John_Mann
JoinedPosts by John_Mann
-
46
THIS MAN proved that God exists and he did it effortlessly!
by Terry inmeet a really smart fellow named anselm 1043--1109 a.d.. .
he was elected abbot in lombardy in 1078 a.d.. .
that than which nothing greater can be thought exists in the understanding.
-
-
-
147
Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?
by cofty init is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.
if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.
followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.
-
-
John_Mann
I make no restrictions on what sort of evidence I will consider.
I think you're very biased to only accept scientific evidence.
I don't think you would accept physical evidence or testimonial evidence for instance.
I'd presented even logical proof to you about the existence of God in St. Anselm's ontological argument.
-
147
Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?
by cofty init is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.
if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.
followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.
-
-
John_Mann
On this thread you have alternated bizarrely between saying you are unaware of any real knowledge outside science (and could anyone point it out) and insisting that you accept other kinds of knowledge and anyone who says otherwise is misrepresenting you. So which is it?
Yes.This is very strange.
I'm really trying to understand Cofty's worldview but it's very difficult when he keeps flip-flopping.
He seems to confuse scientific evidence and physical evidence too.
Also I don't know why he insists writing scientism in quotemarks implying scientism itself is an invented or invalid term.
Actually scientism is very well defined by great philosophers of science like Popper and Putnam for instance.
-
147
Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?
by cofty init is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.
if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.
followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.
-
-
John_Mann
So far we agree these sources of knowledges are not science (scientific method):
Philosophy (being the universal tool of knowledge).
Heuristic
History
Music/art
Law
Politics
Mathematics
Psychology
All these areas of knowledge work without scientific evidence.
-
147
Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?
by cofty init is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.
if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.
followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.
-
-
-
147
Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?
by cofty init is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.
if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.
followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.
-
-
John_Mann
The logical conclusion of scientism is what can't be submitted to scientific method can't exist at all.
That's why followers of Scientism deny the existence of God and even consciousness.
To scientism consciousness is just another illusion and nothing more than a bunch of cheap tricks.
-
47
I am a Living Time Machine
by TerryWalstrom inwhich world is this?_________________when the doctor pulled my screaming body out of mom all those 7 decades ago, i landed in a post-wwii world.it was--compared to today's world--an alien planet.. the world i live in today has nothing in common with the world in which i grew up.. there were no cell phones back then--there were black telephones with a dial-tone and an operator who placed your call.
everywhere you found telephone booths!
a call was a nickle.where did all those telephone booths go?i dunno.where did my whole world go?i dunno.. tv sets were huge boxes with tubes and small screens.
-
-
John_Mann
Idk if you are a time machine or a time capsule. :)
-
147
Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?
by cofty init is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.
if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.
followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.
-
-
John_Mann
You keep confusing or intentionally mixing up scientific evidence and physical evidence.
And by now you already said that you use evidence as any evidence like a universal evidence.
What can be said about this position?
-
147
Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?
by cofty init is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.
if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.
followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.
-
-
John_Mann
That's a lie .
Quote and link please.Everything we know, we know because of science.
-
147
Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?
by cofty init is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.
if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.
followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.
-
-
John_Mann
This thread is about your baseless accusations of "scientism".
My base of why I define you as a follower of scientism is because you never specify the type of evidence you're talking about when the subject is God.
But considering your position is very easy to imply you are talking about scientific evidence.
So if someone put scientific evidence and God in the same equation then this person is a follower of scientism.
My suggestion to you is only specify the type of evidence when you're talking about the concept of God.
Don't say only evidence but qualify it by saying scientific evidence, testimonial evidence, physical evidence, forensic evidence, logical proof, etc...