plaetton:

What am supposed to say that I dont know?
That since humans are imperfect in construction, only a perfect creator could have done so?, and therefore a perfect creator must exist.
what a twisted logic.

That is not the pith of the posers. What is happening to you this fine sunday?

The pith of the poser is the contradiction inherent in your question. How can you refer to any imperfection if you do not have a reference point for what is perfect. How can you then say something is [b]IM[/b]perfect? This is like saying that something is going downwards and then insisting that there is nothing like upwards. A logical impossibility. You are the ones contradicting yourselves.

Infact, embedded in your question is the recognition of Aquinas' 4th argument for the existence of God from the necessity of the existence of perfection -

The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) which approaches nearer the greatest heat. There exists therefore something that is the truest, and best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest being. For what are the greatest truths are the greatest beings, as is said in the Metaphysics Bk. II. 2. What moreover is the greatest in its way, in another way is the cause of all things of its own kind (or genus); thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever---and this we call God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae

I really cant figure out why anyone would go to all this lenght to prove the unprovable when simple evolution, with its trial and error mechanism is the simpliest explanation for disease and biological flaws.
This is something that your chief cheer leader, Deepsight, easily agrees. This is not something that should be debated in this era of human development.

Please do not misrepresent me. I believe in evolution but I have said repeatedly that by itself, it is insufficient, based on natural selection alone, to account for species today.

^^^

Thanks Deepsight, maybe he'll understand it when it comes from your mouth

Deep Sight:

As bad as religious fairy tales can be, atheistic delusions are far worse and really do sc.rew logic in its backside without con.doms.

I guess saying that one does not believe in a mentally conjured deity qualifies as a delusion?
Saying that the universe may not have needed a fashioner(whom, by the way did not need a fashioner himself) is a delusion?.

Which is more of a delusion, that the universe evolved by itself by some unknown means,
or saying that the universe was created by a non-observable, non-detectable god(another word for nothing) who just conveniently happens to be self-existent and uncreated?

Deep Sight:

As bad as religious fairy tales can be, atheistic delusions are far worse and really do sc.rew logic in its backside without con.doms.

do you know that those religionists fairy-tale mongers you are sucking up to, that they see your deistic views as a hell-inspired, deluded, satan-deceived notions too?

@ Plaetton, Before adressing the above, let me just give you the summary in the link of the 4th Argument

The argument from degree or gradation (ex gradu).

It is heavily based upon the teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle. It goes thus :

1. Varying perfections of varying degrees may be found throughout the universe.

2. These degrees assume the existence of an ultimate standard of perfection.

3. Therefore, perfection must have a pinnacle.

4. This pinnacle is whom we call God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae

I will be stupefied if you fail to see Mr. Anony's point in this summary. Premise 3 above is exactly what nails you. If premise 3 is false, you cannot refer to ANYTHING as imperfect. Including disease.

Deep Sight:

That is not the pith of the posers. What is happening to you this fine sunday?

The pith of the poser is the contradiction inherent in your question. How can you refer to any imperfection if you do not have a reference point for what is perfect. How can you then say something is [b]IM[/b]perfect? This is like saying that something is going downwards and then insisting that there is nothing like upwards. A logical impossibility. You are the ones contradicting yourselves.

Infact, embedded in your question is the recognition of Aquinas' 4th argument for the existence of God from the necessity of the existence of perfection -

The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) which approaches nearer the greatest heat. There exists therefore something that is the truest, and best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest being. For what are the greatest truths are the greatest beings, as is said in the Metaphysics Bk. II. 2. What moreover is the greatest in its way, in another way is the cause of all things of its own kind (or genus); thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever---and this we call God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae



Please do not misrepresent me. I believe in evolution but I have said repeatedly that by itself, it is insufficient, based on natural selection alone, to account for species today.

Good health is the opposite of disease, don't you know that. Good health is a perfect reference point for disease. not so?

Why do we have DNA errors and genetic diseases if we were designed by a perfect being? why does the body break down when it should not have? that is a valid question.
Why do we have sickle cell anaemia? Is that part of god's perfection that we are yet to understand?
We know that sickle cell anaemia is an imperfection because it causes suffering and death to those who have it. We observe that, dont we?


I dont know what is wrong with you lately, Deepsight. You acknowledge evolution but you also argue for intelligent design.

Please enough of this nonsense about inherent contradictions in my original questions. The question is very simple. One who does not know should just say so and stop this fishing expedition

plaetton:

I guess saying that one does not believe in a mentally conjured deity qualifies as a delusion?
Saying that the universe may not have needed a fashioner(whom, by the way did not need a fashioner himself) is a delusion?.

If the universe did not need a fashioner, then it is self-existent.

That already shows you that one way or the other, something must be self-existent.

You therefore cannot scoff at the concept of self-existence: it is absolutely necessary, since things exist. I.e: Ex nihilo nihil fit.

You either believe in a self existent universe or a self-existent pre-universal cause - [God].

I have told you several times why I cannot accept the material universe as self-existent, i will not repeat it here.

Accordingly, a self-existent pre-universal cause is logical.

or saying that the universe was created by a non-observable, non-detectable god(another word for nothing) who just conveniently happens to be self-existent and uncreated?

O, by the way, the mere fact that a thing is unobserved or undetected does not mean that it does not exist. If we are to follow your logic, atoms only began to exist when they were discovered and observed by man. Obviously false.

plaetton:

I guess saying that one does not believe in a mentally conjured deity qualifies as a delusion?
Saying that the universe may not have needed a fashioner(whom, by the way did not need a fashioner himself) is a delusion?.

Which is more of a delusion, that the universe evolved by itself by some unknown means,
or saying that the universe was created by a non-observable, non-detectable god(another word for nothing) who just conveniently happens to be self-existent and uncreated?

yes, their god is explicably self-existent and their universe is explicably NOT self-existent by the same logic of cause of effect.

and they see other's views as delusional.

i think someone needs to define delusional

plaetton:

Good health is the opposite of disease, don't you know that. Good health is a perfect reference point for disease. not so?

Why do you call good health good health? How do you know that what we call good health is not some reduced state of health which causes us to die off within 70 - 80 years as the tenure of the illness?

You see, you cannot win this one.

You must accept the existence of perfection before you can make these allusions to imperfection.

Why do we have DNA errors and genetic diseases if we were designed by a perfect being? why does the body break down when it should not have? that is a valid question.
Why do we have sickle cell anaemia? Is that part of god's perfection that we are yet to understand?
We know that sickle cell anaemia is an imperfection because it causes suffering and death to those who have it. We observe that, dont we?

I already told you that in perfect balance there is position and negative and as such generation and degeneration. That is my final answer.

I dont know what is wrong with you lately, Deepsight. You acknowledge evolution but you also argue for intelligent design.

You see, the problem is that people think in black and white. Evolution and Intelligent Design are not mutually exclusive precepts, but shallow minded theological and biological debaters have rendered it so.

Deep Sight: @ Plaetton, Before adressing the above, let me just give you the summary in the link of the 4th Argument

The argument from degree or gradation (ex gradu).

It is heavily based upon the teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle. It goes thus :

1. Varying perfections of varying degrees may be found throughout the universe.

2. These degrees assume the existence of an ultimate standard of perfection.

3. Therefore, perfection must have a pinnacle.

4. This pinnacle is whom we call God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae

I will be stupefied if you fail to see Mr. Anony's point in this summary. Premise 3 above is exactly what nails you. If premise 3 is false, you cannot refer to ANYTHING as imperfect. Including disease.

These are great ideas, abstract Notions.But that is all they are. They are not facts and should never be conflated with known or observable facts.
The mistake you make is that you tend to transpose your loft subjective notions on the screen of reality. it may be good for you inside of you, but they may be, and most likely to be, rubbish as far as our new scientific oriented reality is concerned.

cyrexx:

yes, their god is explicably self-existent and their universe is explicably NOT self-existent by the same logic of cause of effect.

and they see other's views as delusional.

i think someone needs to define delusional

If you accept a self-existent universe, then the concept of self-existence by itself is acceptable to you.

The reason that the material universe cannot be self existent is that self existence connote immutability and intangibility.

I don't expect you to even begin to understand this though. In fact I don't expect you to even attempt to understand it. I know you will not.

plaetton:

These are great ideas, abstract Notions.But that is all they are. They are not facts and should never be conflated with known or observable facts.
The mistake you make is that you tend to transpose your loft subjective notions on the screen of reality. it may be good for you inside of you, but they may be, and most likely to be, rubbish as far as our new scientific oriented reality is concerned.

