Without God Im Useless Blog

[crowTrobot 2]

I think I understood. Correct me if I am wrong, but you are a priori dismissing any positive evidence because of the supernatural nature of the claims (and you base this dismissal upon other historical events for which we hold to natural explanations).

no i'm saying there is no positive evidence to dismiss. an account of a metaphysical event is not positive evidence that it happened if it's not testable in any other way, because it is a known fact that such accounts can be inaccurate, but it is NOT a known fact that such accounts can be accurate. biblical accounts do not constitute evidence period.

What baseless assumptions do you accuse me of?

that metaphysical events are possible. that any account of such has a probability greater than zero of being reliable.if you want to treat those assumptions as hypothesis in the scientific sense that's fine. however if you do that you must rely on scientific evidence to judge them, and all current evidence contradicts your hypothesis.you're also assuming the methodology of physical historical science has any meaning separate form the overall framework of science as a whole. it doesn't - it's all one big picture.

we have no basis for a priori dismissal simply because a claim is religious by nature.

no, but we have an established basis for not considering those claims self-supporting evidence.

So - an event can go against the established pattern if the evidence supports it? :-)

of course. you don't understand what constitutes evidence in the scientific sense, though.

[rick_bays 0]

Logic is a field of mathematics that is used in philosophy. It is a mathematical tool by which inferences can be made about the truth of statements. These inferences are built from axiomatic truths and rules of inference. Note that "true" means consistent within a system. In other words, the axioms taken as true seed the system, and essentially define what truths can or can not be inferred. If one were to formalize the axioms that govern sceince, it would be one or more statements about causality and repeatability of results equating to truth. This is not truth in the philosophical sense. More like a functional truth. Religion starts with different sets of axioms. Many believe every statement made by the bible form truths which seed their logical system. You and Crow clearly have different axioms and are therefor able to infer different truths. You try to defend your religious beliefs using science, but the fact remains, your beliefs are not rooted in causality or repeatability, so it's a failing process. At some level and at some point, you take certain axioms on faith regarding your belief system. Good for you. Acknowledge it as such and move on.

Software engineer?

[rick_bays 0]

no i'm saying there is no positive evidence to dismiss. an account of a metaphysical event is not positive evidence that it happened if it's not testable in any other way, because it is a known fact that such accounts can be inaccurate, but it is NOT a known fact that such accounts can be accurate. biblical accounts do not constitute evidence period.that metaphysical events are possible. that any account of such has a probability greater than zero of being reliable.if you want to treat those assumptions as hypothesis in the scientific sense that's fine. however if you do that you must rely on scientific evidence to judge them, and all current evidence contradicts your hypothesis.you're also assuming the methodology of physical historical science has any meaning separate form the overall framework of science as a whole. it doesn't - it's all one big picture.no, but we have an established basis for not considering those claims self-supporting evidence.of course. you don't understand what constitutes evidence in the scientific sense, though.

In fact I do... I just don't insert my unproven philosophical supposition (either naturalism or strict empiricism) into the mix. :-)Agape,Rick

[crowTrobot 2]

In fact I do... I just don't insert my unproven philosophical supposition (either naturalism or strict empiricism) into the mix. :-)

ok i will leave it at that then. people (assuming anyone is reading) can decide for themselves who's trying to pass off unproven philosophical suppositions as science.cheers

[Livaso 0]

There's just not enough physical evidence to prove the existence of a metaphysical world.

[rick_bays 0]

ok i will leave it at that then. people (assuming anyone is reading) can decide for themselves who's trying to pass off unproven philosophical suppositions as science.cheers

Thanks again for the discussion. Maybe we can meet at the tables sometime.Rick

[jmkiser 0]

that was ... sniffle... so beautifulbut seriously, great discussionyou might've made crowT even sweat a little biti could very well be wrong, thoughEdit: ah, I have so many questions, but I'm so tired.... till I awakeQuickEdit: ok one question... there is a lot of talk about the ... accuracy of our historical evidence? agh, i'm bad about finding the right words this early in the morning. basically, what i'm bringing to the table is..... what is some basic historical evidence that we use and accept as probable fact? and then on top of that, what historical evidence does christianity bring to the table regarding the proof of jesus's miracles/divinity? pardon for bad grammar/spelling... going to bed now