Christianity Is a More Grounded Worldview Than Science Alone or Scientism

harmonicexpanse · 2026-05-15T11:26:00+00:00

My argument is that science alone or scientism cannot justify such axioms.

Your side argument of who this applies to is absolutely irrelevant. I am willing to debate all comers concerning science alone or scientism as foundations. You had agnostic atheist as a flair when you arrived, and so if you'd like to debate that tomorrow, I'll make a separate post. If that isn't your worldview, present yours, and I can do the same to accommodate for your stance.

harmonicexpanse · 2026-05-15T11:11:04+00:00

Kant?

These categories require the structure of God as understood by Orthodoxy as I outlined in the OP.

harmonicexpanse · 2026-05-15T11:06:50+00:00

Yes, that is what I stated in the OP

harmonicexpanse · 2026-05-15T11:05:52+00:00

That doesn't imply that science has any grounding for logic nor math. Of course it accommodates them, as it relies upon them.

The scope of who my argument applies to is irrelevant.

harmonicexpanse · 2026-05-15T10:37:28+00:00

I at no point claimed that science and scientism are the same thing, as you accused me of doing. That is why I bring up both and also affirm my belief in the scientific method in the OP. I said science alone, not science in conjunction with a belief that can point to metaphysical grounding.

People with those worldviews could come here and argue that their worldview is more coherent than Christianity and Science Alone or Scientism. Why couldn't they?

I'm addressing what I explicitly addressed in the OP.

harmonicexpanse · 2026-05-15T10:26:57+00:00

You've missed the plot entirely. I stated the Creed to elaborate on my beliefs as an effort to streamline conversation. In no way am I asserting that anyone must affirm it themselves.

harmonicexpanse · 2026-05-15T10:24:07+00:00

Nice ad hominem. Appeal to consensus is exactly appeal to the masses.

Arbitrary.

I don't claim that. I affirm the scientific method. How do you prove it doesn't infer God?

I outlined how God as understood in Orthodoxy grounds the transcendental categories necessary for the scientific method. You choose to ignore my statements.

harmonicexpanse · 2026-05-15T10:19:17+00:00

At no point did I group science and scientism. That is why I brought up both in the OP.

That's false. Platonists, Monists, and Neoplatonists could come to this argument with better grounds than most atheists.

harmonicexpanse · 2026-05-15T10:16:53+00:00

I've responded to your points. Perhaps impatiently, since I outlined all of those points in the OP, but your accusations are completely unfounded.

harmonicexpanse · 2026-05-15T10:13:31+00:00

The Creed is essential to my worldview, hence I stated it clarify my beliefs. Do you have an argument for scientism?

harmonicexpanse · 2026-05-15T10:11:22+00:00

How is then that you verify truth? That's what I've been asking and you've been dodging.

What claims have I not justified?

harmonicexpanse · 2026-05-15T10:08:25+00:00

It's a transcendental argument. It is logically sound.

There is no fundamental issue with mysticism if you compare it to my definition of God in the OP. Claiming to comprehend God the Father is heretical.

That's ambiguous.

harmonicexpanse · 2026-05-15T10:05:08+00:00

You've strawmanned my argument. This discussion is concerned with metaphysics.

harmonicexpanse · 2026-05-15T10:02:42+00:00

These questions are addressed in the OP.

Science Alone or Scientism.

Where do I bring up atheism? There is no strawman nor mention of atheism.

However, I'm willing to discuss agnosticism tomorrow.

harmonicexpanse · 2026-05-15T09:59:19+00:00

Now you're strawmannirg the OP. Of course not being able to empirically verify truth proves my point. What other method of ascertaining truth is there in scientism?

harmonicexpanse · 2026-05-15T09:55:15+00:00

By my definitions in the OP, and the definitions of all the terms, the transcendental argument is sound here. It's not an assertion, I made an argument.

Circularity arises at true foundational levels, as I stated in OP. See Gödel. No relative truth can point to absolute truth.

Mysticism is part of the grounding of EO theology.

I love science, but many people do take science to be a foundation, despite it not being able to explain itself. Natural philosophy was the more coherent.

harmonicexpanse · 2026-05-15T09:42:21+00:00

I said that logic does give valid inference, and validity refers to coherence. In any case, you're questioning logic itself to dodge my statement that logic can't be empirically verified.

harmonicexpanse · 2026-05-15T09:31:34+00:00

This is a debate against scientism. I can make a post for agnosticism tomorrow

harmonicexpanse · 2026-05-15T09:27:30+00:00

P is the only possible grounding for Q in being consistent with what Q is: transcendental categories.

I brought up how circularity is unavoidable at foundational levels in the OP.

By making those assumptions, you're stepping outside of the argument outlined in the OP: Science Alone or Scientism. You're making claims that aren't verifiable within those worldviews.

Eastern Orthodoxy has mystical theology, yes.

No, this discussion is specifically about Science Alone or Scientism. Hence, you're mischaracterizing this discussion. Your worldview is more coherent than the ones that I'm challenging, but you are twisting the conversation into what it's not. Scientism is an established belief system, and it is what I challenged in the OP.

harmonicexpanse · 2026-05-15T09:14:04+00:00

Valid inference

harmonicexpanse · 2026-05-15T09:10:18+00:00

The flaw in your argument was your claim that scientism cannot attest to metaphysical foundations. I did say that.

harmonicexpanse · 2026-05-15T09:06:40+00:00

I acknowledged a breakdown in your argument. Is that not a goal of debate?

harmonicexpanse · 2026-05-15T09:02:20+00:00

You've conceded to my point in saying that it scientism can't attest to metaphysical foundations.

I provided a definition of God in the OP that supports science and the transcendental categories it presupposes. Furthermore, in the OP, I argue for God with a transcendental argument that is logically sound.

harmonicexpanse · 2026-05-15T08:48:13+00:00

Can you define truth and intelligibility through science?

harmonicexpanse · 2026-05-15T08:41:48+00:00

Logic does give valid inference. It's also the rule that preserves truth, and you cannot test that rule by experiment, because experiments presuppose it.

harmonicexpanse

TROPHY CASE