(August 30, 2012 at 4:18 am)RaphielDrake Wrote:No. It does not even "explain a lot of the universe". There is no "explanation of the universe". There are multiple explanations, each which come with their own sets of metaphysical assumptions that are for the most part unverifiable. You don't learn this in your high school science classes, or even in college science classes. They assume that science is just true, and atoms really look like what the bohr model portrays.(August 30, 2012 at 4:09 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I really want to change the perspective of atheists to whom it seems like science explains everything. They don't realize that crucial aspects of reality are untouched by science, but are dealt with by metaphysics.
No-one here claims science explains everything, yet. It is however the only reliable way we have found to explain alot of the universe around us and our understanding of it expands everyday thanks to the scientific techniques that have been honed and researched by taking into account evidence.
Metaphysics doesn't "deal" with anything. Its a branch of philosophy, an astoundingly unbacked theory if you wanted to be generous.
But there is other stuff. Foundational stuff. This is stuff you will only learn about in graduate or postgraduate level philosophy courses. And once you fully realize that there is really very little solid foundation for our scientific observations to make sense, your mind will be blown when you realize the impact this has on your ontological foundations.
If you want to have a head start go look up metaphysics and start reading some intro level stuff. Stuff you can understand without much background.
You will realize that everything science "knows" rests on some very interesting underlying metaphysical assumptions that are not as dependable or proven as you think.
And you NEED to have an underlying theory that serves as a foundation to how you incorporate science into your worldview. You will be surprised that philosophers like Plantinga and Popper have made science more friendly to theists than to atheists, and unless you thoroughly understand arguments like Plantinga's EAAN, you will never truly be able to develop an underlying philosophical foundation that can beat atheists up.
All you will be left with is insulting Christians. But that's for the small fry.
(August 30, 2012 at 4:25 am)idunno Wrote: Vinny I knew you were hiding behind that obnoxious accent!
Gabagool! Ei, amico mio.
What, youse actually gonna just sit around here like little Annie meek and mild or youse gonna lay your religious smackdown on all of us little goombas over 'ere?
Come on here!
