if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...


Zachriel wrote:
"snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1154925554.926761.245210@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
snex schreef:

Zachriel wrote:
"snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1154807496.650123.286560@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<snip>


people love to claim that other methods of understanding exist when
science cannot address their
gods, yet they are lax in explaining those methods and how they are
supposed
to work.

They cannor be explained rationally, since they aren't rational but
emotional. They do not lend themselves for textbooks, but are usually
explained using metaphors, analogies and archetypical figures and
situations. For some brief introductions into this world of thinking,
reread (for instance) the tales of the Grimm Brothers.

if that is the case, then you are not allowed to say that these methods
give you knowledge about the existence of gods.


Knowledge. Assuming your conclusion again. Knowledge isn't necessarily
limited to scientific knowledge. Or we would never see the adjectival phrase
"scientific knowledge". For instance, your statement basically handwaves
away all art, which imparts knowledge through symbols and analogy. You must
have a boring bookshelf.

show me how one can attain knowledge of gods, and why this method
cannot be applied to evolution.



<snip>

what prevents these methods from being applied to origins, as
creationists are wont to do?

The great stupidity of creationists is that they _don't_ use those
methods. If they did, they would _easily_ see that their line of
reasoning (attempting to validate a creation-myth using a perverted
version of science and resorting to blunt lies to do it) is not only
doomed to be fruitless, but also counterproductive. It actually keeps
them from using those methods.

if you want to let "faith" in the door as a valid method of reasoning,
then you have no grounds to critisize creationists, for faith is what
they use.


Faith <> Reasoning. Assuming your conclusion again.

show me how faith works, and why it cannot be applied to evolution.





evolution appears true because the
great spirit wants you to think it appears true.


The Theory of Evolution is a strongly supported scientific conclusion
based
on empirical evidence.

The Theory of God is not supported at all by the scientific method or
any empirical evidence, yet people claim there is some other route to
come to believe in him.

There is. The fact that you don't see it does not prevent others from
seeing it. Oh and before you ask, it is _not_ susceptible to scientific
reasoning. That is reserved for other avenues of understanding.

then explain how it works and why it cant be applied to evolution.


Evolution is either a specific empirical observation, or a scientific theory
which explains a variety of empirical data.

so what? if kent hovind has FAITH that evolution is false, and you
agree that FAITH is valid, then either kent hovind is applying faith
incorrectly, or you have no grounds to critisize him.

so, feel free to tell me how faith works and why kent hovind is not
allowed to apply it to evolution.





what prevents this other route from also concluding evolution to be
false?

The fact that it says nothing about the subjects science has chosen to
study.

you cant say this until you describe the method itself.


Now, I know we discussed this. You even responded while ignoring the point
and repeating the error here. There may be no method to religious belief.
Some people may just believe. What is the method of falling love? The
question doesn't make sense.

if there is no method, then why do you not join me in agreeing to their
insanity?

falling in love definitely has a method; if you think it does not, i
pity the fact that you have never fallen in love.





the christian god
appears to exist because the great spirit wants you to think it
appears
to exist. whatever you think is, is because the great spirit wants
it
that way, and thus objective truth is irrelevant.


It is certainly not irrelevant. You merely assert that.

it is irrelevant. if non-natural entities are considered, then all bets
are off as to any notions of truth.

Which implies you have knowledge of "truth". It has been a subject i'm
very much interested in. Tell me more. How do you _scientifically_
determine what the "truth" is, especially when it comes to non-natural
entities?

In case you hadn't noticed the sting in it, ask Mr. Wilkins. He's the
resident professional on those matters. Popper had something to say on
that, it think, but as i've heard even he's not above criticism...

the very word "non-natural" implies falsity. nature is all that is.


That is your metaphysical belief. But I would point out that you can't
demonstrate this empirically. It probably doesn't even make sense as a valid
scientific hypothesis. You must be deriving this belief from somewhere else
in your psyche.

no, it is not a metaphysical belief, it is a definition. anything that
exists is natural. if any gods exist, they are natural. when youre
ready to show me how the existence of gods can be demonstrated, whether
by science, faith, or some other method, i am all ears.



--
Zachriel
"When old age shall this generation waste,
Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours..."
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/beauty-is-truth.html




something outside nature is outside of existence. if any conscious
universe creators exist, then they are natural beings subject to
natural laws. not necessarily the laws of our universe, but laws
nonetheless.


this is what happens
when you reject naturalism.



Your syllogism fails as there are plenty of people who are more than
capable
of holding unscientifically metaphysical, philosophical and religious
beliefs and still confidently apply the scientific method.

again, the fact that they do so does not mean they are being
consistent.

Show me a man who'se always consistent, and i'll show you a corpse.
Consistency is for computers. Living things just make it up as they go
along.

some people try to correct their inconsistencies, others wallow in it
like a pig in its own filth.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Theistic Evolution: Harmonizing Science and Faith
    ... Theistic Evolution - or how to harmonize between Faith and Science ... This means that I make one assumption, which is squarely planted in Faith as a matter that cannot be scientifically proved - G-d exists. ... I am theologian with an interest in science, and especially in reconciling Science with Faith. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...
    ... give you knowledge about the existence of gods. ... if you want to let "faith" in the door as a valid method of reasoning, ... and why it cannot be applied to evolution. ... when you reject naturalism. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: question for evolution
    ... Biblical faith is. ... No. Evolution is a phenomenon of nature. ... It is a theory which is fundamental to the science of biology, ... that the scientists on the creationist side of the debate have no ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: views of academic scientists
    ... about evolution when teaching biology and other science classes." ... is religion; or to be more precise, ... evolution occurred and occurs is a threat to belief in the gods. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution Deniers
    ... >>> You seem put out by the fact that I think modern science is crap. ... >> You may have a right to your opinion. ... >>> evolution are unscientific. ... What is your faith based on? ...
    (talk.origins)