Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: SwordOfTheSpirit on September 26, 2016, 12:10:51 PM
-
The thoughts I’ll present here have come out of response to the ‘Cold Case Christianity’ thread, so I’ll be repeating some of what I said there. There may be something here for the believer and non-believer!
Essentially, there are two approaches to trying to establish whether or not something is true: An inductive one and a deductive one. The inductive approach involves reasoning to try and establish a truth in the absence of certainty, the deductive approach uses reasoning where certainty is guaranteed, hence is based on an established truth. To illustrate:
Inductive: I observed an animal with four legs. Cats have four legs. Therefore the animal I saw was a cat
The process can be flawed as it is not guaranteed to arrive at the correct conclusion, therefore it must be falsifiable. Again, because certainty cannot be guaranteed, it has to be believed by faith.
Deductive: I observed a cat. A cat has four legs. Therefore the cat I saw had four legs.
A reasonable deduction as a property of a cat is that it has four legs.
I would suggest that a fundamental problem that occurs in many debates here is that a deductive approach is being used by some of the non-believers here whereas an inductive one is needed. Since a deductive approach is based on what should be certain, it is true by default, therefore anything that contradicts it is false by default! Therefore there is no way for any believer to provide the non-believer with the kind of evidence they are looking for, if a deductive approach is being used. Whether intentional or not, all causes/effects having natural causes/explanations is taken as true, therefore all deductions are based on this.
Instead, what is needed is an inductive approach. It is necessary because one is trying to establish truth in the absence of certainty. It is not an unreasonable one because one can use skills/techniques already being used in other situations, e.g .the approach of the detective in the ‘Cold Case Christianity’ thread. It would seem that this approach is not considered because certainty (i.e. lack of guesswork) cannot be guaranteed.
If one looks carefully at the philosophical arguments used against religious belief, I would suggest that they are all based on deduction, which is why my first posts on this forum were all challenging the basis for that deduction. A classic is Bertrand Russell’s Parable of the Celestial Teapot, which assumes that there is no reasoning basis behind religious belief. If someone claimed that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit and claimed that it is too small to be observed by telescopes, I would be investigating what their claim is then based on? The reality is that this isn’t going to happen because it is clear that the concept is made up. By then comparing it to religious belief, the implication is that religious belief is also made up. Can you see the deductive process at work here?
If an individual is really interested in establishing truth for themselves, they need to do their own research, which will (or should) be inductive by nature. Responses from believers here could assist with that. Sadly, what I have seen is a deductive process used by some non-believers, which is why the answers from Christians have all been deemed to be unsatisfactory (summarized in the Are we done here? thread) and why believers who post here regularly find that they are subjected to a never-ending list of questioning which never get anywhere.
-
Define 'religious belief'! The gods, deities, spirits, invisiible entities, etc, etc which appear to be an essential part of beliefs are made up by humans.
I wonder if you have noticed how there have been no new gods for a very long time. In my opinion, this is because no such new god would stand a chance against the vast knowledge of real things and true facts available today.
Would you suggest that children should be taught the kind of inductive reasoning you are suggesting here? If so, how would you justify it?
-
Sword,
The thoughts I’ll present here have come out of response to the ‘Cold Case Christianity’ thread, so I’ll be repeating some of what I said there. There may be something here for the believer and non-believer!
Essentially, there are two approaches to trying to establish whether or not something is true: An inductive one and a deductive one. The inductive approach involves reasoning to try and establish a truth in the absence of certainty, the deductive approach uses reasoning where certainty is guaranteed, hence is based on an established truth. To illustrate:
Inductive: I observed an animal with four legs. Cats have four legs. Therefore the animal I saw was a cat
The process can be flawed as it is not guaranteed to arrive at the correct conclusion, therefore it must be falsifiable. Again, because certainty cannot be guaranteed, it has to be believed by faith.
No it doesn’t because it doesn’t “have to be believed” with certainty at all. It might be thought to be probabilistically true depending on the quality and size of the premises set – for example, if swans are seen to be white a million times then it’s a reasonable conclusion to think, “swans are probably white” - but that says nothing to the possibility of another answer – eg a black swan.
Deductive: I observed a cat. A cat has four legs. Therefore the cat I saw had four legs.
A reasonable deduction as a property of a cat is that it has four legs.
Is a cat with a leg missing no longer a cat?
In deductive reasoning the conclusion must be true if the premises on which it relies are true, but even then the phenomenon of unknown unknowns means we cannot be certain that the premises are true.
I would suggest that a fundamental problem that occurs in many debates here is that a deductive approach is being used by some of the non-believers here whereas an inductive one is needed. Since a deductive approach is based on what should be certain, it is true by default, therefore anything that contradicts it is false by default! Therefore there is no way for any believer to provide the non-believer with the kind of evidence they are looking for, if a deductive approach is being used. Whether intentional or not, all causes/effects having natural causes/explanations is taken as true, therefore all deductions are based on this.
This is pretty convoluted stuff, but yes – if the “believer” cannot establish that his premises are true, then there’s no way to argue deductively that the conclusion is true. This is though a problem for the believer I’d have thought. If deductive reasoning can’t work, he needs to suggest something else that can.
Instead, what is needed is an inductive approach. It is necessary because one is trying to establish truth in the absence of certainty.
All truths are established in the absence of certainty, but ok…
It is not an unreasonable one because one can use skills/techniques already being used in other situations, e.g .the approach of the detective in the ‘Cold Case Christianity’ thread.
No, the problem there comes from trying to use the naturalistic methods of cold case criminology to investigate non-naturalistic claims and assertions. It’s a basic category error.
It would seem that this approach is not considered because certainty (i.e. lack of guesswork) cannot be guaranteed.
That too – or, to put it another way, the claims of the believer cannot be distinguished from guessing.
If one looks carefully at the philosophical arguments used against religious belief, I would suggest that they are all based on deduction, which is why my first posts on this forum were all challenging the basis for that deduction. A classic is Bertrand Russell’s Parable of the Celestial Teapot, which assumes that there is no reasoning basis behind religious belief. If someone claimed that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit and claimed that it is too small to be observed by telescopes, I would be investigating what their claim is then based on? The reality is that this isn’t going to happen because it is clear that the concept is made up. By then comparing it to religious belief, the implication is that religious belief is also made up. Can you see the deductive process at work here?
You’ve completely misunderstood the point of Russell’s teapot. Whether or not you assume a priori that “God” and the teapot are just made up is irrelevant. Rather all it concerns itself with is the negative proof fallacy – ie, that not being able to falsify means it's true.
If an individual is really interested in establishing truth for themselves, they need to do their own research, which will (or should) be inductive by nature. Responses from believers here could assist with that.
How? What methods would these believers propose to investigate their claims other than naturalistic ones?
Sadly, what I have seen is a deductive process used by some non-believers, which is why the answers from Christians have all been deemed to be unsatisfactory (summarized in the Are we done here? thread) and why believers who post here regularly find that they are subjected to a never-ending list of questioning which never get anywhere.
That’s not the problem. That thread concerned the use of arguments by believers that are demonstrably false arguments. If you or any other believer has an argument for an objective, true for you too god though that isn't fallacious then it’s for you – finally – to make it. That is to say, the burden of proof continues to be all yours.
Good luck with it though!
-
If an individual is really interested in establishing truth for themselves, they need to do their own research, which will (or should) be inductive by nature. Responses from believers here could assist with that. Sadly, what I have seen is a deductive process used by some non-believers, which is why the answers from Christians have all been deemed to be unsatisfactory (summarized in the Are we done here? thread) and why believers who post here regularly find that they are subjected to a never-ending list of questioning which never get anywhere.
By your own admission, an 'inductive' approach can only get you to a faith position, at best. I don't see that advances your case at all.
-
there have been no new gods for a very long time
I disagree - money, the market, the idea of 'progress', - we don't call them gods but they function in the same way by provide social cohesion and identity through mutually shared delusion.
-
I disagree - money, the market, the idea of 'progress', - we don't call them gods but they function in the same way by provide social cohesion and identity through mutually shared delusion.
I don't think we are expected to worship the market ...
-
I disagree - money, the market, the idea of 'progress', - we don't call them gods but they function in the same way by provide social cohesion and identity through mutually shared delusion.
The difference is that we know these things exist and can show the evidence for them.
-
Define 'religious belief'! The gods, deities, spirits, invisiible entities, etc, etc which appear to be an essential part of beliefs are made up by humans.
Since this is the Christian Topic forum, why not start with the Christian faith? Pick any positive claim made by any Christian regarding their faith and apply an inductive process to it.
I wonder if you have noticed how there have been no new gods for a very long time. In my opinion, this is because no such new god would stand a chance against the vast knowledge of real things and true facts available today.
In my opinion, there are essentially three options
a) No God
b) One God
c) more than one God
There are only three religions dealing with the One God scenario: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Would you suggest that children should be taught the kind of inductive reasoning you are suggesting here?
Absolutely!
If so, how would you justify it?
The main reason is because it is a process we use inherently when we want to determine what is true, but no certainty is available.
I gave an example on another thread about getting on a bus. If I want to get from A to B, I cannot prove that the bus will get me there. It is an inductive process that leads to the choice to use the bus service and the proof comes when (or if) I get off the bus at the other end.
-
In deductive reasoning the conclusion must be true if the premises on which it relies are true, but even then the phenomenon of unknown unknowns means we cannot be certain that the premises are true.
Which is why you cannot apply a deductive process to establish with 100% certainty whether or not something is true.
If deductive reasoning can’t work, he needs to suggest something else that can.
I already have :) It's called an inductive approach.
No, the problem there comes from trying to use the naturalistic methods of cold case criminology to investigate non-naturalistic claims and assertions. It’s a basic category error.
