EvC Forum: Conclusion vs Presupposition

RAZD writes:

I think you need to start with basics, the presuppositions for a naturalistic understanding of the natural world:

(1) that there is an objective reality
(2) that evidence tells the truth about that objective reality
(3) that we can understand objective reality by understanding the evidence

Then the question comes down to whether these ideas are useful in everyday life.

I saw Jars challenge to respond, and even though I don't necessitate the world view of Biblical Creationism I had to go ask Mr. Google what all the controversy was about! I typed in the term, "Christianity versus Naturalism" only because the debate between folk such as Jar and myself usually boils down into the philosophical arguments of

Blind Faith versus Logic, Reason, and Reality

Source versus Content

I was amazed to see that on the first website I read, naturalism was being equated with atheism.

This site sums up the probable positions and/or world views that differentiate Biblical Christians from Science by definition.

This site defines naturalism in some detail, and defines the parameters quite succinctly in this statement:

quote:
The idea behind this principle is that natural causes can be investigated directly through scientific method, whereas supernatural causes cannot, and hence presuming that an event has a supernatural cause for methodological purposes halts further investigation.

To further attempt to understand this topic, I googled "objective reality" and found this definition:
We are using the term objective reality in contrast to subjective reality, which is reality seen through our inner mental filters that are shaped by our past conditioning. Objective reality is how things really are.

It really helps me to understand philosophical concepts by understanding the terms which they use.

jar writes:

One allegation often made by ID supporters and Biblical Creationists is that what the evidence shows us is a matter of world view and that Evolutionists interpret things based on some presupposition of great age, and old earth.

I would like to discuss that and see if it can be defended, or if as most Evolution supporters claim, their position is an inescapable conclusion instead.

I have nothing to discuss. You guys have made your point.

6 online now:	AZPaul3, PaulK, Phat, Rahvin, Taq, Theodoric
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,865 Year: 4,122/9,624 Month: 993/974 Week: 320/286 Day: 41/40 Hour: 7/6