The scientific method utilises empirical evidence exclusively.
Can you give an example of a scientific discovery that has no link to empirical evidence?
Can you give an example of a scientific discovery that has no link to empirical evidence?
3 Questions For Believers (A work in progress.)
|
The scientific method utilises empirical evidence exclusively.
Can you give an example of a scientific discovery that has no link to empirical evidence?
So the reasoning is always secondary.
No reasoning is devoid of reality. We couldn't understand anything without some frame of reference. So what about questions of deity? Something we define with no way of establishing a hard link to physical reality. This requires pure reason. Science cannot be applied because it is out of the scientific realm. Rationalism applies. Said atheists refuse to entertain rationalism to the exclusion of empiricism, and so deny one of the methods of discovery. (June 17, 2014 at 9:41 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: So the reasoning is always secondary. I've only ever asked you to provide your rational explanation for deity. In nearly three years, I haven't seen you do so. (June 17, 2014 at 9:41 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: So the reasoning is always secondary. Mention these atheists by name please, and provide direct quotes of what they said to support your point. RE: 3 Questions For Believers (A work in progress.)
June 17, 2014 at 10:07 pm
(This post was last modified: June 17, 2014 at 10:08 pm by fr0d0.)
(June 17, 2014 at 9:44 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: I've only ever asked you to provide your rational explanation for deity. In nearly three years, I haven't seen you do so. I have no idea what you're asking for. (June 17, 2014 at 9:44 pm)Irrational Wrote: Mention these atheists by name please, and provide direct quotes of what they said to support your point. I name you in the other thread (June 17, 2014 at 10:07 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:(June 17, 2014 at 9:44 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: I've only ever asked you to provide your rational explanation for deity. In nearly three years, I haven't seen you do so. Come now, hobbit. You claim to have come to believe through rational process - all I'm asking is to share that process. In the three years I've been here, I've never seen you do so. Is that so difficult to understand? (June 17, 2014 at 10:28 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:(June 17, 2014 at 10:07 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I have no idea what you're asking for. Sounds like he's just here to play. If that is the case, I'm out of this discussion. RE: 3 Questions For Believers (A work in progress.)
June 18, 2014 at 5:28 am
(This post was last modified: June 18, 2014 at 5:38 am by fr0d0.)
(June 17, 2014 at 10:28 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:(June 17, 2014 at 10:07 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I have no idea what you're asking for. Well that looks completely different and I can see a question. I've just been trying to explain exactly that to irrational in these two parallel threads. I guess you guys just aren't getting it I'm certainly deadly serious and want to explain it to you. I believe that I've done the same very many times since I've been here on AF. Others have confirmed that they accept my explanation. What I can't do is provide you with reason to believe yourself. It's not that it's necessarily complex. It can be as complex or as simple as you need it to be. The only people that are dissatisfied with my explanation are those that demand that they get it enough to be convinced themselves, and if course this is not possible. The only way you can do that is to do something yourself. (Or for God to do it to you I guess). (June 17, 2014 at 8:54 pm)Irrational Wrote:(June 17, 2014 at 8:42 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Well you could defend empiricism as somehow linked to rationalism as you said. How many times does Frodo need to hear this before it sinks in? |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|