Can one disprove Jesus' resurrection?

[tsig]

I don't know. I am trying to understand why you seem to be connecting the concept of meat bag thought processes to the value of those thought processes.

The post that spawned this part of the thread was very broad. Imagination may be superior to logic in specific ways, while the converse may be true in other ways.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Though, in this context, science, imagination, and religion are each constrained roles.

I just imagined that you agree with me in every way, good job, argument resolved.

 

[deaman]

'Round and 'Round we go.......

Where we'll stop, nobody knows.

 

[Donn]

I don't know. I am trying to understand why you seem to be connecting the concept of meat bag thought processes to the value of those thought processes.

You said, "Imagination is an example of something that may be superior to science." I was seeking clarity.

The post that spawned this part of the thread was very broad. Imagination may be superior to logic in specific ways, while the converse may be true in other ways.

Okay, that's some clarity. I can imagine, lol, that greater leaps can be made without all the messy details in between. Maybe it can explore possibility-space faster than a sequential grind can.

 

[The Greater Fool]

You said, "Imagination is an example of something that may be superior to science." I was seeking clarity.


Okay, that's some clarity. I can imagine, lol, that greater leaps can be made without all the messy details in between. Maybe it can explore possibility-space faster than a sequential grind can.

I see the issue.

The post that spawned this was meant in a much broader scope.

You are confining the statement to acquiring or using (presumably useful) knowledge. Imagination may be superior in it's ability to provide entertainment, art, food, etc.

 

[IanS]

It's likely because the questions have exceptionally little to do with my comments.


Let's refresh what my reply was in response to:

This original question was very much of the "When did you stop beating your wife" sort, as it starts with an incorrect supposition, then runs with it.

You are the one that brought 'greater authority' and 'explaining the universe' into this. However, you asked "What thoughts or beliefs..." about your imposed suppositions, so I gave examples of the types of things *I* am talking about.

Well the above is not what I asked you about all. You are trying to deflect the discussion away from what you were asked and onto some other ground instead. Lets stick to the issue that you were asked about; for which, see below -

As for "who said 'fiction' was a good 'tool' for understanding 'reality'? Uh, every practicing member of religion, perchance? This, greater than anything else, highlights how rabid is your desire to disagree with me.

Well who are the religious people in this thread that have been claiming that " "fiction" was a good 'tool' for understanding 'reality"? We are talking with people here in this thread; you are arguing with people here. And you said "Example: Science is a better tool for understanding reality than is fiction." ... you present that as if I or others here had claimed to you that fiction was better than science ... and I'm just asking why you would bother to say that here, as if you are saying that people here had tried to tell you otherwise.

But when you offer "every practicing member of religion" as people who all claim that "'fiction' is a good 'tool' for understanding 'reality'", I don't suppose religious people do claim that, do they? I expect they do not regard their religious beliefs as "fiction".

On top of which, as we will see below, you actually seem to be claiming that what you call “imagination” is a “superior” tool to science when it comes to investigating and explaining the universe around us.

I am trying to say what I said, that Imagination is an example of something that may be superior to science..

OK, so in what way is imagination "superior" to science?

And please remember that we are talking about science vs. anything else, as our best way of investigating and explaining real events in the universe around us.

So, in what way is imagination "superior" to science, as a way of understanding the universe? I hope you are not going to try claiming that by "imagination" you mean human intelligence of the type that has slowly lead to our understanding of what we now call "science", as if to claim that imagination is in effect identical to science?

I was asking you about this -

There may be (I believe there are) ideas that are superior to science. Neither faith nor belief are among these.

What are these "ideas" that are "superior" to science?

And I answered, and answered again above...

OK, so it's still the same question then - if you are saying that "imagination" is an "idea(s) that is (are) superior to science", in what way is imagination a "superior idea" for the purpose of investigating and explaining events in the universe around us?

How is it within science? As I said, faith is in spite of science. It ignores science.

But I was not asking you if religious faith was "within science" as if it was an academic branch of a science course. What we were talking about, in case you have forgotten, was that you had said that miracles and the supernatural were outside of science. Here is the quote of what you actually said -

Being a religious claim about a miracle performed by a meddling god, it is outside of science, and the rules of science. In fact, it's a rather useless argument either way. If you believe in meddling god(s), you don't need scientific proof, by definition. If you don't believe in god(s), you don't need scientific proof, by definition.

