Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,421 Year: 3,678/9,624 Month: 549/974 Week: 162/276 Day: 2/34 Hour: 2/0


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Is It Science? ⇒

Methodological Naturalism is fallacious

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Methodological Naturalism is fallacious
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2127 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

Normal Thread Display
Message 27 of 50 (517810)
08-02-2009 5:19 PM 		Reply to: Message 11 by mike the wiz
08-02-2009 4:34 PM

Fallacious
I am unrefuted because it is fallacious to rule out a possible conclusion whether you state it or not.
It is fallacious to rule out a possible conclusion for which there is absolutely no evidence, as opposed to a conclusion that fits all the evidence observed to date?
​
(Nice work if you can get it. Is that creation "science" or what?)
​
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mike the wiz, posted 08-02-2009 4:34 PM mike the wiz has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by mike the wiz, posted 08-02-2009 5:35 PM Coyote has not replied
  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2127 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

Normal Thread Display
Message 41 of 50 (517827)
08-02-2009 5:57 PM 		Reply to: Message 30 by mike the wiz
08-02-2009 5:25 PM

Myths within myths
There is a biblical explanation known as the "curse" or the "fall".
It is as mythical as the flood.
​
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by mike the wiz, posted 08-02-2009 5:25 PM mike the wiz has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024