XPost: alt.philosophy, sci.logic, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: alt.atheism, sci.skeptic
From: Esque"@gmail.com
On 3/25/2016 12:19 PM, raven1 wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 00:20:46 -0400, Dale wrote:
>
>> raven1 wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 21:31:54 -0400, Dale wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 25/03/2016 11:25 AM, Dale wrote:
>>>>>> Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like
>>>>>> that? Blind Faith?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do only theists utilize blind faith? Since conjecture can proceed
>>>>>> hypothesis should it be recognized as a part of the scientific process?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In the scientific process, after both conjecture and hypothesis (if
>>>>> they're really different) there comes testing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Theists don't test their beliefs.
>>>>
>>>> Theists claim observation, that is at least material, not empirical.
>>>
>>> What dressing would you like for that word salad, Dale? Observation of
>>> what? And I'm baffled at how the material can be non-empirical. What
>>> the Sam Hill is it that you're trying to say?
>>
>>
>> Creamy Italian.
>>
>> Angels, etc.
>>
>> There is a difference between material and empirical, I think. Material is
>> just physics based things. empirical is the process of testing and results,
>> not necessarily of material things.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Theist claims have existed a very long time, it has passed "some" test of
>>>> time.
>>>
>>> So what?
>>
>> Agnostic leaning theist ...
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> People have applied it and it works. They haven't tested everything,
>>>> but neither have atheists.
>>>
>>> Um, what?
>>
>> No tested theory of everything/anything.
>
> On reading your reply, I find myself reminded of a line from Robert
> Bolt's "A Man For All Seasons", where More tells Howard "I trust I
> make myself obscure".
>
False! I trust my wife: does that trust make me obscure?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
