Faith & Belief: Induction vs Deduction

[Brownie]

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.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

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?

[Gordon]

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.

[floo]

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!

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[Brownie]

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.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

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.

[Brownie]

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.

[Hope]

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.

[Brownie]

I agree that there have been - and will be - many new "gods', even if they are not given the name, "God".

[Jack Knave]

I agree that there have been - and will be - many new "gods', even if they are not given the name, "God".

Money, power, freedom,...

[Brownie]

...fitness...status....celebrity....

[SusanDoris]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Hope]

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.

[SusanDoris]

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?

[floo]

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?

[ippy]

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

[Enki]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Enki]

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.”