(April 17, 2017 at 9:31 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(April 17, 2017 at 8:32 am)Harry Nevis Wrote: So you're saying there is no supernatural, right?
Not at all. I'm saying that the strident skeptic, the one that wants to exclude the possibility of miracles, always does so by appealing to the "laws of nature". The pretense of the skeptic is that his current understanding of those laws exhausts all possibilities. The history of human inquiry has shown otherwise. In fact we have no reason to suppose that scientific inquiry can ever, even in theory, fully explicate the world. The stance that miracles didn't happen because miracles cannot happen, is not even reasonable. As Shakespeare said, "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy." Indeed.
You don't know what a skeptic is. Or, since you can't produce any objective, testable evidence for your beliefs, you twist the definition to make you seem open minded. Since a miracle has never been proven to occur)or even passed the first phase of inquiry), and many so-called miracles have been shown to be false/faked, there is no reason to believe they happen anywhere but in the mind. If one can be proven, then I'll change my mind.
"The last superstition of the human mind is the superstition that religion in itself is a good thing." - Samuel Porter Putnam
