ydoaPs

I keep the lightswitch off. It's less of a pain if I do the BBCode myself.

Thanks for stating the obvious that science is accountable to reality and religion just makes stuff up.

Because you are equivocating. And my definition is the one the philosophers of religion and the founders of religion(notice the quoted bits?) use as well as the one used by the Bible and your average 'off the street' Christian. Things only change when one points out that such faith is by definition irrational. Holding a belief without sufficient evidence is irrational. Insufficient evidence is mathematically equivalent to evidence to the contrary. Evidence is anything that makes P(h|e)>P(h) calculated on the epistemic situation k-e so long as e is true. And we know that P(h|e)>P(h) iff P(e|h)>P(e|~h). Good gods, no we can't. Humans are notorious for not having a clue what is going on in their own heads. How is using the definition that is constant across the founding anthology of a religion, the founder of the largest group of sects of that religion, the most prominent 'defender' of that religion, and currently living philosophers of religion "bending" anything? Take note of the quotes. Yeah, the ones you didn't mention which help justify my position. I'd just like to point out that his applies to the Bible. You're using that word so incorrectly, I'm not sure you even know what that word means. Newsflash: 'natural' and 'reasonable' aren't synonyms. Humans are naturally quite irrational. Aristotle was wrong; we're not the "rational animal".

This has been done with fairly large molecules as well. Iirc, they've observed Buckminsterfullerene exhibiting wave behaviour.

Science (the method, not the result) is 'validated' by pure reason. Science (the result) is validated by science (the method) and the empirical world. Faith isn't validated by anything. Again, it's a false analogy. Faith and science aren't anything alike at all.

! Moderator Note If you don't want to discuss the topic, don't derail other threads with it. In fact, just don't derail other threads. Thread closed.

! Moderator Note If you don't want to discuss the topic, don't derail other threads with it. In fact, just don't derail other threads. Thread closed.

! Moderator Note Off-topic posts moved to Speculations

The point is that Jesus specifically and very explicitly said latter statements most emphatically do not overrule former statements wrt the Law. It applies until the end of the Earth. To get into the Kingdom, you must uphold the Law. And that's direct from the mouth of the son of God.

Your conclusion does not follow from even your definitions (well, the relevant ones-we don't want to be guilty of equivocation). Faith is, by definition, irrational. Do you know what the founder of protestantism said about the relation between faith and reason? "Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but -- more frequently than not -- struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God." "There is on earth among all dangers no more dangerous thing than a richly endowed and adroit reason... Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed." "Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his Reason." But that is a long time ago. Let's ask prominent Christian apologist William Lane Craig: "Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa.". How about we ask the Christian philosopher of religion Alvin Plantinga: "K, our background knowledge, historical and otherwise (excluding what we know by way of faith or revelation), isn't anywhere nearly sufficient to support serious belief in G" "Faith" is now, and always has been, belief irrationally held regardless of any evidence. Even the Bible says as much when it describes religious faith as the "faith of a child" which is believing everyone unconditionally (read irrationally). And it shouldn't have, as that is what is called "equivocation". You seem to not understand the difference between an assertion and a demonstrated fact.

Once I handed in a term paper that was too thick to staple, so I used a clear plastic folder with the slide on bindings. I got this attached to the front when I got it back. Here's the rest of the strip:

I highly doubt that lightburst has ever said that they will never change their mind and that their previous posts will be word for word truth until the end of the world.

Thanks for the baseless condescension. Do you have anything of worth to contribute? I've given multiple examples of when bivalence doesn't hold and your reply is "nuh uh". Pointing to someone who disagrees with everyone about whether or not first order bivalent predicate logic is universal in scope isn't going to cut it. You're going to need more than an appeal to authority here.

I got Demise and Science at the Bar from Laudan's book. Ruse's reply was not included.

Science gives a way to reach what is most likely the truth in a reliable way. Religion doesn't. It's still comparing apples and oranges. Science is the NFL and religion is Bob Jones's fantasy league.

Yes, there is. I've given multiple examples. I'd suggest you stop trying to justify the philosophy from people who believed their underpants were made of fire and move into the modern (not to be confused the Modern) era. Simple first order logic does not always apply.

I didn't know Ruse had a final rebuttal. I just started with Demise, gave the criteria set forth by Ruse, and then completely destroyed Science at the Bar with a vengeance.

We can make a pyramid with triangles. This means, in a noneuclidean space, we can make noneuclidean triangles. And distances are defined by the pythagorean theorem (well, a generalized version): s2=x2+y2+z2. So, let's take a sphere-the set of all points in the space equidistant from a defined point). Now do you think the 'rules' (I'm not exactly sure what that means) change with the geometry of the space?

Trust is based on evidence, faith is not. Induction has mathematical grounding, faith does not. It's not special pleading in any sense of the phrase.

! Moderator Note Split from Paradox in Relativity

! Moderator Note Off-topic speculative post moved to Speculations

No, it's not. Evidence is (most of the time) observation while hypotheses are propositions. Logic does not apply to observation, but only propositions, so they cannot be falsified. Saying that evidence can be falsified is not only wrong, but a rather large category mistake.

A hypothesis is falsifiable iff said from said hypothesis an observation statement is derivable such that a conflicting actualized observation would show the hypothesis to be false via Modus Tollens. As I said in the above link, it's a bit more complicated than that due to things like the Duhem problem, but that's the basic idea.

He's had several bad papers. Do you mean "Science at the Bar"? If so, I'm currently (procrastinating instead of) writing a paper about it. I'm writing about the whole episode, actually. Starting with the court case, moving on to Laudan's terrible "The Demise of the Demarcation Problem", Ruse's great "Creation Science is not Science", and ending with Laudan's awful reply in "Science at the Bar" with my own thoughts along the way, of course.

While this is cool, crowdsourcing science help isn't exactly new as we've had things like folding@home for ages.