- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
23 Mar 12
Originally posted by KellyJayAgain you are spectacularly failing to grasp what I am talking about or mean.
I again tell you, you accepting my reasons for God isn't something I worry
about. Your beliefs about what is and isn't important are good for you, but
mean nothing to me. You value what think needs to be valued, you give
somethings more weight than others, is it always the proper amount to get
at the truth....who knows? Your ideas and mine may not refle ...[text shortened]... n't depend on human thoughts only our opinions about reality
worry about such things.
Kelly
I am sure you don't give a flying monkeys about what I think, and never thought for a moment
anything different.
However as I keep saying there is but one reality that we live in and there are objective methods
for determining whether or not the beliefs we hold about what that reality is like are reasonable and/or
valid.
For example if you believe that the world is flat then we can do tests that conclusively prove that it is in fact
an irregular oblate spheroid.
If you believe that the sun goes around the earth then we can do tests that prove that no in fact the earth goes
around the sun.
If you believe that the world is only 6~10 thousand years old we can do tests that prove that it is in fact more
like 4.5 billion years old.
If you believe that the world is flat or that the sun goes around the earth or that the earth is 6000 yrs old then
you are simply and objectively wrong.
Your beliefs about reality are demonstrably and objectively false. They don't match the reality we live in.
Your or my opinion is as you say irrelevant.
It is the evidence that makes those beliefs wrong and not anyone's opinions on the subject.
Rationality, logic, skepticism and science are how we go about determining what the reality we live in is like and
how it works. And they are unbelievably successful in a way that nothing else is or ever has been.
Religion and faith on the other hand are hideously unsuccessful at creating an accurate picture of reality and they
in fact hinder any attempts to do so.
The evidence backs this up and shows this to be true.
Belief in god is unjustified not because I say so but because there IS NO EVIDENCE to support such a position and
evidence that contradicts it. (ie lack of expected evidence for example, or the evidence that shows beyond a reasonable
doubt that there are no such things as souls and thus no such thing as an afterlife)
Belief in god is unjustified because it requires faith, and faith has been shown not to work as a method for determining
what is real or true.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
23 Mar 12
Originally posted by KellyJayI DON'T KNOW WHERE EVERYTHING CAME FROM AS I HAVE SAID SEVERAL TIMES WHICH IS WHY
I just want you to tell me where everything came from! Why is it so hard?
If you cannot tell me how it all got here, than how do you know your views
about it are a reflection of reality? Seriously, if you don't know how the process
started how do you know your views about it are actually taking into account
all you need to, since you really do have hole ...[text shortened]... n't know how it started you have NO IDEA on how
large your lack of knowledge really is
Kelly
I CAN'T TELL YOU WHERE EVERYTHING CAME FROM.
IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU?
As I said before I don't even know IF the universe has a beginning let alone what, if anything, caused
it if it did have a beginning.
However as I have said before not knowing the answer means you keep looking and doesn't mean that you
make one up.
Is that clear and simple enough for you to understand?
23 Mar 12
Originally posted by KellyJay“...So where did it all come from? ...”
When I say everything I mean everything a part of this natural universe.
According to some everything is just part of some process that is changing
over time. It was in one state than another, this fromed from that and so on.
So where did it all come from? The answer I don't know is all we really got!
If it didn't start itself, something/someone else di ...[text shortened]... itself out of nothing, than something/someone did from
outside of this "everything".
Kelly
do you read my posts?
I just answered that.
“...The answer I don't know is all we really got! ...”
No. Read my posts again and then came back to me.
“...If no-thing can start itself out of nothing, ….”
nobody that has understood the big bang claims this nor believes this. This is NOT our premise. Neither I nor any rational scientist says something can come from”nothing”.”
We do NOT claim that something “ can start itself out of nothing” and, in-fact, we say the exact opposite is the case.
23 Mar 12
Originally posted by humyi told you that was going tp be your answer when this started.
“...So where did it all come from? ...”
do you read my posts?
I just answered that.
“...The answer I don't know is all we really got! ...”
No. Read my posts again and then came back to me.
