TLK Valentine
I've already read the books you want burned.
- Apr 15, 2012
- 64,493
- 30,323
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
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.
That's a question you must answer from within your own presuppositions, one of which I stated in my last sentence.
John
NZ
That's a question you must answer from within your own presuppositions, one of which I stated in my last sentence.
John
NZ
How then can you claim 'truth' or even 'evidence' when all that comes from some socially conditioned neuro/chemical process, since there is nothing beyond matter?
John
NZ
The reason is that facts are objective and can be discovered regardless of beliefs or social influences.
I think that these rely on plain old data. It's the same kind of stuff that all of science relies on.Evolution, geology or paleontology work with historical data.
It's not that straightforward. At a simple level a description (or definition) tells us something about the subject (weight, composition etc). But if we conclude "That's all that needs to be said about it" we deny explanation of questions relating to its origins and meaning. For example, we can analyse a rock scientifically. But people can see it as a sacred object i.e. it has a value above its mere composition, or as part of a spiritual manifestation animism), merely as a product of chance events (materialism), an illusion as in some eastern beliefs, or as a component of a creation. Those beliefs are deeply and anciently rooted and cannot be cast aside, as naturalism that denies any supernatural realm does.
In addition Christians, who do accept a supernatural realm state very clearly that the scientific method cannot subject what is above the natural to that criteria, by definition;
Other criteria are needed, the historical being one. But then naturalism relies on history too. Evolution, geology or paleontology work with historical data.
Epistemology is about how we know anything.
An inherent circularity within any purely 'natural' explanation of things requires belief in the capability of the human intellect to achieve that. But that requires the use of reason to begin with, hence its circularity, the use of reason justifies reason itself.
I think that these rely on plain old data. It's the same kind of stuff that all of science relies on.
But it is historical nevertheless. Thus normal historical criteria are necessary, as it is with Christian claims
.
So it's hard to know how the supernatural can be included into scientific descriptions in any meaningful way. If the supernatural does exist, then the rules by which it operates are completely unknown, as far as I can tell. Hence a scientific discourse using it is beyond the capability of any human.
They cannot be as I have said previously. That is a limitation of the scientific method. Other just as valid criteria are necessary.
But with nature on the other hand, it's hard to deny its reality, and it's hard to deny that there are many things we know about it and how it operates. Given this, we can reasonably used this knowledge to explain things we see in nature. This has certainly allowed us to apply that knowledge to make things like computers (which rely on quantum mechanics), telescopes (which rely on optics), better antennas and turbines (which rely on evolutionary algorithms) etc.
But it is historical nevertheless. Thus normal historical criteria are necessary, as it is with Christian claims
They cannot be as I have said previously. That is a limitation of the scientific method.
Why can't we cast them aside? The last 500 years has seen the systematic replacement of supernatural explanations with natural explanations. The technology you use today is a product of moving past supernatural explanations and looking for real working explanations that have nothing to do with superstition.
Some of that is true. But the jump from describing natural 'laws' to stating that's all that exists is a philosophical projection, not a scientific fact. As such philosophical criteria will need to be employed, not merely an appeal to data.
They can claim it all they want, but it doesn't make it true. If the supernatural causes changes in the natural then it can be studied by naturalism. If the supernatural has no effect on anything then it is irrelevant.
Its effects can, but not the source itself. And if you doubt a supernatural source then that cannot happen anyway as an a priori presumption..
Naturalism works with empirical data, period. It doesn't matter if that empirical evidence was produced 4 billion years ago or 4 minutes ago, it is all empirical evidence.
So does legitimate involvement is science by Christians - same data,same evaluation, except for denial of God as creator of what we observe.
What naturalism does not use is myths written by men about history.
Simplistic assumption, no more than the modern myths of a purely material universe.
So how can we know if something is true or not if we do not use evidence? If we simply accept every claim as true then how can we know anything?
Different data requires different method and evidence. You cannot objectively 'prove' what any personal emotion actually feels like to you. Are you emotions then meaningless?
Knowledge requires finding things that are true. This can't occur if you are not allowed to challenge an idea as Heissonear wants.
No sensible Christian would deny that; most of us are committed to that principle.
Results justify the method. Naturalism works. Supernaturalism doesn't.
Some of that is true. But the jump from describing natural 'laws' to stating that's all that exists is a philosophical projection, not a scientific fact. As such philosophical criteria will need to be employed, not merely an appeal to data.
Its effects can, but not the source itself. And if you doubt a supernatural source then that cannot happen anyway as an a priori presumption..
So does legitimate involvement is science by Christians - same data,same evaluation, except for denial of God as creator of what we observe.
Simplistic assumption, no more than the modern myths of a purely material universe.
Different data requires different method and evidence. You cannot objectively 'prove' what any personal emotion actually feels like to you. Are you emotions then meaningless?
No sensible Christian would deny that; most of us are committed to that principle.
