Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Facts for evolutionists
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DJ_Ghost" data-source="post: 48444253" data-attributes="member: 30595"><p>Metaphysical is usually defended as without material form or substance. This includes both the idea of the supernatural, but also of the philosophical, the speculative and to a lesser extent the study of social construction phenomenon (although personally I am not of the camp that holds the last one to be metaphysical) and so on. I assume, you are only really interested in the supernatural part of this, since that seems to be the sticking point.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Then your understanding of the history and philosophy is incomplete, because this part of it had nothing what so ever to do with religion at all, but with the crisis of positivism, the collapse of Nomanalism. The notion that abstract concepts had no validity was seen as chocking off the expansion of human understanding.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Clearly I am doing nothing of the sort, since in the very post you are replying to I talked about the crisis of positivism and Karl Poppers response and how this <em>changed the scientific method.</em> I also discuss how the <em>method changed</em> when Ontological naturalism was rejected. Really, how does my discussing how the method changed give you the impression I think the method is immutable?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I tend to agree, and yet you are arguing from the old Nomanalist viewpoint, which was abandoned because it didnt work.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And many others have accepted the limitations of Nomanilism and the changes to the method that Karl Popper and others brought in. </p><p></p><p>Ghost</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DJ_Ghost, post: 48444253, member: 30595"] Metaphysical is usually defended as without material form or substance. This includes both the idea of the supernatural, but also of the philosophical, the speculative and to a lesser extent the study of social construction phenomenon (although personally I am not of the camp that holds the last one to be metaphysical) and so on. I assume, you are only really interested in the supernatural part of this, since that seems to be the sticking point. Then your understanding of the history and philosophy is incomplete, because this part of it had nothing what so ever to do with religion at all, but with the crisis of positivism, the collapse of Nomanalism. The notion that abstract concepts had no validity was seen as chocking off the expansion of human understanding. Clearly I am doing nothing of the sort, since in the very post you are replying to I talked about the crisis of positivism and Karl Poppers response and how this [i]changed the scientific method.[/i] I also discuss how the [i]method changed[/i] when Ontological naturalism was rejected. Really, how does my discussing how the method changed give you the impression I think the method is immutable? I tend to agree, and yet you are arguing from the old Nomanalist viewpoint, which was abandoned because it didnt work. And many others have accepted the limitations of Nomanilism and the changes to the method that Karl Popper and others brought in. Ghost [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Facts for evolutionists
Top
Bottom