nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 37:
Line 37: − + Line 43:
Line 43: − + − + +
→According to Atheistic Evolutionists: Even if the view is not held so strongly, it's still naturalism upon which the science is based, not the other way around.
* There is no God (world view)
* There is no God (world view)
** Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
** Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
*** Thus science is done on the basis of there being no God (i.e. [[naturalism (science)|naturalism]])
*** Thus science is done on the basis of there being no God (i.e. [[naturalism]])
**** Naturalism comes ''before'' the science. The science is based on the world view.
**** Naturalism comes ''before'' the science. The science is based on the world view.
* So far, there is no objective proof of God
* So far, there is no objective proof of God
** Therefore, we do not need to interpret evidence to fit in with the "fact" of God's existence
** Therefore, we do not need to interpret evidence to fit in with the "fact" of God's existence
*** Thus science is done on the basis of there being no God (unless His existence becomes objectively proven)
*** Thus science is done on the basis of there being no God (i.e. [[naturalism]])
**** The world view relies on the evidence, so the science comes ''before'' the world view.
(unless His existence becomes objectively proven)
**** Naturalism comes ''before'' the science. The science is based on the world view.
===Comparison===
===Comparison===