I would have thought that the validity of reason and the perception of empirical evidence were mutually supporting - and mutually dependent - strands of evidence for the nature of reality. If our senses and our reason mislead us, external factors will soon catch up…
I don’t understand how they relate to anything I said, or even what you mean - they’re all human inventions so how could any get produced naturally?
And as I have to keep repeating, Jesus doesn’t say anything about Design, so Design can have nothing at all to do with Christ.
I never said anything about God, I said try telling someone starving to death about Providence, another concoction not found in scripture.
He says that in a different chapter, yes, but what’s it got to do with the thread?
Hallelujah :tanning: :christmastree1: :flowers: we got there in the end.
OK, let’s continue on our systematic way. Having agreed that 99.999999% of the universe is the product of blind forces we can move on to the remaining 0.000001%, Earth. To begin, do you claim that any geography, geology or meteorology is not the product of blind forces?
More usual groupings might be such as testimonial, documentary/demonstrative and anecdotal evidence but what the hay. I’m not sure how there can be historical, moral, social, psychological or personal evidence for Design, or even what some of them might mean, could you give an example of each?
. Aesthetics is very weak – “I think it looks prettier in pink” isn’t much of a case. Religion is surely out of court, since there’s nothing in scripture or any creed about Design. God creates Creation, hence the name, He doesn’t design Designion. Creation and design are very different.Sure, right now I’m a complex entity - but I didn’t start out that way. No-one would have accused me of being “fully” a person, in the sense of being completely in control and aware of the consequences of my actions, when I was freshly out of the womb…and probably not until I had attained the age of legal majority, if you’re talking court appearances. Why do you think there are separate courts, separate laws and separate penalties for underage offenders?
But that’s the whole point of parsimony - the explanatory power of simpler mechanisms when we try to understand more complex ones. You are positing an immensely complex entity as a brute fact, which is as far from parsimony as you can get. Why do you have such a problem with the possibility that reasoning ability is comprised of simpler processes interacting in a beautifully intricate neurochemical ballet?
Different parts of my mind certainly do entertain different thoughts and awarenesses. Neurological investigations even bear out the fact that different areas of the brain perform different functions. If we had such fundamental unity of mind as you posit, where would be the fuel for countless human dramas played out in history and literature? Haven’t you ever experienced conflicting desires? And why should not atomic, electrical and other chemical interactions result in the mental fluctuations we all experience on a daily basis? The very fact that particular parts of our neurological control systems and mental states are affected by the ingestion or absorption of particular chemicals - like ethanol, caffeine or nicotine, to name only the most common examples - should point to the fact that minds are composed of complex physical interactions.
If I were merely appealing to authority, I would simply have cited the works of some of these superior minds, rather than explaining my own understanding of the argument in my own words…
And if I were to trust in the efficacy of astrology or alchemy, would my “reasoning” still be metascientific?
Saying “what already had been designed” is your opinion. There’s no evidence that any phenomena were designed (whatever that might mean), and as time started at the big bang there was no time beforehand in which they could have been designed anyway!
You might have a point if there were no such things as earthquakes, hurricanes and suffering, but as it stands the presence of disorder in the world indicates either that it wasn’t designed or that the design was incompetent, take your pick.
Incidentally, I can’t find the word metascience in any dictionary. I guess you mean metaphysics but confused it thinking about science. If you meant something else, could you link a definition.
That’s not an example, it’s just a statement! Do you not understand what an example is?
Your reference to “everyone” makes it clear that you are showboating again. Nevertheless, I don’t refute the statement. But remember I asked for examples not assertions; when you provide some of the former I might have comment.
I’ve never claimed that it is. I just claim that I know of no other reliable form. Again, you try to poison the well, why do you never just answer the question? Why do you make so many statements that you can’t, or won’t, substantiate? Presumably you do realise that the argument from tedious repetition doesn’t equate to truth?
I’ll ignore the snarky faux-philosophical rhetoric and wait for your examples. It would have been a lot simpler if you’d just provided them when I asked for them back in post#72!
They all come from a mind.I don’t understand how they relate to anything I said, or even what you mean - they’re all human inventions so how could any get produced naturally?
The entire scientific method presupposes the certainty and validity of the rational human mind constructed of will and intellect. This is an assumption rooted in all scientists, theologians, and philosophers, unless you are a postmodern thinker. We can safely assume that our minds are capable of discovering objective knowledge and can perceive reality as it really is.
Welcome to the forum.
Exactly.
Your argument seems to be that human inventions come from human minds.I don’t understand how they relate to anything I said, or even what you mean - they’re all human inventions so how could any get produced naturally?
buffalo;9619937:
I don’t understand what you mean by cosmic temples, divine puppets and all matter being sacramental. As it doesn’t seem to be about the thread topic perhaps you’d like to share your personal beliefs with someone else, but thanks anyway.
Logic alone cannot prove anything whatsoever except what is deduced from our premises…