OK, quick lesson.Negative.
Ka is Japanese equivalent of ? It turns a declarative statement into a question:
Ah so desu = Oh, that's right
Ah so desu ka = Oh, is that right?
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.
OK, quick lesson.Negative.
Okay. Thanks for the info.OK, quick lesson.
Ka is Japanese equivalent of ? It turns a declarative statement into a question:
Ah so desu = Oh, that's right
Ah so desu ka = Oh, is that right?
He didn’t state a fact, He begged a question, if there was energy where did it come from? It’s a fair question.You didn't ask a question, you made a statement of
fact and claimed it was logical.
Why do you state an opinion as fact?
But that is not how science works. It assumes there's a material cause (causal closure of the physical) so that is all it will look for.
Yes that is what I had in mind but didn't express it well. But I think the first statement "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" can be an open question which doesn't exclude causal possibilities. Whereas the second statement "Every material thing that begins to exist from pre-existing material has a cause." is a closed one.I didn't actually invoke science.
The oft used argument that starts:
"Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is an overstatement. It is not some sort of axiom (though you could use it as a presupposition if you like, but it limits what you can actually "prove"). Instead it is one of those "common sense" inductions. If you rephrase it to limit to exclude "ex nihlio" it is fully consistent with what we know about the material world:
"Every material thing that begins to exist from pre-existing material has a cause."
It's a less powerful statement, but it is far more justifiable. It can be reached by inductive reasoning, which does happen to be the cornerstone of the scientific process.
Yes that is what I had in mind but didn't express it well. But I think the first statement "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" can be an open question which doesn't exclude causal possibilities. Whereas the second statement "Every material thing that begins to exist from pre-existing material has a cause." is a closed one.
Yes but when it actually comes to any theory on what caused our universe that's when it becomes an assumption because only a material cause can count. And science is held up as the Bastian of knowledge as to what is real or not. So methodological naturalism is really a ontological belief which cannot be justified. It cannot help but bring philosophy in.And that's precisely why the "philosophers" and "apologists" use the first version it leaves room to drive additional concepts through when you're not looking. (Looking at you "WLC".)
Finally!!Yes but when it actually comes to any theory on what caused our universe that's when it becomes an assumption because only a material cause can count. And science is held up as the Bastian of knowledge as to what is real or not. So methodological naturalism is really a ontological belief which cannot be justified. It cannot help but bring philosophy in.
But for methodological naturalism to be defendable it has to include the assumption that the physical world is causally closed ( Principle of the Causal Closure of the Physical).Finally!!
This is why I call philosophy belief-based. It assumes 'truth exists .. (so let's go find it)'. Its truth-seeking .. and that ain't Science.
Science does not start with assumptions, philosophical ones or any others .. Science tests assumptions theories and models. If they are untestable they get booted.
The idea that science is based on 'methodological naturalism' is a philospher's view of what scientists appear to be doing, from the philosopher's belief-based paradigms.
Science is defined by the six or so steps outlined by the method: speculation, hypothesis, formulate a test, execute the test, record the results, infer a conclusion based on those results.
When it comes to the origins of the universe topic, science starts with 'We don't know' and then applies the method .. and not: 'Step #1: Assume methodological naturalism', (or assume 'causality exists', etc).
Its a 'bottoms up' methodology .. not a 'top down' one.
From what I've witnessed, philosophical thinkers just don't seem to be capable of accepting this fundamental(?)
So wrapped up in their endless impractical philosophical musings, they are ..(?)
Yes but when it actually comes to any theory on what caused our universe that's when it becomes an assumption because only a material cause can count. And science is held up as the Bastian of knowledge as to what is real or not. So methodological naturalism is really a ontological belief which cannot be justified. It cannot help but bring philosophy in.
I didn't actually invoke science.
The oft used argument that starts:
"Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is an overstatement. It is not some sort of axiom (though you could use it as a presupposition if you like, but it limits what you can actually "prove"). Instead it is one of those "common sense" inductions. If you rephrase it to limit to exclude "ex nihlio" it is fully consistent with what we know about the material world:
"Every material thing that begins to exist from pre-existing material has a cause."
It's a less powerful statement, but it is far more justifiable. It can be reached by inductive reasoning, which does happen to be the cornerstone of the scientific process.
So GOD is an immaterial spirit, meaning HE is not confined to what can be seen and measured, HE is beyond all of it. Therefore science is unable to either prove or disprove HIS existence. And it probably never will prove HIS existence anyway.
Methodological naturalism is a *method* of science as science limits itself to the natural causation.
... or cause-and-effect relationships.Anyone who tells you that science disproves (or proves) God, doesn't understand science ...
There's a spiritual realm? Who knewI think cause-and-effect works both in the physical and spiritual realms. But I think I know what you mean here.
And that's precisely why the "philosophers" and "apologists" use the first version it leaves room to drive additional concepts through when you're not looking. (Looking at you "WLC".)
Its fascinating what you discover if you are willing to look..There's a spiritual realm? Who knew
... not all of them do, Hans. But carry on...![]()