I could if I felt like looking for them. But I am not persuaded that it would be at all fruitful so I won't.
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.
Could you name, say, five of those many persons who came to Christianity after hearing the Kalaam Cosmological argument?
Even if he did misconstrue the findings, it is enough that it be shown he has appealed to science to support his arguments which is all I was intending to prove by saying what I said.
Testimonials from people like ohh....Antony Flew? Maybe you have heard of him?
Testimonials from people like ohh....Antony Flew? Maybe you have heard of him?
Good thing it isn't an assumption. We have lots of good evidence that this idea is true.1. The assumption that science is a reliable method of knowing about nature is not subject to verification through the scientific method.
False.2. The assumption that the speed of light is constant in one direction between any two points (A) and (B) is not subject to verification through the scientific method.
I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. There are 1000m in a km. Verified truth of not, it is a usefu' part of the language of science. Same with the rest of math and logic.3. Logical and mathematical truths cannot be verified by scientists
Nor is it one made by science, so I have no idea why it it's in this list.4. The assumption that the external world of physical objects is real cannot be verified by science.
5. The assumption that the human mind is capable of understanding the nature of reality cannot be verified by science, for in attempting to do so, scientists would be relying upon the belief that they were accurately apprehending reality and thus would be arguing in a circle.
neither can anything else.6. The assumption that the past was not created five minutes ago cannot be proven by scientists.
... isn't something claimed by science.7. The assumption that any phenomena can be understood as an effect of the laws of nature
False. This is tested all the time.8. The assumption that the laws of nature are the same everywhere cannot be proved via the scientific method.
There is pretty good evidence for this belief, so it is way beyond an assumption.9. The assumption that other minds exist cannot be proven by science. Scientists take it for granted that the people they interact with on a daily basis are actually human beings and not androids.
compared to my criterion of rationality that is not self-refuting.
Which would be represented in which method?compared to my criterion of rationality that is not self-refuting.
Ok, so your claim remains unsupported. You even made it before you had found the evidence.I could if I felt like looking for them. But I am not persuaded that it would be at all fruitful so I won't.
So you admit that though he appealed to science he misconstrued the findings?
You said "many." I'm pretty sure Anthony Flew is only one individual, not many. Regardless of which, there are many who have heard the stock arguments and found them unimpressive. I'm sure you've interacted with many such individuals in your time here.
Which would be represented in which method?
Plus, of course, you haven´t shown that the scientific method is self-refuting.
Ok, so your claim remains unsupported. You even made it before you had found the evidence.
So where is the method?The criterion which allows for the existence of varying types of propositional knowledge, not just one type.
As the Internet Encyclopedia puts it:
A thorough epistemology should, of course, address all kinds of knowledge, although there might be different standards for a priori and a posteriori knowledge.
Epistemology[bless and do not curse][Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
I asked "[The scientific method] 'flawed' - as opposed to what?"And I have never said the scientific method was self-refuting. I have no idea where you even got that from.
So where is the method?
I asked "[The scientific method] 'flawed' - as opposed to what?"
and you replied "compared to my criterion of rationality [which, btw., isn´t a method and hence not a comparandum, to begin with] which isn´t self-refuting". Contrasting an alleged flawed thing to something else by pointing out how the latter isn´t self-refuting suggests to me that this is part of the contrast. Or else the remark would be completely redundant.
Well, as soon as you are able to present a viable and workable (and on top "rational" - since this is the criterium you yourself postulated) epistemological method that includes the exploration of allegedly existing stuff that can´t be explored by the scientific method, your anti-scientism will have a leg to stand on.scientism is flawed, not the scientific method.
Well, as soon as you are able to present a viable and workable (and on top "rational" - since this is the criterium you yourself postulated) epistemological method that includes the exploration of allegedly existing stuff that can´t be explored by the scientific method, your anti-scientism will have a leg to stand on.
Whilst we have agreed that every methodological system necessarily starts from axioms, I must have missed it when you demonstrated that this fact renders the system "self-refuting".scientism is self-refuting. that is the only reason I need to reject it.
Well, so far it´s been you who made the claims, and I was the one checking whether there´s substance to them.You have anything of substance you wish to ask or comment on?
Whilst we have agreed that every methodological system necessarily starts from axioms, I must have missed it when you demonstrated that this fact renders the system "self-refuting".
From a pragmatic pov, scientism can be seen as the attempt of a reductio ad absurdum: whereever applying the scientific method leaves something unexplained or unexplainable, this is the place where proponents of the "supernatural" can use and offer whatever methodology (which inevitably will suffer from the same problem every methodology suffers from, though) they may have developed. So far I haven´t seen any such method.
IOW: Without scientism (the idea that everything must be explainable by application of the scientific method) "supernaturalists" wouldn´t even know where there´s still space left for the "supernatural".
Whilst you "supernaturalists" are methodologically empty-handed, scientism does your homework for you, as well. Thus, a little bit of appreciation would be in order.
Well, so far it´s been you who made the claims, and I was the one checking whether there´s substance to them.
Dr. Craig?
yea ReasonableFaith.org â Defend Biblical Christianity, Apologetics, Bible Questions
while youre there check out the testimonials too bro
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?