In the combox on Victor Reppert's Dangerous Idea blog, RD Miksa posted a thoughtful, four part assessment of the evidential argument from history of science (AHS). In this post, I want to reply to Miksa. Miksa's Reply to the Informal Statement of the Argument The Definition of "Science" Miksa correctly points out that my post did not provide an explicit definition of the crucial term "science." Following Paul Draper, let's define two kinds of sciences. nomological or inductive science: the … [Read more...]
The Evidential Argument from the History of Science, Part 5: Reply to RD Miksa
August 3, 2013 By 14 Comments
The Evidential Argument from the History of Science, Part 4: Reply to ‘cl’
August 27, 2012 By Leave a Comment
IntroductionTheists hold that there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect person (God) who created the universe. Metaphysical naturalists, on the other hand, hold that the universe is a closed system, which means that nothing that is not part of the natural world affects it. Metaphysical naturalism (N) denies the existence of all supernatural beings, including God. Therefore, N entails that any true scientific explanations must be naturalistic (i.e., non-supernatural) … [Read more...]
Index: The Evidential Argument from the History of Science (AHS)
July 21, 2012 By Leave a Comment
Informal Statement of the Argument If there is a single theme unifying the history of science, it is that naturalistic (i.e., non-supernatural) explanations work. The history of science contains numerous examples of naturalistic explanations replacing supernatural ones and no examples of supernatural explanations replacing naturalistic ones. Indeed, naturalistic explanations have been so successful that even most scientific theists concede that supernatural explanations are, in general, … [Read more...]
The Evidential Argument from the History of Science, Part 3: Reply to Rauser on Defining Metaphysical Naturalism
July 21, 2012 By 1 Comment
Randal Rauser really doesn't like the argument from the history of science (AHS). After I refuted his initial objections to AHS, he seems to have abandoned those objections. Instead, he now takes issue with the definition of metaphysical naturalism itself, a point he makes over the course of no less than three separate, additional replies. (See here, here, and here.) According to Rauser, metaphysical naturalism "is a vacuous cipher that is consistent with belief in the existence of an … [Read more...]
The Evidential Argument from the History of Science, Part 2: Detailed Reply to Randal Rauser
July 16, 2012 By Leave a Comment
IntroductionTheists hold that there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect person (God) who created the universe. Metaphysical naturalists, on the other hand, hold that the universe is a closed system, which means that nothing that is not part of the natural world affects it. Metaphysical naturalism (N) denies the existence of all supernatural beings, including God. Therefore, N entails that any true scientific explanations must be naturalistic (i.e., non-supernatural) ones.In my … [Read more...]
Argument from the History of Science (AHS): Randal Rauser’s Objection and My Reply
July 13, 2012 By 4 Comments
I'm flattered to have received a reply to AHS by Randal Rauser. His reply may be found here.I've updated my original post on AHS with a reply to Rauser. My reply may be found here. … [Read more...]
The Evidential Argument from the History of Science (AHS)
June 16, 2012 By 24 Comments
Informal Statement of the Argument If there is a single theme unifying the history of science, it is that naturalistic explanations work. The history of science contains numerous examples of naturalistic explanations replacing supernatural ones and no examples of supernatural explanations replacing naturalistic ones. Indeed, naturalistic explanations have been so successful that even most scientific theists concede that supernatural explanations are, in general, implausible, even on the … [Read more...]
20+ Questions for Theists
June 6, 2012 By 33 Comments
(This post was last edited on 21-Jun-12, by reorganizing the list into a more logical sequence. I apologize in advance for the inconvenience this may cause to people who have posted comments or their own articles discussing these.)As a follow-up to my last post, I compiled a list of my own questions for theists. I'm sure readers will have many of their own to add.The question "Why is there something rather than nothing" presupposes "nothing" as being the normal state of affairs. Why … [Read more...]
Follow Patheos
Atheist: