Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity

You are not connected. Please login or register

Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Philosophy and God » Are only analytic or empirical propositions meaningful ?

Are only analytic or empirical propositions meaningful ?

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]



Can the Miracles in the Bible be Believed? One reason that a person may reject the gospels is that their mind is closed to the idea of the miraculous. He might think that supernatural events are contrary to logic. This idea has its roots in the works of the Scottish philosopher David Hume, who wrote, “When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make?

If we take in our hand any volume – of divinity or school of metaphysics, for instance – let us ask, does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.” However, the problem with this position is that it fails its own test.

The statement that “only analytic or empirical propositions are meaningful” is not itself analytic (true by definition) or empirical statement. Therefore it is itself meaningless. Therefore, a person ought to be open to at least the possibility of miracles if he is to maintain any intellectual credibility. Many in the gospel stories were down-to-earth people, who were surprised by the supernatural, just as we are. The writers of the gospel didn’t try and polish the fact that it was startling when they saw Jesus walked on water, which if the documents were tampered with one might see.

The statement that “only analytic or empirical propositions are meaningful” is not itself analytic (true by definition) or empirical statement. Therefore it is itself meaningless.



Five rational beliefs that cannot be proven by science:

Logical and mathematical truths cannot be proven by science. Science presupposes logic and math; to try to prove them by science would be arguing in a circle.
Metaphysical truths such as that there are other minds other than my own or that the external world is real or that the past wasn’t created five minutes ago with the appearance of age.
Ethical beliefs about statements of value are not accessible by the scientific method. You can’t show by science whether the Nazi scientists did anything in the camps that is evil as opposed to the scientists in western democracies.
Aesthetic judgments cannot be accessed by the scientific method because the beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven.
Science itself. Science cannot be justified by the scientific method. Science is permeated by improvable assumptions. For example, in the special theory of relativity, the whole theory hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one-way direction from point A to point B, it must be assumed.



The Limitations Of Science

Scientific method is limited to a process defined by that which is measurable and repeatable. By definition, it cannot speak to issues of ultimate origin, meaning, or morality. For such answers, science is dependent on the values and personal beliefs of those who use it. Science, therefore, has great potential for both good and evil. It can be used to make vaccines or poisons, nuclear power plants or nuclear weapons. It can be used to clean up the environment or to pollute it. It can be used to argue for God or against Him. Science by itself offers no moral guidance or values to govern our lives. All science can do is show us how natural law works, while telling us nothing about its origins.

Sponsored content

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum