Who is going to hell? An argument for the Bible, Religion and God.

[Dent]

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

One eventually outgrows Dawkins and realizes the errors in his thinking.

Hipster Dawkins hater coming along with some oldschool philosophy! I'm pretty sure you just invented your own debate, nothing you've said attacks his views.
If you think your (yet to be revealed woo-woo) meaning is exempt from nature thats fine, throw yourself off a cliff then.


Have PM'd this link to Blonde and misterfleas (who has already solved the puzzle) but I'd like your critique on it as well, last I heard Descartes' critics are vast, and Kant knowing nothing about space-time? pssh
SpaceandMotion-Philosophy

"Summary: To know the truth about things we need to know how they are necessarily connected. Thus to know the truth about physical reality we need to know how matter exists and moves about in space in a necessarily connected way. If we knew this then we would find that deductions from our theory of reality (logical truths) would match knowledge from our senses / experiments (empirical truths)."

"(postmodernism assumes this is a permanent limitation of science, thus we can never know reality / absolute truths)"
^ Copenhagen interpretation, the most accurate description of reality so far, and we see probabilities, not certainties.

"No. What I'm saying is that science may eventually answer all naturalistic questions, but it cannot ever answer philosophical ones. "
That's because some questions are silly.

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

So my premise is this: Dawkin's empiricist approach is fantastic for uncovering the mysteries of the natural world, but it becomes flawed when applied to all aspects of life.

Oh Dawkins you bad boy, we just came out of hundreds of thousands of years of having no clue whatsoever about about how the natural world works, you have shown us so much but still not everything has an answer why god why? I mean dawkins
The idea that we primates can understand everything is repugnant

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

Surely you don't believe there is nothing outside of science? Think about it for a minute.

Science is latin for knowledge, you're saying there is a priori and priori knowledge, what's missing there again? the greek and latin words for knowledge confuse me.

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

Finally, the belief in God can be rational, in the epistemological sense of the word.

Does that mean that anything can be rational, in the epistemological sense of the word.? can you give some insight into this?

You keep mentioning meaning and science, as if Dawkins has ever said that science can answer such a question.
It's a hidden assumption, a meaningless question unless rephrased as “Why do human beings matter to us?”
And that goes for the ethics/morality as well.

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

but to show why an empiricist would have an issue accepting any kind of knowledge outside of sense experience.

Outside of sense experience? an empiricist (sentient) would never bump into anything paranormal like this (5)

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

No. What I'm saying is that science may eventually answer all naturalistic questions, but it cannot ever answer philosophical ones.

Explain how determinism is wrong please, also has god been hiding in the philosophy section all along?
No wonder science can't find him.