I believe I replied to that. I didn’t take your post as an argument against the existence of God as much as an explanation of your beliefs. I think what you posted explains your reasons quite well and it’s perfectly understandable why you would believe as you do.
There are logical arguments against the existence of God that can be made through philosophy-- argument from evil, argument from design, etc. Some of these arguments can be rather strong. However, I think most of these arguments assume orthodox Christianity only and don’t actually apply to all theistic belief systems, or even all Christian belief systems.[/quote]
You did respond, and I appreciated that. It was mainly an explanation of my beliefs, but my reason (1) was the argument from evil. I’m just trying to make the point here that if we’re going to disprove men walking on water or talking to God, then we need to first disprove God. We can’t say, “it is impossible for man to walk on (liquid) water” unless we can say there is no God. If God exists, all manner of miracles are possible. What confuses me is why agnostics would call someone crazy for believing that God spoke to him. Agnostics don’t believe it is possible to know whether or not God exists, so surely the possibility exists…?
My entire argument here has been geared toward showing that religious faith in a speaking god is based on such poor inductive reasoning as to be literally insane.[/quote]
Yeah, but your argument fails miserably.[/quote]
It certainly seems to be gaining ground in this discussion.
It is you who is postulating the possibility of a God, ascribing characteristics to him, and then arguing that given those qualities he could do whatever he wanted?
Actually we really don’t know if there is a God. I think you agree to this. If there is one there could be made quite a good argument that, like you mentioned, he is evil. You have faith however in the notion that he is good, based on lord knows what sort of experience or reasoning, and take it on faith also that “some” of the people who report having recieved communications from him were not deluded, lying or hallucinating. You do this despite the fact that there is no scientifically verifiable evidence that he ever talked and there is loads that people delude themselves, lie, hallucinate and succumb to whatever insanity they were exposed to as children. You were raised as a Christian, have been taught these lies your entire life and use Christianity to buttress your self esteem now. “Still” you argue that your thoughts might be messages from God rather than just thoughts.
In your confusion you go on to nonsense like this…
[quote]Opposing belief in fairies, or opposing the tax breaks or changes in educational policy?
Apples and oranges. [/quote]
Both for God sakes.
They didn’t get very far did they? In fact it was the Christian right that elected the knucklehead you currently have in office. Of course it is reasonable for people to question whatever belief system it is that unites that block of voters.
Depends on the beliefs.
You are a million miles away form that and you know it.
He isn’t a dictator. He was elected. He is a Christian and the dictatorial qualities he posesses stem directly from his religious faith.
Hard not to occassionaly ridicule the patently ridiculous. Sorry.
An atheist has no chance of being elected president.
Of course, delusional thought systems allow people to avoid reality, for a time.
Perhaps, but a belief in a
God that talks
leads people to the mistaken impression that they know what God thinks. Could anything be more arrogant, potentially dangerous? Apparently not in the modern world. Between the Muslims and the Christains we will see Armagedon yet.
Why is it so difficult to understand that we don’t know what was behind the big bang. We do know however with some degree of certainty that what came after has obeyed the same physical laws that exist now. We certainly have no reason to believe that they were broken anytime in the last few thousand years. People lie, hallucinate and make up stories about events that contradict the physical laws of the universe but we don’t believe those stories unless we are bonko, stupid or horribly misguided.
[quote=“RDO”]Faith is grounded on inductive reasoning. I’ve explained it before and nobody contradicted what I said.
You don’t deduce faith. It’s a choice based on an inductive process and the continual evaluation of experiences in light of schema.[/quote]Ha! I was hoping you would fall for that, and you did!
Now here’s the whole paragraph with the more relevant parts bolded:
[quote]Formal logic, as most people learn it, is deductive rather than inductive. Some philosophers claim to have created systems of inductive logic, but it is controversial whether a logic of induction is even possible. In contrast to deductive reasoning, conclusions arrived at by inductive reasoning do not necessarily have the same degree of certainty as the initial premises. For example, a conclusion that all swans are white is false, but may have been thought true in Europe until the settlement of Australia, when Black Swans were discovered. Inductive arguments are never binding but they may be cogent. Inductive reasoning is deductively invalid. (An argument in formal logic is valid if and only if it is not possible for the premises of the argument to be true whilst the conclusion is false.) In induction there are always many conclusions that can reasonably be related to certain premises. Inductions are open; deductions are closed. It is however possible to derive a true statement using inductive reasoning if you know the conclusion. The only way to have an efficient argument by induction is for the known conclusion to be able to be true only if an unstated external conclusion is true, from which the initial conclusion was built and has certain criteria to be met in order to be true (separate from the stated conclusion). By substitution of one conclusion for the other, you can inductively find out what evidence you need in order for your induction to be true. For example, you have a window that opens only one way, but not the other. Assuming that you know that the only way for that to happen is that the hinges are faulty, inductively you can postulate that the only way for that window to be fixed would be to apply oil (whatever will fix the unstated conclusion). From there on you can successfully build your case. However,
if your unstated conclusion is false, which can only be proven by deductive reasoning,
then your whole argument by induction collapses. Thus ultimately, pure inductive reasoning does not exist.[/quote]
A-Inductive reasoning is controversial, so you should not cry foul if others disagree.
