Thanks Orn. I need to chew on that for a moment. Talor, I get ya. However. let me see how you would handle these questions. I am going to put on a different hat for this so go with me here.
Tatlor said >>>Only natural forces exist, because non-natural forces cannot be verified." <<< Just because non-natural forces cannot be verified does not necesarily mean non-existent. For instance, love. How would one objectivly measure (verify) love? Here is another one inspired from Orn. in the above response, the color blue. How can that be verified? It surely exist. It might not be your blue but something exist. The color blue exist irrespective of verification. Another thing, I am a bit confused. (what's new) I don't see how "philosophical" naturalism can be verified. Did you mean methodlogical naturalism? On Nov 6, 10:07 am, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <<To "know" is to have verification>> > > That's why I see philosophical naturalism as the only non- > contradictory epistemology. Only natural forces exist, because non- > natural forces cannot be verified. If they could, they'd be natural > forces. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
