RE: Parallel Between Theism and Naturalism?
October 1, 2014 at 7:23 pm
(This post was last modified: October 1, 2014 at 8:21 pm by Anomalocaris.)
The difference is naturalism has provided many direct and verifiable explanations with unique and powerfully accurate and precise predictive powers, thus leaving no doubt it is capable of uniquely sound explanations.
The only doubt is whether it is capable of providing sound explanations in cases where it has not yet done so. There is evidence suggesting it can, no evidence suggesting it can't.
Theism has never provided any direct and verifiable explanations with any unique or accurate, or precise predictive powers. Thus providing no evidence at all that it is even in principle capable of providing any uniquely sound explanation whatsoever under any circumstances.
So with theism, there is no credibility to any excuse. With naturality, there is credibility lent by long track record to a temporary pledge for patience.
The only doubt is whether it is capable of providing sound explanations in cases where it has not yet done so. There is evidence suggesting it can, no evidence suggesting it can't.
Theism has never provided any direct and verifiable explanations with any unique or accurate, or precise predictive powers. Thus providing no evidence at all that it is even in principle capable of providing any uniquely sound explanation whatsoever under any circumstances.
So with theism, there is no credibility to any excuse. With naturality, there is credibility lent by long track record to a temporary pledge for patience.
