#189
More importantly though, it can be difficult to provide a methodology when the issue under debate transcends mere material naturalism, which so many of the members here seem to place all their trust in.
...And your evasion of any attempt to provide a methodology is shockingly obvious.
You've yet to provide us with an alternative though: god knows you've been asked often enough.
The charge against Hope is incorrect. Here was an attempt by him to address the issue:
'Cold-Case Christianity'And in terms of the wider charge against those of religious belief failing to find any method, here's 42 pages of a thread to illustrate what happens when they do.
AN opportunity for the religious to provide their evidenceSo, for the last time this year:
1. A worldview that assumes natural causes and explanations
cannot be used to evaluate any claims / submission of evidence for anything that doesn't have a natural cause / explanation.
2. Those that are going to examine any claims / submission of evidence
need to know for themselves what they would consider as evidence or what methodology they would use to test any claims. This would
not be an issue if their worldview was falsifiable, by their own scientific standards, as they would already have some idea.
The problem that exists currently is that the worldview and methodologies used assume natural causes / explanations, so guess what the conclusion is going to be?
- Evidence: Known or unknown natural cause. Suggesting a non-natural cause is an argument from incredulity / God of the gaps
- Cause: The explanation given in support of a non-natural cause is fallacious.
Happy New Year to all.