- Dec 25, 2005
- 5,093
- 147
- 40
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I very specifically said it isn't scientific. This argument isn't about the legitimacy of my faith. My claim is justified belief about God (either way) can't be scientific. If you don't see the distinction (and again i'm not trying to be rude - i mean this in the most literal way) you either: lack the reading comprehension to continue, aren't familiar enough with the topic and refuse to learn to continue, or are being a contrarian and academically dishonest.Thank you, this is exactly what I have been arguing all along.
I reject your "internal" proof as baseless, due to your admitted lack of evidence. You are accepting this on faith, which is not compelling (or scientific).
You admitted you aren't familiar with a priori and a posteriori. You have demonstrated you have trouble drawing distinctions between claims im making, the scientific method with the basis of science, etc.It's not a matter of knowledge gaps, it's a rejection of how you are trying to justify your beliefs. I know what the terms mean, I just feel you are using them where they are not applicable.
Again, I am familiar with the concepts.
Russell's Teapot and Invisible Dragons aren't first principles. I doubt the predication of your first principles allow them.Trying to use philosophy in place of tangible evidence is a complete waste of time when trying to determine the actual tangible existence of a thing, or being.
My invisible dragon scenario is an example why. Using your reasoning, you must put my dragon, your God, and Russell's Teapot on equal footing. If you accept God, and not the dragon or teapot,
You first have to make a honest attempt to follow my logic to make this claim...you are not being logically consistent...
If that is what you think you aren't making a honest attempt to follow my argument.You are invoking special pleading for God.
You keep trying to frame this argument as: Your justification in God is not justifiable to me.
This is a strawman, the argument is: Are beliefs in God justifiable by science? If not (which is my claim) my beliefs are no more cogent than yours and yours are no more cogent than mine.
Last edited:
Upvote
0