You may not know what fact means, but you’re saying we can’t claim to know anything as that might change, I invite you to see how stupid that claim is.
It was once a scientific fact that continents did move, this presented a puzzle for some aspects of the scientific theory of evolution, then science discovered plate tectonics and continental drift, and the facts changed. This does not mean facts are unreliable, only that human beings are fallible and that even our best methods like science cannot be infallible, which is why science insists all ideas remain tentative in the light of new evidence, unlike religions of course which claim to have immutable truth, and cling to it even when scientific and objective facts directly contradict them.
Which of course is what you’re doing here, trying to decry science by oversimplifying to the point of mendacity, to imply your subjective religious beliefs have some credence, despite being unable to demonstrate any objective evidence to support them, because even scientific facts can’t be immutable. It’s not even an original argument, I’ve seen countless religious apologists try this mendacious old canard.
As I said, and you ignored, I’ll bet every penny I have you go to a doctor when you’re sick, and wouldn’t get on a plane if it was designed and built based solely on faith or prayer.
Be a dear, and give us your top 3 please?
So you can analyse its validity as evidence, but we can’t, I have to say that’s the most vapid and hilarious dodge I’ve seen for some time.
I think it is apropo to take a look at my first request for objective evidence of a deity from you posted after your first post, and your answer below it:
-
Your claim that the universe is rationally intelligible is not even explained, and I personally don’t know what you mean?
-
Your claim “there cannot be a material (or natural) explanation for the universe” is a subjective argument, not objective evidence.
-
Your unevidenced assumption that the origin of universe must be supernatural because you can’t conceive of a natural or material origin in a condition where the material universe we now observe didn’t exist (note we don’t know what existed) is both an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and a false dichotomy fallacy since we are not limited to only those claims, an obvious and accurate alternative is that we don’t know.
-
Your argument contained no objective evidence for any deity of any kind.
That’s how I’d analyze it.
It would need to be sufficient and objective.
Could you define what you think fact means for me, as I am now convinced it doesn’t mean what you think it means.