My bad. You did not say that "philosophical" naturalism could be verified. You just said it was non-contradictory. That is a slight difference. You can "verify" contradictions as well as non- crontradictions though.
On Nov 6, 10:59 am, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
