The Mark of the Beast (666)

Originally posted by Ytse
And why wouldn't they be applicable if observed in a created universe?

I never claimed it was observable or testable. I said neither were. How can you prove naturalism? How can you know you're observing a created world sustained by god or observing a world that came about through natural causes?

The truth of the conclusion is always derived from the truth of the premises. If the premises are false, the argument is not sound.

In this instace, the argument is sound. Therefore, the premises must be true by necessity.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The truth of the conclusion is always derived from the truth of the premises. If the premises are false, the argument is not sound.

You're just restating what you've already claimed in different language.

Why can't the observations you mentioned (in regards to medicine, technology, etc.) be useful in a created world?

Therefore, the premises must be true by necessity.

The premise of naturalistic science isn't that the universe is necessarily naturalistic, but that observations are best explained by natural causes.

Originally posted by Ytse
You're just restating what you've already claimed in different language.

Why can't the observations you mentioned (in regards to medicine, technology, etc.) be useful in a created world?

The premise of naturalistic science isn't that the universe is necessarily naturalistic, but that observations are best explained by natural causes.

The conclusion, "modern medicine, science, and technology has real world applications," is derived from the premise, "the universe is naturalistic."

If the premise, "the universe is naturalistic," is false, then the conlusion that is derived from this premise, "modern medicine, science, and technology has real world applications," would not be sound.

Since modern medicine, science, and technology do have real world applications, then the premise, "the universe is naturalistic," must be true by necessity.

What do you not understand?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The conclusion, "modern medicine, science, and technology has real world applications," is derived from the premise, "the universe is naturalistic."

If the premise, "the universe is naturalistic," is false, then the conlusion that is derived from this premise, "modern medicine, science, and technology has real world applications," would not be sound.

Since modern medicine, science, and technology do have real world applications, then the premise, "the universe is naturalistic," must be true by necessity.

What do you not understand?

Let me predict his question. Regardless of how he words it, the question will be basically "why?".

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
What do you not understand?

I don't understand where you're getting this:

The conclusion, "modern medicine, science, and technology has real world applications," is derived from the premise, "the universe is naturalistic."

I could just say "modern medicine, science, and technology has real world applications because God provides the necessary preconditions for it."

No need for naturalism there. How am I wrong?

Originally posted by Ytse
I don't understand where you're getting this:

The conclusion, "modern medicine, science, and technology has real world applications," is derived from the premise, "the universe is naturalistic."

I could just say "modern medicine, science, and technology has real world applications because God provides the necessary preconditions for it."

No need for naturalism there. How am I wrong?

Your statement is less reasonable and extraordinary. Adam_PoE's statement is more reasonable and not at all extraordinary. Let me give you an example of why:

What is an echo?
1. A spirit that hears your voice in a cannon will repeat your voice back to you.
2. Your voice is being reflected back to you by the walls of the cannon.

Witch is more reasonable and less extraordinary?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Your statement is less reasonable and extraordinary.

Less reasonable by what standards?

Let me give you an example of why:

What is an echo?
1. A spirit that hears your voice in a cannon will repeat your voice back to you.
2. Your voice is being reflected back to you by the walls of the cannon.

Witch is more reasonable and less extraordinary?

Your example fails in that we can conclude what an echo is via empiricism. We can observe soundwaves bouncing off of surfaces. We can observe soudwaves vibrating our eardrums.

We cannot observe whether the universe itself is a result of natural causes.

Originally posted by Ytse
I don't understand where you're getting this:

The conclusion, "modern medicine, science, and technology has real world applications," is derived from the premise, "the universe is naturalistic."

I could just say "modern medicine, science, and technology has real world applications because God provides the necessary preconditions for it."

No need for naturalism there. How am I wrong?

A reliable prediction cannot be made from an observation of a condition that is arbitrary to the will of God.

Originally posted by Ytse
Less reasonable by what standards?

Your example fails in that we can conclude what an echo is via empiricism. We can observe soundwaves bouncing off of surfaces. We can observe soudwaves vibrating our eardrums.

We cannot observe whether the universe itself is a result of natural causes.

No, the spirits make your sound seem to bounce off the walls. 🙄

God made the world in a way that would make us think that cannon walls reflect sound, but the truth is that spirits call back to us.

That is what you sound like to me.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
A reliable prediction cannot be made from an observation of a condition that is arbitrary to the will of God.

"While the earth remains,
Seedtime and harvest,
And cold and heat,
And summer and winter,
And day and night
Shall not cease." - Genesis 8:22

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is what you sound like to me.

Sounds like whining to me. This thread is for discussion.

Originally posted by Ytse
Sounds like whining to me. This thread is for discussion.

Did you not get my point? 😕

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Did you not get my point? 😕

Guess not. Explain it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No because he will cast me into eternal torture. That is, by no definition of the word, loving.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
he will do this only if you choose to not believe in him.

Which is still not loving. You know. Turn the other cheek and all that mumbo jumbo.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Which is still not loving. You know. Turn the other cheek and all that mumbo jumbo.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
you DO know the reason it is this way, dont you?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Because he is not loving?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
guess again.

I have no clue.

He enjoys seeing me in pain?

He wants to teach me a lesson that I can never get out off?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I have no clue.

He enjoys seeing me in pain?

He wants to teach me a lesson that I can never get out off?