@Leadfoot,
no, he goes quite a bit further in his points. He discounts ALL that science seems to have found and equates it with ID " fact-free reasoning".
He says he doesnt do "Belief" so he doesnt believe that the data exists to support a natural world. Thats dishonesty to fail to admit ones ignorance.
I am perfectly aware of his opinions (Ive listend to his BS for maybe 7 or 8 years an, and while his positions never change, they are presented without any logical or systematic defense.
Many of us have asked him "CAn you provide the evidence that one would need to gather to even support the "if there were gods" assertion" What would be what youd look for? He ignores most reasonable questions of him because he likes machismo over admitting ignorance. Hes quick to insult, and when he is insulted back, he yells foul.
When you need to dismiss another side to make yours valid, you should at least understand that side... He doesnt.
Had he opened a discussion (many aeons ago) with his assertion an let it go, most of us would have agreed with his point and then stated the basis of method naturalism and let it go at that.
HOWEVER, you will find his tracks ALL OVER the site with his constant BS (always preseneted merely as an assertion with no concern about what the "if there were gods" position would need to be wporth consideration"
Youre new here, I am not. Frank has been here as a weasely little cudgel for many a year. His opinion is factually baseless but he fails to acknowledge it.
Even guys like gungasnake have the balls to find things to back up their worldviews. Frank is unable .
Ive got no time for him