frankie6092 (September 6th, 2008 @ 12:06 pm)

As long as there are no other methods that can produce truth, scientism remains true. Otherwise you must present an alternative but you don't seem to care to give at least one. Simple: Is there a thing that could present truth? Yes. What is it? Scientific method. Is there anything else? No. Then scientific method is the ONLY method that can produce truth SO FAR unless you present an alternative method.

frankie6092 (September 6th, 2008 @ 11:57 am)

"Of course science can't prove the existence of a god. But that doesn't mean one can't exist." I agree with that. But I cannot agree that the holy scriptures present today is the word of God. If your going to analyze it, it belittles the concept of God into barbaric and childish entity. Just try reading the book of Leviticus. So there might be a God, but I am certain, by definition of God as loving and just, our holy scriptures today are not the works of God but of men.

frankie6092 (September 6th, 2008 @ 11:52 am)

"Spiritual truth" has been always the category of truth that couldn't be proven. I'm quite tired of it. Don't you want to invent spiritual method to prove your spiritual truth? Because it is not only you who's claiming such things. If a thing is the truth, another truth should not contradict that truth. In our case, religions contradicts each other. So how are you going to claim yours is the truth if there are other spiritual truth claiming otherwise?

frankie6092 (September 6th, 2008 @ 11:41 am)

(part3) I accept his argument about not keeping his religion private as long as they don't prevent us from not keeping our atheism private too.

frankie6092 (September 6th, 2008 @ 11:36 am)

(part2) It is because the longer we live the more we know that judgment day isn't really coming. And inevitably the credibility of those holy scriptures will shatter. Unless they did something to simulate judgment day to make it seem true. I hope they don't do something that stupid, we're talking lives here.

frankie6092 (September 6th, 2008 @ 10:32 am)

(part1) A nice fine Christian defender. I hope all Christians were that calm and humble. Albeit, there still things I disagree with Tim Keller specially when he said that by natural selection explains why humans were religious. I believe it's just by product of having developed brain but with limited knowledge of the universe. Maybe after another 2000 years more we'll evolve into secular world.

frankie6092 (September 6th, 2008 @ 7:56 am)

"But some things must be true before we can even begin to use the scientific method as a test;" This doesn't prove that scientific method can't be used as a test. It is just impractical to test things that were obvious. But if you insist it will not fail. And again, scientific method IS the evidence itself and it doesn't need to have and evidence to prove itself. Just like the legally accepted evidences in court, they don't need evidence, otherwise the case will not move on.

frankie6092 (September 6th, 2008 @ 7:51 am)

"the scientific method cannot give evidence for the scientific method" It is because scientific method IS the evidence for the hypothesis to be true or false. If we're going to follow your concept, it would be like asking the plaintiff to give an evidence for his already legally accepted evidence. That is redundant and will go into infinite loop.

frankie6092 (September 6th, 2008 @ 7:45 am)

test

frankie6092 (September 6th, 2008 @ 7:44 am)

test

ARCHETECTONIC (September 1st, 2008 @ 6:38 pm)

On the introduction - can we believe that someone can have a disinterested interest in 'reason' with no emotional drives or unconscious reasons for what they 'reason' towards? In other words, can we trust him when he says that he is driven mainly by 'reason'?

DecadentParadise (August 13th, 2008 @ 3:46 am)

Whoever asked the first question asked the right one! Well done. I wish he'd continued along his own train of thought but the pastor responded so ambiguously and poorly that it was impossible to respond!