SP: That alleged event is not verifiable in a scientific sense or even an historic sense. That event is not repeatable, nor was it recorded by scientific instrumentation, nor do we have such scientific evidence for analogous events that would at least make your assertion scientifically plausible.
VR: Couldn't the same argument be made against, say, the Battle of Waterloo?
Here.
7 comments:
He is saying two things. One, there are plenty of verifiable battles that would lend plausibility to the Battle of Waterloo having occurred, but since miracles are not occurring today, miracles as described in the Bible are not as plausible.
The other thing he seems to be saying is that if science can't inform on it, it's either nonexistent or not worth thinking about, which of course is nonsense to anyone who doesn't subscribe to scientism.
One, there are plenty of verifiable battles that would lend plausibility to the Battle of Waterloo having occurred,
no there aren't. no other battle works,m it;s just arguing from analogy, the best you can do is to argue that the battle of W@ is rendered more plausible, But I'k not even that is true.
but since miracles are not occurring today, miracles as described in the Bible are not as plausible.
who says they are not? I don't see any disproof of Lourdes miracles,I see no disproofo the miracles I've experienced,
The other thing he seems to be saying is that if science can't inform on it, it's either nonexistent or not worth thinking about, which of course is nonsense to anyone who doesn't subscribe to scientism.
change the rules. That's what Moltmann argues in Theology of Hope, He says the resurrection is not historical? But it's history making. Meaning belief in the event sets the standard for Christian belief. renders scientific judgement of that event irrelevant.
That alleged event is not verifiable in a scientific sense or even an historic sense
Yes it is. Waterloo is verifiable in a historical sense because canons of historiography are not the same as physical sciences. Historians are willing to accept eye witness testimony if the documents can be authenticated.
Skeptics toss around these vague terms. When pressed to get specific, their objections often unravel. For example:
What does it mean to verify in the scientific sense if not literally verify according to the methods of science? 99.9% of life events are not verified in the scientific sense. What does that say about the objection?
What does it mean to have scientific evidence for analogous events? The scientific, verifiable and repealed evidence is that life only comes from other life. What does this evidence tell us about the plausibility that life in this universe originated from nonliving matter?
* repeatable
Scientific verification would imply replicability but since you can't repeat the universe a lot of sciences such as cosmology have to overlook that. They assume standard law so look for the repeating of the event in a different ways,that is other universes unfolding. But then they are just as likely to make a rules change argument when doing battle against a God argument.
this is my theoretical answer to Draper the evidential argument from evil
Why God Allows Pain (theoretiocal)
Post a Comment