:

- Claiming why they believe in (science or religion)
- Not listening to anyone who disagrees.

This thread isn't a discussion, but rather a room full of soapboxes.

Keep on cheering! Maybe I'll finally get that ID science experiment if you put it in a cheer

It's more like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

Yep... Creationists have less blind faith than atheists alright...

Now it's my turn to expose your fallacies...except your fallacies are actual, whereas the fallacies you accused me of are imaginary.



No one is Jim Jones'ing here.



A bigot is someone who is intolerant towards those who hold different opinions. You have shown bigotry towards me by accusing me of "lying for Jesus"



STRAW MAN!!!!! No one said anything about synthesizing a human. They could start by synthesizing life.



STRAWMAN...Who asked someone to prove God doesnt exists. Not anyone here that I know of. (two strawmen so far)



Ad hominems and bigotry...



Nope, thats not true, because science did just fine before abiogenesis was invented in someone's mind, and it is doing just fine without it (seeing there is no evidence to support it)



Ever heard of Lewis Pasteur? What else do you need? That life originally sprang unguided from non living matter? Let me know when you find evidence that that actually ever happened. Until then, abiogenesis is based on faith.



What does that have to do with anything?...the Bible gives no age for the earth. You arent generalizing are you?



So you're asking us to disprove a negative (ie disprove abiogenesis and purely naturalistic cause of the Kosmos)?
The burden of proof is on you to prove abiogenesis and purely naturalistic causes for the universe. Unless you want to distance yourself from these.

You guys are the ones who departed from biogenesis and started throwing abiogenesis in there. WE know biogenesis is true. Now the burden of proof is on you to prove abiogenesis.

Also, those who deny the existence of God believe that the universe is the result of purely naturalistic causes. The burden of proof is on you, and Hawking, and Dawkins, to prove that the Kosmos created itself, or else is eternal, or whatever. You're the ones making the claims about reality and calling it science, but not giving real evidence

So basically every position is faith based. Cool.

Wait, I'm out of popcorn...

Isn't it enough to say to the atheiests....you will not believe until God makes himself known to you.

Why argue about it. You either are born again or you arent. Arguing about it is a waste of time.

Proverbs 7,8, and 9

7
Whoever corrects a mocker invites insults;
whoever rebukes the wicked incurs abuse.
8
Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you;
rebuke the wise and they will love you.
9
Instruct the wise and they will be wiser still;
teach the righteous and they will add to their learning.

a. I am not trying to shoehorn Christianity into anyone. I am just critiquing pseudoscience.

b. For me, the whole thing started when someone implied that Christianity was anti science. I then said that Christianity is not anti science, it does not oppose science, it opposes Ontological Naturalism. Then I was called a liar, and was "lying for Jesus"

c. I havent even been preaching the gospel. I've just been talking about abiogenesis and Ontological Naturalism. Go back and read my last couple dozen posts.

d. So it is not a religious discussion to begin with...I was talking about Ontological Naturalism. so if anything, I was talking about a Philosophical systen (Ontological Naturalism), not Theology

e. I was not overtly defending my Christian faith or belief in a Creator,(so obvious that Gage called me out on it) rather I was critiquing a purely naturalistic Cosmology

r. Now if I was overtly arguing a Christian Cosmology (which I do hold to), one could accuse me of arguing my faith. But for the most part, I was not doing this. Rather, I was challenging Ontological Naturalism.

g. In conclusion, I have accidentally conducted an experiment and verified something. Anti-Christian bias is so strong that any view that disagrees with Ontological Naturalism is excluded from consideration

h. since Ontological Naturalism is not science but is rather a philosophical viewpoint, letter g indicates something called "apriori bias"

Attacking character and falsely judging intent/motive in one sentence. ad hominem and appeal to motive fallacies. Nice job!!!!!

Memo for Gage in the link below\

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/df/dfc25e0e72d86f9de5153da5d65a5b2f39ef34d94d2a44cfee4d2af50fcf9927.jpg

Your whole statent is false for the reasons stated below.

Ontological Naturalism is what has been challenged, and Ontological Naturalism is not science, it is a philosophical viewpoint. Google it and see for yourself (since it does not appear that you know the difference between science and Ontological Naturalism, nor do you understand the difference between a theological debate (which this is not) and a philosophical discussion (which it is)

Why do you insist on throwing around ad hominems and false accusations. The only one who is being dishonest (what you accused me of) is you. This quote of yours is positive evidence of your dishonesty

It has been clear FROM THE BEGINNING that your rogue element has been critiquing Ontological Naturalism, which is NEITHER science nor Theology. You've been shooting blanks in the dark

Best wishes.

Does this include discussing science (or rather what may be falsely called science)?