“...If no-thing can start itself out of nothing, ….”
nobody that has understood the big bang claims this nor believes this. This is NOT our premise. Neither I ...[text shortened]... mething “ can start itself out of nothing” and, in-fact, we say the exact opposite is the case.
Kelly
23 Mar 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeI told you that was going to be your answer when then started.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE EVERYTHING CAME FROM AS I HAVE SAID SEVERAL TIMES WHICH IS WHY
I CAN'T TELL YOU WHERE EVERYTHING CAME FROM.
IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU?
As I said before I don't even know IF the universe has a beginning let alone what, if anything, caused
it if it did have a beginning.
However as I have said before not knowing the answer ...[text shortened]... esn't mean that you
make one up.
Is that clear and simple enough for you to understand?
Nothing new here.
Kelly
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
23 Mar 12
Originally posted by KellyJayif you were doing a jigsaw and you had one bit left to put in, would you be confident that the rest of the jigsaw was correct or would think it could all be wrong, i will only know if its all correct once i have the final bit in place?
I told you that was going to be your answer when then started.
Nothing new here.
Kelly
when faraday was trying to figure out electricity and he discovered the magnetic field should he not talk about it as fact because he didnt know everything about electricity?
i really dont understand your argument that because we dont know one part of something the rest is unreliable.
23 Mar 12
Originally posted by stellspalfieYou have an issue with that analogy, you've no idea on how large the puzzle
if you were doing a jigsaw and you had one bit left to put in, would you be confident that the rest of the jigsaw was correct or would think it could all be wrong, i will only know if its all correct once i have the final bit in place?
when faraday was trying to figure out electricity and he discovered the magnetic field should he not talk about it a ...[text shortened]... understand your argument that because we dont know one part of something the rest is unreliable.
is.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayEven so, if you have 10,000 pieces done and they all fit together and make a coherent picture, I think it would be reasonable to go forward assuming that those 10,000 are probably about right.
You have an issue with that analogy, you've no idea on how large the puzzle
is.
Kelly
Even if the original puzzle later turns out to be a googleplex more, the above assumption is still a reasonable basis for proceeding.
--- Penguin
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
23 Mar 12
Originally posted by KellyJayi can see the jigsaw isnt working for you and has become far to literal. lets go back to electricity, we know almost everything about it but there are still things we dont know the same for gravity. now are you suggesting that because we dont know everything about electricity and gravity that we actually know nothing?
Well if you are only seeing one piece left but don't realize you have a billion to go I'd say you are far short from done.
Kelly
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
23 Mar 12
Originally posted by PenguinGood point well put.
Even so, if you have 10,000 pieces done and they all fit together and make a coherent picture, I think it would be reasonable to go forward assuming that those 10,000 are probably about right.
Even if the original puzzle later turns out to be a googleplex more, the above assumption is still a reasonable basis for proceeding.
--- Penguin
23 Mar 12
3 edits
Originally posted by humyyou are making the dreadful all-to-common fallacy of probability here of completely confusing and completely failing to make the distinction between two DIFFERENT types of probability; specifically, the probability of a process occurring that inevitably gives an unlikely outcome and the probability of that unlikely outcome being whatever it is.
your post is confused and fatally flawed as I will demonstrate:
“....Regarding claim (1), if we do nothing more than weigh the probability of an event against the reliability of the witness to the event, this would, in principle, lead us to deny highly improbable events we would otherwise reasonably infer actually happened. For instance, if a news station an ving faith in our world does!
So my original assertion stands firm:
Faith is immoral.
There is no confusing of the two different probabilities because I only ever referred to one of them, the probability of the outcome. Of course the probability of the process of picking the lottery numbers is virtually guaranteed to provide an improbable outcome, but for my purposes that is irrelevant. What matters is that the news reporting the exact set of numbers P had picked is extraordinary considering the odds against. From P's perspective, the fact that the lottery is virtually certain to have picked some improbable number doesn't factor in; according to Hume's in principle argument, based on the improbability of P's number being the winning number, P is right to require enough evidence of the news agency's reliability to counter-balance that improbability. The absurdity being that even a 99.9% reliability would be insufficient to counter-balance it. Hume's in principle argument against the impossibility of eye-witness testimony establishing miracles fails, since it fails to take into consideration other factors. The distinction you have made between the probability of process vs. outcome, although insightful, does not pertain. If you'd like to propose an argument that actually disagrees with mine, I'm all ears.
