My ignorance is showing.

[_The Dude]

Dart/Kevin knows how to keep an argument going at all costs. To do this in the current thread, he misses my simple points and instead goes on and on and on with overwrought tangents that are so full of nonsense mindreading and poor reasoning that I cannot possibly answer it all and I loose the will to continue repeating the original, simple point, which he apparently cannot grasp because he would rather argue, argue, argue. It is fatiguing and pointless.

[_dartagnan]

Dude, what makes you think I didn't understand your point?

Of course I did. You said:

the key arguments Patrick Glynn presents can be easily turned against intelligent design. Maybe I missed your point, but here's an example of what I see going wrong.

Your right, you did miss the point.

The point is that scientists are the ones who are bound by the flawed and limited philosophy of the scientific method. They, not the theists, are the ones who are obligated to accept only those things that can be argued from science. Theism is not an argument from science and it has never pretended to be. The point is that scientists, in order to really go out of their way to keep countering evidence for God, have to step out of their own paradigm and rely on faith-based arguments of their own imaginations. When they do, they reveal that they are essentially engaging in apologetics for atheism. Not all religions are theistic. They have a religion of their own going on.

All of this is pretty ironic since these same scientists ridicule theists for accepting things that cannot be verified through the scientific method. And here they are, doing precisely that. Why? Well, anything is better than God, even arguments that mirror the same logic used by theists.

In other words, the atheist is the one with the double-standard. This might bug the hell out of you, but don't take it out on me. If you think I am arguing just for the sake of arguing, instead of accepting that I'm really not convinced science has disproved God, well that's your prerogative.

Also, much in my post to you was directed at other comments made in this discussion.

[_The Dude]

The point is that scientists are the ones who are bound by the flawed and limited philosophy of the scientific method. They, not the theists, are the ones who are obligated to accept on those things that can be argued from science.

So you say! "scientists are the ones who are bound" and "scientists are the ones who are obligated" ... this stuff is totally your perspective. What if all scientists who write popular cosmology books don't see themselves as so bound?

As well, what do you say to a neo-scientist who appropriates the freedom of arguing outside the limits of the scientific method, when it comes to that, but who thinks that multiple universes are totally cool even if the scientific method can't prove anything about it. Ya' know, it's just a cool idea like intelligent-designer/God. "We're just living in a computer simulation" is also kind of cool. It works outside the limits of science. It's neo-science. Not religion, but science fiction. What do you say to these sort of people who don't fit the limitations of your frame for "scientist" people?

Theism is not an argument from science and it has never pretended to be.

Same for neo-science, which believes or merely hypothesizes in multiple universes and other fringe stuff. Comsology is kind of an ironic field of science, and that's what you are going after. Not organic chemistry, or even evolutionary biology. Are you mocking cosmology because it seems outside some proper limits of "scientist" people?

The point is that scinetists, in order to really go out of their way to keep countering evidence for God, have to step out of their own paradigm and rely on faith-based arguments of their own imaginations. When they do, they reveal that they are essentially engaging in apologetics for atheism. Not all religions are theistic.

But neo-scientists who believe in multiple universes are not engaging in apologetics for atheism. They are just advancing a hypothesis. Is that okay, even if it has yet no "scientific" basis? You have to start somewhere, just like ID.

All of this is pretty ironic,

Absolutely.

since these same scientists ridicule theists for accepting things that cannot be verified through the scientific method.

Actually I think it is ironic for different reasons.

And here they are, doing precisely that. Why? Well, anything is better than God, even arguments that mirror the same logic used by theists.

???? Mirroring theists is a problem for you?

In other words, the atheist is the one with the double-standard. This might bug the hell out of you,

I don't agree so it doesn't bother me in any intellectual sense.

but don't take it out on me. If you think I am arguing just for the sake of arguing, instead of accepting that I'm really not convinced science has disproved God, well that's your prerogative.

I just see you quoting book chapters and taking three paragraphs to resond to one line of mine. That's what I see, but I have no idea what you are really thinking.

Note to Gadianton: Dart/Kevin is chaotic neutral (and probably Ray as well) but not so much Daniel Peterson in my opinion. I've always had trouble with that idea of yours.

Also, much in my post to you was directed at other comments made in this discussion.

Of course....