Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Does that not apply to your position too?
John
NZ
That it applies to something else doesn't change what it already applies to.
What you wrote was, and was described by you as, generally a combination of suggestions and the listing of things that might be the case. As such it may not matter, for suggestions are many, as well as things that "might" be the case.
Please elaborate.
John
NZ
Your parody of religious belief aside, naturalism has its own faith basis. For your ilk reason is the prime arbiter of all 'truth'. That raises two issues. a) How do you justify reason apart from using reason without that becoming a circular argument?
Is there now? I think at best there's a working conclusion that naturalism does produce knowledge. Is there any other way of generating knowledge? So far, no one has been able to demonstrate one, but that doesn't mean it is impossible - just that there's no reason to assume there is one.b) There is an assumption that reason is sufficient to discover and compile all that is knowable.
If a frog had wings...But what if reason has limitations?
Philosophers recognise the difference between fact based information and personal knowledge. Michael Polanyi has exposed the fallacy of a truly objective science, social constructivism relativises all knowledge.
Talk about baseless assumptions...Maybe, at some point, science will undeniably point to a Creator? That's possible.
Wrong origin of source of the experience.
You have witnessed many things and did not have to make it up what you experienced.
You still think negative about personal experience and "God".
You have second hand experience knowledge, no firsthand understanding. You appear to never been with yourself on this subject. No honest real effort on your part to know "if" He exists.
The true picture could be anything at all. It is possible that an Intelligent Entity from Dimension Lambda to the Power of the Root of Minus One did create our universe, even creating it in six days, 6,000 years ago, if that's what floats your boat. It is also possible that the Mutant Star-Goat sneezed the universe out of His Nasal Passages, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster touched us all with His Noodly Appendage.
But in the absence of evidence, it's nuts to believe any of it.
What is the origin of my personal experience that you owe me money, and how do you know?
What am I making up, and how do you know this?
Just like you seem to have a negative reaction to my personal experience and your $10,000 debt to me. Funny how that works.
You got all of that out of a description of my personal revelation that you owe me money? Wow.
Your crowing is just empty noise without proof yourself. It's somewhat irritating too. Bzzzt! Bzzzt!Nice try. You also have no proof - no evidence-based knowledge that the physical matter and natural processes of this world were not created. So you divert the subject. This happens to be about Naturalism and ITS LIMITATIONS.
Isn't this exactly the same as another recent post of yours? What's the matter? Not getting enough attention?"Naked assertions"
Another nice try. You have exposed yourself once again, before all on this forum.
What an answer for replying to the real weaknesses of Naturalism.
The foundation of Naturalism is based on faith. Got it?
There is NO EVIDENCE that what is applied to the Scientific Method WAS NOT CREATED. Got it?
The entire foundation of Naturalism is one of trust and faith. You have built your"evidence-based" knowledge of this world from physical matter and natural properties that were created.
You have no proof otherwise.
Your inability to answer this by use of the Scientific Method is noticeable to all on this forum.
No evidence of origin forces Naturalists to walk by faith.
Enough diversion!
Your crowing is just empty noise without proof yourself. It's somewhat irratating too. Bzzzt! Bzzzt!
Isn't this exactly the same as another recent post of yours? What's the matter? Not getting enough attention?
And please use the quote feature consistently. For some reason, this thread will only come up for me in linear mode. Without quotes, it's hard to see who is responding to whom. Thank you.
Its "weakness" is relative.This is about Naturalism and its weaknesses.
There is no evidence that what is applied to the Scientific Method WAS NOT CREATED. You have no proof to indicate otherwise. Your inability to answer this by use of the Scientific Method is noticeable to all. Got it?
Are you a 'bot? Might just as well be...Enough diversion! Naturalism is based on faith. No evidence of origin forces Naturalists to walk by trust and faith. Got it?
Enough diversion! Naturalism is based on faith. No evidence of origin forces Naturalists to walk by trust and faith. Got it?
It's "weakness" is relative.
There's stuff we don't know. So what?
/QUOTE]
Its weakness is relative?
There is "stuff" we don't know. So what?
You have no evidence that this physical realm was not created. Period.
So what? The entire foundation of Naturalism is based on faith, that's all.
"Weakness" is relative? You have built your evidence-based knowledge of this world from matter with natural properties THAT HAVE BEEN CREATED. You have no proof otherwise. Zero. Got it?
You seem to be under the impression that repeating your assertions over and over again makes them true. Unfortunately for you, your impression in incorrect.
You really are becoming quite a pain. I have no evidence that Russell's Celestial Teapot does not exist either. And none that it does. Neither do you. Enough of this drivel. I've got better things to do, even if you haven't.It's "weakness" is relative.
There's stuff we don't know. So what?
Its weakness is relative?
There is "stuff" we don't know. So what?
You have no evidence that this physical realm was not created. Period.
So what? The entire foundation of Naturalism is based on faith, that's all.
"Weakness" is relative? You have built your evidence-based knowledge of this world from matter with natural properties THAT HAVE BEEN CREATED. You have no proof otherwise. Zero. Got it?
Are you a 'bot? Might just as well be...
If there's no evidence of origin forces, there's no evidence of origin forces. There. Happy now? Going to stop your meaningless bleating?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?