Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: atlaw; CottShop; metmom
" Why don't we move past the philosophical arm waving and talk about specific examples.

Can you provide an example of evidence clearly indicating a non-natural explanation? And how, in the absence of investigation and exclusion of all possible natural explanations, does one specifically go about deriving this explanation (in other words, how does one test for the supernatural)?"

You are asking me to Disprove the Philosophical Assumption that, the Naturalistic Explanation is the only explanation.

Disproving a Philosophical Assumption is the measure of impossibility.


The Naturalistic axioms of science are philosophical, and in no way can be disproved scientifically.

If you don't like philosophical arm waving, might I suggest you take up empirical science instead of Naturalistic Science.

The difference being:
Empirical science: Whatever can be empirically proved.
Naturalistic Science: Whatever can be empirically [or otherwise] proved that agrees with a Naturalistic World View.
881 posted on 04/08/2008 2:35:53 PM PDT by Fichori (Truth is non-negotiable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 874 | View Replies ]


To: Fichori
More arm waving. Do you have an example of evidence clearly indicating a non-natural explanation for something? Just set aside the philosophical semantics, and let's examine something concrete.
883 posted on 04/08/2008 2:45:10 PM PDT by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 881 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson