Sure. Imagine that I "independently investigate over a period of a few years a reasonably good sample set of reincarnation claims and conclude by a discussion of the case studies that none (or statistically insignificant number of them) pass the bar of being genuine cases.", as you put it.
What...
If I were to make use of Tucker's methodology, and my research found absolutely no conclusive evidence of reincarnation happening (presuming that I am neither manipulating the research nor making massive mistakes), how would you interpret this?
Couldn't anyone just claim that I simply didn't...
You start your entire rationale by using a definition for theism that nobody else uses...
I have no reason to use your very own peculiar definition when the main alternatives provided work perfectly well.
Can you please cite the source for your definition of atheism? Is it historically relevant? Is there any sizeable group that makes use of it? Or is it just something you personally came up with after reading something?
What does that have to do with what I have just said?
Or maybe it is a sentence that doesn't mean anything in particular and more like a random pat in the back to show support?
I will pass the wishful thinking, thanks.
Not at all. What does it mean to say that it is good enough for someone to view something some given way? I have no idea.
Why was it bad form?
Did I misrepresent his position? I don't think so.
And also impossible to be reproduced, and therefore impossible to determine whether it involves any fabrication.
But there are multiple possible explanations within methodological naturalism. The actual problem, if the...
"Michael Levin, director of the Center for Regenerative and Developmental Biology at Tufts University—who wrote in an academic review of Tucker’s first book that it presented a “first-rate piece of research”—said that’s because current scientific research models have no way to prove or debunk...
Where did I mention the laws of this universe on that part of my post? And what laws was I referring to?
What does any of this has to do with me saying that something must have always existed?
Do I need to quote the post where you have said that a deliberate creative act must have happened...
But I don't presume that something came out of nothing, as far as the origin of existence is concerned. To say that the first thing that ever existed came out of nothing would entail saying that there was this place called 'nothing' that existed and from which something could come from. But...
That presumes that the natural processes were determined by something.
If you have no baseline, you are talking about nothing. But you do have a baseline, you are talking about the creator of the universe. That's your baseline. And all I was saying is that not only there are many god concepts...
I am willing to bet some money it only happened after you have been administered medicine.
Ask that pastor to pray so God will heal lots of people with incurable diseases instantly too. You don't even need to bother telling me the result. It will show up on the news if it works.
No, we are talking about the origin of the universe, which might have been caused by natural processes.
No, it doesn't. The proposition that god exists is part of a theological framework that comes along with it's attributes. It is not a separated first step.
Without defining the term 'God'...