tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38434833.post3723639031223893119..comments2023-10-18T00:59:40.216-07:00Comments on Christian Skepticism - a reasonable faith...: What science teaches about the truthoddXianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15427095709766850092noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38434833.post-69047219324414538502007-02-24T15:15:00.000-08:002007-02-24T15:15:00.000-08:00JD, yes, depending on your persuasion tis argument...JD, yes, depending on your persuasion tis argument is valid. I have used it myself a few times. However, except for some radicals, most scientists, even Dawkins, are careful to avoid absolute truth claims from the scientific method. <BR/><BR/>After all, the scientific method is mostly inductive, with maybe a a bit of abduction thrown in, but almost never deductive, which is what would be required to make the absolute claims. <BR/><BR/>In debating this with people who support Marshall Brain (God hates amputees) for example, the question is really simple. For you to make an absolute claim, like God hates amputees, because He never makes their limbs grow back, and therefore He does not exist, you would have to show that you have examined every amputee, everywhere, and throughout history. Because just one example of a regenerated limb will defeat the argument. <BR/><BR/>Of course no human can claim that he has seen all the evidence everywhere, at all times during history, so inductive scientific truth claims are always framed very specifically around the conditions under which the data was gathered and interpreted.<BR/><BR/>Along the same lines as the cideo, one might also ask skeptics to use the scientific method to prove that the science itself is necessarily scientific. It is a bit of the demarcation argument, which has proven to be very troublesome for materialistic scientists.<BR/><BR/>Anyhow, good little video, and good advice.Augusthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12811077365729979841noreply@blogger.com