Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism

[BettyG]

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.

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

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.

If you believe that empirical verifiability is the only way to know truth, why are you using logic to convince me that I am wrong? Ergo, you apparently do not totally hold empirical verifiability as an axiom. This whole thread is a logical debate, not a scientific experiment.
I love science. I work in medical research. I read lab experiments all day long. I just know its limits. The scientific method has to be logical and reasonable or the experiments won't prove anything other than the design of the experiment was wrong.

I haven't gotten around to discussing reasons why Christianity is logical. I am trying to stick to the topic.
I am also a skeptic that assumes that events have natural causes unless proven otherwise. When studying a miracle, I also rule out the possibility of fraud or lunacy. C.S. Lewis in his book, Mere Christianity, said that Jesus is either a liar, lunatic or Lord. He demonstrated why the Lord option was the most reasonable. He used to be an atheist until the evidence demonstrated otherwise. (I've been there, done that, got the T-shirt). You cannot assume Jesus was a liar or lunatic unless you examine the evidence.

One cannot be skeptical of everything. In addition to evidence and logic, you have to trust those who have the proper authority. If that were not true, then there would be not point in going to school or reading books. You seem to trust David Hume like a god. Can you see the flaws in his logic?

The consequences of sin are both here and hereafter. I have that insight on experience and good authority. If you were open to why Jesus is a good authority, I would explain it. However, I sense it would be wasted effort. So I'd like to continue discussing how we can know what is true. I believe it is through science, evidence, AND logic.

---

metaphysical - of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses.

That just reinforces my impression. How do we define that which we cannot even perceive?

Aren't you basing your questions on Rene Descartes' philosophy? He said the only thing real is what our senses perceive. By claiming that only material things exist, atheism renders itself a self-refuting proposition. Ironically, because the atheist denies the existence of anything that is not reducible to material substances, he cannot use ideas, reason, or appeals to logic and remain consistent with his claim. To be consistent, an atheist claim that atheism (or anything else, for that matter) is true, because to assert that he knows something is true necessitates self-awareness, as well as an awareness of ideas that are independent of the self. It would also mean that he is aware that other minds exist.

This is a sample of the flaws in his logic. There is a lot more to it.

---

Can you empirically verify that science is the only way to know truth?

Yes, it is the only truth we have. Anything that cannot be verified by science has either yet to be verified or is a make believe concept created by man for appeasement of his mind in regards to the unknown. There is little doubt in my mind that a deity will never be proven by science to exist.

See my post below about flaws in Descartes' philosophy.

---

The biggest failure Christians have when trying to discern the validity of the resurrection is to take the eyewitness testimony as infallible. Take the C.S. Lewis quote in which he says that Jesus was either "Liar, lunatic, or lord." How about misquoted, misunderstood, or completely fabricated?

The reliability of the Bible is a whole different topic. Perhaps we can have a thread on that later. I don't have time for it right now. You all are keeping me occupied responding to this thread. So it has to be a lick and a promise for awhile.