We used the words in a different sense so much of the discussion has been apples and oranges. I am not sure what you mean by “demonstrated” to be true? By who? How?
As I said, I do not subscribe to deism or whatever brand of theism you have in mind. I am a Thomist. There is no distinction between the supernatural and natural in scientific explanations for my metaphysical framework. God sustains and eternally creates all things ex nihilo. I would say it is materialism or naturalism that cannot distinguish between natural and supernatural causes and has to simply institute an article of faith to make it work: the law of parsimony.
As for scientific data, I am okay with that definition. For the rest I will just say we used the words data differently. It’s not the end of the world. A people do assume things are true. As I have been pointing out, there is a haf dozen assumptions built into the scientific method. And my point was that for people who believe the Bible is God’s word, it is data to them on this issue. I am not sure why that is even remotely controversial.
Yes, it works well. A metal detector is good at finding metal. But this doesn’t lead to scientism or make science the only means or chief means of deciphering reality. As I said, I go beyond efficient and material causes in my understanding of things.
Feser: Metal detectors are keyed to those aspects of the natural world susceptible of detection via electromagnetic means (or whatever). But however well they perform this task – indeed, even if they succeeded on every single occasion they were deployed – it simply wouldn’t follow for a moment that there are no aspects of the natural world other than the ones they are sensitive to. Similarly, what physics does – and there is no doubt that it does it brilliantly – is to capture those aspects of the natural world susceptible of the mathematical modeling that makes precise prediction and technological application possible. But here too, it simply doesn’t follow for a moment that there are no other aspects of the natural world.
Science can have a million successes, just as a metal detector can find a million coins. It really doesn’t change this.
I said science assumes the uniformity of natural law, not that I doubted it as such. My Faith gives me precisely the reasons I need not to doubt it and offers an explanation of it --whereas for the naturalist–it is merely a brute fact that has to be accepted.
Those experiments are designed with the assumption that the laws of physics are uniform (and all the other assumptions that go into science)and this just ends up being circular reasoning or begging the question.
Most likely you have in mind a mechanistic model that has been very popular during the enlightenment. I share your atheism in regards to that deity.
I didn’t know I couldn’t use dictionary definitions when communicating online because they might hurt the sensibilities of people sliding into scientism on the internet.
You can’t know what they believed without understanding how literature works. Literature is just language writ large, with a worldview behind it to guide the form. Are you claiming to know what they believed without having to pay attention to what they actually wrote?
Stop squirming around and changing what you’re arguing. You said it was written as “real history”. It was not – and how anyone understood it does not change that.
“Single citation proof” is a demand from a post-Enlightenment worldview. All that the Creed does is summarize what scripture has to say – the Council Fathers were careful to stick to scripture by using it to build the Creed.
The word “Trinity” is not in the Creed, either.
Either the beliefs of Christianity are a summary of the salient points of scripture, or Christianity is only one possibility – in other words, it is not correct.
If you want to demonstrate gravity you hold up a rock, let go, and watch it fall. Demonstration. You can also measure the speed of acceleration for the rock. That would be data. You can describe how you ran this experiment and have others repeat your work. Again, demonstration and repeatable data.
Faith is yet another word that has lost meaning in this conversation. If not invoking faith based supernatural beliefs is faith, then the word has no meaning. If pointing to a well evidenced, described, testable natural process is faith then again that word has no meaning.
Yes, you have invented a definition that appears to be the opposite of how everyone else uses it.
You can use whatever method you want. What we are discussing is the meaning of the word data. That does have a meaning, and it isn’t whatever you want it to be in the moment.
And I am telling you it doesn’t.
No, they aren’t. If the laws of physics were different out in the universe those experiments would detect it.
That is scientific data. I am neither a materialist nor embrace scientism so this does not define the totality of my experience nor is it the only type of data available to me.
The test is only successful if we hold to our faith in parsimony. Simply believing a principle holds true because reality would otherwise be difficult or impossible to describe seems like a belief to me.
I used a dictionary definition. You are coming from the lab. What more is there to discuss? This horse is dead.
And I am disagreeing. Best to move on here.
The experiment used to determine if the laws of physics are constant has to assume they are to get going. At least locally. Maybe that is our disagreement. I’m speaking in general and you have a here vs there approach.
Using an experimental approach designed with the constancy of the laws of physics (or the ordered nature of reality) in mind to prove the laws of physics are constant seems a lot like using the Bible to prove it is true to me. I find that circular.
