Science and God

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don’t know. But I used to be a Christian apologist, and I think I remember that defending my faith was vastly more challenging than what I do now.

I even proposed, recently, to a few fundamentalistic forums out there, if they would like me to help them with apologetics, especially in the area of philosophical arguments for the existence of God. PSR, modal logic and such. They seem to be so obsessed with Jesus loving them, that they totally forget how flaky the rational basis of their belief is.

Ciao

- viole

There is no strong rational basis for reality. You can't do reality only using reason, logic and evidence.

 

[viole]

You do realise just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power

Yes. However that seems to go up when you are a real good scientist. What is the % in case of the national academy of science?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Then you can't win, because winning is absence of peace, because winning requires a competition and thus you don't win, because you are at peace.

There is no competition, Since I always win, i think I am not particularly stressed about the possibility of losing.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes. However that seems to go up when you are a real good scientist. What is the % in case of the national academy of science?

Ciao

- viole

Let us see, if I can lose.

You profile states philosophical naturalism. Either that is a belief without reason, logic and evidence or you can at least use some combination of the 3. And while you are at, please explain the connection if any between science and philosophical naturalism.

 

[viole]

There is no strong rational basis for reality. You can't do reality only using reason, logic and evidence.

Then you have no strong rational basis to type things on a computer and expect that a real human called viole might read it.

Well, on second thought, you might be right. There is really no strong rational basis to challenge me.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Let us see, if I can lose.

You profile states philosophical naturalism. Either that is a belief without reason, logic and evidence or you can at least use some combination of the 3. And while you are at, please explain the connection if any between science and philosophical naturalism.

It is not a belief. I know it is true and that there are no gods.

Funny thing is that I am currently debating a theist, on another forum, who claims that science, especially when it deals with the past, assumes philosophical naturalism.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is no competition, Since I always win, i think I am not particularly stressed about the possibility of losing.

Ciao

- viole

So you are really special, For all versions of metaphysics, knowledge, evidence, reason, logic, ethics, politics and what not you always win. That means that 99+% of all humans lose. Okay, dazzle me, oh, oracle of truth. Or you are just doing a massive special pleading.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then you have no strong rational basis to type things on a computer and expect that a real human called viole might read it.

Well, on second thought, you might be right. There is really no strong rational basis to challenge me.

Ciao

- viole

I said only. Reason, logic and evidence are of limited use, but not total.
One example is not everything. Try again.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is not a belief. I know it is true and that there are no gods.

Funny thing is that I am currently debating a theist, on another forum, who claims that science, especially when it deals with the past, assumes philosophical naturalism.

Ciao

- viole

Okay, you know.
Present your knowledge and let us check using this.
Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia

 

[viole]

So you are really special, For all versions of metaphysics, knowledge, evidence, reason, logic, ethics, politics and what not you always win. That means that 99+% of all humans lose. Okay, dazzle me, oh, oracle of truth. Or you are just doing a massive special pleading.

Yes, I cannot help it. Sorry

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Okay, you know.
Present your knowledge and let us check using this.
Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia

I don’t understand what you mean. I am not claiming proof, Or certainty, I am claiming knowledge.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, I cannot help it. Sorry

Ciao

- viole

Yes, but you see, you didn't use reason, logic and evidence. So you are not that good.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don’t understand what you mean. I am not claiming proof, Or certainty, I am claiming knowledge.

Ciao

- viole

You know it is true.
Truth is not evidence or science. It is philosophy as you use it.
Münchhausen's Trilemma is about truth.
You don't even know your basic philosophy.
Metaphysics is about knowing it is true. Metaphysics is not science nor evidence. Metaphysics is philosophy.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is not a belief. I know it is true and that there are no gods.

Funny thing is that I am currently debating a theist, on another forum, who claims that science, especially when it deals with the past, assumes philosophical naturalism.

Ciao

- viole

That is philosophy! It claims truth and thus:
Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia

 

[viole]

You know it is true.
Truth is not evidence or science. It is philosophy as you use it.
Münchhausen's Trilemma is about truth.
You don't even know your basic philosophy.
Metaphysics is about knowing it is true. Metaphysics is not science nor evidence. Metaphysics is philosophy.

Yes, and claiming that knowledge does not equal certainty not proof is branch of epistemology. So, what?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Yes, but you see, you didn't use reason, logic and evidence. So you are not that good.

Could be, but since I always win, you are even less good.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

I said only. Reason, logic and evidence are of limited use, but not total.
One example is not everything. Try again.

Everybody who does not master any of them would agree with you.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

That is philosophy! It claims truth and thus:
Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia

I already know that I cannot prove anything, apart some analytical propositions. You seem to challenge me to rebut something whose conclusions I agree with.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, and claiming that knowledge does not equal certainty not proof is branch of epistemology. So, what?

Ciao

- viole

You are a metaphysical naturalist. Live up to that and give a supported argument. You always win, right? Well, now you are up against a global skeptic. I never win nor do I lose. I just run it down to a draw. Neither of us have a positive privileged metaphysical position. You see, I am "weird", because I like - I don't know.
So I admit I don't know and show that you don't know either.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Everybody who does not master any of them would agree with you.

Ciao

- viole

You don't give any reasoned argument. You just make unsupported claims.