I disagree. The aim is to establish truth. Whether it's a claim about the natural or supernatural, it is still truth.
You’ve completely misunderstood the point of Russell’s teapot. Whether or not you assume a priori that “God” and the teapot are just made up is irrelevant. Rather all it concerns itself with is the negative proof fallacy – ie, that not being able to falsify means it's true.
But that is not what's being done. I haven't seen any Christian here claiming that the Christian faith is true because no-one can disprove it. That's why it is a faith, a belief. Richard Dawkins makes the same mistake in The God Delusion
That is to say, the burden of proof continues to be all yours.
The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. That is how truth works.
-
The mistake you are making SwordOfTheSpirit is that your reasoning suggests that everyone wants to get to the truth and further more are able to use their mind in a solid, reasoning way. Some do...some don't.
My approach is to explain the detail that lightens the burden of their hysterical thought processes so that objectors to Jesus' teaching can feel the benefit of the repair processes he encourages as an atribute that works alongside his teaching but...like Jesus said...They will not listen.
-
By your own admission, an 'inductive' approach can only get you to a faith position, at best. I don't see that advances your case at all.
Faith leads to action. If I use an induction approach to determine if a bus can get me from place X to place Y, it is faith that leads me to go to the bus stop, wait for the bus, get on it and get off (hopefully!) at the other end.
-
The difference is that we know these things exist and can show the evidence for them.
Which is a deductive process!
Truth is supported by evidence, but not all truth can be established with certainty if one has to start with the evidence. In such cases, an inductive approach is needed.
-
The difference is that we know these things exist and can show the evidence for them.
this is a derail so I'm going to leave you to have the last word after this... I am so terribly, terribly gracious like that. ;)
Money, the market and the idea of 'progress' are all subjective realities. There is no evidence for them beyond people all agreeing that they exist. Take away people and all those things disappear, just like god(s). Their effects are evident in the behaviour of people just like religion.
But listen, I'm not saying these things have equal status, or equal value, just that they are the same, functionally, as the imagined existence of god. Its just these days many cultures don't need god, but we do need money, and the market and the idea of 'progress'.
-
Faith leads to action. If I use an induction approach to determine if a bus can get me from place X to place Y, it is faith that leads me to go to the bus stop, wait for the bus, get on it and get off (hopefully!) at the other end.
A degree of faith (small 'f') is inevitable in daily life, that doesn't mean it is a desirable. In principal it is better avoided where possible; faith tends to licence people to hold whatever beliefs they like without due justification.
-
Sword,
In my opinion, there are essentially three options
a) No God
b) One God
c) more than one God
You missed a couple:
d) There is no cogent reason to think that there is a god/are gods – a-theism
e) I have no idea what you mean by "God" (and nor I suspect have you) – ig-nosticism
-
Sword,
You missed a couple:
d) There is no cogent reason to think that there is a god/are gods – a-theism
e) I have no idea what you mean by "God" (and nor I suspect have you) – ig-nosticism
He's not talking about positions though. He is making a case for logical optiions. I don't think the trichotomy he outs up works though as it seems to leave out the concept of time. All three states may happen at different times. So he would need to add 'at any single point in time' before the set of statements
-
There are only three religions dealing with the One God scenario: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
And Islam accuses Christianity of polytheism; Judaism*, though prepared to think Jesus was a wandering preacher who had some largely traditional Jewish ideas (depending which parts of the gospels are accepted) refutes the idea that he was God incarnate (whatever that means).
Christianity, though claiming the other two are monotheisms, insists that Judaism went astray, and that Islam is heresy (Dante treats it as such in his Divina Commedia).
*It also seems clear that early Judaism was henotheistic.
-
Sword,
Which is why you cannot apply a deductive process to establish with 100% certainty whether or not something is true.
You cannot apply any method to establish "with 100% certainty whether or not something is true". How would you eliminate the possibility of unknown unknowns?
Truths are probabilistic - necessarily so.
I already have :) It's called an inductive approach.
No you haven't. Inductive reasoning is a method of logic. Logic is naturalistic. Your conjecture concerns the (supposed) supernatural.
You're back to taking your Geiger counter to the ballet again. One method does not fit all.
Your only way out of that is to posit a supernatural that's a little bit natural when it needs to be - perhaps with just enough logic for inductive reasoning to apply, and maybe with a bit of gravity too so the chairs don't fly around the place. It's all arbitrary and casuistic of course, but hey it's a problem of your own making.
I disagree. The aim is to establish truth. Whether it's a claim about the natural or supernatural, it is still truth.
That might be the aim but you can't apply naturalistic methods to supernatural claims. That would be special pleading - "there is the supernatural, but just now and again it obeys the rules of naturalism" or some such.
But that is not what's being done. I haven't seen any Christian here claiming that the Christian faith is true because no-one can disprove it.
I suggest you read some of Hope's posts. He's a big fan of the NPF.
That's why it is a faith, a belief.
Which is no doubt lovely for the person holding it, but there's no path from opinion to fact.
Richard Dawkins makes the same mistake in The God Delusion
No he doesn't.
The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. That is how truth works.
Finally! Right, here then is your claim: "God".
Go for it!
-
NS,
He's not talking about positions though. He is making a case for logical optiions. I don't think the trichotomy he outs up works though as it seems to leave out the concept of time. All three states may happen at different times. So he would need to add 'at any single point in time' before the set of statements
The word he used was "options". Perhaps we should let him tell us what he meant by it.
I agree in principle re "time", though as I understand it those who posit "God" place him "outside time and space" so it's all a bit messy in any case.
-
Finally! Right, here then is your claim: "God".
Go for it!
I wait with baited breath.
-
Dicky,
I wait with baited breath.
I'll alert the medical services!
-
NS,
The word he used was "options". Perhaps we should let him tell us what he meant by it.
I agree in principle re "time", though as I understand it those who posit "God" place him "outside time and space" so it's all a bit messy in any case.
not all gods that are believed in exist outside of time, and the phrasing of the options uses time as a concept.
-
not all gods that are believed in exist outside of time, and the phrasing of the options uses time as a concept.
Indeed, and I suppose that some Christians think that God is both within time and outside it as well. Mormons (who claim to be Christian) certainly believe in a God who is constrained by time - he actually has a physical abode as well - near a star called Kolob.
I once read a debate on the subtle differences between 'eternal' and 'everlasting' (the latter being temporal). Unfortunately these differences are only apparent in English (God is an Englishman?)
-
Indeed, and I suppose that some Christians think that God is both within time and outside it as well. Mormons (who claim to be Christian) certainly believe in a God who is constrained by time - he actually has a physical abode as well - near a star called Kolob.
I always read the name and think of it spelt backwards with added s
-
Faith leads to action. If I use an induction approach to determine if a bus can get me from place X to place Y, it is faith that leads me to go to the bus stop, wait for the bus, get on it and get off (hopefully!) at the other end.
If I use an induction approach, based, in this case, on a lack of evidence that such a bus exists, that, even if it did, there is no previous knowledge that it has ever travelled from X to Y, or even that it has ever come to this bus stop at a pre-arranged time in order to do just that, then my trust in arriving at this bus stop, based upon the probability of that event happening, would not be justified. There would, of course, be no certainty involved, only a lack of trust based upon inductive processes.
Where does that get me, as regards Christianity, for instance? I see no evidence for your God, hence the only way in which I could accept one would be, not by any induction process at all, but by faith.
-
Sword,
Faith leads to action. If I use an induction approach to determine if a bus can get me from place X to place Y, it is faith that leads me to go to the bus stop, wait for the bus, get on it and get off (hopefully!) at the other end.
You've been corrected already on dicking around with the ambiguity in the word "faith". "Faith" in the everyday sense is a reasoned expectation based on experience and logic - that your car will start in the morning for example. "Faith" in the religious sense on the other hand abjures reason and just states something to be the case - often with certainty - because it's a deeply held personal opinion. Unless that is you finally have a method to propose to investigate "faith" claims (religious sense)?
-
Since this is the Christian Topic forum, why not start with the Christian faith? Pick any positive claim made by any Christian regarding their faith and apply an inductive process to it.
I seldom notice which forum a post is in and in any case respond to the content of a post.
I see from other posts to which I defer that most of the points you raised in the OP and here have been dealt with. However, I notice that you avoided the point about the lack of any new God/god/s since, well, about 2,000 years ago really. There have been actual people who have set up belief systems of various sorts, but none of these sects has included a new God/god.
Your example of getting on a bus does not work, as has been clearly explained.
-
You've been corrected already on dicking around with the ambiguity in the word "faith". "Faith" in the everyday sense is a reasoned expectation based on experience and logic - that your car will start in the morning for example. "Faith" in the religious sense on the other hand abjures reason and just states something to be the case - often with certainty - because it's a deeply held personal opinion. Unless that is you finally have a method to propose to investigate "faith" claims (religious sense)?
Do you have any evidence to show that this dichotomy in meaning exists, blue? After all, as I've previously pointed out, faith in a religious sense is 'the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen'. In other words exactly what I experience at 7:25 am each weekday morning when I arrive at our local railway station to catch the train to Cardiff. I use my experience over some 6 months of travelling this way, yet accept that the train might well be 1 minute late (80-odd% of the time it has been since April) and occasionally it might be cancelled - or even just not turn up (which happened once back in May when two consecutive quarter-hourly trains simply didn't turn up - the information for which was only posted 10 or 11 minutes after each should have arrived!!). I base my faith (both in trains - and other forms of public and private transport - and Jesus) to a large extent on reasoned application of experience; my own and that of others.
-
I seldom notice which forum a post is in and in any case respond to the content of a post.
