Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-02-2017, 04:45 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 04:37 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 04:15 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  You have gone off the rails. The scientific process can be applied to everything, you are either ignorant or petulant. Maybe both.

This is obviously false. You have to justify the scientific method with something other than science to even begin. The scientific method is a tool for empiricist analysis. It is not applicable to everything. Then you resort to ad hominem. I have no intention of refuting non-arguments.

Science is probably not a good tool for literary analysis, but it is the exact tool for determining the nature of physical reality.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
02-02-2017, 04:48 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 04:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  Not unless it is based on evidence. Without evidence, it is just rhetoric.

Sure I agree.

(02-02-2017 04:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  Questions of the origin and nature of the universe are precisely questions of science, and the answers will require evidence.

Well science can tell you something about it, but science ends at the big bang. You can't go further than the natural world with science. Philosophy aims to describe all of reality.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 04:50 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 04:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  Science is probably not a good tool for literary analysis, but it is the exact tool for determining the nature of physical reality.

Right but science is secondary to philosophy.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 04:52 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
He's starting to sound like that Tenbruggencate guy " I'm right because I say so" first of all I thought it was me being thick but thankfully it wasn't, I knew it didn't make sense.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
02-02-2017, 04:53 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 04:48 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 04:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  Not unless it is based on evidence. Without evidence, it is just rhetoric.

Sure I agree.

(02-02-2017 04:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  Questions of the origin and nature of the universe are precisely questions of science, and the answers will require evidence.

Well science can tell you something about it, but science ends at the big bang.

Unsupported assertion. Quite probably incorrect. It is our current physics that ends a fraction of a second after the big bang, not science.

Quote:You can't go further than the natural world with science. Philosophy aims to describe all of reality.

No, it doesn't. It is the study of the nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.
It discovers no facts, it just contemplates them.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
02-02-2017, 04:55 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 04:52 PM)adey67 Wrote:  He's starting to sound like that Tenbruggencate guy " I'm right because I say so" first of all I thought it was me being thick but thankfully it wasn't, I knew it didn't make sense.

I debated Sye Ten. He's not very intelligent. I'm not right because I say so. I'm right because what I say corresponds to reality. I know it does because I have a working epistemology. I can justify my metaphysics and, from that, the existence of the necessary being.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 04:58 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 04:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  Unsupported assertion. Quite probably incorrect. It is our current physics that ends a fraction of a second after the big bang, not science.

If you believe the natural world extends beyond our universe, then you must support that with your epistemology.

(02-02-2017 04:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, it doesn't. It is the study of the nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.
It discovers no facts, it just contemplates them.

Nonsense. Philosophy discovers facts in a very different way. It is a dialectic. It isn't based on experimentation.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 05:02 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
No what you have is a philosophical argument and how is that reality? Justification for yourself maybe but not necessarily correct. Christians have working epistemology as do Muslims im sure.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 05:03 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 04:58 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 04:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  Unsupported assertion. Quite probably incorrect. It is our current physics that ends a fraction of a second after the big bang, not science.

If you believe the natural world extends beyond our universe, then you must support that with your epistemology.

There is nothing I need to support as I am not making a claim.
I am pointing out that your statement about science was incorrect. I don't know what came before the Big Bang and neither do you.

Quote:
(02-02-2017 04:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, it doesn't. It is the study of the nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.
It discovers no facts, it just contemplates them.

Nonsense. Philosophy discovers facts in a very different way. It is a dialectic. It isn't based on experimentation.

Oh, you think science is just based on experimentation? Consider

What facts does philosophy discover and by what methodology?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 05:04 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 05:02 PM)adey67 Wrote:  No what you have is a philosophical argument and how is that reality? Justification for yourself maybe but not necessarily correct. Christians have working epistemology as do Muslims im sure.

Philosophical arguments are made to conclude something about reality. They're not subjective. And the fact that people you and I disagree with have working epistemological frameworks is irrelevant.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: