(January 21, 2010 at 5:15 pm)theVOID Wrote: So, to summaries:
Science is not accurate enough for you because it is a consensus of subjective human experts observing objective phenomenon in any given field, yet you have the single most subjective experience possible and that is good enough to convince you that not only is there Is a God, but he's the Christian one, actually wrote the book and it's 100% accurate.
Surely you see how inane that is?
Straw-man as I said nothing about science being inaccurate and because of such inaccuracies I begin with different presuppositions.
(January 21, 2010 at 5:15 pm)theVOID Wrote: Sounds like me your comfortable stupor has prevented you from being able to question your presuppositions, and if you are not prepared to question your presuppositions then how can you claim to care about the truth? You surely know that quite often the biggest problem in an idea is the presuppositions under which it was made? That's why presuppositions have to be just as heavily examined and scrutinised as the conclusions that follow from them.
There you would be wrong. I have questioned my presuppositions and concluded and continue to conclude that any other presuppositions lead nowhere.
(January 21, 2010 at 5:15 pm)theVOID Wrote: I also laugh at your statement that "Logic and science are useful tools for discovering within the created universe" yet you are so quick to dismiss the scientific process whenever it is incompatible with your silly old book. Another example of how your emotional attachment to your presuppositions is affecting your ability to honestly examine the world.
Laugh all you want. But in any worldview something must have the ultimate authority. In mine it is God.
(January 21, 2010 at 5:15 pm)theVOID Wrote: Ok then, lets test your claim.
What is my presupposition?
You tell me. It is your worldview.
(January 21, 2010 at 5:15 pm)theVOID Wrote:Quote:So if one begins with a set of first principles and from them demonstrates something and says that this confirms the first principles, it is not a proof of the first principles. But if the conclusion of confirming the first principles is taken as or meant as proof of the first principles, the argument would be seen as or be circular.
This would only be the case if we claimed the first principles were absolute and objectively true. As my signature says (courtesy of the great Feynman), science only talks about what is more likely and what is less likely, not what is possible and not possible. So in this case any conformation of the conclusions of a hypothesis only serve to strengthen the hypothesis as currently accurate when compared to the current body of relevant knowledge, it does not prove the hypothesis as absolutely and objectively true.
Well if you personally don’t start with first principles that at least you think are absolute and objectively true, then I don’t know why you have such a high regard for whatever worldview you hold such that you find mine so laughable.