I see from other posts to which I defer that most of the points you raised in the OP and here have been dealt with. However, I notice that you avoided the point about the lack of any new God/god/s since, well, about 2,000 years ago really. There have been actual people who have set up belief systems of various sorts, but none of these sects has included a new God/god.
Your example of getting on a bus does not work, as has been clearly explained.
Having read the same posts, Susan, I'ds suggest that many of them are avoiding the issue - and not very effectively.
-
Hope,
Do you have any evidence to show that this dichotomy in meaning exists, blue? After all, as I've previously pointed out, faith in a religious sense is 'the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen'. In other words exactly what I experience at 7:25 am each weekday morning when I arrive at our local railway station to catch the train to Cardiff. I use my experience over some 6 months of travelling this way, yet accept that the train might well be 1 minute late (80-odd% of the time it has been since April) and occasionally it might be cancelled - or even just not turn up (which happened once back in May when two consecutive quarter-hourly trains simply didn't turn up - the information for which was only posted 10 or 11 minutes after each should have arrived!!). I base my faith (both in trains - and other forms of public and private transport - and Jesus) to a large extent on reasoned application of experience; my own and that of others.
Seriously?
Seriously seriously?
Are you genuinely telling me that you don't see the definitional difference between your "faith" that your train will arrive on time - you know, that big, noisy material thing that generally does arrive on time and that you think to exist in part because of the inter-subjective experience of other people - and an immaterial, supernatural "God" that no two people can describe in identical terms unless they repeat the description they've been given from a "holy" text?
Seriously?
Well then, can I introduce you to my faith in the hoped for and not seen leprechauns on the same basis then?
-
Having read the same posts, Susan, I'ds suggest that many of them are avoiding the issue - and not very effectively.
I'f say it is more the case, based on this thread and his other posts, that Sword is trying to adopt an approach using philosophy when it seems he isn't quite as well-versed as he thinks he is.
His misunderstanding of Russell's 'Celestial Teapot' thought experiment, the way he sprays around terms such as 'truth' and 'prove', the woeful bus analogy and his use of fallacies in general confirm this - hence him being regularly corrected.
-
Do you have any evidence to show that this dichotomy in meaning exists, blue? After all, as I've previously pointed out, faith in a religious sense is 'the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen'. In other words exactly what I experience at 7:25 am each weekday morning when I arrive at our local railway station to catch the train to Cardiff. I use my experience over some 6 months of travelling this way, yet accept that the train might well be 1 minute late (80-odd% of the time it has been since April) and occasionally it might be cancelled - or even just not turn up (which happened once back in May when two consecutive quarter-hourly trains simply didn't turn up - the information for which was only posted 10 or 11 minutes after each should have arrived!!). I base my faith (both in trains - and other forms of public and private transport - and Jesus) to a large extent on reasoned application of experience; my own and that of others.
In that case, since we're talking train arrangements being analogous to religious arrangements, perhaps you can provide the timetable for the next divine miracle (assuming it is on time and that the wrong type of leaves on the tracks won't delay it indefinitely).
-
I would suggest that a fundamental problem that occurs in many debates here is that a deductive approach is being used by some of the non-believers here whereas an inductive one is needed.
Nonsense. No doubt you have read some of the non-believers here claim that the scientific method is the only method that can tell us anything about the World we live in. (Some Christians have claimed there are other methods but have yet to disclose what they are.) Scientific experiment is fundamentally inductive in nature. In fact, deduction cannot tell you anything new by itself.
By then comparing it to religious belief, the implication is that religious belief is also made up. Can you see the deductive process at work here?
No. Russel's teapot is an analogy. It's meant to illustrate the flaws in the negative proof argument. Nobody claims that you can deduce "God does not exist" from Russel's teapot. That's a straw man argument, you are using.
-
Do you have any evidence to show that this dichotomy in meaning exists, blue? After all, as I've previously pointed out, faith in a religious sense is 'the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen'. In other words exactly what I experience at 7:25 am each weekday morning when I arrive at our local railway station to catch the train to Cardiff. I use my experience over some 6 months of travelling this way, yet accept that the train might well be 1 minute late (80-odd% of the time it has been since April) and occasionally it might be cancelled - or even just not turn up (which happened once back in May when two consecutive quarter-hourly trains simply didn't turn up - the information for which was only posted 10 or 11 minutes after each should have arrived!!). I base my faith (both in trains - and other forms of public and private transport - and Jesus) to a large extent on reasoned application of experience; my own and that of others.
How many times have you experienced death and finding out you are alive after it? Your faith in God isn't based on experience.
-
How many times have you experienced death and finding out you are alive after it? Your faith in God isn't based on experience.
But a relationship doesn't start after death. God in Christ offers a relationship now.
What we need to ask ourselves is............. if and why that is our problem with God.
-
Vlad,
But a relationship doesn't start after death. God in Christ offers a relationship now.
So you assert. Nice use of the reification fallacy by the way.
What we need to ask ourselves is............. if and why that is our problem with God.
Surely what we need to ask ourselves first is why you would think any of the above to be true.
-
In that case, since we're talking train arrangements being analogous to religious arrangements, perhaps you can provide the timetable for the next divine miracle (assuming it is on time and that the wrong type of leaves on the tracks won't delay it indefinitely).
They don't happen in a mechanistic fashion like that.....That's why they are called miracles.
-
They don't happen in a mechanistic fashion like that.....That's why they are called miracles.
How do you tell they happen? And just to note that in saying that you're off pissing on Sword's analogy.
-
How do you tell they happen? And just to note that in saying that you're off pissing on Sword's analogy.
The universe being is a miracle which flouts cause and effect. That can only happen once because it is now here.
-
But a relationship doesn't start after death. God in Christ offers a relationship now.
So?
How does that increase your experience of life after death?
-
Vlad,
So you assert. Nice use of the reification fallacy by the way.
.....And what is being reified Bluebottle?
-
Vlad,
.....And what is being reified Bluebottle?
"God in Christ offers a relationship now."
You'll need to demonstrate that before moving on to the questions it would supposedly make us ask.
-
Since this is the Christian Topic forum, why not start with the Christian faith? Pick any positive claim made by any Christian regarding their faith and apply an inductive process to it.
Two positive claims made by Christians on this very board.
1. Jesus is God
2. Jesus is not God.
Go induct those....see what you come up with, then tell the loser(s) that they are wrong.
-
The universe being is a miracle which flouts cause and effect. That can only happen once because it is now here.
I'm going to combine my response to this with a partial reply to the OP. The reason for combining and the reply bring only the first part of an answer is because I think there is an internet rule to be instituted which is the more wrong something is in a small number of words, the longer the answer will be to unpack it and point out the problems, or in short if something is only 1% correct, it will take 99 times the amount of writing to point out why.
So let's break this down to that for Vlad, the definition of a miracle based his statement above is something that flouts cause and effect and only happens once. I will deal with these separately, and then link to the part coverage of the OP.
For something to 'flout cause and effect', the first problem is that linguistically this means that a miracle in Vlad's view is something that happens at random. If there is no cause, then there is no supernatural claim. So we have to help Vlad a little here and insert that it flouts a natural cause and effect. This causes problems in that we haven't established either that cause and effect are objectively true or that any causes are natural.
To understand the problem of cause and effect not being objective, we need to understand that it us a pattern seen from a subjective point of view, and then validated inter subjectively. It nay be that we are all in the matrix or indeed there is only one thing thinking (the problem of hard solipsism). Further even if we exclude these sort of thought experiments, the idea of cause and effect is based on our viewpoint and induction. We examine them as if it is a proven 'kaw' when it is simply an inductively derived observation.
This takes us on to ther separation of causes into two types, natural ones which Vlad seems to think we have proved, and non natural ones which he thinks sonehow flout the idea of cause and effect. The natural causes that we use to explain are based not upon objective proof of the cause and effect link but a basic assumption of how we investigate the external world. This is that assumption that we can investigate such a world as if it is consistent and that if we see something that we can ascribe a cause to consistently then whatever we observe within that method of naturalism is the cause. Those causes though could all be non natural, some non natural, or it could change from minute to minute. For let's remember, the rule of cause and effect is flouted by these non natural causes.
So let's move on to Vlad's second pillar of miracles that something only happens once. When he raised this previously I pointed out that everything in our experience only happens once. It might have similarities, I may be go to the loo a few tines a day as will billions of others but each of these are unique happenings spatially and temporally. In that case there is the possibility of ascribing the view that indeed everything could be miraculous, indeed if this is a deity with the omnus, then arguably it must be because this will be the vest of all possible universes, though one where free will cannot exist - but since that doesn't seem to what Vlad is saying we will leave such discussions for some other time.
Nio, again as with Vlad's first pillar, we may need to unpack this to make much sense and the best that I can make out if it us that thus us some special category of event which by its nature happens only once, and has no similarity with any other event. Now what this presents is a case of Vlad being generous with his urine to out out the bonfires of such as Hope and Alan Burns who make miracle claims for people getting better from illness, and finding contact lens; events which have multiple similar events.
Tgaty, of course, doesn't make Vlad wrong but it also presents problems for some of the more significant, pace Alan Burn's contact lens, miracles claimed in Christianity - resurrection. Since there are multiple claims of resurrections, then by it happening more than once and given that they are not unique in the way Vlad wants to posit for the universe, they too are not miracles by this approach.
That leaves us with the universe then starting. Now even if none if such hypotheses as multiverses, prior universes, steady state universe, expanding and contracting universes are actually true, Vlad would need to disprove them to make the claim that this universe is unique in such a way to satisfy his second miracle pillar.
Even were he to do that, the singularity of the incident at some time cannot be used to extrapolate that it us always going to be unique, the old problem of induction that keeps a coming.
