Vlad,
Well on reflection, it does support my case…
So having tried an
ad hom (“Hillside quotes a favourite Antitheist site”), now you’ve decided that you like it after all because you think it supports you?
You really are some piece of work aren’t you.
…that you are conflating philosophical naturalism with methodological naturalism.
Why are you still lying about that given that I’ve actually consistently said pretty much the opposite of it?
This was the actual quote from RationalWiki which supports me.
''Philosophical naturalism is the doctrine that the natural world is all there is''
Ah, the old scam of selective quoting. Now tell us what the rest of it says. You know, stuff like this:
“Science is itself a process based on methodological naturalism, i.e. treating the world as if metaphysical naturalism was the case ...but without actually taking a stand on matters philosophical (outside of method).”
That shows it isn't just my personal interpretation.
He lied.
Again.
You always argue from that basis and even now try to make out that methodological naturalism proceeds from philosophical naturalism .
Why are you lying again? Is the expression “as if” really too difficult for you to comprehend?
Really?
Only a fool would try, after having dug this trench and planted lovely shrubs and flowers along it, to then argue zero philosophical entailment.....Ah well.
He lied.
Again.
That “as if” really has got you foxed hasn’t it.
In fact quotes support either my contention of the definition of Philosophical naturalism or your conflation of it with methodological naturalism
He lied.
Again.
So here’s the plan: if you think you can respond to what’s
actually being said without insult or lying, I’ll respond. If you carry on as you are though, you’re on your own.
I’m not expecting to have to reply again any time soon.
