Now that we are more than half through Battle Royale IX, Evolution: Science or Science Fiction? who do you feel in winning the battle?
Hilston or Stratnerd?
Hilston or Stratnerd?
BR IX - Who is winning?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Shadowx
New member
Hilston is winning the debate by pointing out that strat has defeated himself.
Which should and does naturally follow because the God of the Bible exists. It's the dependable evidence for God who can't be defeated.
"V. Methodological Naturalism is Self-Refuting.
Stratnerd has defined Methodological Naturalism as "the assumption that we can only test natural explanations." Although Stratnerd claims that such an approach does not say anything either way about the existence of the supernatural, it should be noted that MN is, at base, deliberately Godless in its assumption. By excluding the extra-natural from the equation, the Methodological Naturalist has, from the outset, presumed to push away the Creator who holds all things together. Since the very foundation and underlying assumption of Methodological Naturalism is a stipulated exclusion of any notion of the extra-natural, I am warranted in challenging the Evolutionist to justify the tools and methods by which they claim to do science whilst ignoring the extra-natural. The Creationist -- the Methodological Extra-Naturalist, if you will -- has a justification for his use of those tools and methods, and that is the existence and attributes of God."
One more time please:
"HA_SQ14 That is indeed circular. And it's not my argument. My argument is, the only way to justify the use of L, IP and UofN is to recognize the God of the Bible as the foundation of them. Whenever the Methodological Naturalist asks for evidence, he is already assuming, without justification, the verity of logic and science, which is disallowed according to his own espoused governing assumption that excludes anything extra-natural. Logic and science in their formulation are extra-natural in their every essence, and are therefore excluded by Methodological Naturalism. When the Methodological Naturalist presumes to use L, IP and UofN, he is unwittingly acting like a Creationist, because only Creationism offers a rational basis on which to employ those tools."
Strats definition of Science is self refuting. He appeals to what he cannot "naturally" account for. He denies the extra natural and then appeals to it to justify his method of knowing truth. How can he justify his definition of science itself?
See the Bahnsen vs Stein debate after this debate.
Which should and does naturally follow because the God of the Bible exists. It's the dependable evidence for God who can't be defeated.
"V. Methodological Naturalism is Self-Refuting.
Stratnerd has defined Methodological Naturalism as "the assumption that we can only test natural explanations." Although Stratnerd claims that such an approach does not say anything either way about the existence of the supernatural, it should be noted that MN is, at base, deliberately Godless in its assumption. By excluding the extra-natural from the equation, the Methodological Naturalist has, from the outset, presumed to push away the Creator who holds all things together. Since the very foundation and underlying assumption of Methodological Naturalism is a stipulated exclusion of any notion of the extra-natural, I am warranted in challenging the Evolutionist to justify the tools and methods by which they claim to do science whilst ignoring the extra-natural. The Creationist -- the Methodological Extra-Naturalist, if you will -- has a justification for his use of those tools and methods, and that is the existence and attributes of God."
One more time please:
"HA_SQ14 That is indeed circular. And it's not my argument. My argument is, the only way to justify the use of L, IP and UofN is to recognize the God of the Bible as the foundation of them. Whenever the Methodological Naturalist asks for evidence, he is already assuming, without justification, the verity of logic and science, which is disallowed according to his own espoused governing assumption that excludes anything extra-natural. Logic and science in their formulation are extra-natural in their every essence, and are therefore excluded by Methodological Naturalism. When the Methodological Naturalist presumes to use L, IP and UofN, he is unwittingly acting like a Creationist, because only Creationism offers a rational basis on which to employ those tools."
Strats definition of Science is self refuting. He appeals to what he cannot "naturally" account for. He denies the extra natural and then appeals to it to justify his method of knowing truth. How can he justify his definition of science itself?
See the Bahnsen vs Stein debate after this debate.
Last edited:
mighty_duck
New member
Shadowx said:
If this were a debate on the existance of God, then you might be right. As this is a debate on whether evolution is science, stratnerd has nearly won. Science uses Methodological Naturalism, since the super-natural, even if does exist, is not prone to sceintific observation. Under that definition, evolution is science. End of story.
Hilston raises a question of whether science using MN can produce true results. This is an interesting question, but not the topic of debate.
This debate is over whether or not evolution is science. Hilston has not shown that evolution must be catagorically excluded from the umbrella of science whereas something like nuclear physics would not have to be excluded. In attacking the methodology of science, Hilston has thrown a nuclear weapon at a lone building and has consequently wiped out the whole city. If he is going to argue that evolution is not science, his argument must show that other science is real whereas evolutionary science is not. This is not done by attacking the common thread that unites all sciences. Stratnerd is winning hands down.
sentientsynth
New member
Although every fiber of my being is repulsed by the thought, I actually have to agree with Johnny. Hilston has indeed "wiped out the whole city" of so-called atheists "doing" science. And let's not forget that it's not "e"volution at hand here, it's "E"volution, which by definition dogmatically excludes the extra-natural while at the same time accepts such extra-natural phenomena as logic, the uniformity of nature, the inductive principle, the verity of perception, and on and on.
Bottom line, this debate has blown up in Stratnerd's face. Somebody get him a comfy chair.
SS
Bottom line, this debate has blown up in Stratnerd's face. Somebody get him a comfy chair.
SS
