Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Shark24
Indication, but not experimental proof.

That's the price one pays for being historical: just as we can't go back and re-play the battle of Waterloo where Napoleon had a pair of A-10 Warthogs for backup fire.

The mistake made by the atheists is to assume that if something is not susceptible to the blandishments of "scientific" investigation, then it is necessarily false.

Occam's razor works great on reducing false positives, it is not so good with false negatives.

The other issue is that the scientific ansatz is based upon the working supposition of "uniformity of causes in a closed system."

Once you allow (even for the sake of argument) the actual possibility of the supernatural, your boundary conditions go out the window.

Cheers!

61 posted on 07/22/2010 3:19:17 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]


To: grey_whiskers

Thanks. I even got to learn a new word (didn’t remember “ansatz” from my college days)! Would love to buy you an cold beverage if I could.


62 posted on 07/23/2010 7:37:45 AM PDT by Shark24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


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