>That's ok, cuz I never said anything about that.


Unless I'm mistaking you, you did. The question posed was "can you (forget who it was addressed to) prove that lightening does NOT come from Thor?"

The answer to this question is obviously, no, it can't be proven

But you responded to the effect of "sure - thor's not detected by doppler".

Therefore you did say something about that.
And your pressupposed/assumed/implicit premise is "gods are empirically observable"

Which, I pointed out, was a completely useless premise when discussing a "creator god".


>Or I can arm myself with scientific refutations of
>pseudoscientific creationist claims, as I did in post #42. But
>when you ignore that, sarcasm does help get the point across.

They weren't ignored =) Just not responded to. I'm doing a lot of reading, and when I come across something interesting I post it. As I've said, I'm a philosopher and not a scientist, so finding some of the objections to the "old earth theory" (which again, I ACCEPT!) intriguing is not only forgivable, but I would think, encouraged.



>And BTW, while the doppler radar thing was indeed sarcastic,
>it's also a perfectly sound argument.


Let's see:
1) whatever causes lightening is entirely explained scientifically
2) doppler is entirely effective for detecting said "causes"
3) some believe that thor, a god of lightening, exists
4) thor is not detected by doppler.
Therefore
5) Thor is not the cause of lightening.

Is that we're were at? I wanna see if you agree on the syllogism before examining it.



peace.