Current science; fraudulent thinking (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, May 14, 2015, 14:27 (3480 days ago) @ dhw


> 
> dhw: I read and agreed with everything else in your post. However, I did not log onto the website itself (I am struggling currently to find time),-I try to present the pithiest to save time, and so miss some necessary parts.- -> 
> dhw: I'm not at all convinced that “good science” reveals that Nature as he defines it had a beginning, but otherwise I agree completely with this. However, his own response to the fallacy as quoted in the paragraph at the head of this post is laughable. He has substituted one circular fallacy for another! If you assume the origin of nature is “natural”, it can't be supernatural (yah boo), and to avoid that mistake, you must assume that the origin of nature is not natural, and therefore it is supernatural, and therefore God exists (hurray).
> 
> Everything else, though, is fine with me, and provides a sound argument for agnosticism.-Except the universe had a beginning. It had to start from something and its energy had to derive from antecedent energy. It follows laws of physics and its evolution to its current state looks planned. The odds against natural occurrence are miniscule. Odds for agnosticism small.