2
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/up_dis.png)
Yes
No
Thumbs Up |
Received: 1,053 Given: 756 |
We don't need an alternative for something that is itself not indicated by the evidence. We don't need an alternative to fairies, so why need invent an alternative to God, when there is not even good enough evidence for it in the first place? Supernatural entities are taken to exist on faith, not based on evidence. Had people had evidence, they would not give faith as the reason for holding the beliefs. Faith is the excuse that people give for something for which they do not have a sufficient reason. This is why faith is fundamentally hostile to reason. All that methodological naturalism says is that we cannot investigate the supernatural, we cannot confirm supernatural causation (at least currently), therefore we are going to limit ourselves to the natural realm and seek only natural explanations. And haven't you noticed, that for every successful explanation knowledge (science) has given us, the answer has always consistently been natural. So I don't even see the use of the concept of the supernatural. It is a useless term in science. It is completely disregarded. Science is about discovering nature. Faith is nothing but gullibility disguised as a virtue, and it is fundamentally dishonest. It is not a pathway to truth. It is a defunct and invalid excuse for a reason.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 1,053 Given: 756 |
{Accidental double post, sorry}
Thumbs Up |
Received: 20,928 Given: 19,001 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 7,998 Given: 6,001 |
Now this is how I know you can't think of your own. Instead of actually answering what I said, which is completely without fault and exposes how laughably stupid your scientistic view of the world, you start talking about completely different things. You can't, as you have shown repeatedly, defend your views, because you understand them only as edicts and have no understanding further than what is necessary to regurgitate this nonsense.
There are two points here that you have to answer. One, that to argue that any position requires evidence contradicts itself. Two, that to argue that the naturalistic, therefore scientific, worldview is the only valid one is to assume naturalism. Moreover, the scientific method can't prove itself using the scientific method, meaning that the scientistic worldview rests on a huge contradiction.
We are talking at a kindergarten level of philosophy and even then you can't keep up with the pace of it. I would argue that there isn't so much a philosophical position and worldview to be dealt with here as it is an ignorance and incapability of philosophical thinking.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 2,848 Given: 2,744 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 7,998 Given: 6,001 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 2,848 Given: 2,744 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 7,998 Given: 6,001 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 25,773 Given: 13,049 |
Petros provides arguments. Herr Abubu provides fallacies. Petros for the win.
The saddest example was the attack on the Scientific Method, which is a process to test a hypothesis and not a belief system unlike a religious text that claims a number of things that have been proven false but we're all expected to believe.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 20,928 Given: 19,001 |
No. The source of the truth is the universe, not science.
Science is a tool for researching the universe around us.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks