Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Underlying Philosophy
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 22 of 577 (553376)
04-02-2010 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by sac51495
04-02-2010 10:45 PM


It reverts back to the evidence
So this begs the question; why is natural law your supreme authority? You may say that once you point towards natural law, you have left the realm of philosophy; but you haven't. I believe in God as my supreme authority, and from Him I derive all my beliefs. You point to natural law (or science) as your ultimate authority.
There is evidence for one, but not for the other.
All the world's religions rely on belief, dogma, scripture, divine revelation, and other non-empirical and non-verifiable forms of "evidence."
Science relies on empirical evidence, that is, things that can be measured, quantified, or directly inferred in some way.
And if, as you said, the morals are subjective, how can the law justly punish someone who has committed a moral wrong if that particular person believes that the crime they committed was actually a good thing under their system of morals.
Morals may be subjective, but laws are not. If you behead an "errant" daughter in this country you violate a law no matter what your personal delusions may be.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by sac51495, posted 04-02-2010 10:45 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by sac51495, posted 04-03-2010 1:09 AM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 34 of 577 (553389)
04-03-2010 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by IchiBan
04-03-2010 12:30 AM


Where did you come up with that steaming pile? Some creationist site?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by IchiBan, posted 04-03-2010 12:30 AM IchiBan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by IchiBan, posted 04-03-2010 1:25 AM Coyote has not replied
 Message 48 by IchiBan, posted 04-03-2010 1:47 AM Coyote has not replied
 Message 51 by IchiBan, posted 04-03-2010 2:01 AM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 100 of 577 (553577)
04-04-2010 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by dwise1
04-03-2010 11:44 PM


Theology
Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything.
Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by dwise1, posted 04-03-2010 11:44 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by dwise1, posted 04-04-2010 1:27 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 178 of 577 (556442)
04-19-2010 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by sac51495
04-19-2010 9:16 PM


Re: Epistemolgy 101
But how is this reality determined? Science?...
Since science deals with what can be observed, or measured in some way, I would say yes!
What would you propose to be "reality" that can't be observed or measured?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by sac51495, posted 04-19-2010 9:16 PM sac51495 has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 313 of 577 (563038)
06-02-2010 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by tesla
06-02-2010 10:56 PM


Re: Those Who Ignore History Are Destined To Repeat It
anthropological evidence that i have actually studied supports evolution. which is good for me because evolution is my very proof of God. Although i do not agree with the assessment that early man was an ape. But that early man was early man.
This is a field I have studied.
Early man was early man, but what about a hundred years before that? And a thousand years before that? 100,000? 1,000,000? 5,000,000?
There are a lot of fossil critters out there that anthropology suggests that are ancestral to "early man." You don't want to call them apes.
What were they? And on what evidence do you base your opinion?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by tesla, posted 06-02-2010 10:56 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by anglagard, posted 06-02-2010 11:14 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 316 by tesla, posted 06-03-2010 2:35 AM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 482 of 577 (569044)
07-19-2010 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 481 by sac51495
07-19-2010 9:45 PM


We already know about epistemology, and we already know about the nature reality. We don't have to go and relearn them. So when I say that I place metaphysics before epistemology, I am saying that when I formalize my philosophy, my epistemological beliefs stem from my metaphysical ones, and my most fundamental metaphysical belief is that God exists, and He reveals Himself to us through His holy Word. My epistemological beliefs stem from this: "For God gives wisdom and knowledge and joy to a man who is good in His sight" (Ecc. 2:26) "And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist." (this would include knowledge; Col. 1:17).
Wonderful.
Let's see the evidence.
Not apologetics. Not ancient myths. Not philosophy or any of those squishy subjects. Real evidence.
Edited by Coyote, : A boo-boo.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by sac51495, posted 07-19-2010 9:45 PM sac51495 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