In addition, we have VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE that the lottery can happen; if you want verification, you don't require mere other witnesses for you could witness the lottery yourself next time it happens. We have no such VERIFIABLE evidence of miracles.
If verifiable evidence were the standard in terms of past events, we might as well disregard as false much of world history. Regardless, verification is not the issue. What is at issue is the irrational standard of evidence for miracles you've proposed; namely, that no eye-witness account (e.g., the NT) is sufficient to establish the occurrence of a miracle. But reliance on the testimony of a trusted eye-witness is a legitimate avenue of belief-formation. My point being there is no in principle rejection of an eye-witness account simply because it happens to involve supernatural events; to do so is irrational. There are other factors to incorporate into the equation (as I've shown), the net result being that extraordinary events do not always require extraordinary evidence.
“...Once you make yourself come to have one absurd belief ( such as there is a God ) then that is just one short step away from making yourself come to have other absurd beliefs ( such as certain races are inferior and should be eliminated because of this etc ) ….” ( just one of my quotes in argument for my claim )
what is your counterargument to this? I have yet to hear any counterargument from anyone on these forums.
Again, how does one "make" oneself believe in something? It is not at all clear that such a thing is even possible. This reminds me of Twhitehead's point regarding Pascal's wager. Even if one has every prudential reason to believe in God, how does that make it possible to believe in God? I don't think anyone really has a choice concerning what they believe or don't believe. I see here that you consider God's existence "absurd". Did you choose to believe this? Could you likewise choose to believe in God's existence despite its being absurd to you? If so, you'd have to commit yourself to the notion that evidence and justification play no part in your current beliefs, and I doubt you're willing to concede that. Your argument falls apart from the get-go when you assume that people of faith "choose" to believe as they do despite evidence and justification.
Otherwise, you are simply presenting a slipper slope fallacy (if you believe in God, this will lead to hatred, which will lead to violence, etc.). It is not AT ALL the case that faith inevitably leads to any of the horrible, terrible outcomes you cite. Even within Islam there exists only a small minority of the Ummah that are prone to terrorist acts, i.e., the Salafis, and even among the Salafi there is a minority. I understand that you may believe that religious faith, in itself, is dangerous. The problem is, you have no evidence of this. At least nothing to suggest that without faith humanity would peacefully coexist. Much more likely violence towards outsiders is a natural human tendency and religion is oftentimes the most available uniting factor for any given society. If all faith disappeared from the face of the Earth, borders would still remain, supply and demand would remain, wealth inequalities would remain, hatred would remain, conquest would remain, racism would remain, etc., etc.
Your case against faith is misguided and muddled.
23 Mar 12
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeConfirmation bias is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Even within confirmation bias beliefs are formed based on evidence and justification. The failure lies in the refusal to entertain opposing viewpoints, evidence against, and counter-arguments, not whether or not it is possible for beliefs to be formed in the absence of evidence and justification, which is what is at issue here. It is your claim that faith involves believing something without evidence and justification. I'm saying that this is not possible.
[b]"I agree with you, but only insofar as faith is defined as belief lacking any evidence or justification.
The problem is, it doesn't seem possible for anyone, religious or otherwise, to form beliefs in this fashion."
Actually it is more than possible it's almost inevitable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
http://yo oesn't mean that they have any evidence or a rational justification
for those beliefs.[/b]
I think your case against faith is misguided. It seems your (and humy's) gripe is simply with anyone who fails to properly exercise reason. Period. Instead you are targeting people of faith as the irrational ones, even though doing so is not only biased, but unsubstantiated. So far both of you have only begged the question where faith is concerned, assuming that faith in God is, in fact, unreasonable. But this is far from apparent. Until you can establish conclusively that belief in God is unreasonable (i.e., not based on evidence or rational justification), you have no basis for claiming that the embrace of faith necessarily involves the refusal to exercise reason.