And worse, the pillar is simply an assertion that if something only happened once that it is somehow non natural, it isn't method.
So to try and lunk this back to the OP. The problem of induction haunts Vlad's position but it's all ignored in the IO too. Induction rests on the assumption that allow us to say x causes y, and we investigate that on the basis of probability. It rests on an assumption that inter subjectivity is useful and for the sake of its own consistency we ignore hard solipsism. Given that we cannot use it to rule out events that contradict the rules we derive, so we cannot use it to state anything about the actual causes. It does not rule out non natural causes, indeed as already mentioned by the way we use it it simply assumes natural causes.
And that I think is enough for this episode of 'Thinking with Mother'
-
NS,
I'm going to combine my response to this with a partial reply to the OP....
Thanks for posting. Just to add that our Vlad also makes the mistake of thinking that a phenomenon that's not amenable to the tools of science - eg, we don't have a big enough telescope - must also thereby be inherently not amenable to the methods of science - eg falsifiability, and so must therefore be outside of cause and effect in character (ie, "supernatural").
-
Signing in.
-
I'm going to combine my response to this with a partial reply to the OP. The reason for combining and the reply bring only the first part of an answer is because I think there is an internet rule to be instituted which is the more wrong something is in a small number of words, the longer the answer will be to unpack it and point out the problems, or in short if something is only 1% correct, it will take 99 times the amount of writing to point out why.
So let's break this down to that for Vlad, the definition of a miracle based his statement above is something that flouts cause and effect and only happens once. I will deal with these separately, and then link to the part coverage of the OP.
For something to 'flout cause and effect', the first problem is that linguistically this means that a miracle in Vlad's view is something that happens at random. If there is no cause, then there is no supernatural claim. So we have to help Vlad a little here and insert that it flouts a natural cause and effect. This causes problems in that we haven't established either that cause and effect are objectively true or that any causes are natural.
To understand the problem of cause and effect not being objective, we need to understand that it us a pattern seen from a subjective point of view, and then validated inter subjectively. It nay be that we are all in the matrix or indeed there is only one thing thinking (the problem of hard solipsism). Further even if we exclude these sort of thought experiments, the idea of cause and effect is based on our viewpoint and induction. We examine them as if it is a proven 'kaw' when it is simply an inductively derived observation.
This takes us on to ther separation of causes into two types, natural ones which Vlad seems to think we have proved, and non natural ones which he thinks sonehow flout the idea of cause and effect. The natural causes that we use to explain are based not upon objective proof of the cause and effect link but a basic assumption of how we investigate the external world. This is that assumption that we can investigate such a world as if it is consistent and that if we see something that we can ascribe a cause to consistently then whatever we observe within that method of naturalism is the cause. Those causes though could all be non natural, some non natural, or it could change from minute to minute. For let's remember, the rule of cause and effect is flouted by these non natural causes.
So let's move on to Vlad's second pillar of miracles that something only happens once. When he raised this previously I pointed out that everything in our experience only happens once. It might have similarities, I may be go to the loo a few tines a day as will billions of others but each of these are unique happenings spatially and temporally. In that case there is the possibility of ascribing the view that indeed everything could be miraculous, indeed if this is a deity with the omnus, then arguably it must be because this will be the vest of all possible universes, though one where free will cannot exist - but since that doesn't seem to what Vlad is saying we will leave such discussions for some other time.
Nio, again as with Vlad's first pillar, we may need to unpack this to make much sense and the best that I can make out if it us that thus us some special category of event which by its nature happens only once, and has no similarity with any other event. Now what this presents is a case of Vlad being generous with his urine to out out the bonfires of such as Hope and Alan Burns who make miracle claims for people getting better from illness, and finding contact lens; events which have multiple similar events.
Tgaty, of course, doesn't make Vlad wrong but it also presents problems for some of the more significant, pace Alan Burn's contact lens, miracles claimed in Christianity - resurrection. Since there are multiple claims of resurrections, then by it happening more than once and given that they are not unique in the way Vlad wants to posit for the universe, they too are not miracles by this approach.
That leaves us with the universe then starting. Now even if none if such hypotheses as multiverses, prior universes, steady state universe, expanding and contracting universes are actually true, Vlad would need to disprove them to make the claim that this universe is unique in such a way to satisfy his second miracle pillar.
Even were he to do that, the singularity of the incident at some time cannot be used to extrapolate that it us always going to be unique, the old problem of induction that keeps a coming.
And worse, the pillar is simply an assertion that if something only happened once that it is somehow non natural, it isn't method.
So to try and lunk this back to the OP. The problem of induction haunts Vlad's position but it's all ignored in the IO too. Induction rests on the assumption that allow us to say x causes y, and we investigate that on the basis of probability. It rests on an assumption that inter subjectivity is useful and for the sake of its own consistency we ignore hard solipsism. Given that we cannot use it to rule out events that contradict the rules we derive, so we cannot use it to state anything about the actual causes. It does not rule out non natural causes, indeed as already mentioned by the way we use it it simply assumes natural causes.
And that I think is enough for this episode of 'Thinking with Mother'
And one is touched by it's earnestness Sane.
However any reading of my contribution to the debate on the supernatural Debate board will show that whether the universe popped from nothing, has a creator, or is eternal all three are miraculous.
Secondly Sane you have a problem suggesting the universe(all there is) might not be all there is, that there can be another, that there can be that which also either popped out of nothing or is eternal.
Also the notion that universes pop up at random is loaded in favour of multiple universes. There is and can be no evidence of randomness since randomness is a feature of a group of events nor evidence of other universes since that evidence would need to be part of this universe since it would be in this universe. Nearly is making a cracking case for the possibility of God and cannot, if he believes his points are correct be a true atheist.
-
NS,
Thanks for posting. Just to add that our Vlad also makes the mistake of thinking that a phenomenon that's not amenable to the tools of science - eg, we don't have a big enough telescope - must also thereby be inherently not amenable to the methods of science - eg falsifiability, and so must therefore be outside of cause and effect in character (ie, "supernatural").
I don't believe that at all.
-
And one is touched by it's earnestness Sane.
However any reading of my contribution to the debate on the supernatural Debate board will show that whether the universe popped from nothing, has a creator, or is eternal all three are miraculous.
Secondly Sane you have a problem suggesting the universe(all there is) might not be all there is, that there can be another, that there can be that which also either popped out of nothing or is eternal.
Also the notion that universes pop up at random is loaded in favour of multiple universes. There is and can be no evidence of randomness since randomness is a feature of a group of events nor evidence of other universes since that evidence would need to be part of this universe since it would be in this universe. Nearly is making a cracking case for the possibility of God and cannot, if he believes his points are correct be a true atheist.
whoosh
-
whoosh
Ah, the sound of multiverses coming into existence....at random.
-
Vlad,
I don't believe that at all.
So all those times you said it over on the other thread were what exactly? To be fair, once it's daftness was pointed out (many times) you retrenched to, "OK, what if it happened just once then?" but that was essentially still the same argument as it relied on the inadequacy of the tools of science rather than of its methods not being up to the job. (Wrongly as it happens, but that's another story.)
-
Vlad,
So all those times you said it over on the other thread were what exactly? To be fair, once it's daftness was pointed out (many times) you retrenched to, "OK, what if it happened just once then?" but that was essentially still the same argument as it relied on the inadequacy of the tools of science rather than of its methods not being up to the job. (Wrongly as it happens, but that's another story.)
Again it is not that our tools are inadequate at the moment it is that these things are impervious to science.
-
Ah, the sound of multiverses coming into existence....at random.
lying whoosh
-
The problem with my supposed problem of induction is that rather than Black swans not being found because we haven't looked in every place.........with multiple universes, there are since there is already a universe here, no places left to look. The hint is in the comparison between swan and universe.
The issue with My supposed problem with scientific equipment is not that we don't have the best equipment in the universe but that the best equipment would still just be that........In the universe.
These are problems for science and scientism but not necessarily for a non physicalist approach.
-
Vlad,
Again it is not that our tools are inadequate at the moment it is that these things are impervious to science.
Well, that's a change from the "if science can't explain it it must be supernatural then" schtick. Your problem now of course is to demonstrate that "these things" exist at all.
What method do you intend to use to do that?
-
Vlad,
The problem with my supposed problem of induction is that rather than Black swans not being found because we haven't looked in every place.........with multiple universes, there are since there is already a universe here, no places left to look. The hint is in the comparison between swan and universe.
What are you trying to say here? Even if the multiverse hypothesis turned out to be true, how would that help you?
The issue with My supposed problem with scientific equipment is not that we don't have the best equipment in the universe but that the best equipment would still just be that........In the universe.
Well yes. Sooo…where would these supposed supernatural thingummies of yours be then, and why would you think them to exist at all?
These are problems for science and scientism but not necessarily for a non physicalist approach.
Why are they problems for science and “scientism” (presumably you mean here your personal re-definition of that term?) any more than my claim about leprechauns “outside time and space” is a problem for science and scientism? Science is indifferent to such claims – they’re just white noise.
Essentially you’re back to your reification fallacy again here – we’re just expected to take your word for it that “these things” exist at all, and that they’re "supernatural" to boot.
-
Since this is the Christian Topic forum, why not start with the Christian faith? Pick any positive claim made by any Christian regarding their faith and apply an inductive process to it.
Two positive claims made by Christians on this very board.
1. Jesus is God
2. Jesus is not God.
Go induct those....see what you come up with
Ok. Step 1: Please provide citations for these claims.
-
Ok. Step 1: Please provide citations for these claims.