And what I said to you in response to the above quote was, that all you or anyone actually has is an unsubstantiated claim of witnessing miracles and the supernatural, where the claim (which is all that actually exists, just the claim), certainly can be studied by science.

Similarly if scientists wanted to waste their time (and public money) studying why people claim to have religious faith, then that could very easily be done by science - it's easy to investigate why people have for many thousands of years proclaimed what we call religious faith. However, the central beliefs & claims of that faith, i.e. claims of witnessing supernatural gods and miracles etc. are not "outside of" science in the sense that science cannot investigate the actual miracles themselves, because in fact there are no such "miracles" to investigate at all! ... all that exists is the claim of miracles and the supernatural, and the claims are certainly open to scientific explanation.

Are you trying to claim otherwise? Are you trying to claim that miracles and the supernatural do in fact happen, and that they cannot be studied by science for some reason? As if to say there really are things that are beyond the remit of science?

Because if that's what you are claiming then we are back to very first question I asked you. Which is - so where are these miracles and the supernatural? Or are they just words written in a dictionary, as if the writer once thought such things might have been real, but where now, according to what we have learned from science, there is really no good objective evidential reason to think such things were ever more than mere words on a page (e.g., like claims of God or claims of ghosts).

In what way are things "outside" of science?

Where or what is this "outer" side of science?

I gave examples of things outside of science. Do you claim imagination or fiction is scientific?

You mean your examples were "faith" and "imagination"? I don't think faith or imagination are outside the remit of scientific study at all. It's perfectly obvious that scientists can study what people mean when they say they have "faith", or study what anyone means by a word like "imagination".

I think you are trying to confuse two very different things with one-another here. You are taking a word like "imagination" and saying it's what you call "outside of" science, because someone might imagine ideas of miracles and the supernatural. But as I have explained at least half a dozen times now, you don't actually have any physically occurring miracle or supernatural event, all that you actually have is the unsubstantiated claim of someone "imagining" (that was your own term for it) a supernatural miracle ... and as I have said from the start, it's certainly not "outside of" science to investigate and explain why people claim that their imagination/beliefs/faith/mental-illness/whatever has lead them to make untrue claims of witnessing miracles.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

The "pre Cambrian rabbit" may have been a problem at one time if it had happened but not now. Science is a mosaic,a rabbit found in pre Cambrian strata would be a anomaly today-not a problem for evolution. Just because something can't be explained is NEVER enough to invoke the supernatural.
Ultimately while this imaginary rabbit would undoubtedly become a young earth cretanists new sound bite that would be it.
In corner one-fossil rabbit pulled from pre Cambrian strata
In corner two-almost two centuries of scientific scrutiny of evolution
DNA
Every other fossil
DNA
Genetics
DNA
Comparitive anatomy
DNA
Radiometric dating
DNA
I could go on but I think you get the picture. Based on what we KNOW about life,a pre Cambrian rabbit would be assumed(correctly)to have a currently unknown reason, fully compatible with evolution for being there.
Occams razor.

I may be misinterpreting, but I don't want to leave the impression that I belive in any creationist ********.

The specifics of a pre-cambrian rabbit wasn't really the point though. The point was that Evolution wasn't the null hypothesis, it won out through strength of evidence but is still theoretical falsifiable. That's how science works, any hypothesis that is meaningful must be falsifiable. And actually an incontrovertible PCR would be a massive issue for evolution, however we can be pretty damn confident that one isn't going to show up. Of course, even if evolution did get disproved, it wouldn't make a supernatural explanation the null hypothesis, goddidit is still a positive claim.

 

[The Greater Fool]

IanS...

Your post won't quote for me, which is somehow fitting, since you don't seem to responding to what I am posting, but insisting that I respond to questions based on some distorted interpretation.

Thanks, but this is not as interesting as one might suppose.

 

[IanS]

IanS...

Your post won't quote for me, which is somehow fitting, since you don't seem to responding to what I am posting, but insisting that I respond to questions based on some distorted interpretation.

Thanks, but this is not as interesting as one might suppose.

OK, that's fine. I'm not especially interested whether you do or do not reply (apart from the time it takes any of us responding to all sorts of things, which is often a nuisance ... i.e. too much time spent on writing replies).

All I am asking you, all I have ever been asking you, is what it is that you think is "superior" to science as mankind's most accurate way of investigating and explaining real events in the universe around us ("real" as opposed to mere imagination or thoughts or beliefs of what anyone thinks might be true).