It is simple logic, my friend. Refute it first, before arriving at calculations of how likely it is to be rubbish.

I think you are still laboring under the notion that science should be somehow at war with the notion of God, and will in time refute any logical premise that proves the existence of God. It is this type of attitude that moves people like Jayriginal to doubt simple cause and effect, and moves people like Idehn to say that time and space do not exist at all, and moves people like Dawkins to say that it is theoretically possible for an eye to spring into existence in a single lucky step.

It is a terrible burden to labor under: as I said before, it leads one to become FAR more illogical than the religionists.

Deep Sight:

Why do you call good health good health? How do you know that what we call good health is not some reduced state of health which causes us to die off within 70 - 80 years as the tenure of the illness?

You see, you cannot win this one.

You must accept the existence of perfection before you can make these allusions to imperfection.



I already told you that in perfect balance there is position and negative and as such generation and degeneration. That is my final answer.



You see, the problem is that people think in black and white. Evolution and Intelligent Design are not mutually exclusive precepts, but shallow minded theological and biological debaters have rendered it so.

So like I said previously, so you believe in evolution but with guidance of god?
If that is your belief, that is fine, as long as you acknowledge evolution, you are to bring your god into it. What can I say?
Now, does Mr Anony share the same?
Because if he does, then I dont see what the big fuss is all about.

cyrexx:

do you know that those religionists fairy-tale mongers you are sucking up to, that they see your deistic views as a hell-inspired, deluded, satan-deceived notions too?

O, believe me, I have had my fair share of battles with the religious on this forum. I don't know how old you are on this forum, but if you were active here from 2009, you will see how vilified, abused, demonized and even satanized I have been on account of my anti-religious views. In fact I can honestly tell you that there are religious posters on this forum who possess a living, breathing hatred for me without even knowing who I am in real life.

Deep Sight:

If you accept a self-existent universe, then the concept of self-existence by itself is acceptable to you.

The reason that the material universe cannot be self existent is that self existence connote immutability and intangibility.

I don't expect you to even begin to understand this though. In fact I don't expect you to even attempt to understand it. I know you will not.

Likewise, If you accept E=MC2, then you agree that matter and energy are interchangable, If you do accept this fact,

Then,
self-existent, intangible, immutable ENERGY = self-existent, tangible/intagible(depending on your perspective), mutable/immutable (again depending on your vantage point) UNIVERSE.

plaetton:
So like I said previously, so you believe in evolution but with guidance of god?

Yes.

And with the entry of non-material essence into physical bodies, which is what gives them life and consciousness.

Deep Sight:
I don't expect you to even begin to understand this though. In fact I don't expect you to even attempt to understand it. I know you will not.

GBAM!

the eminent sage has pronounced judgement and declared that his transcedental incomprehensible wisdom can only be understood by himself and the few privileged people in his circle.

i bow to your superior wisdom and expertise, wise one.

at this juncture, i take a break and watch from the sidelines while the Deep-seeing wise one declares what nobody but him understands best.

gracias munchos

plaetton:

Likewise, If you accept E=MC2, then you agree that matter and energy are interchangable, If you do accept this fact,

Then,
self-existent, intangible, immutable ENERGY = self-existent, tangible/intagible(depending on your perspective), mutable/immutable (again depending on your vantage point) UNIVERSE.

The bold is God, and it manifests its radiations in creation.

Deep Sight:

It is simple logic, my friend. Refute it first, before arriving at calculations of how likely it is to be rubbish.

I think you are still laboring under the notion that science should be somehow at war with the notion of God, and will in time refute any logical premise that proves the existence of God. It is this type of attitude that moves people like Jayriginal to doubt simple cause and effect, and moves people like Idehn to say that time and space do not exist at all, and moves people like Dawkins to say that it is theoretically possible for an eye to spring into existence in a single lucky step.

It is a terrible burden to labor under: as I said before, it leads one to become FAR more illogical than the religionists.

A probe is scheduled to land Mars today. It is not going to achieve that great feat by the use of philosophical and logical gymnastics,No, but by precise mathematical calculations based on the scientific facts that are already known.

