by cofty 147 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I don't think the suffix "ism" is pejorative in itself. It just implies a system of thought.
Dogma is just an axiom in a religious context. The term axiom is most used in mathematics. In logic an axiom usually is known as premise.
An axiom is a statement taken to be true through pure faith. It's a self evident truth.
At the end of the day axiom, dogma and premise are the same thing.
Scientific method is built upon several axioms.
@John_Mann - please explain the difference between scientific evidence and physical evidence.
Scientific evidence is a physical evidence that can be replicated/repeated any time by will by anyone if following the same conditions that produced the physical evidence.
Life is a physical evidence but (until now) it cannot be replicated.
Repeatability is the difference between scientific evidence and physical evidence.
John_Mann repIing to Cofty "I don't think you would accept physical evidence or testimonial evidence for instance."
Testimonial evidence is not reliable.
@John_Mann - assuming God exists, is His life a 'physical evidence'?
Testimonial evidence is not reliable.
Then you cannot accept Law.
@John_Mann - assuming God exists, is His life a 'physical evidence'?
The very definition of God says He is not physical.
We can access metaphysical existence of other things beyond God.
Justice, love, beauty, infinity for instance are not physical entities but metaphysical ones.
I don't think he's clear in his own mind. To Cofty the whole world can be divided into other opinions that are either "ignorant" and "bullshit" or else "unimportant" or "true but trivial". Often he switches from one to the other in the middle of the discussion!
"Ignorant" is not a pejorative word. Creationists are frequently totally ignorant of the facts they dismiss.
Sometimes "bullshit" or "bollocks" is all that a so-called argument deserves.
A lot comments on a thread are off-topic or unimportant to the discussion. Your speech about whether or not history is science is a prefect example. That is why I ignored it, not because I didn't have an answer. I never ignore questions or challenges that are relevant.
Your favourite topic is semantics. I don't care about semantics so I tend to ignore you a lot.
I intend to ignore you a lot more in future. I used to think you were sincere even though I disagreed with you a lot. There have been too many incidents when you so blatantly misrepresented my position just to score points that I no longer respect your honesty. You probably think I do the same. I don't. But let's agree to disagree. I find I enjoy the forum a lot more if I don't engage with you too often.
And yet again you have attempted to derail a thread for your own amusement.
Back to the topic.
John_mann you have thrown around the insult of "scientism" dozens of times in recent weeks. You use it in order to avoid having to provide evidence for your Roman Catholic dogma. I have told you as many times that I will genuinely consider any sort of evidence. The Ontological argument is a good example. I accept it as an attempt - a failed attempt - to provide evidence for god. I would be happy to discuss it on another thread.
I don't find your three so-called miracles to be compelling evidence of anything apart from how superstitious Catholics are. But we could discuss those on another thread if you wish. They are subject to scrutiny. Whether or not you want to label the study of such events scientific or not makes no difference to me. But of course you will continue to tell me what I think and then accuse me of being confused when I correct you.
I have no special desire for evidence that you consider scientific. I think my definition of science is broader than yours. So what? That is just semantics. So far you have shown no willingness to reason on this so I guess the conversation is over.
You keep making evidence-free assertions about how humans have three souls and purgatory etc and every time anybody asks you how you can know these things are true you just carry on shouting "METAPHYSICS" and "SCIENTISM".
I tried to communicate with you about this. You were not interested. So be it.
The Ontological argument is a good example. I accept it as an attempt - a failed attempt - to provide evidence for god.
The St. Anselm's ontological argument is logic (deduction by contradiction to be more specific).
If you say it's flawed you must demonstrate why.
I would like to see this logical demonstration.
I would be happy to do so on a different thread.
This one is about your persistent accusations of so-called "scientism".
