Theli

Metaphysical...

Many people have used this term on this forum.
I don't see how you can put much weight in metaphysics. As is says in several dictionaries defines it as an abstract concept, such as luck.
As luck doesn't really exist, just as good and evil doesn't exist outside our own minds.
And for supernatural events, they are impossible to trace the source of (trickster-god).


Here's a few explainations...
Based on speculative or abstract reasoning.
Highly abstract or theoretical; abstruse.
Supernatural.

If I have missed something (wich I probabaly have) would someone want to fill me in?

hezekiah jones

The book that came after <a href="http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.html" target="_blank">Physics</a>.

Automaton

Actually, that is pretty much my problem with Silent Dave's argument. When I responded to you, I wasn't making my case, I was merely dispelling a straw-man.

Another problem with it is that since supernatural explanations have no place in science, a priori, naturalistic explanations will always be the only explanation accepted. The nature of science is methodological naturalism. Thus, even if I accepted that there are millions of supernatural events occuring around us at any given moment, science would still be 100% methodologically naturalistic. Therefore, it cannot be a gauge of how supernatural the universe is.

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: Automaton ]</p>

Brad Messenger

The point of the argument is that naturalistic explanations have successfully replaced supernatural explanations. There has never been the case where supernatural explanations have replaced natural ones (or at least to my knowledge). Thus, this long history of naturalistic explanations taking the place of supernatural ones would be expected under naturalism and not expected under theism. This is why many still resist evolution. Their perspective on theism would find an evolved world as unexpected.

I think the argument gives some support to naturalism, which is the purpose of the argument.

Tercel

Of course not. Supernatural explanations can never replace natural ones because if a natural one exists then it's not allowed to be replaced: Methodological Naturalism.

Not at all. I find it perfectly predictable that many supernaturalists will play God of the Gaps and later be proved wrong.

Tercel

Oh I'm sorry if I spelt the little wordy wrong. How plain awful of me to not be able to spell everything perfectly.

Or if that's a round about way of saying you don't know enough english to know what "equivocating" means then why not just say so?

BLoggins02

I want some nachos, can someone please bring me some nachos?

Thanks