Forum:Phillip Rayment of aSK, statements ?

< Index | General discussion

Phillips finally pushed me to doubt my sanity :) here are some statements from him. Opinions are welcome.

• Archaeologists can determine that a human agency was responsible for, say, stone tools, without knowing anything about that human agency.
• (Talking of faith in God) Faith is based on evidence; it's not belief in the total absence of evidence nor belief contrary to evidence.
• That is, I reject the presupposition that the explanation has to be a naturalistic one; the presupposition that rules out a creator a priori. That presupposition is not science.

I really wonder sometimes whats inside his head Hamster (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Phil's a moron and can be dismissed with no further consideration or discussion. move along. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 05:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hah, I love how he gets as far as science can determine humans made stone tools, but then comes out and declares it's impossible to know anything about the humans that did so, presumably because they were before current researchers were born. Hell, by Philip logic it's impossible to learn anything new about any time older than about 80 years ago. --Kels (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I've said it before, if I didn't know any better I'd swear that Phil was secretly pushing Last Thursdayism. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Tah-daaaaaaah!} 13:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Narr! "Because this Omphalas argument has never held water, as it doesn't actually explain anything and makes God out to be a deceiver." God don't lie! ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 13:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I kinda boggled at that one. Isn't this the same guy who believes that whatever God does it's not evil by definition, no matter how evil it looks to humans? So doesn't the same apply to lying? God could have created the Grand Canyon, carbon-14 and starlight in situ, and all he'd have to do is say "we don't know why God did it that way, but it wasn't to deceive because whatever God does isn't a lie by definition." Why all the fancy dancing? --Kels (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)