Faith & Belief: Induction vs Deduction

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

Ah, the sound of multiverses coming into existence....at random.

lying whoosh

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.   

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

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.

[Sebastian Toe]

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

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

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.

[Jack Knave]

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.

[Jack Knave]

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.

[NicholasMarks]

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.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

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

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

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.

[Enki]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Sebastian Toe]

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

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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''.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?   

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

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 thread did.

[Nearly Sane]

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 thread did.

ERM that's deduction you have done there, and one that misrepresents Sassy's views.

[Sebastian Toe]

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?

[Gordon]

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 thread did.

We've already dispensed with that silly claim.

[BashfulAnthony]

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.