Choosing a faith

Gatrointestinal distress

God damned farts!

Like anything in the past.
We may not be able to find evidence, or perhaps we can.Maybe there's a note detailing exactly what he was feeling and why he committed suicide.
Maybe he was very close with his wife and therapist and was denied assisted-suicide from the government and it's clear he decided to take matters into his own hands anyway.There can be lots of evidence on why he committed suicide.
Or none.None of this points in the direction of a God in any way.Just like finding a gucci bag in the middle of the jungle.
There might be lots of evidence why it's there - like flight overhead reporting a malfunction and lost luggage. Or, perhaps there is no evidence.Regardless - a gucci bag in the middle of the jungle does not support God existing.
Regardless - a man committing suicide does not support God existing. "I simply see that the most likely cause for the fact that gravity exists is tiny angels push things together. Of course I don't have any hard evidence but I do contend that it is the most likely answer."And reality disagrees with you.We have massive amounts of evidence showing us that objects with mass attract each other - simply because that's how things-with-mass work. No support for any God included.We have massive amounts of evidence showing us that we can rise above selfishness due to natural processes and evolution. No support for any God included.You can "see" or "contend" or "desire" or "want" or believe" or "need" the answer to be something else as much as you'd like.
It doesn't make the evidence go away.
It doesn't change reality.You're paddling upstream... not only are you missing your paddle, you don't even have a boat!Your ignorance of the knowledge we have on the situation doesn't lend credence to your position. It just shows that you're going to believe whatever it is you want to believe instead of following the truth we've learned about reality. Which, really, puts you in a majority position. But, again, that doesn't change reality either.

I don't assume such a thing.
Beyond that - I think that anyone who assumes such a thing doesn't know how Science works and what it's good at.However, Science certainly is our currently best known method for finding answers about reality.
If anyone uses any other method for identifying answers about reality - they really need to answer "why would you do that?" Especially those who use other methods that are specifically known to be very bad at identifying answers about reality.What should be noted is that "currently-best-known-method" is not the same as "the best there is or ever can be."
Really... this shouldn't have to be noted, as that's how english works... but, well, it seems like it needs to be noted as per your quote above.In fact, I still think Science is a rather poor method for knowing things. There isn't even a way to know you're right!
But... getting "closer and closer" to what's right is what Science does... and it's been doing that really well for hundreds of years... and blowing away all the other methods that have been used for thousands of years.It's results are impressive - in a comparative sense.
However, in an "overall" sense - it's results are still lacking.I don't think any serious "searcher of truth" thinks assumes that "examining the material will always ultimately provide an answer to the problem."
I think that people see the results of science and assume "If I want to know something about reality - I should probably use our best-known-method-for-identifying-reality." Do you have this same problem with God?
Do you have this same problem with dirt on the bottom of your shoe?
Do you have this same problem with rain?
Do you have this same problem with the birds of spring?
Do you have this same problem with streams?
Do you have this same problem with rocks by the side of the road?My point is that if there is anything else at all that you don't have this same problem with - it's more a matter of personal consistency within GDR than it is a problem with evolution.If you do happen to have this same problem with everything including God Himself - then what makes you think it's actually a problem and not just something wrong with the way you think about things?

Your comment amounts to a tautology: Science is methodological naturalism, and
according to you - an atheist - "reality" is methodological naturalism.So what's you're saying is, "Methodological naturalism certainly is our currently best known method for finding answers about methodological naturalism."

Gawd you are just sooo classless. Is there ANYTHING you can't screw up?Science is not an ontology, it is an epistemology.

But ontology is science - it's the study of rebellious teeth, usually conducted by dentists. ... which is the study of the numerous New Testament epistles.So what's ya point?

It doesn't seem like you know what you're talking about.That's not what those words mean. And nobody thinks that.

Please explain.

One is the study of the nature of what you may/do find, the other is the study of the ways of finding.

We have numerous influences in our lives, some more subtle than others. Say that we observe someone dropping a wad money on the sidewalk. Do we run after him to return it or do we just happily jam it into our pocket.
There are no doubt numerous influences and experiences that pull is in one direction or the other. I am simply saying that the still small voice of God is one that would prompt us to run after they guy and return the money.

I'm not saying that it points to God. I'm saying that we can only surmise what causes people to do what they do. I do contend that the most likely probability for us being able to rise above evolutionary forces is an external non-material influence. I don't know that I'm correct and know that I can't point to any material evidence that I am correct, but I strongly believe it to be true. Philosophical; evidence, unlike scientific evidence can't conclusive b ut we can learn from the philosophers just the same. Sure our perceived reality exists and can often be verified but we can only surmise the answer to the question of why reality exists the way it does.

quote:

---

I'm not saying that it points to God. I'm saying that we can only surmise what causes people to do what they do. I do contend that the most likely probability for us being able to rise above evolutionary forces is an external non-material influence

---

But you haven’t shown any “rising” above “evolutionary forces”. All you’ve shown is that you misrepresent evolution and refuse to accept that you might be wrong. Clinging to - at best - wilful ignorance is not consistent with searching for the truth.Obviously the truth is far less important to you than your belief.

How do you determine what "reality" is?

If the latter (reality) is determined by the former (science), they're the same thing and you have a tautology.