Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:42:45 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020904114037.D88455-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <3D756FD1.1BA06101@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > Some questions are proven from the impossibility of the contrary. If > > a particular worldview does not provide the preconditions of rationality, > > it should be rejected. For example, the fact that naturalism undermines > > the ability to know whether one's views are true or false eliminates > > naturalism as a viable worldview. In fact, if naturalism is false its > > opposite, supernaturalism must be true. > > Incorrect. > > Naturalism allows one to know *if* their views are false. How? > It just > doesn't permit one to know *that* one's views are true, or merely > a useful approximation of truth which may be later disproven by > future collection of empirical evidence. How is empricism even possible on a naturalistic worldview? Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020904114037.D88455-100000>