3 Questions For Believers (A work in progress.)

[fr0d0]

The scientific method utilises empirical evidence exclusively.

Can you give an example of a scientific discovery that has no link to empirical evidence?

[GrandizerII]

The scientific method utilises empirical evidence exclusively.

Can you give an example of a scientific discovery that has no link to empirical evidence?

I never said that they had no link.

[fr0d0]

So the reasoning is always secondary.

No reasoning is devoid of reality. We couldn't understand anything without some frame of reference.

So what about questions of deity? Something we define with no way of establishing a hard link to physical reality. This requires pure reason. Science cannot be applied because it is out of the scientific realm. Rationalism applies.

Said atheists refuse to entertain rationalism to the exclusion of empiricism, and so deny one of the methods of discovery.

[Jackalope]

So the reasoning is always secondary.

No reasoning is devoid of reality. We couldn't understand anything without some frame of reference.

So what about questions of deity? Something we define with no way of establishing a hard link to physical reality. This requires pure reason. Science cannot be applied because it is out of the scientific realm. Rationalism applies.

Said atheists refuse to entertain rationalism to the exclusion of empiricism, and so deny one of the methods of discovery.

I've only ever asked you to provide your rational explanation for deity. In nearly three years, I haven't seen you do so.

[GrandizerII]

So the reasoning is always secondary.

No reasoning is devoid of reality. We couldn't understand anything without some frame of reference.

So what about questions of deity? Something we define with no way of establishing a hard link to physical reality. This requires pure reason. Science cannot be applied because it is out of the scientific realm. Rationalism applies.

Said atheists refuse to entertain rationalism to the exclusion of empiricism, and so deny one of the methods of discovery.

Mention these atheists by name please, and provide direct quotes of what they said to support your point.

[fr0d0]

I've only ever asked you to provide your rational explanation for deity. In nearly three years, I haven't seen you do so.

I have no idea what you're asking for.

---

Mention these atheists by name please, and provide direct quotes of what they said to support your point.

I name you in the other thread

[Jackalope]

I've only ever asked you to provide your rational explanation for deity. In nearly three years, I haven't seen you do so.

I have no idea what you're asking for.

Come now, hobbit. You claim to have come to believe through rational process - all I'm asking is to share that process. In the three years I've been here, I've never seen you do so.

Is that so difficult to understand?

[GrandizerII]

I have no idea what you're asking for.

Come now, hobbit. You claim to have come to believe through rational process - all I'm asking is to share that process. In the three years I've been here, I've never seen you do so.

Is that so difficult to understand?

Sounds like he's just here to play. If that is the case, I'm out of this discussion.

[fr0d0]

I have no idea what you're asking for.

Come now, hobbit. You claim to have come to believe through rational process - all I'm asking is to share that process. In the three years I've been here, I've never seen you do so.

Is that so difficult to understand?

Well that looks completely different and I can see a question. I've just been trying to explain exactly that to irrational in these two parallel threads. I guess you guys just aren't getting it

I'm certainly deadly serious and want to explain it to you. I believe that I've done the same very many times since I've been here on AF. Others have confirmed that they accept my explanation.

What I can't do is provide you with reason to believe yourself. It's not that it's necessarily complex. It can be as complex or as simple as you need it to be. The only people that are dissatisfied with my explanation are those that demand that they get it enough to be convinced themselves, and if course this is not possible. The only way you can do that is to do something yourself. (Or for God to do it to you I guess).

[Rampant.A.I.]

Well you could defend empiricism as somehow linked to rationalism as you said.

I'm satisfied that I've used reason to reach my decision to believe, yes. I've covered it many times here.

Via thorough investigation of the bible and it's claims I concluded it to be true, and acted upon that information.

I've explored in detail my conclusions, which is a continual process. I investigate and question all the time as I believe I have the responsibility to do.

I'm from a non religious background. Both my parents were not religious. My Mum was quite a strong atheist. My dad made fun.

The scientific method makes use of both empiricism and rationalism. It employs both deductive and inductive reasoning.

Can you provide a rationalistic basis for your theism?

How many times does Frodo need to hear this before it sinks in?