The statement, “knowledge can only be acquired via empirical means” is not a proposition which can be justified empirically. If you were to come to know it was true, you would have to arrive at that knowledge using non-empirical means. Therefore it is a contradiction in terms. It cannot be true. Starting your “knowledge-gathering” exercise with a statement which cannot be true certainly does invalidate the rest of your enterprise.

It’s not the fact that science makes an assumption that’s the problem (although that would be a problem if science were claiming knowledge based on an unjustified assumption). It’s that science bases its knowledge-gathering endeavors on a certainly false premise.

In fairness, this is more a characteristic of scientism than science per se.

So your argument that Science is invalid because it assumes that the physical universe exists — is invalid since Scripture is based on the physical universe as well.

Again, you’re not keeping pace with the argument. My argument is not that science is invalid because it assumes the physical universe exists. My argument is that science cannot justify its assumption in the physical universe. Christianity, of course, can, since it is grounded in God’s word.

Your assumption is that Science is incorrect in assuming that it’s epistemology — the source of it’s knowledge — is the incorrect.

>>>The only method which it will entertain by which knowledge can be acquired is by empirical means:
>>>any other method is regarded as unscientific and therefore invalid. So, from the very outset, science
>>>invalidates itself by working from a self-refuting belief about how knowledge is acquired.

Here’s your first fallacy. It’s not self-refuting to make an assumption. Is it dubious to make assumptions? Sure, sometimes. Does it mean that everything that follows is invalid? No.

You use this single fallacy (or we could say, incorrect assumption) as a logical stepping stone for the rest of your argument. So there’s a bit of irony that you’re critique of an unverifiable assumption on the scientists’ part is based on an incorrect assumption that assumptions are wrong to make.

You then go on to speak about “The Christian Truth”:

>>>Thus, in your apologetic encounters with those who are pro-science, you will almost certainly find
>>> that they consider the presupposition of Christian truth to be completely inappropriate in scientific
>>> endeavor. Indeed, they will claim that one of science’s great strengths is that it does not rely on any
>>> particular worldview—and they will be appalled at the idea of presupposing the truth of Scripture
>>> and correcting scientific inquiry according to it.

This is intriguing to me. So you say you cannot trust science because it relies on all observations to be verified in the observable universe. But I ask, what other universe is there? Even Scripture exists in the physical universe as words written on a printed page as a collection of the laws, notes, rules, and letters of the ancient Hebrews and early Christian church. The Scriptures themselves say that they are the words of God inspired and written by man. So your argument that Science is invalid because it assumes that the physical universe exists — is invalid since Scripture is based on the physical universe as well.

I find it dubious that many of your arguments are not based on Scripture, since that is the epistemology by which you stand. I think most Christians would find your arguments here unsound.

The wonderful thing about Truth is that it is verifiable and repeatable. In fact, Truth itself demands that other verify it! So if you do not believe in evolution, or other phenomena in the cosmos, then verify it yourself! No one is saying you should believe it — in fact, the whole point of science and truth making is to skeptically look at everything! Arguments from authority are totally worthless.

If you can show that others are wrong, then they will not only be forced to accept your ideas, but they will willingly do so. That is the unsettling truth about Truth — you have to admit when you’re wrong.

1 Enoch demonstrates that the Jewish cosmology was of a flat-earth.
1 Enoch was considered authoritative by the Jews as well as the early christians.
The Jew’s non-acceptance of the gentile spherical earth seems to me to be very reminiscent of the YEC’s rejection of the findings of scientific inquiry, specifically evolution and the age of the universe/earth.

Regards,
Bnonn

2. Jude seems to be an almost word for word quote from 1 Enoch. The simplest explanation would seem to be that he was quoting from that book. The early church fathers, who had access to the traditions and texts of the time, many of which are forever lost to us, certainly thought this was the case.

3. Today, even though the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the theory of evolution and an old earth and universe, many people (yourself included, I think) still “know” otherwise because of the content of their religious beliefs.
If the religious and popular belief was of a flat earth (which Enoch shows to be the case), why would the Jews believe the gentiles in preference to the word of Yahweh?

2. Speaking of prima facie, the writer of Jude only treats 1 Enoch as authoritative on a naive reading.

3. Isn’t it a bit strange that the highly Hellenistic Jews supposedly believed this flat earth cosmology, when the Greeks they lived with knew full well that the earth was round? Maybe you could give up this modus operandi of drawing illicit conclusions from a facile examination of some of the facts, and do some real research into textual criticism.

Regards,
Bnonn