Post by Arlon10 on Aug 8, 2018 20:57:57 GMT
1) That word would have been 'science' only once it appeared in the 1800's Arlon, where it superseded the term 'natural philosophy', and helped to separate 'science' from 'philosophy'. The point was that the Romans did not introduce it as you claimed
2) even if there was an English language to introduce it to!
3) But don't take my word for it, as if you would lol
4) it is only necessary to observe that something controversial does not necessarily mean something unclear.
5) by including nature as one of the 'forces required to develop a system of ethics' [not my words] you indeed imply the Fallacy of Nature
A) I've warned you many times not to try to win arguments by claiming your opponent has committed a fallacy. That is because you usually misapply the terms as you just did. That would be most embarrassing in public. Trying to win by claiming some rule says you must is what bumbling amateurs do. Professionals show step by step how being natural does not ensure "goodness" for example tornadoes. Or by showing there are times when something "unnatural" like a mother killing her own children is obviously not a good thing. So there really is no "rule" that appealing to nature is always right or always wrong. It is your extremely simple mind that wants such rules since you can't win arguments any other way.
B) I never suggested that everything in nature is always good or bad. Your feeble mind thought you found a "fallacy" to claim and save you from the effort of really understanding what I did say. Religion is in fact a way of dealing with the good and bad in nature and society, "the rain falls on the just and unjust." Science, as I have shown, is incapable of dealing with these things, so much for your logic.
6) I merely reflected the reasonable view that it is unwise to attribute everything currently unknown to the supernatural. For The God of the Gaps argument is another fallacy, is it not?