I contend that Carneades keel hauls theism to an extent, and that David Hume furthers that, and we naturalists are just expostulating. We ever find that supernaturalists put old garbage into new trash bins. There arguments are no more effective than ones for perpetual motion machines, but still keep on coming and-failing such that here we naturalists can indeed claim that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, as Victor Stenger notes that where mountains of evidence should arise yet fail to do so,and in accordance with Charles Moore's auto-epistemic rule. This fails to be dogmatic as it rests on facts. What,viewers, do you contend here?
I contend that Carneades keel hauls theism to an extent, and that David Hume furthers that, and we naturalists are just expostulating. We ever find that supernaturalists put old garbage into new trash bins. There arguments are no more effective than ones for perpetual motion machines, but still keep on coming and-failing such that here we naturalists can indeed claim that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, as Victor Stenger notes that where mountains of evidence should arise yet fail to do so,and in accordance with Charles Moore's auto-epistemic rule.
ReplyDeleteThis fails to be dogmatic as it rests on facts.
What,viewers, do you contend here?