Quote:
Quote by: ryanatau  Four is as is above.
Question 5 depends on a normative argument. Whatever "should" is it will be defined by an answer to 4. The principle to tell us what we should do and whether our explanations should change depends on what we said we should do. Since I didn't give a real answer to 4, instead saying that the principles that we depend on have no provable being, I cannot answer 5. In other words, 5 depends on an answer to 4. |
Whether or not something is "provable" has no bearing. This is about coming up with explanations that actually explain how reality works.
Something either works or it does not work. Just because it is not provable does not mean it can not work.
As a human being you are inclined to be a detective by using the clues around you, so you can make a sound and valid investigation. The investigation can lead to results or new discoveries that were previously unknown before the detective work. The investigation can also lead to no results and discoveries.
4) What criterion will we use to prefer one explanation over another?
5) When we have chosen an explanation should we stick with it?
"One objection that many critics have is the problem of logistics. However, with technologically advanced aircraft at His disposal, transportation for Jesus was NEVER a problem" ----
loser