1. Here is an example;
There is only one God - so even as we talk about the three persons of the trinity we are talking about one God. All three persons of the trinity are God. If you want to look at some verses, you could look at Deuteronomy 6:4, Galatians 1:1, John 1:1-18, and Matthew 28:19.
http://christianity.net.au/questions/how_can_jesus_be_both_god_and_gods_son (http://christianity.net.au/questions/how_can_jesus_be_both_god_and_gods_son)
I think that the majority of Christians on this board fall into this category.
2. Doesn’t the teaching that Jesus is not God, but the Son of God, demean him and make him smaller in people’s eyes?
Good question. The answer is: “No, it makes him bigger.”
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/jesus-christ/does-the-teaching-that-jesus-is-the-son-of-god-not-god-himself-demean-him-2 (http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/jesus-christ/does-the-teaching-that-jesus-is-the-son-of-god-not-god-himself-demean-him-2)
Sassy (and maybe Nick) I think follow that idea.
So your challenge is to
a. 'apply an inductive process' to both.
b. Show your results.
c. Convince the 'losing category' adherents on this board that your conclusions are accurate and that they change their belief as a result.
Once you have successfully completed 'c' then you can claim victory.
I might suggest that a new thread would be appropriate for this.
-
I don't think we are expected to worship the market ...
Worship isn't primarily an act but an attitude, and one which is unconscious, that is, people do it without realising just how attached they are to it, and how it drives them. Millions worship the markets and billions worship material goods to some level. Then there are our political 'Gods' such as the EU, and previously the USSR.
-
Faith leads to action. If I use an induction approach to determine if a bus can get me from place X to place Y, it is faith that leads me to go to the bus stop, wait for the bus, get on it and get off (hopefully!) at the other end.
But that kind of 'faith' doesn't offer you everlasting life and heaven. Once it I spent it is gone and forgotten. And not everyone uses it because it is associated with a bus service and some of us have cars - and that particular 'faith' is different to the bus one.
-
Ok. Step 1: Please provide citations for these claims.
I tried to warn you SwordOfTheSpirit...When talking about Almighty God with disbelieving mankind the intellectual approach is a non starter.
To most the Holy Bible is just a book to ridicule whilst millions over many generations have found great comfort from its pages to suit their own intellect and circumstances. That is because it is a book of repair...repair from the many complcations of life and the many complications of life revolve round brain-washing and the brain washed are simply unable to see that the state of their world is collapsing because of it.
Taking in the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ saves because one of its many attributes is to lift us out of that brain washing...which...incedently...is a huge factor in everyones state of health.
-
Two positive claims made by Christians on this very board.
1. Jesus is God
2. Jesus is not God
Ok. Step 1: Please provide citations for these claims.
1. Here is an example;
There is only one God - so even as we talk about the three persons of the trinity we are talking about one God. All three persons of the trinity are God. If you want to look at some verses, you could look at Deuteronomy 6:4, Galatians 1:1, John 1:1-18, and Matthew 28:19.
http://christianity.net.au/questions/how_can_jesus_be_both_god_and_gods_son (http://christianity.net.au/questions/how_can_jesus_be_both_god_and_gods_son)
I think that the majority of Christians on this board fall into this category.
2. Doesn’t the teaching that Jesus is not God, but the Son of God, demean him and make him smaller in people’s eyes?
Good question. The answer is: “No, it makes him bigger.”
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/jesus-christ/does-the-teaching-that-jesus-is-the-son-of-god-not-god-himself-demean-him-2 (http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/jesus-christ/does-the-teaching-that-jesus-is-the-son-of-god-not-god-himself-demean-him-2)
Sassy (and maybe Nick) I think follow that idea.
So your challenge is to
a. 'apply an inductive process' to both.
b. Show your results.
c. Convince the 'losing category' adherents on this board that your conclusions are accurate and that they change their belief as a result.
Once you have successfully completed 'c' then you can claim victory.
So, what happened to your original claim?
Two positive claims made by Christians on this very board.
1. Jesus is God
2. Jesus is not God
Where are the claims on this very board? Feel free to start a new thread with them, if/when you find them.
-
So, what happened to your original claim?Where are the claims on this very board? Feel free to start a new thread with them, if/when you find them.
Try looking at the Faith Sharing Area, on this very board and especially at the "Re: WHAT makes a person saved in Christ Jesus" thread. It's not long, and you should find claims here for both points of view by different Christians. When you've done that, then perhaps you can proceed with Seb's challenge. :)
-
Vlad,
What are you trying to say here? Even if the multiverse hypothesis turned out to be true, how would that help you?
/quote].
I am not putting forward a multiverse.
A new universe can no longer come into being out of nothing because the universe is here. It would have to content itself with being an indistinguishable part of this universe.
There can be therefore no evidence of another universe since that evidence would have to be in this universe. The multiverse just shuffles the problems i've outlined for naturalism and those are did the multiverse arise out of nothing (a phenomenon not observed and unobservable in nature) or is the multiverse eternal(not observed in nature and unobservable in nature) and/or self perturbed(not observed or observable in nature).
The natural borrows from the supernatural for these miracles.
-
So, what happened to your original claim?Where are the claims on this very board? Feel free to start a new thread with them, if/when you find them.
No ifs needed.
Here you are.
1.
I doubt whether the repentant thief on the cross had a proper understanding of the Trinity, that Jesus was indeed God incarnate. He saw someone who was able and willing to forgive his sins. The only proviso I would put on this would be that if a person is truly saved he or she will surely follow what the Scriptures say about Jesus and come to the conclusion that he was and is God incarnate. That seems to me to be the natural result of getting saved.
2. Does not make Jesus God. God and Jesus Christ are two separate persons. God is not a human being nor has he ever been a man. Jesus is fully human and always has been. His nature is divine. But he is not God.God was with him and spoke through him.
Go induct.....I look forward to the results
-
Vlad,
I am not putting forward a multiverse.
A new universe can no longer come into being out of nothing because the universe is here. It would have to content itself with being an indistinguishable part of this universe.
There can be therefore no evidence of another universe since that evidence would have to be in this universe. The multiverse just shuffles the problems i've outlined for naturalism and those are did the multiverse arise out of nothing (a phenomenon not observed and unobservable in nature) or is the multiverse eternal(not observed in nature and unobservable in nature) and/or self perturbed(not observed or observable in nature).
The natural borrows from the supernatural for these miracles.
You've yet to establish that there are any problems for naturalism, and you've yet to demonstrate the existence at all of the "supernatural".
Why not start with demonstrating either or both rather than just assuming them and expecting others to as well?
-
Vlad,
You've yet to establish that there are any problems for naturalism, and you've yet to demonstrate the existence at all of the "supernatural".
Been done, the universe has either done something supernatural or is in it's being something supernatural in ways that have been outlined to you.
Maeght provided the definition of supernatural earlier on and I have shown that the universe has been caught fulfilling that definition.
What you are demanding is your own particular definition to be satisfied but I must remind you that any definition of the supernatural which has the word supernatural implied in it is a bad definition. The one you are working on seems to be supernatural things are what are done by supernatural beings.
If you are allowing the universe a supernatural moment or supernatural in it's being then that is special pleading.
Of course you could try refuting what I have said but I think you have as they say 'produced a full pot''.
-
Vlad,
Been done, the universe has either done something supernatural or is in it's being something supernatural in ways that have been outlined to you.
Good grief. To be supernatural (or supra-natural) a phenomenon has to operate outwith or above natural laws and processes. All you have so far though is a, “here’s something for which I have no naturalistic explanation” (ie, the same argument the Norse had when they heard thunder). You have all your work ahead of you still however if you want to construct an argument to take your from “don’t know” to "supernatural".
Maeght provided the definition of supernatural earlier on and I have shown that the universe has been caught fulfilling that definition.
You’ve done no such thing. How exactly would you propose to argue your way from, “not explicable with the tools and methods of science that are available to me” to, “that which is in itself inherently not amenable to the tools and methods of science”?
Good luck with it though!
What you are demanding is your own particular definition to be satisfied…
Oh stop it now – my sides are splitting. So here we have the king of the personal re-definition of words and terms to suit his bad arguments (“naturalism”, “scientism”, “atheism” etc) accusing someone else (wrongly as it happens) of doing the same thing! Really? Really really?
…but I must remind you that any definition of the supernatural which has the word supernatural implied in it is a bad definition. The one you are working on seems to be supernatural things are what are done by supernatural beings.
Oh dear. Look, it’s simple enough - to be supernatural (or supra-natural) a phenomenon has to operate outwith or above natural laws and processes. Your problem though remains to explain how you would know that a phenomenon is doing that.
If you are allowing the universe a supernatural moment or supernatural in it's being then that is special pleading.
I’m not. Or, more accurately, I’m not allowing you to just to jump straight from “don’t know” to “supernatural” with no logic to bridge the gap.
Of course you could try refuting what I have said but I think you have as they say 'produced a full pot''.
I just did, and moreover it was trivially easy to do.
Try again. What do you think “supernatural” actually means, and how would you know that it exists without recourse to one or several of the various beloved logical fallacies you so like to attempt?
-
Vlad,
Good grief. To be supernatural (or supra-natural) a phenomenon has to operate outwith or above natural laws and processes. All you have so far though is a, “here’s something for which I have no naturalistic explanation” (ie, the same argument the Norse had when they heard thunder). You have all your work ahead of you still however if you want to construct an argument to take your from “don’t know” to "supernatural".
You’ve done no such thing. How exactly would you propose to argue your way from, “not explicable with the tools and methods of science that are available to me” to, “that which is in itself inherently not amenable to the tools and methods of science”?
Good luck with it though!
Oh stop it now – my sides are splitting. So here we have the king of the personal re-definition of words and terms to suit his bad arguments (“naturalism”, “scientism”, “atheism” etc) accusing someone else (wrongly as it happens) of doing the same thing! Really? Really really?
