RE: Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism
June 18, 2013 at 4:42 am
(This post was last modified: June 18, 2013 at 4:43 am by littleendian.)
(June 17, 2013 at 10:53 pm)BettyG Wrote: The principle of empirical verifiability states that there are only two kinds of meaningful expressions: 1) those that are true by definition and 2) those that are empirically verifiable. Since the principle of empirical verifiability itself is neither true by definition nor empirically verifiable, it cannot be meaningful.I hold it as an axiom, so yes, to me that principle is true by definition.
Quote:So why do you put your faith in it? It takes a lot of faith to be an atheist. Can you empirically verify that science is the only way to know truth? No. You cannot. It is a philosophical assumption, not scientific. Neither can anyone prove that reason and logic is not a valid means of knowing truth. I favor both science and reason/logic instead of just one.Yes, everything takes some kind of trust, that e.g. tomorrow the world will still be here. However there are reasonable faith assumptions (the world will be here tomorrow) and there are unreasonable ones (after I die I go to heaven but only if I continue to resist fucking my wifes girlfriend). It is much more reasonable to assume that the downside of fucking your wifes girlfriend is here in this world, tangible and real. And no, I don't endorse it
Quote:Neither can anyone prove scientifically that God does not act in this world. You cannot put that in a test tube either.Famous quote for you: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". Atheists/Agnostics don't need to prove jack.
"Men see clearly enough the barbarity of all ages — except their own!" — Ernest Crosby.
