(October 5, 2016 at 9:48 pm)Rhythm Wrote:(October 5, 2016 at 8:40 pm)bennyboy Wrote: You are conflating two contexts-- the context of that which is observed, and that of the hypothetical framework upon which all that rests.
...how can this fail to get through? It's pointless to request specific scientific demonstration of materialism. That's all it -can- provide. That's all it talks about. The minute you've assigned any credibility to any particular piece of science, you have assigned credibility to a materialists position. It self limits and self describes -as such-. I'm not interested, again, in proving to you that science works and can be trusted, proving to you that what science says..is true. You get to make that determination for yourself.
So your defense against my assertion that materialism is an arbitrary philosophical assumption is to go to science, and you say science is defined by a belief in the material world view? Circles are bad, man. Circles. . . are bad.
