Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,824 Year: 4,081/9,624 Month: 952/974 Week: 279/286 Day: 40/46 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 300 (262092)
11-21-2005 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
11-21-2005 2:16 PM


You want a theological discussion, not a debate
Faith writes me:
quote:
You are again merely asserting your presupposition against mine.
No, I'm simply trying to point out the difference. We were talking about what loosely qualifies as 'debate' here on evc. You want your conception of god and his word to be accepted prima facie. Trouble is that once that's done any debate is obviated.
A debate does not require that either side accept any premise prima facie. The whole point of a debate is to test ideas, and the supernatural is simply not testable. Thus our positions are irreconcilable and a true debate can't take place.

"We look forward to hearing your vision, so we can more better do our job. That's what I'm telling you."-George W. Bush, Gulfport, Miss.,
Sept. 20, 2005.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 2:16 PM Faith has not replied

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 300 (262107)
11-21-2005 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Faith
11-21-2005 5:45 PM


Re: Reiteration: This is not a debate
No, Faith, science requires no presuppositions. It requires positions, positions which can be tested. That is all. If a concept, assertion, hypothosis or theory is testable, it is science. If not, it is something else.
Can you propose a way in which the assertion that god wrote the bible can be tested? If you can, then you can turn science on its ear. If you can't, then let's let science be science and let philosophy be philosophy.
There's nothing wrong with a philosophical discussion, be it concerning religion, art or anything else that isn't scientifically testable. The problem starts when you attempt to force science to take philosophy into account. It can't, or it ceases to be science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 5:45 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 6:07 PM berberry has not replied
 Message 25 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 6:09 PM berberry has replied

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 300 (262167)
11-21-2005 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by randman
11-21-2005 6:09 PM


Re: Reiteration: This is not a debate
No, rand, you're wrong. Science does not presuppose anything. Everything is testable.
What part of theory of gravity is not testable?

"We look forward to hearing your vision, so we can more better do our job. That's what I'm telling you."-George W. Bush, Gulfport, Miss.,
Sept. 20, 2005.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 6:09 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by robinrohan, posted 11-21-2005 8:29 PM berberry has not replied
 Message 51 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 8:46 PM berberry has not replied

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 300 (262211)
11-21-2005 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by randman
11-21-2005 9:01 PM


Re: Reiteration: This is not a debate
Oh hell no it's not off-topic. This is directly related to the topic. Theory of gravity is only being used as a example to illustrate a point that is essential to the topic. Nothing off-topic about it.

"We look forward to hearing your vision, so we can more better do our job. That's what I'm telling you."-George W. Bush, Gulfport, Miss.,
Sept. 20, 2005.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 9:01 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 11:36 PM berberry has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024