Because as I explained from the very start - on forums like this you can find many posts from theists and from philosophy students claiming there are "other ways of knowing", i.e. some sort of spiritual, intuitive or religious ways that are not in themselves purely academic research science.

And despite your many replies on this, I don't think you have been at all clear what you really mean by offering a word like "imagination" as something which you say is "outside of science" and which you think is a superior way of understanding and explaining real events in what we can detect and observe as the universe around us.

Or to put that very simply with a broad brush statement - science wins the day when it comes to a convincing explanation of "real" events in this universe ("real" as opposed to imaginary beliefs in anyones head).

 

[Dancing David]

Because the methods of science reduce the chances of just nonsense being taken for reality, not superior, just a way of improving validity

 

[The Greater Fool]

OK, that's fine. I'm not especially interested whether you do or do not reply (apart from the time it takes any of us responding to all sorts of things, which is often a nuisance ... i.e. too much time spent on writing replies).

I actually enjoy a good discussion, along with rationalizing work avoidance, it often makes the nuisance seem quite worthwhile. Often, I even learn a thing or two.

All I am asking you, all I have ever been asking you, is what it is that you think is "superior" to science as mankind's most accurate way of investigating and explaining real events in the universe around us ("real" as opposed to mere imagination or thoughts or beliefs of what anyone thinks might be true).

This is the issue. You keep insisting that I defend a claim I never made.

(Religious) faith is outside of science. In fact, (religious) faith is in spite of science (and reality).

Belief may or may not be outside of science. Belief informed by examination of reality is not outside of science, while belief informed by fiction is outside of science (and reality), such belief ranging from benign at best, and horribly destructive at worst.

Neither faith nor belief is superior to science (and reality). Faith or belief that elevates itself above reality is hubris.

There may be (I believe there are) ideas that are superior to science. Neither faith nor belief are among these.

Do point out where I claimed:

...you think is "superior" to science as mankind's most accurate way of investigating and explaining real events in the universe around us ("real" as opposed to mere imagination or thoughts or beliefs of what anyone thinks might be true).

"There may be (I believe there are) ideas that are superior to science. Neither faith nor belief are among these" does not make any claim about "investigating and explaining real events."

Because as I explained from the very start - on forums like this you can find many posts from theists and from philosophy students claiming there are "other ways of knowing", i.e. some sort of spiritual, intuitive or religious ways that are not in themselves purely academic research science.

Then reply to theists and philosophy students that make those claims. At least you acknowledge you are not addressing my arguments.

And despite your many replies on this, I don't think you have been at all clear what you really mean by offering a word like "imagination" as something which you say is "outside of science" and which you think is a superior way of understanding and explaining real events in what we can detect and observe as the universe around us. Or to put that very simply with a broad brush statement - science wins the day when it comes to a convincing explanation of "real" events in this universe ("real" as opposed to imaginary beliefs in anyone head).

Perhaps you see the flaw by now, but just in case... Never did I claim (Nor come anywhere near claiming) imagination "is a superior way of understanding and explaining real events." I made the more general statement that in some ways imagination may be superior to science.

It is you trying to force my words into concepts you want to argue. You don't need me for that, just make posts with the points you want to refute, then go ahead and refute them.

 

[IanS]

I actually enjoy a good discussion, along with rationalizing work avoidance, it often makes the nuisance seem quite worthwhile. Often, I even learn a thing or two.



This is the issue. You keep insisting that I defend a claim I never made.

Do point out where I claimed:

"There may be (I believe there are) ideas that are superior to science. Neither faith nor belief are among these" does not make any claim about "investigating and explaining real events."


Then reply to theists and philosophy students that make those claims. At least you acknowledge you are not addressing my arguments.


Perhaps you see the flaw by now, but just in case... Never did I claim (Nor come anywhere near claiming) imagination "is a superior way of understanding and explaining real events." I made the more general statement that in some ways imagination may be superior to science.

It is you trying to force my words into concepts you want to argue. You don't need me for that, just make posts with the points you want to refute, then go ahead and refute them.

I am afraid your above reply is simply untrue. You were being asked about miracles. The example you were actually talking about (you were replying to Nihianth) was the physical resurrection of Jesus. That is supposed to have been a real physically occurring event. And here is what you said about it -

Being a religious claim about a miracle performed by a meddling god, it is outside of science, and the rules of science. In fact, it's a rather useless argument either way. If you believe in meddling god(s), you don't need scientific proof, by definition. If you don't believe in god(s), you don't need scientific proof, by definition.

