@kellyjay said
How you view the world is based upon what you think is true in it, you deny that? We can fool ourselves by looking for confirmation of our biases over things that contradict them. You will not correct someone's way of thinking if you don't think they are doing it wrong, for crying out loud you are doing it here with me and you fail to see that?
The way science and real ...[text shortened]... ructions, mindlessness doesn't, can you show the facts that dispute that without running in circles?
How you view the world is based upon what you think is true in it, you deny that? We can fool ourselves by looking for confirmation of our biases over things that contradict them. You will not correct someone's way of thinking if you don't think they are doing it wrong, for crying out loud you are doing it here with me and you fail to see that?
That one views the world based on what one thinks is true is trivially correct (are people supposed to hold views of the world not based on what they take to be true of the world — how would that work exactly?). The point that you keep evading is the following: if what you take to be true is a blanket, pet presupposition of divine agency conceived of arse-pulling and having the properties of being unfalsifiable, having no prior empirical evidence or basis whatsoever, being profoundly non-parsimonious and the like; then you do not get a seat at the explanation table. Sorry, them’s the breaks. You can hold your view, but do not expect others to take it seriously in matters of explanation. Explanation is not just a matter of projecting what you believe to be true onto phenomena just willy-nilly; there are rules to the methods of explanation, which neither you nor Lennox seem to grasp.