Good Video. I would like to mention though. A proof is something that must be concluded given the premises. Taking any two objects out of a large set of data and staying that there are similarity does not "Prove" that they have a connection. This is "Cherry Picking". Now I will allow this to be "Evidence for" but not "Proof of" evolution. (Point) Use the word evidence not proof. Good video though : ).
"Science, in fact, DOES explain the meaning of life as a by-product of evolution: there is none;"
No: Science is simply silent on the matter. Yet you live with meaning, value, purpose every day of your life. You cannot live without it
You're saying essentialy "Science explains because science explains". In other words; a brute fact. That's a perfectly rational choice to accept it as such, but it is also reasonable to infer a personal cause behind the rational intelligibility we see.
A "methodological naturalism" is certainly reasonable -- if all we're saying is that for THOSE things that are within the scope of natural science to explain, then there might well be a "naturalistic" explaination for it, even if it's currently unknown. But what of things not within the scope of scientific or even historic inquiry? (that is: ultimate origins, meaning, purpose, why science is able to explain at all, etc.)
If science can't explain something, what should lead us to think that any one particular belief system is any more qualified to explain it? Science, in fact, DOES explain the meaning of life as a by-product of evolution: there is none; the ideas is a construct of human ego and the desire to feel important. Science is able to explain at all because it is simply logic applied to the real world. (See my answering the 6 challenges to atheism video(s) for an explanation of where we get logic from)
Good Video. I would like to mention though. A proof is something that must be concluded given the premises. Taking any two objects out of a large set of data and staying that there are similarity does not "Prove" that they have a connection. This is "Cherry Picking". Now I will allow this to be "Evidence for" but not "Proof of" evolution. (Point) Use the word evidence not proof. Good video though : ).
taylord109 3 weeks ago
@taylord109 - Oh man, this one's a real oldie. Thanks though!
Venaloid 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
taylord109 3 weeks ago
Great vid. Thanks.
Bulbaz0r 1 year ago
"Science, in fact, DOES explain the meaning of life as a by-product of evolution: there is none;"
No: Science is simply silent on the matter. Yet you live with meaning, value, purpose every day of your life. You cannot live without it
You're saying essentialy "Science explains because science explains". In other words; a brute fact. That's a perfectly rational choice to accept it as such, but it is also reasonable to infer a personal cause behind the rational intelligibility we see.
gromitwallaby 2 years ago
A "methodological naturalism" is certainly reasonable -- if all we're saying is that for THOSE things that are within the scope of natural science to explain, then there might well be a "naturalistic" explaination for it, even if it's currently unknown. But what of things not within the scope of scientific or even historic inquiry? (that is: ultimate origins, meaning, purpose, why science is able to explain at all, etc.)
gromitwallaby 2 years ago
If science can't explain something, what should lead us to think that any one particular belief system is any more qualified to explain it? Science, in fact, DOES explain the meaning of life as a by-product of evolution: there is none; the ideas is a construct of human ego and the desire to feel important. Science is able to explain at all because it is simply logic applied to the real world. (See my answering the 6 challenges to atheism video(s) for an explanation of where we get logic from)
Venaloid 2 years ago
great video i subbed
F1LTHYANIMAL 2 years ago
great video.
Xxrr23 2 years ago