(April 25, 2013 at 7:29 am)bladevalant546 Wrote: 1. What makes you all different from any enitity believing world views, when in all technical (if you're intellectually honest) are merely replacing *insert enitity here* with nature.
Nature exists. The entities are imaginary. Replacing something imaginary with something real is not the same as equivocating them. Not to mention, there is no element of worship for (most of) us. It's a big, dumb process and we're part of it. That's all.
Quote:2. In truth and honesty how do you claim objectivity when inductive reasoning use as a means to justify a full naturalist point of view?
When you deal with people whose 'evidence' of their worldview is entirely subjective, and can only be 'verified' by individuals in 100% subjective ways (ask a Christian to share their proof and you'll never get anything), how could the claim be false?
Quote:3. My Final question is simple, when inductively we know things do not spring out of nothing (ex nihilio) how is taking the stance nature did still not considered faith in it most general definition?
We operate on faith as much as theists do. Not all faith is of equal validity. Faith based on observable, confirmable and testable evidence can be valuable. Faith based entirely on books and mental glitches is worthless.