Re. the highlighted bit saying "Being a religious claim about a miracle performed by a meddling god, it is outside of science, and the rules of science." - you do not actually have any miracles to show or to be investigated by science. All you have is a claim of a miracle. And science can certainly investigate and explain why all throughout human history countless people have made completely untrue claims of witnessing miracles ... so it's certainly explicable by and through science.

That is the very first time I said anything at all to you in this thread. I asked you there specifically about your claim that this so-called miracle, claimed as a real physically occurring event in this universe, i.e. not as you later talked about mere "imagination" or "ideas" ... and you said that the claim of the miracle was "outside science and outside the rules of science".

I then pointed out to you that you do not actually have any of the claimed miracles, and that in fact all that has ever been discovered is an untrue claim of anyone witnessing a miracle, and where the claim (which is all you actually have), certainly can be investigated and explained by science.

To which you replied claiming that "modern miracles certainly have been examined", here's the quote -

Modern miracles certainly can and have been examined rationally.

I don’t know what you meant by saying these were "modern" miracles, but as I again stressed to you, contrary to your above statement, there are no such miracles that have been examined by science or by anything else. All that was ever examined was an untrue claim of a miracle that never happened and never existed at all.

And then after a few more irrelevant exchanges you finished up saying that you think there are ideas that are "superior" to science. Here's your quote -

There may be (I believe there are) ideas that are superior to science. Neither faith nor belief are among these.

And when I asked you what those ideas are, you said it was the idea of "imagination" that was superior to and outside of science. Again, here is your quote -

I am trying to say what I said, that Imagination is an example of something that may be superior to science.

And I answered, and answered again above.

How is it within science? As I said, faith is in spite of science. It ignores science.

I gave examples of things outside of science. Do you claim imagination or fiction is scientific?

Now, as I specifically repeated to you many times - you were being asked about your claim that "claimed miracles are outside of science" ... the miracle is claimed to be a real physically occurring event in this universe, not claimed to be mere "imagination". So when in answer to my questions asking what you were offering as miracles or any other real event that was outside of science, you offered the example of "imagination" saying it was superior to science and outside of science .... to which I simply pointed out to you that your example of "imagination" is neither a real physical event such as a miracle which is claimed to be "outside of science", nor is it a "superior" idea, method or means of investigating and explaining whether or not claimed miracles are real events or not.

So the same question still remains completely unanswered by you - you were being asked about the claimed miracle of anyone rising from the truly dead and buried as a supernatural miracle (that's what the Jesus claim is - it is claimed that he rose from the truly dead as a result of a physically occurring supernatural miracle ... it was never claimed to be mere "imagination", it was claimed to be a real physical event that actually happened) ... and you said that claim (the mere claim) was and is "outside of science" ... and I am telling you that it certainly is NOT outside of science ...

... and since you eventually got around to claiming that something called "imagination" is what you called a thing that was "superior" to science in the context where you were asked for an example of any better more accurate way of investigating and explaining real events in this universe ("real" as opposed to mere thoughts or imagination), and you offered the example of saying that you believe that "imagination" is something that is "superior" to science ... I therefore asked you how "imagination" is "superior" to science in this present context of being a better more accurate way of investigating and explaining real events in this universe.

That is what you are being asked about! You are being asked specifically about (1) your own claim of things being "outside" of scientific investigation and explanation, and (2) your claim that there are other ways that are "superior to science" where you claimed that one such other superior way is "imagination"! ...

So as I said to you before, "in case you have forgotten" you are being asked about your statement saying that claims of miracles are "outside of science", and now also your subsequent claim that "imagination" is a superior thing to science, when you were being specifically asked what other "ideas" are a better more accurate alternative to science for investigating and explaining real events in this universe (that's what you were being asked about) ... and your reply was to offer "imagination" as something "superior" to science for that purpose ... here is the actual quote of me asking you exactly that -

What do you mean by saying you believe in certain "ideas" that are "superior" to science? What does that statement mean?

"Superior" means above and of greater authority. An "idea" is a thought or mental impression of a belief or opinion.

What thoughts or beliefs do you say are of greater authority than scientific explanations for actual events occurring in the observed & detectable universe around us (as distinct from you merely having thoughts, ideas or beliefs about other mental or imagined notions in your mind)?

Are you saying there are (to use a phrase commonly employed by theists and some philosophy students) "other ways of knowing"?

Are you saying that you believe there are better (more successful, more accurate), or even any different, ways of investigating & explaining "real" physically occurring events anywhere in this universe, by some method which is not actually science?

