tonyenglish7 wrote:I think my point was made,that metaphysical positions are unavoidable, yet by definition, that means something more then the "Scientific Realm" exists. Otherwise there is no room for "metaphysical" discussion.
Tony, this is truly a non sequitur. Can we talk about the Loch Ness Monster without it having to exist? Just because I discuss metaphysical questions does not imply validity to mine, yours, or anyone else's spiritual worldview.
Yet this in itself refutes naturalism, a world view that you have put your faith upon. Atheist seem to always treat the philosophical view of theism as some kind of silly notion equal to the eater bunny, and they respond with the same haughty interaction, yet they are oblivious to their own faith commitments that were learned, studied and embraced. "The fool says in his heart, 'there is no God". It seems the only one that believes in the "easter bunny" is the one that holds to the illogical, and commits with blind faith to the absolutist, metaphysical position of atheism.
Tony, please describe to me what you see as my, or a general atheistic "faith" system that we have embraced. I suspect you are misrepresenting something that is, in fact, nothing to do with religious faith.
I have never attacked science, talk about a straw man!
So, what do you call fallacious arguments against consensus science? I call that an attack on science. What else could it be? "Scinece" is determined by scientists, the people who actually do the "science". So, no straw man here. You attack science and this results in you being shown how you are dead wrong.
I attack naturalism.
Which is nothing but a philosophical extension of lack of faith in superstitions and the supernatural. You can attack this worldview if you like, but you cannot demonstrate that it is invalid.
Science is a tool that we both have to make our case. It is a great tool but it is only one, there is philosophy, logic, language, morals, and ethics, all things that must obtain prior to doing science and to even have this discussion. Notice these things are not physical and do not fall under the realm of science. Just because I don't use a hammer to brush my teeth, doesn't mean I am against hammers. Science is a tool that reveals truth. So before calling me foolish, make sure you at least understand my position please.
No, I don't understand your position on science. You don't seem to comprehend what it is or where is differs from supernaturalism. If I want to learn the age of the earth, how does philosophy help? How does language help? How do morals or ethics help? Logic does help, but it is only a construct for evaluating facts. So, you seem confused, Tony. Would I use "science" to determine if god exists? No. Is there any other "tool" that can definitively demonstrate that god exists? No.
Enjoy your time on earth!