All evidence exists in our perceptions because we base our reasoning on our perceptions not the objects of our perceptions which are forever beyond our reach - unless you believe our perceptions are infallible and never misleading…
No, I don’t believe our perceptions are infallible, but it doesn’t follow that evidence is entirely within our perception. In fact, if our perceptions are fallible, then that makes a mockery of the idea of evidence existing within them! How can it be called evidence if it’s subject to our subjective perceptions?
You’re putting the cart before the horse here. The way you phrase it, you can state that you have evidence for anything you like, simply because of how you perceive something! Evidence becomes entirely subjective. You subjectively perceive our environment as having been created by God, therefore you believe you have evidence that it was. What a ridiculous philsophy! Or maybe you just have a different definition of evidence to most people - you seem to be saying that “evidence” is the same as “what I think.”
No - the evidence is what we perceive; we may perceive it wrongly and draw false conclusions, but this doesn’t make the evidence faulty. The evidence is what it is, whether we perceive it correctly, incorrectly, or not at all.
To be precise our minds interpret the evidence of those perceptions we consider reliable. Not all our perceptions are evidence because they are not always accurate.
That might be precise, but it’s utterly wrong.
Our perceptions are not evidence itself, they are simply perceptions
of evidence. Our minds perceive the evidence - the perception and the interpretation are the same thing.
None of our perceptions are evidence - although as I said above, your insistence that they are may go some way towards explaining why you consider there to be evidence for the existence of God!
Your equation of everyday skills with science is unsound. Your underestimation of the power of the mind throws doubt on the validity of your conclusions…
It looks more like your reading skills are unsound - I didn’t equate them to science. I said that they are,
like the success of science, indicators of the power of the mind. They all demonstrate the capabilities of our brains.
I entirely agree.
You falsely assume that evolution excludes Design.
No, I don’t falsely assume anything. The Theory of Evolution most definitely excludes Design. You, on the other hand, falsely assume the existence of design without even the slightest evidence to support such a hypothesis.
It is evolution from purposeless particles that explains nothing.
Well, it explains the process in sufficient detail for it to have become settled science. It’s only really agenda-driven nutjobs or the uneducated who still try to deny it.
The “mind from the mindless” hypothesis is self-refuting.
How so? This seems to me simply another of your baseless assertions, a product of your dogmatic refusal to embrace the possibility of anything you don’t instantly understand.
And you finish with your usual motif, the Appeal to Ignorance!
Accepting ignorance is not the same as relishing it. But either is more intellectually and ethically honest than denying it, as you do. It’s clear that you would rather
pretend you know something, than accept that you don’t - this is a strand that I’ve seen in every single one of your attempted arguments (although to be fair it’s a fundamentally necessary tenet of religious belief). The entire success of science is predicated on the idea of “I don’t know -
let’s try and find out.” You appear to consider such an approach a weakness!
The fact remains that faith in blind processes is unjustified precisely because they lack insight which you claim to have…
Here you are just repeating yourself. Another strain of your Argument from Ignorance. “I don’t understand how ***X ***can have occurred. Therefore it can’t have done.”
Luckily, most scientists replace the second sentence with, “Let’s see if we can find out,” which is why we’re not all still living in the dark ages.