What are these other better ways?

So the same question still remains completely unanswered by you - you are being asked to show how -

1. "claim about a miracle performed by a meddling god, it is outside of science, and the rules of science."

And how -

2. "Imagination" is your example of a "superior" method for that purpose which you were being asked about (you were being asked about your claim that there are other non-scientific "ideas that are superior to science" for this specific purpose of investigating and explaining real events in this universe such as the claimed miracle of rising from the dead).

 

[Pixel42]

I don’t know what you meant by saying these were "modern" miracles, but as I again stressed to you, contrary to your above statement, there are no such miracles that have been examined by science or by anything else.

In order to qualify for sainthood two miracles are required so the Catholic church does actually examine claims of miracles, supposedly using scientific experts, and certifies many as genuine.

The Science of Miracles: How the Vatican Decides

 

[Donn]

We know the Vatican's standard of evidence is wafer thin.

 

[IanS]

In order to qualify for sainthood two miracles are required so the Catholic church does actually examine claims of miracles, supposedly using scientific experts, and certifies many as genuine.

The Science of Miracles: How the Vatican Decides

OK, thanks for the link, which made amusing reading.

So that is an example of what GreaterFool means by a “modern” miracle?

Seems to me the only “miracle” there is how otherwise intelligent people in the Catholic faith can seriously believe either that such things really are miracles, or that the “miracles” have genuinely been verified by real science, or that the previous Pope is actually “alive” in heaven and personally intervening to actually perform miracles on Earth. Perhaps the church would also swear that the existence of heaven has been scientifically verified too.

 

[Donn]

I'm sure GF means, by miracle, those claimed so; exactly like that Vatican rot. It's shorthand.

 

[The Greater Fool]

I am afraid your above reply is simply untrue. You were being asked about miracles. The example you were actually talking about (you were replying to Nihianth) was the physical resurrection of Jesus. That is supposed to have been a real physically occurring event. And here is what you said about it -

Again, I see where we went off the Rails. Remember when I said I was done with that discussion:

I've effectively said the above three times now. Following my own advice (drat!), I'll leave the final words to you.

Thank you for the discussion.

You then you chose to challenge my UNRELATED post to BobTheCoward with what appeared to be entirely new distortions, but as we now see, are clearly about the previous train wreck of dishonesty.

I didn't bother with the rest of your post, because it's again distortions about the previous issues that you refused to allow me to discuss. If you'd like to discuss my reply to BobTheCoward, have at it.

 

[IanS]

I'm sure GF means, by miracle, those claimed so; exactly like that Vatican rot. It's shorthand.

Sure, but the claim is not beyond scientific study or scientific explanation, is it.

If somebody says "well suppose there really was a miracle that was beyond any possible scientific understanding, then how could science investigate and "understand" a thing which really was not "understandable" by science?", then I would say that question itself is not valid and cannot arise as a valid question unless you can first explain how any such "miracle beyond science" ever could be truly physically possible.

Otherwise, if you cannot explain how such a thing could ever be possible, then the claim that science could not understand it becomes completely redundant. All you are left with is a circular argument which says "let us propose that something cannot be studied by science. Now we have something that cannot be studied by science, because we have just proposed it!"

If anyone is going to propose a thing which CANNOT be studied by science, e.g. a miracle, then someone else might just as well propose that the same miracle CAN be studied by science". IOW - you are trying to define a hypothetical thing as "outside of science" ... but that is no better than me saying that I will just redefine your thing as NOT outside science.

It would be a different matter if you could actually produce a real known event (a miracle, ie Jesus resurrection as the example in this thread) that was proven to be inherently beyond any possible scientific investigation or explanation. But afaik, there is no such known thing ... it is only a hypothetical suggestion of the apparently impossible.

By the way as I said before - I am really just suggesting the above line of argument as a counter to the common theist argument which claims there are "other ways of knowing" that are "outside of, and beyond, science". That’s just a theist way of trying to claim that God can really exist (i.e. physically exists somewhere), because he is miraculously beyond any possible scientific investigation or explanation. I'm just suggesting that such a theist claim is probably invalid for the sort of reasons given above.

 

[IanS]

Again, I see where we went off the Rails. Remember when I said I was done with that discussion:


You then you chose to challenge my UNRELATED post to BobTheCoward with what appeared to be entirely new distortions, but as we now see, are clearly about the previous train wreck of dishonesty.

