What I thought. No answer. You're "pretending to know what you don't know" and can't apply the same standards to your view that you ask me to use to support mine.
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Kansas City Skeptic <[address removed]>
Your gnosticized new agey self made home brewed version of Xinaity reminds me of arguments like this.
When you click on this comic click "Zoom in"
So Iggy, how do you know that a "creator/cosmology designer" would do all this designing and then take no interest in the results? And what kind of "variables" have you tested with "controls" to tell you that the Judeo-Christian god, in particular, is false?
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Kansas City Skeptic <[address removed]>
Fred wrote>>>>>>>> So most of what you say is arguing with a straw man version of Christianity, not mine.
Fred, you need to stop pretending to know what you don't know. Or rather pretending to know that it's OK to create your own version of Christianity in light of complete and utter probabilistic world and uncertainties that reign the world.
At best, your "creator/cosmology designer" exists but what is the probability of him/her/it being a Judeo Christian god? You don't have a variable to test and have any controls.
Hence, you are arguing for why circles are not squares or rather in your case that cycles are ellipses with two foci in the same location - god and scientific understanding of the universe.