I understand the argument is straightforward, but it is: 1) based in definitional fiat (there is
equally valid evidence to suggest that god is malevolent or simply apathetic); 2) actually embraces the god says so because it is good prong of the dilemma; and 3) attempts to constrain god by limiting god's possible range of choice.
Not exact matches
If you think that your personal experiences and emotions consti - tute
evidence, then by that same logic, every other god and religion is
equally as
valid, and their followers say and feel just as you do.
I think an
equally valid opinion would be that «no, if there was actual
evidence, it wouldn't be dismissed as typical collaboration».
I assert (without
evidence) that it would be
equally valid and consistent, if not more so, if the Second Law were restricted to the regions where it actually holds.
Ron, I am not surprised that that is the way you want to describe it, but I would describe your choice as purposeful selectivity between
equally valid and
equally scientific arguments denying part of them to reduce their power as
evidence.
You write: «Ron, I am not surprised that that is the way you want to describe it, but I would describe your choice as purposeful selectivity between
equally valid and
equally scientific arguments denying part of them to reduce their power as
evidence.»
The parol
evidence rule expressly makes a written agreement supersede a verbal agreement, rather than making them
equally valid.