Oh dear. Look, it’s simple enough - to be supernatural (or supra-natural) a phenomenon has to operate outwith or above natural laws and processes. Your problem though remains to explain how you would know that a phenomenon is doing that.
I’m not. Or, more accurately, I’m not allowing you to just to jump straight from “don’t know” to “supernatural” with no logic to bridge the gap.
I just did, and moreover it was trivially easy to do.
Try again. What do you think “supernatural” actually means, and how would you know that it exists without recourse to one or several of the various beloved logical fallacies you so like to attempt?
None of the above post addresses the problems of the universe either popping up out of nothing, or being created, or being eternal or being self perturbed. These things are not natural and unique. There can be no law nor science because of reasons which are continually spelled out to you. Nothing can pop out of nothing again or alternatively the universe is eternal and self moved.
You are at the end and merely suggesting again that one day science will find a way to solve this is merely a statement of faith in your scientism ...and of course your category errors namely the appearance of the universe or being of the universe i.e. it all...just being another phenomena like ''thunder''. How childish.
-
Vlad,
None of the above post addresses the problems of the universe either popping up out of nothing, or being created, or being eternal or being self perturbed.
Or indeed any other option. Your problem here though is that there isn’t an “issue” at all – just a bunch of hypotheses.
These things are not natural and unique.
What possible reason can you even think you have for just asserting them to be “not natural”?
There can be no law nor science because of reasons which are continually spelled out to you. Nothing can pop out of nothing again or alternatively the universe is eternal and self moved.
Oh dear. There are many hypotheses available, and doubtless there will be many more. None of them give you any warrant at all though just to assert that, even if one of them turned out to be right, it would be non-natural event. Can you really not see that you’re just a Norseman here saying, “that thunder stuff – I don’t have a naturalistic explanation for it, therefore it must be supernatural”?
Really?
You are at the end and merely suggesting again that one day science will find a way to solve this is merely a statement of faith in your scientism ...
That’s not what I say, and it’s still not what “scientism” means. Will you ever get this, or do you intend to keep on lying about it despite being corrected over and over again?
What I do say is that you have no argument of any kind to take you from, “I do not have a naturalistic answer to hand” to “supernatural”, and moreover that “scientism” just means putting undue weight on the importance of science. It does not mean the claim that science will inevitably one day have the answer to everything, however much you keep relentlessly lying your way to your personal re-definition of it. Never has, never will.
…and of course your category errors…
Let’s not forget here that you’ve never yet managed to grasp what “category error” means either. Let’s see though shall we?
…namely the appearance of the universe or being of the universe i.e. it all...just being another phenomena like ''thunder''. How childish.
Nope. Thanks for making my point for me though, albeit unwittingly. There’s no category error at all because the argument in each case is the same: “I don’t have a naturalistic answer to hand, therefore it’s supernatural”.
It’s a very bad argument regardless of what the object of it happens to be.
Are you genuinely so spectacularly dim that you really cannot grasp this, or do you actually understand it but you get some sort of weird pleasure from trolling about it?
-
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?action=post;quote=637322;topic=12577.50;last_msg=637401
Go induct.....I look forward to the results
First I had to go study to understand the theological perspective. According to the Bible, the Trinity consists of
1. God the Father
2. God the Son (Jesus)
3. God the Holy Spirit.
Jesus was God incarnate, so Alien is correct. But Jesus as God the Son cannot be God the Father, which is Sassy’s point. So both are correct, from a Christian theological perspective.
My turn now: If you really want to do a proper inductive process, you could attempt to do for yourself what the detective in the opening post of the Cold-Case Christianity (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12570.0) thread did.
-
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?action=post;quote=637322;topic=12577.50;last_msg=637401First I had to go study to understand the theological perspective. According to the Bible, the Trinity consists of
1. God the Father
2. God the Son (Jesus)
3. God the Holy Spirit.
Jesus was God incarnate, so Alien is correct. But Jesus as God the Son cannot be God the Father, which is Sassy’s point. So both are correct, from a Christian theological perspective.
My turn now: If you really want to do a proper inductive process, you could attempt to do for yourself what the detective in the opening post of the Cold-Case Christianity (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12570.0) thread did.
ERM that's deduction you have done there, and one that misrepresents Sassy's views.
-
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?action=post;quote=637322;topic=12577.50;last_msg=637401First I had to go study to understand the theological perspective. According to the Bible, the Trinity consists of
1. God the Father
2. God the Son (Jesus)
3. God the Holy Spirit.
Jesus was God incarnate, so Alien is correct. But Jesus as God the Son cannot be God the Father, which is Sassy’s point. So both are correct, from a Christian theological perspective.
If you don't mind I'll just check with Sassy first to see if she agrees. Don't want to get ahead of ourselves now do we?
-
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?action=post;quote=637322;topic=12577.50;last_msg=637401First I had to go study to understand the theological perspective. According to the Bible, the Trinity consists of
1. God the Father
2. God the Son (Jesus)
3. God the Holy Spirit.
Jesus was God incarnate, so Alien is correct. But Jesus as God the Son cannot be God the Father, which is Sassy’s point. So both are correct, from a Christian theological perspective.
Which is an argument from authority, and I suspect that both Sass and Alien will consider that they are right and the other is wrong, which implies that perhaps you are wrong in saying that they are both right.
Then of course there is the issue of demonstrating this 'trinity' thing without reaching for a fallacious argument from authority or tradition.
My turn now: If you really want to do a proper inductive process, you could attempt to do for yourself what the detective in the opening post of the Cold-Case Christianity (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12570.0) thread did.
We've already dispensed with that silly claim.
-
Which is an argument from authority, and I suspect that both Sass and Alien will consider that they are right and the other is wrong, which implies that perhaps you are wrong in saying that they are both right.
Then of course there is the issue of demonstrating this 'trinity' thing without reaching for a fallacious argument from authority or tradition.
We've already dispensed with that silly claim.
Do you actually believe in anything yourself, Gordon, or is your whole aim to debunk everything other people believe? Lets hear it, and see if you can take a bit of flack yourself.
-
Do you actually believe in anything yourself, Gordon, or is your whole aim to debunk everything other people believe? Lets hear it, and see if you can take a bit of flack yourself.
I'm not making any claims - just responding to the claims of others.
-
Do you actually believe in anything yourself, Gordon, or is your whole aim to debunk everything other people believe? Lets hear it, and see if you can take a bit of flack yourself.
I believe Sword doesn't understand how induction and deduction works.
-
Moderator A number of posts were removed from this thread as they were a derail arising from harassment of a poster.
This post will be removed in due course
-
NS,
Moderator A number of posts were removed from this thread as they were a derail arising from harassment of a poster.
This post will be removed in due course
OK - thanks.
-
I believe Sword doesn't understand how induction and deduction works.
Sword's induction example in their OP was wrong. They either don't understand induction or were trying a fast one.
-
ERM that's deduction you have done there
ERM, that's why I said First I had to go study to understand the theological perspective.
The question is a trick question so I used deduction based on my understanding of the Bible to resolve the apparent contradiction, as you spotted.
and one that misrepresents Sassy's views.
Your belief/opinion, or can you outline why?
-
Which is an argument from authority, and I suspect that both Sass and Alien will consider that they are right and the other is wrong, which implies that perhaps you are wrong in saying that they are both right.
I'll see what either have to say and then go from there.
Then of course there is the issue of demonstrating this 'trinity' thing without reaching for a fallacious argument from authority or tradition.
Both Sass and Alien are believers in God who I assume are basing their reasoning on the Bible, so there is a common frame of reference. Sebastian Toe's question was a theological one, but not one with the intention of learning anything, more to try and point out a perceived contradiction.
-
Sword of the Spirit
This is a bit of a tangent, but since you mention theology, I wonder if you can give me one fact that a theologian knows, really knows about the god they believe in?
-
Sebastian Toe's question was a theological one, but not one with the intention of learning anything, more to try and point out a perceived contradiction.
Nope, I do want to learn
I want to learn if you can convince Sassy that Jesus is God , God the son, or whatever spin you want to put on it.
Or convince Alien or any trinitatian on this board for that matter that Jesus is not divine and not God or God the son - but - the son of God.
..using your induction method.
-
But Jesus as God the Son cannot be God the Father, which is Sassy’s point. So both are correct, from a Christian theological perspective.
So Christianity is polytheistic. OK, that's fine.
-
Sword of the Spirit
This is a bit of a tangent, but since you mention theology, I wonder if you can give me one fact that a theologian knows, really knows about the god they believe in?
How are you demonstrating that a brain knows anything SusanDoris?
-
ERM, that's why I said The question is a trick question so I used deduction based on my understanding of the Bible to resolve the apparent contradiction, as you spotted.Your belief/opinion, or can you outline why?
No, it wasn't a trick question at all. It is in fact a question which has bedevilled Christianity since its earliest days.
However, your failure to use induction to reach any sort of clear resolution to this problem represents a major fail on your part, as that is what you were asked to do. And yet wasn't it you who suggested that it was the unbeliever who was much more inclined to use deduction, rather than induction? I don't think it is even clever to say that both the trinitarian and the unitarian are right, as you seem to suggest, especially as Sass has said:
God and Jesus Christ are two separate persons. God is not a human being nor has he ever been a man. Jesus is fully human and always has been. His nature is divine. But he is not God.God was with him and spoke through him.
It just seems to be a device that you are using to avoid answering the question. Are you intending to be a politician, by any chance?
From my point of view, one of the major arguments used by many Christians for the reality of your God is based upon the statement that the Bible(and, especially the NT), is the literal or inspired word of God. Anything which rests upon such a certain premise is surely deductive in nature, and, furthermore, is totally reliant upon faith that this premise is correct. All the rest is interpretation.