Really? Hitler's efficient gas chambers justified them? Nature 'works' according to divine design, naturalism is merely a philosophical position some people adopt.
John
NZ
Sure, if your goal is "murder a whole bunch of people", then gas chambers do the trick. The fact that they were built with only evil goals in mind doesn't make them not work.Really? Hitler's efficient gas chambers justified them? Nature 'works' according to divine design, naturalism is merely a philosophical position some people adopt.
Then why no accept what we are saying as true?
Again, some
imprecise thinking. Christians have no issue with science.
This is getting tiresome. It seems many of your ilk cannot engage is debate beyond repetition of your mantras. You seldom respond to the wider issues raised by them.
There is no genuine debate, just repetitive statement
How do you attach meaning to blood flow? That is the issue. If our knowledge is merely some physical occurrence then all we have is sensation but no 'objective' meaning.
Invention only? that last statement is but an opinion.
Apply that argument to your position.
You do have difficulty understanding some things
John
NZ
Why can't we cast them aside? The last 500 years has seen the systematic replacement of supernatural explanations with natural explanations.
What naturalism does not use is myths written by men about history.
So how can we know if something is true or not if we do not use evidence? If we simply accept every claim as true then how can we know anything?
Results justify the method. Naturalism works. Supernaturalism doesn't.
Except in the field of astronomy, where it's gone completely in the opposite direction over the past 40 years.
Define "supernatural".
Are we suggesting that anything not (yet) seen in the lab, "supernatural"? Gravitons? SUSY sparticles?
Actually, it does use historical documents.
Hold tight for "curvatons" coming to a universe near you.
Which is exactly why none of the "hypothetical" parts of physics seem to show up in the lab.
Trotting out the one trick pony, are we?
It's amusing to watch you attempt to impose "lab standards" on God, yet completely ignore such standards as it relates to physics. Double standard much? When did any hypothetical entity in physics show up in controlled experimentation?No, we are talking about sane ideas, not your perversions of the scientific method. You do realize that there is a real world outside of the lab, right? You do realize that naturalists study that real world outside of the lab, right?
3,000-year-old artifacts reveal history behind biblical David and Goliath - NBC News.comHow.
Who me? Nah. I'm waiting for someone to define awareness (besides me) so we can discuss "spirituality".Get ready for Michael's usual list of denial and diversions to cover up his false and refuted ideas.
Show me *experimental* support for SUSY theory or for gravitons, inflation, dark energy, curvatons, yada yada yada. Such support simply does not exist. the hypothetical entities of physics demonstrate that "science' is not limited strictly to "naturalism". Holy Cow! Even by mainstream standards "inflation" may not even exist in nature anymore, if it *ever* did.Except that it does, but you refuse to admit it.
Like your "supernatural' gig isn't a "one trick pony" routine?
To then expect "religion" to show and demonstrate that all it's "hypothetical" entities show up in the lab, is nothing but a two bit double standard IMO.
It's amusing to watch you attempt to impose "lab standards" on God,
Who me? Nah. I'm waiting for someone to define awareness (besides me) so we can discuss "spirituality".
Show me *experimental* support for SUSY theory or for gravitons, inflation, dark energy, curvatons, yada yada yada.
According to Heissonear, not criteria should be used. As soon as we have criteria we are going to limit what can be considered to be true and this creates limits. Instead, according to Heissonear's argument, we should just accept every single claim as true and not question any of it.
Then why no accept what we are saying as true? I'm not sure many scientists would agree with his on that.
We don't know the source for gravity, yet we have no trouble studying the effects of gravity through naturalism. Scientists for years did not know the source for the electromagnetic force and yet they had no problem using naturalism to study it. If the supernatural has effects in the natural then it can be studied by naturalism. Period.
Again, some imprecise thinking. Christians have no issue with science.
Then please show us evidence of the supernatural.
This is getting tiresome. It seems many of your ilk cannot engage is debate beyond repetition of your mantras. You seldom respond to the wider issues raised by them.
There is no genuine debate, just repetitive statement
We can objectively measure blood flow in the brain and objectively measure the levels of neurotransmitters. We can demonstrate that emotions are real physical things, and we can do that through the use of naturalism.
The supernatural is an invention created by apologists. It is a bucket they think they can put ideas in and not have those ideas challenged. Any claim that they want to be true without challenge they claim it is part of the supernatural. It isn't because they can demonstrate that it is supernatural. They just don't want it questioned.
How do you attach meaning to blood flow? That is the issue. If our knowledge is merely some physical occurrence then all we have is sensation but no 'objective' meaning.
Invention only? that last statement is but an opinion.
According to Heissonear, the very second that an epistemology has criteria for what is and isn't true that method is limited.
Apply that argument to your position.
Are you saying that the gas chambers didn't work? Are you saying that the Jews were killed by the supernatural?
You do have difficulty understanding some things
John
NZ
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?