Originally posted by shunyadragon
View Post
Methodological Naturalism is the "basis" of Metaphysical Naturalism at most as the necessary but not the sufficient condition. Otherwise, how could scientists be practicing scientists, i.e. methodological naturalists? There is no logical entailment; one can argue, at most, that it is the most reasonable assumption.
That is an issue concerning what we are talking about, and you reinforced it.
You are making confllicting statements.
Simply you have not been able back up decisive 'turths' out side science. and in science they are decisive theories and hypothesis that are subject to change with new information. Outside science we do not ahve that 'decisive' basis for knowledge.
Name calling is not a coherent response.
It still remains you have failed to provide 'decisive' truths based on subjective philosophical assumptions.
de·ci·sive /dəˈsīsiv/ adjective settling an issue; producing a definite result.
Still waiting . . . but I will not hold my breath.
When does proving one's truth claims come to an end? When you cannot objecitively support them.
Comment