I probably prefer a much more abductive approach, using as objective(intersubjective) a method as possible to ascertain any evidence/lack of evidence, which may then end(provisionally) by surmising the most probable explanation. In this way then, would I(if I had sufficient interest) subject the book 'Cold Case Christianity' to critical examination in the same way that I would subject Bart Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus' or C.S.Lewis's 'Mere Christianity' or 'Miracles'.
-
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?action=post;quote=637322;topic=12577.50;last_msg=637401First I had to go study to understand the theological perspective. According to the Bible, the Trinity consists of
1. God the Father
2. God the Son (Jesus)
3. God the Holy Spirit.
Jesus was God incarnate, so Alien is correct. But Jesus as God the Son cannot be God the Father, which is Sassy’s point. So both are correct, from a Christian theological perspective.
From Sassy's posts.
Do you induct from these that she agrees with your statement that Jesus is God , the son?
By declaring Jesus to be God we are disobeying God.
In Luke the Angel tells Mary that Jesus is a Holy thing... that he is to be called the Son of God.
Eternal life is knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ whom the only true God sent.
What is it you believe to be 'not accurate' about Christ being the Son of God?
Given the teaching that the son of perdition would make himself out to be God, then the real danger becomes the Christians have a false religion if they believe Christ is God and not as God commanded the Son of God.
Luke 1`
Reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Is that referring to the reign over the house of Jacob? Is it for the Jews only the house of Jacob?
Clearly the Angel tells Mary....
Christ a Holy Thing... things which belong to God were called Holy. Christ was and is to be called the Son of God.
Being called Holy or a Holy People of God does not make us God.
Do the Anglicans believe what God has told them that Jesus is the Son of God or do they go beyond the teachings and say that Jesus is God.
You miss the point Spud... Son of God is to equal himself with God not become God or replace God.
At no time did Christ call himself God. By calling himself the Son of God he then became equal in that he was like God.
In fact just by looking at the actual bible passages you can see that God is God and Jesus is the Son of God. You like many others DO NOT read and know what the bible actually says.
You cannot change the truth that God himself is the power of the highest. That the Holy things is and cannot be changed the Son of God.
God himself is Holy and Christ belongs to God which makes him a Holy Thing. It does not make him God.
-
This is a bit of a tangent, but since you mention theology, I wonder if you can give me one fact that a theologian knows, really knows about the god they believe in?
To be honest, no!
Theologians don’t have to be believers. The approach taken to the Bible (or other religious texts) tends to be an academic one, so they are not necessarily coming to it with a belief that (any of) it is true. There’s a couple of high-profile theologians that appear on programmes like The Big Questions or Sunday Morning Live and I find myself disagreeing with nearly everything they say sometimes!
-
Nope, I do want to learn
I want to learn if you can convince Sassy that Jesus is God , God the son, or whatever spin you want to put on it.
Or convince Alien or any trinitatian on this board for that matter that Jesus is not divine and not God or God the son - but - the son of God.
..using your induction method.
However, your failure to use induction to reach any sort of clear resolution to this problem represents a major fail on your part, as that is what you were asked to do. And yet wasn't it you who suggested that it was the unbeliever who was much more inclined to use deduction, rather than induction?
The thoughts for my opening post on Induction v Deduction for faith and belief came from considerations of the Cold-Case Christianity thread. The type of issues being addressed were e.g.
- Does the supernatural exist
- Did Jesus Christ rise from the dead, etc.
I mentioned an inductive process because one is trying to establish whether something is true or not, starting with the evidence. Certainty cannot be guaranteed, so if one concludes that what they are investigating is true, it will be believed by faith. I mentioned that I thought that some atheists were using deduction because there seemed to be an assumption that there are only natural causes and explanations. Under such a worldview, dead people don’t rise from the dead, so stating that Jesus Christ didn’t rise from the dead is a deduction from that.
If one were trying to establish whether or not God exists, then I would support an inductive process. However Sebastian Toe’s question assumes the existence of God and assumes that the Bible is the Word of God. Therefore any debate about the nature of the trinity will be deductions based on an understanding of the Bible. An inductive process cannot be applied.
Personally, I didn’t like the question because not only was it inviting me to use an incorrect approach, it also put me in an invidious position and that is why I saw it as a trick question. With hindsight, I should have said all this at the time. Lesson learnt.
-
The thoughts for my opening post on Induction v Deduction for faith and belief came from considerations of the Cold-Case Christianity thread. The type of issues being addressed were e.g.
- Does the supernatural exist
- Did Jesus Christ rise from the dead, etc.
I mentioned an inductive process because one is trying to establish whether something is true or not, starting with the evidence. Certainty cannot be guaranteed, so if one concludes that what they are investigating is true, it will be believed by faith. I mentioned that I thought that some atheists were using deduction because there seemed to be an assumption that there are only natural causes and explanations. Under such a worldview, dead people don’t rise from the dead, so stating that Jesus Christ didn’t rise from the dead is a deduction from that.
If one were trying to establish whether or not God exists, then I would support an inductive process. However Sebastian Toe’s question assumes the existence of God and assumes that the Bible is the Word of God. Therefore any debate about the nature of the trinity will be deductions based on an understanding of the Bible. An inductive process cannot be applied.
Personally, I didn’t like the question because not only was it inviting me to use an incorrect approach, it also put me in an invidious position and that is why I saw it as a trick question. With hindsight, I should have said all this at the time. Lesson learnt.
Are you saying then that you cannot be certain that Jesus is God ( or not )?
-
Therefore any debate about the nature of the trinity will be deductions based on an understanding of the Bible. An inductive process cannot be applied.
Even so, this could be a spurious deduction unless it is first established that the Bible is reliable in its description of this 'trinity' notion.
If, on this matter, the reliability of the Bible is presumed because it is 'the word of god' or 'god breathed', because the Bible says so, then its assumed reliability would involve circular reasoning, and in addition a fallacious argument from authority.
You'd need to firstly demonstrate 'god' before demonstrating its attributes else, as noted above, you can't escape from the risk of your thinking being fallacious if it is based on your 'understanding' of the Bible.
-
Faith and belief are based on how one interprets the Bible. It is open to so many interpretations, some weirder than others, hence the myriad doctrines, dogmas, sects and cults which have sprung up all based on Christianity.
-
Nope, I do want to learn
I want to learn if you can convince Sassy that Jesus is God , God the son, or whatever spin you want to put on it.
Or convince Alien or any trinitatian on this board for that matter that Jesus is not divine and not God or God the son - but - the son of God.
..using your induction method.
Jesus is the Son of God and divine in nature as a human man. To die for mankind like Adam he had to be fully human.As Moses was made like a god unto Pharaoh he did not become God himself. Jesus was made like God in power to mankind to reveal God himself not become God himself.
In an instance when Christ returns they will know that people who know him do as he did and what he told them.
-
Jesus is the Son of God and divine in nature as a human man. To die for mankind like Adam he had to be fully human.As Moses was made like a god unto Pharaoh he did not become God himself. Jesus was made like God in power to mankind to reveal God himself not become God himself.
In an instance when Christ returns they will know that people who know him do as he did and what he told them.
Your belief to which you are entitled, but it isn't one that can be substantiated.
-
Your belief to which you are entitled, but it isn't one that can be substantiated.
For once, floo, I - and most Christians - agree with you. Sass is at variance with mainstream Christian thought on the Triune nature of God.
-
That is true, Anchor, but in fairness I think Floo would say mainstream Christian thought on the Triune nature of God cannot be substantiated either.
Although I am a believer in the Trinity, I can see where Sassy is coming from on this issue and don't feel that it is a major deal, merely a difference of opinion/interpretation. I know many will be down on me like a ton of bricks for that but, honestly, it makes sense to me though doesn't alter my belief. Just one of those things where we can agree to differ.
-
I can argue theology with the best of 'em, Brownie. However hours of attempting to fall asleep in uni during theology drones/lectures kind of indoctrinated (yes, I know......) me againt a lot of the jargon some post as a defence of thier argument. Some apologetics is so high brow that it loses the essence of what the Gospel is, and who it concerns. As Alen has no doubt argued in umpteen threads here, the original Koine Greek was not as black and white as our modern languages (including contemporary Greek) are. The sense of the setting of the word and phrase are almost as important as the words themselves. I sometimes think we make a great mistake when we cherry pick specific verses in Scripture - because no such numbering existed at the time. Not only the original Koine Greek words, but the sense and context of their placing in the Gospel narrative, tend to show that Jesus was no man infused with God's Spirit for His time on earth (very Gnostic stuff, by the way ), but God Himself. The Gospel writers try to encapsulate this mind blowing concept in their work, writing to Jews mainly - Jews to whom the very idea was something they were brought up to abhor. Though we may consider some of the language beautiful, or inspiring, I have the feeling - just a feeling, mind you, that the writers were really struggling with vocabulary when they tried to put on paper what was something entirely new to their thought process. Though the Holy Spirit was within them, teaching and using them, they were, after all, only human.
-
If I use an induction approach, based, in this case, on a lack of evidence that such a bus exists, that, even if it did, there is no previous knowledge that it has ever travelled from X to Y, or even that it has ever come to this bus stop at a pre-arranged time in order to do just that, then my trust in arriving at this bus stop, based upon the probability of that event happening, would not be justified. There would, of course, be no certainty involved, only a lack of trust based upon inductive processes.
Where does that get me, as regards Christianity, for instance? I see no evidence for your God, hence the only way in which I could accept one would be, not by any induction process at all, but by faith.
