So now you even deny the validity of science in its entirety!? Amazing.
Your praise would have some significance if it were not simply an argumentum ad hominem. Lucid, logical, considered and well-phrased reasoning often leads to false conclusions when it is based on false premises… like scientism and physicalism…
You are so fond of that phrase, aren’t you! You trot it out every time you don’t have a proper answer.
Your assertion that scientism and physicalism are false, well, that simply takes my breath away. How can one have a rational debate with someone who doesn’t even believe in the world he can touch and see?
Wouldn’t it be the atheist position that the first living creature came into being by accident, since there was no intelligence there to design it?
/QUOTE]
Actually accident has nothing to do with it.
Actually most atheists and theists are agnostic. Agnosticism deals with knowledge not believe. If i ask you if you have a theistic believe and you answer “i am an agnostic”, you have evaded the question.
Dear me, do you believe everything you can’t disprove?? Did you really thing about that before you said it?
When it comes to knowledge science is the king, of that there is no doubt. Want to compare results science v religion
??Science v all other forms of knowledge is the most realistic choice given that advocates of physicalism/scientism believe it can in principle xplain every aspect of reality. Go ahead…When it comes to knowledge science is the king, of that there is no doubt. Want to compare results science v religion
So you want to compare science to everything else when it comes to knowledge?
More argumenta ad hominem:
More emotion!
/quote] Another elementary fallacy as well as a rhetorical question! It is a non sequitur to assert that the belief that scientism and physicalism are false entails belief that the physical world does not exist…
You are confusing quantity with quality.
LOL if it was not for science you would have no time to ponder such questions. You would either be dead of our trying exist for the 25 years of natural life god give you. In fact what age are you you should probably be dead.
Again you’re confusing quantity with quality - this time with regard to the number of years we live on this earth. It is ironic you select 25 years as our typical life span. That was the age at which John Keats died. You’ve probably never heard of him because he wasn’t a scientist. He gave up medicine to dedicate himself to poetry and in his short life created works of beauty which have given joy and consolation to millions of people. He lived more intensely than the vast majority - and so did Mozart who died at the age of 35. How many great men and women have died young, created masterpieces and given more to the world than centenarians? Which is better: to live to a ripe old age with nothing to live for or to live life to the full for 25 years? It is the quality of life that counts, not the amount of time you spend in this world.
What you despise and reject as subjective is that which really matters. There is no point in being kept alive if you have nothing to live for, no one to love or to love you, nothing to delight you or give you a purpose for living, no appreciation of beauty, no passionate interest in discovering the truth or fighting for justice or giving people hope for the future. Science is extremely valuable but it is only a tool and not an end in itself. Some people have a vocation to be scientists but the vast majority of us have non-scientific vocations. And even scientists are not completely fulfilled by their work. They need what you disparage as “subjective” to be fulfilled as persons because we are not just biological machines which exist by chance…
Again you’re confusing quantity with quality - this time with regard to the number of years we live on this earth. It is ironic you select 25 years as our typical life span. That was the age at which John Keats died. You’ve probably never heard of him because he wasn’t a scientist. He gave up medicine to dedicate himself to poetry and in his short life created works of beauty which have given joy and consolation to millions of people. He lived more intensely than the vast majority - and so did Mozart who died at the age of 35. How many great men and women have died young, created masterpieces and given more to the world than centenarians? Which is better: to live to a ripe old age with nothing to live for or to live life to the full for 25 years? It is the quality of life that counts, not the amount of time you spend in this world.
What you despise and reject as subjective is that which really matters. There is no point in being kept alive if you have nothing to live for, no one to love or to love you, nothing to delight you or give you a purpose for living, no appreciation of beauty, no passionate interest in discovering the truth or fighting for justice or giving people hope for the future. Science is extremely valuable but it is only a tool and not an end in itself. Some people have a vocation to be scientists but the vast majority of us have non-scientific vocations. And even scientists are not completely fulfilled by their work. They need what you disparage as “subjective” to be fulfilled as persons because we are not just biological machines which exist by chance…
I think you should reread my initial statement, I said when** it comes to knowledge.** Poetry, music etc are not knowledge.
other than its utility value, as great as that is, it answers none of the questions that matter to me. what does it matter how the universe works in the long run?, i cant take it with me. i still take classes when time allows because i enjoy them, not because i think there is any deepr truth in science. physics, chemistry, anatomy, and mathematics are for fun, i like knowing how G-ds creation works, it expands my mind. but i recognize the that the universe cannot explain its own existence, ergo, science cannot explain our existence. i was an athiest, but the path of excess led to the palace of wisdom, and now im banging on the door trying to get the butlers attention.
If you look at my post #157 and also look up the true meaning of argumentum ad hominem you will see that your objections are unfounded.
It is related to the point I was making, that of Touchstone’s calm and scientific dismantling of your claims for the existence of God.
Again you infer that which does not exist. The OED definition of ‘antagonist’ is, “An opponent, an adversary; an opposing force.” Nothing emotional about it I’m afraid.The use of the term “antagonists” also reveals emotional antagonism - as opposed to objective disagreement.
Do you blame me? You are stating that the only methods by which we know uneqivocally about our environment, are false!
Okay, that’s fair, I retract the comment.
Indeed, and as you are the one claiming their falsehood, please proceed!
You do not regard them as knowledge because your definition of knowledge is based on your physicalism. Do you know scientifically that you - as a **person **not as a body - exist?