Subject:  Naturalistic presupposition is the only possible presupposition for science |
Author:
Liberal
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 11:09:37 05/10/04 Mon
In reply to:
Bystander
's message, "Re: Naturalistic presupposition is the best presupposition" on 15:11:25 05/09/04 Sun
frankly speaking, your classical apologetic position is too familiar to me
>>Naturalistic presupposition is the best presupposition
>>available to mankind up to this era.
>
>I don't see why one can
>claim an epistemic high ground ("best presupposition")
>by adopting such presupposition. By definition, it
>rules out any possibility of a supernatural realm, a
>conclusion that cannot be proven in any way.
naturalistic presupposition is the fundamental presupposition of science and modern historical research. without it, we cannot assume the stability of natural laws and no scientific or modern historical research (including all crime investigations: e.g., how can you be sure this steel knife was hard enough to kill people yesterday, was not soft like a sponge yesterday?) can take place
jesus seminar intends to searh for the historical jesus, which is a piece of historical research work
that said, be reassured that i won't adopt a naturalistic presuppostion while i'm searching for spirituality
>> We observe no
>>miracle today.
>
>"We"? There are people who claim to have experienced
>miracles in our world today. Besides, one simply
>cannot rule out the possibility of miracles in the
>past or in the future, even if we don't see them in
>the present -- which is a question in dispute.
if there were really miracles of biblical calibre (e.g., parting of a sea) happening today, the media would be extremely excited and would have them broadcasted all over the world, you would not have to argue about them here
again, the possiblitiy of science depends on the assumption of stability of natural laws, and stability of natual laws rules out miracles in the past and in the future
all government plannings (and all personal plannings) assume the stability of natural laws in the future
>
>> Alleged miracles in the Bible are more
>>probably literal inventions or simplistic explanations
>>of natural phenomena than historical facts.
>
>Are you assuming your own conclusion here?
i am talking about probability, only probability
literal inventions are being seen everywhere, simplistic explanations of natural phenomena are still happening in primitive tribes today
"miracles" are also contained in many non-biblical ancient writings
the more ancient a piece of religious writing is, the more "miracles" it contains, ancient authors used to explain with "miracle" narratives, later authors learned to use less and less "miracles" and modern authors use none seriously (except deliberate literal artistic innovations)
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 