I think there has to be a point where one links the immeasurable to the immeasurable or shoe horn it into what one knows, in other words ''The movement of Matter''
-
That is true, Anchor, but in fairness I think Floo would say mainstream Christian thought on the Triune nature of God cannot be substantiated either.
Although I am a believer in the Trinity, I can see where Sassy is coming from on this issue and don't feel that it is a major deal, merely a difference of opinion/interpretation. I know many will be down on me like a ton of bricks for that but, honestly, it makes sense to me though doesn't alter my belief. Just one of those things where we can agree to differ.
A matter of faith cannot be substantiated, however sincerely the believer believes it to be true. Of course unbelievers cannot say for sure there is no god either, but as I have said many times the default position is unbelief without the evidence to verify the existence of any god.
-
Yes it is floo, or else just say we cannot prove it. Faith cannot be proved satisfactorily to anyone without it, I know that and it is evident.
Anchorman: The Gospel writers try to encapsulate this mind blowing concept in their work, writing to Jews mainly - Jews to whom the very idea was something they were brought up to abhor. Though we may consider some of the language beautiful, or inspiring, I have the feeling - just a feeling, mind you, that the writers were really struggling with vocabulary when they tried to put on paper what was something entirely new to their thought process. Though the Holy Spirit was within them, teaching and using them, they were, after all, only human.
Quite right.
-
Of course unbelievers cannot say for sure there is no god either, but as I have said many times the default position is unbelief without the evidence to verify the existence of any god.
So what would you consider as evidence Floo, and how would you go about verifying it?
-
So what would you consider as evidence Floo, and how would you go about verifying it?
I see you're trying this daft approach again: it is for you to present any 'evidence' and in doing so you need to include the method(s) you've used to verify that what you claim as evidence does meet the standards set by your method, and where your chosen method should be able to stand scrutiny.
-
So what would you consider as evidence Floo, and how would you go about verifying it?
You keep asking that silly question and I have answered it a few times!
-
You keep asking that silly question and I have answered it a few times!
You haven't answered it Floo. You keep on evading it.
You keep on trying to make it look as if the reason you don't believe is because you don't see evidence for God. But whenever I ask you to give examples of what you would consider as evidence, you give reasons along the lines of If God exists, He should make it obvious to all for failing to do so.
Yes, you have mentioned an incident in your past where you said that you prayed and nothing happened, but if you are going to use personal experience to argue against the existence of God, you cannot then criticize those who use personal experience to support their belief in God.
Elsewhere, I have seen you state on several occasions that dead people stay dead, in relation to claims of Jesus rising from the dead. It indicates to me that the real problem is not lack of evidence, it is a commitment (whether you are aware of it or not) to natural-only explanations.
-
You haven't answered it Floo. You keep on evading it.
Your question is unsound: it has no answer because it is a spurious question.
But whenever I ask you to give examples of what you would consider as evidence, you give reasons along the lines of If God exists, He should make it obvious to all for failing to do so.
Please provide your reasons for not believing in B%$ee(l>: and please don't fail to do so - if you think on this request for long enough perhaps you'll see where you're going wrong.
Elsewhere, I have seen you state on several occasions that dead people stay dead, in relation to claims of Jesus rising from the dead. It indicates to me that the real problem is not lack of evidence, it is a commitment (whether you are aware of it or not) to natural-only explanations.
Then your indications to yourself are wrong: rejecting the story of Jesus being resurrected it is simply the consequence of there no credible evidence to support the claim. So feel free to present some credible evidence, starting perhaps with explaining the method you've used to exclude the risks of mistakes or lies in this particular story.
-
Sword, floo has said several times that if God actually made him/her/itself known to her (presumably she means seeing, touching, hearing), that would be sufficient evidence for her.
-
Sword, floo has said several times that if God actually made him/her/itself known to her (presumably she means seeing, touching, hearing), that would be sufficient evidence for her.
The thing is Brownie, how is she going to know that it is really God and that she isn't e.g. hallunicating? It could be some other supernatural entity.
I never really know what Floo is after. Is it a case of
- She doesn't believe because she doesn't see evidence, or
- She has decided that there is no evidence, therefore she doesn't believe.
-
The thing is Brownie, how is she going to know that it is really God and that she isn't e.g. hallunicating? It could be some other supernatural entity.
I never really know what Floo is after. Is it a case of
- She doesn't believe because she doesn't see evidence, or
- She has decided that there is no evidence, therefore she doesn't believe.
Yes, those are fair points.
I daresay you or I would fear for our mental health if God touched us and spoke to us.
We would think, "It can't be God because we aren't supposed to look for signs and wonders" - and then hope it didn't happen again.
So I think no-one can be convinced unless they are spiritually convicted and that is something that happens but cannot be adequately described, nor proven.
-
Define 'religious belief'! The gods, deities, spirits, invisiible entities, etc, etc which appear to be an essential part of beliefs are made up by humans.
Sorry if this has already been challenged - I've come to this thread some time into its future - but do you have any evidence to support this assertion Susan?
I wonder if you have noticed how there have been no new gods for a very long time. In my opinion, this is because no such new god would stand a chance against the vast knowledge of real things and true facts available today.
'The vast knowledge of real things and true facts available today' is somewhat of a 'mistermer', Susan. For one thing, there have probably been as many 'new' gods over the past 250 years as there had been over the previous 1500, which could support your contention that gods are man-made, but there is also the reality that many things that are deemed by science to be 'true' by one generation, are shown to be less than true by subsequent generations.
Just what is 'truth' when it comes to science? Is the term even compatible with the concept of scientific research?
Would you suggest that children should be taught the kind of inductive reasoning you are suggesting here? If so, how would you justify it?
From my point of view, as a qualified teacher, I believe that both approaches need to be taught.
-
I agree that there have been - and will be - many new "gods', even if they are not given the name, "God".
-
I agree that there have been - and will be - many new "gods', even if they are not given the name, "God".
Money, power, freedom,...
-
...fitness...status....celebrity....
-
I agree that there have been - and will be - many new "gods', even if they are not given the name, "God".
What sort of gods are you thinking of? If you are thinking of things like money, then, since these things exist, they are not gods at all.
Fitness, status and celebrity are known states and not in any way believed as gods.
-
What sort of gods are you thinking of? If you are thinking of things like money, then, since these things exist, they are not gods at all.
surely if you use a definition that appears to say gods do not exist, that is a circular argument in terms of making any case that they do not exist?
-
Fitness, status and celebrity are known states and not in any way believed as gods.
Except for when they become a person's reason to live or prime aim in life, Susan. Then they become something that they worship - and, hence, become gods.
-
Except for when they become a person's reason to live or prime aim in life, Susan. Then they become something that they worship - and, hence, become gods.
Can you cite a dictionary definition anywhere which defines the meaning of god thus?
-
The thing is Brownie, how is she going to know that it is really God and that she isn't e.g. hallunicating? It could be some other supernatural entity.
I never really know what Floo is after. Is it a case of
- She doesn't believe because she doesn't see evidence, or
- She has decided that there is no evidence, therefore she doesn't believe.
Oh Sword you are a pain in the butt, you really are. >:( As I have said so many times, if god exists and is omnipotent, surely if it wanted to make its presence known to all humans so there was no doubt about its existence, it would find a way of doing so! Can't you understand the logic of that?
-
The thing is Brownie, how is she going to know that it is really God and that she isn't e.g. hallunicating? It could be some other supernatural entity.
I never really know what Floo is after. Is it a case of
- She doesn't believe because she doesn't see evidence, or
- She has decided that there is no evidence, therefore she doesn't believe.
I know it's difficult for you to accept Sword but Floo, I suspect, has , in common with most people you religionists refer to as atheists, we haven't yet seen anything that could be seen as evidence that would support there was anything like a god, any kind of god in existance in the first place.
If you can come up with any verifiable evidence that would support this, at present, delusional belief of yours, no doubt all of us would be joining you, insted of trying to point out how gullible and delusional you are.
ippy
-
I think there has to be a point where one links the immeasurable to the immeasurable or shoe horn it into what one knows, in other words ''The movement of Matter''
Hi Vlad,
Don't blame me for quoting the bus analogy that you alluded to. It wasn't my analogy. I simply pointed out the shortcomings inherent within it. I think you need to cross swords with Sword, who was the person who brought it up in the first place.
As far as the immeasurable goes, yes I think the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient God is indeed immeasurable. Hence, my point about only being able to accept the existence of such by a process of faith. Obviously, in my case, I do not have that faith and therefore do not see any reason to even try to shoehorn such a God into my thinking. Indeed to do so would simply be an anomalous process in my case. The idea of the 'immeasurable' seems to me to be just a way of expressing that faith, nothing more.
-
Hi Vlad,
Don't blame me for quoting the bus analogy that you alluded to. It wasn't my analogy. I simply pointed out the shortcomings inherent within it. I think you need to cross swords with Sword, who was the person who brought it up in the first place.
As far as the immeasurable goes, yes I think the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient God is indeed immeasurable. Hence, my point about only being able to accept the existence of such by a process of faith. Obviously, in my case, I do not have that faith and therefore do not see any reason to even try to shoehorn such a God into my thinking. Indeed to do so would simply be an anomalous process in my case. The idea of the 'immeasurable' seems to me to be just a way of expressing that faith, nothing more.
What do you make of scientism AKA faith in science?
-
What do you make of scientism AKA faith in science?
A huge subject, Vlad.
However, if by that you mean that the idea that science is the only approach one should have, to the exclusion of any viewpoint, no, I don't go along with that. The best way I can explain it is by quoting Richard Feynman, who said:
“I have a friend who's an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don't agree with very well. He'll hold up a flower and say "look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. Then he says "I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing," and I think that he's kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is ... I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it's not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there's also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts.”