Originally Posted by
Herr Abubu
When I made this thread I was expecting exactly this sort of reply, and the reason I made this thread was to show how wrong it is. You first point out that the methods of science are only appropriate to discover the natural world. However, you then go on to say that it's the only reliable way of defining reality, which means that you assume that there is nothing beyond what science can show, this without evidence. The greatest contradiction of it all, finally, is that you say all of this not with evidence, but with a priori argument. You even argue that knowledge must rely on evidence, without any evidence for the claim, which would be impossible.