|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 14, 2019 17:28:10 GMT
As one of the incredulous when in regards to certain claims of the metaphysical in general,or the the religious in particular, I have long learned not to be easily impressed. This is probably wise when remembering, for instance, a long history of mendacity, the conflicting claims of the major faiths and lack of extraordinary evidence for the central extraordinary claims. As for love, it is not only humans who mate for life. I don't think it is a power from above, or 'from the heart' but just the sentimentalised (and extremely enjoyable) psychological manifestation of a biological imperative (one which is more defined in some societies than others it may be said). But it is dangerous to assume that because there are something we cannot see that exists that that is true of all proposed invisibles. Many people make the same claim and yet are rather easily and obviously duped by anything calling itself science. That isn't good what with all that mendacity flying around. Your idea of science often has less to do with such issues than simple verification, without which it is hard to be impressed especially when the usual extraordinary claims are in play. Also, one still remembers that all your definitions, including that of science here, have been admitted as ad hoc, arbitrary (ie are just your opinion), and apparently require mutual agreement to be carried. But I am sure you won't want to go there again, especially after last time LOL. However when we discussed evidence for a purported God recently I seem to remember you fell back on the the Argument from Popularity and the God of the Gaps, two forms of fallacy, so I can see why above you say now you 'don't assume evidence'.
|
|