Science remains the better and most reliable arbiter of our reality, far far ahead of philosophy and religious revelation/scripture.

cyrexx:

GBAM!

the eminent sage has pronounced judgement and declared that his transcedental incomprehensible wisdom can only be understood by himself and the few privileged people in his circle.

i bow to your superior wisdom and expertise, wise one.

at this juncture, i take a break and watch from the sidelines while the Deep-seeing wise one declares what nobody but him understands best.

gracias munchos

Sorry i didn't mean to come across like that: it just seems frustrating to me that discussants hardly make genuine attempts to study, research, contemplate, even meditate on, and grasp these things. I know I have spent the better part of my life doing so, and thus i cannot imagine how we can spend months without even being able to communicate and see these things. It makes me feel as though many atheists are only scuh because it is a sophisticated fad, or simply for the sake of argument.

One of the greatest posters ever seen on this forum, justcool, once remarked that unlike me, he has no energy or inclinationm to debate the existence of God repeatedly because, in his words, he does not want to be drawn into calling someone mad.

Some of the notions brick-batted around here frankly tend towards that.

Apologies though.

plaetton:

A probe is scheduled to land Mars today. It is not going to achieve that great feat by the use of philosophical and logical gymnastics,No, but by precise mathematical calculations based on the scientific facts that are already known.

Science remains the better and most reliable arbiter of our reality, far far ahead of philosophy and religious revelation/scripture.

I have said nothing of revelation or scripture, have I?

In truth, science derives from logic, and logic is philosophy.

In fact, there is a great deal of mathematics in philosophy.

All things are reason and logic, all things flow as such.

There ought to be no "science vs philosophy" mentality.

Deep Sight:

The bold is God, and it manifests its radiations in creation.

Ok. so the left side of the equation is god, how about the right side of the equation?

Pls dont forget that there is an = (EQUAL) sign that connects both sides of the equation.

Therefore, left side = rigt side,
conversely, all properties or attributes of the left side = all properties and attributes of the right side(even if not manifest but in potential)

Do You Agree?

It takes superhuman patience to deal with you atheists/all-other-fun-names-y'all-call-yourselves, make I talk true. They are amazing at their ability to misunderstand and wrongly address arguments. They reject the basis of arguments and then demand that others argue based on the rejected foundations. Should the others do so, they immediately reject the arguments because they do not accept the basis. It's incredible. And while it makes me guffaw, I still find it very very frustrating. Because you cannot do other than run round and round and then some with them. It's dizzying. Here's an example:

Martian:

You assume that it was created, hence your question about "perfect creation". I don't subscrive to your idea of a designer, so this question is meaningless.

Human knowledge is limited and people with expertise in various fields try to increase the that knowledge through various means. This link is an eample about how little we still know about our universe. Human knowledge limited but it has been increasing as we all progress.

Both quotes are part of the same "smooth" running comment.

Now, what is the reconciliation between "I don't subscribe to your idea of a designer" and "human knowledge is limited"? I'm really curious. The latter statement implies a comparison which prompts the question (which is logical, by the way), "compared to what or whose knowledge"? The creationist provides an answer to the logical question. The answer is plausible and explains adequately the conundrum and, for incredibly emotional reasons, the atheist throws out the explanation, but won't offer a better or more adequate. In this case, his "better" explanation appears to be "the human knowledge is limited in comparison to what is yet to be known". This answer would have made sense if one did not pay attention to an assumption it makes: that, we, somehow know that there is more to be known than we currently do. And that prompts the question, "how do we know this?" How does evolution, which appears to be the atheist-in-question's explanation for life and existence, answer how we know anything? How does it give us standards for comparisons? Raise these questions and you're told they're meaningless. Tell them that God must, by definition, not have an origin, for example, so that any question directed at that is meaningless and they throw it out as illogical.

That's just an instance. The atheist says there is no evidence of God and the Creationist offers a plethora of proofs only to have the atheist throw everything out as conjecture. Then the same atheist offers his own completely indefensible conjectures and insults the creationist for refusing them since they are flawed.

What are the foundations of the atheist's position? The following, I think:

- no evidence for God

- the history of repression and violence credited to organised religions

- nothing else as far as I can see.

Are these positions logically tenable? Not quite. Emotionally nko? Yes, a million times yes.

- Is there evidence for God? To this, I ask what would be accepted as evidence and what wouldn't? Should evidence of a thing adhere to its own nature or to the inquirer's idiosyncracies of that thing? Isn't the former the more logical? If it is, then evidence of God has to agree with His Nature as He purportedly reveals, should it not?

- Should the history of organized religions be a determinant factor of the proof of God's existence? I answer that with, "is hearsay always correct? Is misrepresentation an impossibility?" To throw out the existence of God because some human beings did or do such-and-such in His Name is not a logical approach at all. It's a very emotional one. Obviously because it makes no sense to hang a dog because someone called him a bad name (very common English idiom, I might add).

My point is that while we Christians (more than any other apologists of creation or deists) are frequently accused of being illogical, our very accusers are the murderers of logic. I have never spoken with an atheist on this forum who could follow a thought to its rational end and decide that that end was irrational. All the atheists I know weave completely confused arguments that have to be untangled just to be understood, to say nothing of addressing them. It's soooooooooo disappointing!!!

I've come finally to thinking that before starting any debate or investigation with an atheist, it's best to have them define the rules of logic they intend to employ so that you can keep them logical. Meeeeeehn!!!!!!

Sorry about derailing the thread o, if I did (think I did though)......

If god , existing in his own realm,is beyond detection in our reality, beyond observation in our reality, then god does not exist in our reality, but only in the minds of those that wish to create him.
That is just the simple fact. it is impossible to turn something that is completely a subjective and abstract notion into a reality that you share with others.
It is complete folly,
It is dishonest,
And that is why is the favourite tool for fraud and subjugation.

The pre-eminence of any system of knowledge can be measured by the quality of its output.

Look at boko-haram.
Great output from the religion/god stable, huh?
Hurrah for the belief in god.

@Ihedinobi

I'm sure just jumped in on this thread after cherry-picking your friend anony's post and deliberately ignoring many many insightful posts like this one:

You reach your conclusions first, and then you delve into all sorts of convoluted logic to try make the facts to fit your conclusions - plaetton

you religionists have reached your conclusions about your imaginary easily disprovable god and you try force all your logical reasonings to attain that conclusion. talk about murdering logic.

go through the earlier posts again, especially from plaetton, drop your pre-concluded conclusions and clearly state where logic is being murdered.

Even the notion of god is an evolving one that has gone through many stages over the many millenia and over many cultures.

The way Deepsight thinks about god is way different from the Joe Agboaje or frosbel thinks about god, and these are enlightened people.

Is Deepsights infinite oneness more real than frosbel's wrathful avenger god,or than Pastor Omo's cash-crabbing money doubler god, or dr. Sig Fireman's Gamer god?

Imagine all these people trying to prove the reality of their individual(mental constructs)gods.

cyrexx: @Ihedinobi

I'm sure just jumped in on this thread after cherry-picking your friend anony's post and deliberately ignoring many many insightful posts like this one:

You reach your conclusions first, and then you delve into all sorts of convoluted logic to try make the facts to fit your conclusions - plaetton

you religionists have reached your conclusions about your imaginary easily disprovable god and you try force all your logical reasonings to attain that conclusion. talk about murdering logic.

go through the earlier posts again, especially from plaetton, drop your pre-concluded conclusions and clearly state where logic is being murdered.

lol @ the bolded. Could say the same to you guys

Ihedinobi: It takes superhuman patience to deal with you atheists/all-other-fun-names-y'all-call-yourselves, make I talk true. They are amazing at their ability to misunderstand and wrongly address arguments. They reject the basis of arguments and then demand that others argue based on the rejected foundations. Should the others do so, they immediately reject the arguments because they do not accept the basis. It's incredible. And while it makes me guffaw, I still find it very very frustrating. Because you cannot do other than run round and round and then some with them. It's dizzying. Here's an example:







Both quotes are part of the same "smooth" running comment.

