RE: Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...
May 28, 2020 at 1:42 pm
(This post was last modified: May 28, 2020 at 1:42 pm by LadyForCamus.)
(May 27, 2020 at 4:57 am)Belacqua Wrote:(May 27, 2020 at 12:50 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: @Belacqua
When you say “a case where no scientific explanation is possible,” you’re doing the very thing you’ve accused others in this thread of doing; assuming one of two mutually exclusive causes is impossible in order to pave a way for the other.
I think there's another way we could approach it.
Let's say there are two positions.
1) All questions are answerable by science.
and
2) Not all questions are answerable by science.
The first statement is falsifiable. To falsify it, you just have to find a question that science can't answer. (I'm not saying it has been or will be falsified, only that it could be.)
By what method could we do this? How could you rule out a cause you haven’t learned about yet?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