I didn't bother with the rest of your post, because it's again distortions about the previous issues that you refused to allow me to discuss. If you'd like to discuss my reply to BobTheCoward, have at it.

Do I want to discuss other things in other posts from BobTheCoward? No, not especially.

As I said to you before (and as I just repeated in the post above) - my reason for replying to you in the first place when you said that claims of miracles are outside of science, was mainly to counter the very common theist argument which claims there are other non-scientific “ways of knowing" such that God can really exist and can perform supernatural miracles, because such actions from God are inherently "outside of science".

I'm keen to avoid atheists (yourself perhaps), inadvertently saying things which appear to support that claim of real physically occurring events (e.g. "miracles") that are truly "beyond and outside of scientific understanding". I don't want to encourage theists (or philosophers) to think or say they are right to make that claim, if in fact they are not right to make the claim.

And what I have being saying to you, is that I don't think that sort of claim is actually correct. I don't think there are actually any truly occurring events that are inherently "outside of science". I do not think that sort of claim is actually valid, for all the reasons I've explained in the previous posts.

 

[Leumas]

Again, I see where we went off the Rails. Remember when I said I was done with that discussion:



You then you chose to challenge my UNRELATED post to BobTheCoward with what appeared to be entirely new distortions, but as we now see, are clearly about the previous train wreck of dishonesty.

I didn't bother with the rest of your post, because it's again distortions about the previous issues that you refused to allow me to discuss. If you'd like to discuss my reply to BobTheCoward, have at it.

Hey The Greater Fool... don't you think that you are the one who is using too much sophistry trying to avoid answering the questions?

You made the claims that

1. Miracles performed by a meddling god, are outside of science, and the rules of science.
   
   How is that possible... if the meddling of this meddling god had any effects on reality... how could it be outside of science?​
2. Imagination is a superior method for investigating things than science.
   
   How is that possible... is that the same thing as gastrointestinal atheism?
   
   

   ...I'm not sure it would be accurate to claim that no atheists have arrived at that position on gut feelings alone. I wouldn't be shocked to find 'personal revelation' had a play in some number of atheists.
   
   There are many paths to atheism, as there are many paths to theism. This is not to be construed as claiming atheism and theism are equal beliefs (neither are belief systems, only one element of belief systems).
   ...

 

[Leumas]

Sure, but the claim is not beyond scientific study or scientific explanation, is it.

If somebody says "well suppose there really was a miracle that was beyond any possible scientific understanding, then how could science investigate and "understand" a thing which really was not "understandable" by science?", then I would say that question itself is not valid and cannot arise as a valid question unless you can first explain how any such "miracle beyond science" ever could be truly physically possible.

Otherwise, if you cannot explain how such a thing could ever be possible, then the claim that science could not understand it becomes completely redundant. All you are left with is a circular argument which says "let us propose that something cannot be studied by science. Now we have something that cannot be studied by science, because we have just proposed it!"

If anyone is going to propose a thing which CANNOT be studied by science, e.g. a miracle, then someone else might just as well propose that the same miracle CAN be studied by science". IOW - you are trying to define a hypothetical thing as "outside of science" ... but that is no better than me saying that I will just redefine your thing as NOT outside science.

It would be a different matter if you could actually produce a real known event (a miracle, ie Jesus resurrection as the example in this thread) that was proven to be inherently beyond any possible scientific investigation or explanation. But afaik, there is no such known thing ... it is only a hypothetical suggestion of the apparently impossible.

By the way as I said before - I am really just suggesting the above line of argument as a counter to the common theist argument which claims there are "other ways of knowing" that are "outside of, and beyond, science". That’s just a theist way of trying to claim that God can really exist (i.e. physically exists somewhere), because he is miraculously beyond any possible scientific investigation or explanation. I'm just suggesting that such a theist claim is probably invalid for the sort of reasons given above.

The wish that science should have no magisteria over religious matters is something apologists would love dearly if they could manage to shove through the trapdoor of illogic onto the magical stage of casuistic legerdemain.

...That’s just a theist way of trying to claim that God can really exist (i.e. physically exists somewhere), because he is miraculously beyond any possible scientific investigation or explanation. I'm just suggesting that such a theist claim is probably invalid for the sort of reasons given above.

The bedazzling magic of appearing to be saying something when in fact all that is happening is diverting attention from their attempts at shoving their sky daddy through the trapdoor of illogic and wishful thinking to suddenly and miraculously appear standing on the magical stage of casuistic legerdemain.