Now, what is the reconciliation between "I don't subscribe to your idea of a designer" and "human knowledge is limited"? I'm really curious. The latter statement implies a comparison which prompts the question (which is logical, by the way), "compared to what or whose knowledge"? The creationist provides an answer to the logical question. The answer is plausible and explains adequately the conundrum and, for incredibly emotional reasons, the atheist throws out the explanation, but won't offer a better or more adequate. In this case, his "better" explanation appears to be "the human knowledge is limited in comparison to what is yet to be known". This answer would have made sense if one did not pay attention to an assumption it makes: that, we, somehow know that there is more to be known than we currently do. And that prompts the question, "how do we know this?" How does evolution, which appears to be the atheist-in-question's explanation for life and existence, answer how we know anything? How does it give us standards for comparisons? Raise these questions and you're told they're meaningless. Tell them that God must, by definition, not have an origin, for example, so that any question directed at that is meaningless and they throw it out as illogical.

That's just an instance. The atheist says there is no evidence of God and the Creationist offers a plethora of proofs only to have the atheist throw everything out as conjecture. Then the same atheist offers his own completely indefensible conjectures and insults the creationist for refusing them since they are flawed.

What are the foundations of the atheist's position? The following, I think:

- no evidence for God

- the history of repression and violence credited to organised religions

- nothing else as far as I can see.

Are these positions logically tenable? Not quite. Emotionally nko? Yes, a million times yes.

- Is there evidence for God? To this, I ask what would be accepted as evidence and what wouldn't? Should evidence of a thing adhere to its own nature or to the inquirer's idiosyncracies of that thing? Isn't the former the more logical? If it is, then evidence of God has to agree with His Nature as He purportedly reveals, should it not?

- Should the history of organized religions be a determinant factor of the proof of God's existence? I answer that with, "is hearsay always correct? Is misrepresentation an impossibility?" To throw out the existence of God because some human beings did or do such-and-such in His Name is not a logical approach at all. It's a very emotional one. Obviously because it makes no sense to hang a dog because someone called him a bad name (very common English idiom, I might add).

My point is that while we Christians (more than any other apologists of creation or deists) are frequently accused of being illogical, our very accusers are the murderers of logic. I have never spoken with an atheist on this forum who could follow a thought to its rational end and decide that that end was irrational. All the atheists I know weave completely confused arguments that have to be untangled just to be understood, to say nothing of addressing them. It's soooooooooo disappointing!!!

I've come finally to thinking that before starting any debate or investigation with an atheist, it's best to have them define the rules of logic they intend to employ so that you can keep them logical. Meeeeeehn!!!!!!

Shut the hell up

You and Mr Anony aka mr Annoy piss me off, goddammit!!


You guys are the most dubious artful dodgers known to Nairaland. You dont believe me? Notice how this thread got derailed from diseases which creationism can never explain without magic. There is no commonsense reason for diseases in creationism. However, yu guys shifted the debate to atheism.



Your above quote is nonsense. I dont believe in God because there is no evidence for God. No material evidence at all. None.

Secondly, every definition of God fails

-God is omnipotent? Omnipotence is a paradox- Can God create a rock that he can not move? Any answer, yes or no proves that he is not omnipotent.

-God is all knowing? Wow, so he knows the future? Then where is our freewill? Also why did he not realise that flooding the whole world (which didnt happen) would not change an iota of the evil than man does and can do?


-God is the creator? So your God is so retarded that instead of clicking everything into existence in a second, he had to create the big bang and wait millions of years for the earth to be formed and another set of million years for humans to be created.

Ihedinobi:

lol @ the bolded. Could say the same to you guys

LOL, you are indeed a clone of anony, he likes to return to the sender when he woefully fails in his attempt to demonstrate reasonable logic of his blind faith and superstitious beliefs.

Bro, just admit it, your belief in god is nothing more than blind faith and cannot stand the scrutiny of sound logic and reasoning.

Deep Sight:

I have said nothing of revelation or scripture, have I?

In truth, science derives from logic, and logic is philosophy.

In fact, there is a great deal of mathematics in philosophy.

All things are reason and logic, all things flow as such.

There ought to be no "science vs philosophy" mentality.

Philosophy is good. We need more of it. It is the foundation of knowledge.
But let's not forget that philosophy deals with speculation, ideas etc., which is also good.
But in the annals of philosophy, can you point out any great philosopher who held a particular viewpoint, and then later changed it in view of superior knowledge?
If no, then philosophy is itself dogmatic and therefore not good enough to be considered as an impartial arbiter of reality.