Some theists will justify their fallacious thinking and superstition with so much mental gymnastics they should get a medal from the Special Olympics for mastery of the intellectually stunted arts.
Whenever you're ready to actually point out where and why I'm wrong, by all means, go for it
Every rational person reading this is either laughing at you or weeping for your wasted mind.
Some ideas by notable sources that you would deem crazy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning not "to commit fraud" but "show to be false". Some philosophers argue that science must be falsifiable.[1]
There is both observational and logical falsification.
Popper held that science could not be grounded on such an inferential basis. He proposed falsification as a solution to the problem of induction.
The validity of science cannot be inferred from itself. That empirical falsification exists in the first place is due to this understanding (not yours, unfortunately).
Like all formal sciences, mathematics is not concerned with the validity of theories based on observations in the empirical world, but rather, mathematics is occupied with the theoretical, abstract study of such topics as quantity, structure, space and change. Methods of the mathematical sciences are, however, applied in constructing and testing scientific models dealing with observable reality. Albert Einstein wrote, "One reason why mathematics enjoys special esteem, above all other sciences, is that its laws are absolutely certain and indisputable, while those of other sciences are to some extent debatable and in constant danger of being overthrown by newly discovered facts."[32]
What mathematics finds true is totally independent from observation. Einstein agrees.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/our reason [to be taken here quite generally, to include the imagination] must be consider'd as a kind of cause, of which truth is the natural effect..
Abstraction/reason and truth are linked.
The normative component of Hume's project is striking here: That the principle of uniformity of nature cannot be proved deductively or inductively shows that it is not the principle that drives our causal reasoning only if our causal reasoning is sound and leads to true conclusions as a “natural effect” of belief in true premises. This is what licenses the capsule description of the argument as showing that induction cannot be justified or licensed either deductively or inductively; not deductively because (non-trivial) inductions do not express logically necessary connections, not inductively because that would be circular.
Logical principles are our fundamental basis for sound rationale, because we believe in the soundness of logic, and which are not dependent upon our observations of the uniformity of nature.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/A more plausible argument for the Intuition/Deduction thesis again assumes that we know some particular, external world truths, and then appeals to the nature of what we know, rather than to the nature of knowledge itself, to argue that our knowledge must result from intuition and deduction. Leibniz (1704) tells us the following.
The senses, although they are necessary for all our actual knowledge, are not sufficient to give us the whole of it, since the senses never give anything but instances, that is to say particular or individual truths. Now all the instances which confirm a general truth, however numerous they may be, are not sufficient to establish the universal necessity of this same truth, for it does not follow that what happened before will happen in the same way again. … From which it appears that necessary truths, such as we find in pure mathematics, and particularly in arithmetic and geometry, must have principles whose proof does not depend on instances, nor consequently on the testimony of the senses, although without the senses it would never have occurred to us to think of them… (1704, Preface, pp. 150–151)
Yes, purely abstract "necessary truths" exist.
Leibniz goes on to describe our mathematical knowledge as “innate,” and his argument may be directed to support the Innate Knowledge thesis rather than the Intuition/Deduction thesis. For our purposes here, we can relate it to the latter, however: We have substantive knowledge about the external world in mathematics, and what we know in that area, we know to be necessarily true. Experience cannot warrant beliefs about what is necessarily the case. Hence, experience cannot be the source of our knowledge.
So much for a purely Empirical worldview.
Insofar as we focus on controversial claims in metaphysics, e.g., that God exists, that our mind is a distinct substance from our body, the initial premise that we know the claims is less than compelling. Taken with regard to other areas, however, the argument clearly has legs. We know a great deal of mathematics, and what we know, we know to be necessarily true. None of our experiences warrants a belief in such necessity, and we do not seem to base our knowledge on any experiences. The warrant that provides us with knowledge arises from an intellectual grasp of the propositions which is clearly part of our learning.
Our knowledge of logical principles
a prior gives plausibility to metaphysical claims.
Insofar as [rationalists] maintain that our knowledge of necessary truths in mathematics or elsewhere by intuition and deduction is substantive knowledge of the external world, they owe us an account of this form of necessity.
That's what I've been doing for at least several dozen posts now. Other atheists in this thread have certainly entertained their plausibility. You can't even respond intelligently to them.
Do you have any idea how many countless millions of academics, including scientists, do not ascribe to a purely empirical worldview?
By your beliefs, every single meta-physicist and quantum scientist is bat-shit crazy --
there has never been a single shred of empirical evidence for either field. They do absolutely nothing different than what I'm doing, i.e. using logic and mathematics to make abstract models that attempt to coincide with a classical understanding of our reality.
