tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post5549738103134851018..comments2023-09-27T05:04:37.119-04:00Comments on THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: An interesting question by Cornelius HunterMike Felkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01974482615713418707noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-92084067757294036642010-01-04T15:52:58.185-05:002010-01-04T15:52:58.185-05:00The point isn't so much whether souls are actu...The point isn't so much whether souls are actually real. That was used as a hypothetical example to illustrate whether science could ever handle a case <i>like</i> this if it is ever encountered. <br /><br />But more than the scientific method, this question is dealing more with a materialistic worldview and whether it can account for for things. <br /><br />So i'm going to assume that your answer is "A" :-)Mike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01974482615713418707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-40741566785838406172010-01-04T12:28:58.495-05:002010-01-04T12:28:58.495-05:00"D. Science should not be constrained to meth..."D. Science should not be constrained to methodological naturalism."<br /><br />How can you set-up experiments and observations of "souls" and other "non-physical phenomena"? If you can't experiment and observe something, then you can't do science with it and you can't make falsifiable hypotheses about it.<br /><br />It doesn't make sense to take science beyond methodological naturalism - how would that even work Mike?<br /><br />Tell me how you would construct an experiment involving the soul?<br /><br />(I personally don't believe in souls)Samuelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06102533726798834757noreply@blogger.com