Revealing quotes from revered scientists.

[Hieronymus]

This goes without saying.

If one needs to cherry pick quotes to feel better about their personal faith belief, then hey, knock yourself out.

All it does is reveal what has to be resorted to, to defend a faith belief.

You defend naturalism.
But as you can see, it has little to do with evidence, it's 'a priori'.

 

[bhsmte]

You defend naturalism.
But as you can see, it has little to do with evidence, it's 'a priori'.

Ah, going to the mind reading skills I see.

I follow the evidence. Beyond that, you believe whatever you like.

 

[Hieronymus]

You're right! The scientific community applies methodological naturalism. Now, why do you think that is?

Because they don;t want "a Divine Foot in the door"
You can read, no?

It's a strawman you use anyway, because in this case it's about history: the origin of our existence.
We can not test this, it has already happened quite a while ago.
So we can only obtain and analyse evidence, interpret data and make an assessment.
Guess what it points to.

 

[Hieronymus]

Ah, going to the mind reading skills I see.

Come on, you're an atheist.

 

[bhsmte]

Come on, you're an atheist. DUH

LOL!

 

[The Cadet]

Because they don;t want "a Divine Foot in the door"

Wrong. It's because science cannot function if we include the supernatural. And if you had read the essay you so blatantly quote-mined that statement from, you would understand why. But just to take a simple example: how do we know aspirin actually works? After all, it could be that it's just the headache fairy deciding that she likes it when we take aspirin, and at some point it'll stop working because she gets bored of it. This may sound silly, but the fact is that if we allow the supernatural, we must necessarily allow for the possibility of supernatural intervention into everyday means, at which point empiricism, our most useful tool for analyzing reality, completely breaks down. It's like trying to debug a massive program while the code may or may not be spontaneously changing while you try to fix the errors.

You defend naturalism.
But as you can see, it has little to do with evidence, it's 'a priori'.

Are you kidding me? Science grounded in methodological naturalism is perhaps the single most successful system for determining the truth about the universe around us that we have ever discovered. It has a track record that is absolutely astounding - or are you not reading this on a computer built up of thousands of disparate parts, dependent on multiple fields of science to function? Or maybe a machine you can hold in your pocket that you can use to call your friends, contact people around the world, determine your precise location and draw a map to where you need to go, and look at funny cat pictures on your way home (a home built, reinforced, and insulated using modern scientific advances) from work (a job most likely involving many of these modern scientific advances) on the bus (oh don't even get me started).

Naturalism works. The evidence for that is all around you. You think it doesn't? Then perhaps, just maybe, you would be better off abandoning the fruits of naturalism and doing without. Although that's basically impossible, because the fruits of naturalism are the building blocks of modern human civilization.

 

[Hieronymus]

naturalist apologetics

Of course the natural sciences work.
Iḿ not against physics or anything.
But natural-ism is a belief-system.
And we're talking about the history of our existence here, not science and what we can do with it in life.

 

[bhsmte]

Of course the natural sciences work.
Iḿ not against physics or anything.
But natural-ism is a belief-system.
And we're talking about the history of our existence here, not science and what we can do with it in life.

Why do the natural sciences work?

 

[Hieronymus]

Why do the natural sciences work?

Laws of physics my friend.

 

[bhsmte]

Laws of physics my friend.

Doesn't appear you accept the conclusions from the natural sciences.

 

[Hieronymus]

Doesn't appear you accept the conclusions from the natural sciences.

When they're about natural things, i am (as i already stated).
But, again, this is about our origins, itś history, and since we know stuff about the 'dead nature' of physics, we see that it has no laws or mechanisms to bring forth life.
moreover, the universe and life have the characteristics of design, and not just a little bit.
So, is it then reasonable to ignore one of the 2 options?
You know the answer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure, but you seem to miss that naturalism is also a belief system, which they choose to subscribe to, and NOT because of the evidence.

Sorry, naturalism is not a "belief system". Where did you get that nonsense? And quote mining has always been dishonest.


Also no one "DISMISSES God". You have a false assumption in that post.

Do you understand how you tried to misportray what Judge Jones was trying to get across? ID is not a science. And without evidence that supports it, and there is no scientific evidence for ID, it is no more of a valid belief than Pastafarianisms is.

 

[Hieronymus]

Sorry, naturalism is not a "belief system".

Denial doesn't change anything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When they're about natural things, i am.
But, again, this is about our origins, itś history, and since we know stuff about the 'dead nature' of physics, we see that it has no laws or mechanisms to bring forth life.
moreover, the universe and life have the characteristics of design, and not just a little bit.
So, is it then reasonable to ignore one of the 2 options?
You know the answer.

But chemistry, which is just applied physics does.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Denial doesn't change anything.

That was not denial, that was a correction of your error. If you want to claim that naturalism is a "belief system" the burden of proof is upon you.

 

[Hieronymus]

But chemistry, which is just applied physics does.

No.
Yes, life has to do with chemistry, but chemistry (which is indeed a part of physics) can not explain life.

You seem to want to defend what your prophets don't even deny.
Why don't you argue with them?

 

[Hieronymus]

That was not denial, that was a correction of your error. If you want to claim that naturalism is a "belief system" the burden of proof is upon you.

Don't be silly.
Naturalism and / or materialism is a view on reality restricted to our space time reality.
But now we're looking for the CAUSE of our reality.
Our reality can't have caused itself, otherwise it would have had to exist prior to its existence.
You wouldn't go look for a car's cause of existence in the car itself, now would you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No.
Yes, life has to do with chemistry, but chemistry (which is indeed a part of physics) can not explain life.

You seem to want to defend what your prophets don't even deny.
Why don't you argue with them?

You seem to be rather ignorant of the science that you hate so much. Of course moving the goal posts has long been another dishonest creationist technique. Please make your mind up on what subject you wish to discuss. You are trying to change the topic from evolution to abiogenesis. If you want to concede the evolution argument I am more than happy to discuss abiogenesis with you.

 

[Hieronymus]

You seem to be rather ignorant of the science that you hate so much.

You have to believe that, don't you?

It's ad hominem too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don't be silly.
Naturalism and / or materialism is a view on reality restricted to our space time reality.
But now we're looking for the CAUSE of our reality.
Our reality can't have caused itself, otherwise it would have had to exist prior to its existence.
You wouldn't go look for a car's cause of existence in the car itself, now would you?

But you aren't looking for any causes, you have adopted a myth that cannot be tested. And we don't know enough about reality to declare what was needed for it to exist.

Once again, if you want to claim that naturalism is belief system the burden of proof is upon you. You first need to define what you mean by "belief system" and then show how naturalism fits in that category. So far you have merely restated your claim.

Also your analogy is terribly flawed and misleading. We know how cars are made, that leads you to incorrectly conclude that the universe was made when there is no evidence that it is a "made" thing. Analogies that are prejudicial are flawed.