Search results

Why don't you address the points I've made so far rather than asking if I have one in order to suggest I do not? There's a mathematically predictive basis to some hypotheses that other lack. Not all hypotheses are created equally. At any rate, despite your cantankerousness, Pix, this actually...

This illustrates my previous comment well, Pix. There's a mathematically predictive basis to some hypotheses that other lack. Not all hypotheses are created equally. I never said that meant they weren't science or properly hypothetical.

That's not a standard theory of justification. If you're going feign familiarity with epistemology then act like it. Or we can go back to speaking in general terms. Your choice.

The whole point of my comment was about manning up with a positive worldview. How you can get no burden of proof out of that is risible. Here's the salient phrase from my comment: sets forth a positive worldview and defends it.

Depends on the theory of justification in play, but I know plenty of atheists who are. Not enough data for you yet, but I'm hopeful.

I be happy to test out of Freshman philosophy if you insist on it. But first, let's settle the larger question. Here's the comment you responded to: This does not apply to many of you, so if it does not, don't take it as such. Generally speaking, the internet is populated by a variety of low...

Glad you asked, Shnarkle, as you're one of the more interesting folks around here. I don't mind any of the above from intellectually honest folk. I was just referencing those who apparently have learned to say nothing else and have not understood the nature of evidence. For your part, and I...

So what? You're wrong. The more you try to pick at meaningless things, the more it demonstrates it: Humanist Manifesto III This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we...

Demanding. Why, Pix? :) I understand, but this is important distinction, I think, as you keep using the phrase real science. The types of predictions you are noting are retroactive, not predictive in the manner that a physicist can predict where Mars will be in twenty years. And, yes, I do...

There's no escape hatch, here, 8. You divorced from context and are obscuring in an attempt to divert attention. Just let it go. It's cool. I believe in quoting primary sources. So here are a couple of assertions about objective fact from the Humanist Manifesto, bolding theirs: FIRST...

This was stated in context of declaring a worldview, which requires burden of proof, and if one sets it forth as a claim to knowledge, obviously belief will be involved. What are they going to say. "I'm a Humanist, but I don't believe it?" Divorcing it from its context is ridiculous and bolding...

Let's try one. Fill in the variables as predicted by your hypothesis: based on the average rate of mutation X, in the genome of species Y, the speciation event Z is predicted at S.

Any comprehensive summary one sets forth as a description of reality: Naturalism, Materialism, Humanism, Buddhism, Nihilism. Must be 1,000 of ready-made positions to choose from, but one can define it for themselves if they like. Doesn't matter. In the context of my comment, what does matter is...

Well, if you're going to take that line, it would be several notable but contested cases :) But in the cases they're reviewing, it doesn't matter all that much whether it's true to say ND/=D, or not, as the reports are beyond both ND and D. Interesting stuff....

Reformed, but yep, we see each other eye to eye my friend. Cheers.

You're correct, Komodo. I'll leave you and Cid to it. But, yeah, I appreciate the rest of the comment. As intellectually honest as they come. Bravo to you and 5 both.

This is meaningless in the context of Christian theology without a distinction made between the decretive and prescriptive will of God.

I believe there is a scientific committee currently in operation that peer reviews NDE accounts formally. Pretty sure Gary Habermas sits on it, or did.

Right on, 5. Such a great comment. You just have no idea--perhaps you do--of how refreshing this is to see from your side. Bravo. I understand and you've given me no cause to doubt you or think you dishonest. The opposite, really. But I'll say this, as a report from the other side: nearly every...

Writing off possible world semantics and modal logic as hypothetical is philosophical burden too heavy for you to lift. But even if I granted it, which I do not, it does not relieve you of the difficulty, because you still maintain the burden of refuting them in this world, the one you describe...