tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post62340731624717741..comments2023-11-22T09:00:59.909-08:00Comments on Atheistwatch: The Anti-God Argument Industry: J.L. Schellenberg ArgumentsJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-80144118503932237712013-04-01T07:42:42.581-07:002013-04-01T07:42:42.581-07:00thanks. I appreciate it. But deductive reasoning d...thanks. I appreciate it. But deductive reasoning doe snot require empirical backing. My big crusade is for the validation of other forms of knowledge (besides science).Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-79372474447591474312013-03-31T16:05:14.918-07:002013-03-31T16:05:14.918-07:00Hello!,
Yours is also a valid approach, indeed. I...Hello!,<br /><br />Yours is also a valid approach, indeed. I wonder if it is correctly interpreted to think of such methods as "externalizing the empirical"?<br /><br />Kind Regards.yonosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00853519252063461784noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-89846971740364462812013-03-31T08:42:54.033-07:002013-03-31T08:42:54.033-07:00I know what you mean about them treating science l...I know what you mean about them treating science like a formality. Yet I see the problem differently. they are trying to turn deductive reasoning in the empirical. The possible world's thing they are trying make it like thought experiment and then use the "findings" to determine concepts of the deductive.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-19099701382852706012013-03-30T16:35:52.832-07:002013-03-30T16:35:52.832-07:00I also see the common problems when dealing with s...I also see the common problems when dealing with such arguments for atheism.<br /><br />The explicit pattern seen is sadly evident.<br /><br />But what still seems a bit strange for me even these days, is that any time I see such arguments, they remind me the protocol-like usage of the scientific method. <br /><br />Analogously, I humbly think that such arguments take some rather unusual approach, like the application of the scientific method, deductively. It is common to find in "non-exact" and "exact" branches of sciences alike, a whole bunch of apparently arbitrary "what-ifs", which are necessary for the proposal of new theories, which, by their correct usage and experimentation, would epistemologically and phenomenologically deny any previous, contradicting theory which was posited. Of course, it to be noted that unfortunately, this is NOT how science works nowadays, but this is another topic to be discussed in another occasion...<br /><br />...it is common for proponents of atheism, to make such observations by totally ignoring the first principles, related to the understanding of the metaphysical (Atheism, as "old" as "new" allows to do so for the mere sake of the belief, whether unwarranted, or not). Such arguments ultimately fail to confront the epistemological reliability regarding a philosophically metaphysical view, so, as always demonstrated, Atheism, generally but not broadly speaking, is not mere disbelief nor mere denial, but a matter of forceful rejection to the acceptance of a logically correct view of the metaphysical (specially related to Judeo-Christian religions), and a forceful rejection of the acceptance of any empirical plausibility related to the discussion of the Mystical Experience.<br /><br />Kind Regards. <br /><br />Kind Regards.yonosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00853519252063461784noreply@blogger.com