it 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.
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.
meet 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.
Good gravy. Way to necro an old thread.
LOL
I was thinking to make a topic about the ontological argument but this OP are so well written by Terry.
Old but gold.
it 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 - 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.
it 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.
Testimonial evidence is not reliable.
Then you cannot accept Law.
it 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 - 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.
it 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.
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.
meet 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.
meet 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.
meet 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.
it 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.
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.