B-Your known conclusion that God exist is not able to be objectively true.
C-Unstated conclusions are not true either since they are based on subjective beliefs
D-Belief in God is “weak induction” by definition. (at that)
E-(In conclusion, and that’s deductive reasoning for you…)Your subjective logic, and your inductive reasoning collapse. Let me quote it again for you:[quote]If your unstated conclusion is false, which can only be proven by deductive reasoning, then your whole argument by induction collapses. Thus ultimately, pure inductive reasoning does not exist.[/quote]So much for your inductive reasoning in comparison with the deductive reasoning of others who do not share your faith.
Deductive reasoning from an agnostic POV: There are no objective evidence that God exists, so it’s impossible to prove that God exists, and it’s bonkos to tell others that their belief is irrational, illogic and unreasonable if they do not agree with the inductive reasoning that constitutes religious faith. Perhaps it’s even bonkos to believe that God indeed exists.
It hasn’t gained any ground from the start. Your argument started as invalid and continues to be invalid so long as you include logical fallacies. You were making progress towards actually completing a proof for a while (although I don’t think the proof would have ended up saying what you were out to prove, but at least it would say something), but since then you’ve gone back to arguing without reason.
Depends on what the argument is. It’s only circular reasoning if I assume what I am trying to prove. If I’m explaining why your argument doesn’t work, then I’m not assuming what I am out to prove.
I don’t believe I have used circular reasoning in any of my posts. If you can show where I used what I am trying to prove as a premise, I’ll admit to an error. But if you are trying to say words are coming from thin air then you are assuming there is no god to do so, and it is proper for me to point out that if there’s a god then no natural laws are broken and there is an entity speaking the words.
Again, if you see a particular place where I use as a premise the thing I am trying to prove, point it out to me and I will admit my mistake (assuming that what you are pointing to is actually a real fallacy).
I know there’s a God. But if you mean “we as a community” then I will agree. There is no consensus and no way for me to demonstrate what I know. There is no way to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of God.
Do you seriously think that most people you meet are deluded, hallucinate, frequently lie, and are likely insane? Sure, such things happen. But that does not mean that it is true of any specific case for which there is no evidence that it happened. It is possible, but not probable.
Again, you are trying to apply Occam’s Razor, but in doing so you are making two mistakes. The first is that Occam’s Razor is not intended for use in philosophy. The second is making the assumption that there is no such thing as a god.
Bob, you cannot assume they are lies. You must allow for the possibility that everything that the prophets said is true. You have no proof that anything there is a lie, only your own belief. Nothing else. So if you want to show it is somehow irrational to believe in gods or that gods speak to people you cannot make the assumption that it is all false to do so. That is what circular reasoning is.
Sorry, Bob, you don’t understand what I related to you. Sometimes there is uncertainty, but there are times there is no uncertainty. Don’t pretend you understand my experiences. You don’t. You are just making guesses and assumptions based on your experiences.
And you are still begging the question. How can you argue that any particular thought in my head isn’t a message from God? Your just think it is more probable that it isn’t. But you think that because… you don’t believe there’s a God.
The nonsense was yours.
[quote][quote]Opposing belief in fairies, or opposing the tax breaks or changes in educational policy?
Apples and oranges. [/quote]Both for God sakes.[/quote]
Why should it be noble to try and tear down a person’s belief in fairies? It has nothing to do with tax breaks or changes in education. Tax breaks and changes in education that are unfair should be opposed for their lack of merit. But someone’s belief in fairies (whether they exist or not) is inconsequential to you or anyone else.
No, because it was unconstitutional and bad for society.
I voted against Bush for his second term. In the first term I figured he’d be better than Gore. I think he’s a horrible president and some of his policies (such as trying to sponsor faith-based programs specifically) are an abuse of power.
But it has nothing to do with him being Christian. It has to do with him being an idiot (compared with what would be expected of a president) and having sold his soul to special interests.
Any belief you can’t be sure are false and for which another person has reason to believe.
Not really. It’s just as likely as a constitutional amendment to require the president to be Christian.
Now you’re being bonko. Bush is one guy. I think he’s probably the worst president in US history, but the best presidents in US history have also been Christian IMHO. And Bush isn’t the only person in the world. If you wanted to talk about just Bush you should have gone ahead and said him.
Plenty of dictators have been atheists. Plenty of bad leaders have not believed in any god. This is such a bonko argument. I think you’re delusional here.
Oh, I agree. That’s why I’m calling you bonko from now on. Your arguments are patently ridiculous but you seem to think they are good. Obviously bonko.
You mean, because of democracy? You mean, because the majority of people in the country think atheism is bonko and can’t be trusted? Hmm…
Yeah. So, your continued lack of belief in God will allow you to avoid reality, for a time. Then you’ll die, meet God, and realize how bonko you’ve been all this time.
[quote]Perhaps, but a belief in a
God that talks
leads people to the mistaken impression that they know what God thinks.[/quote]
Hmm… this is new bonkoness.
Sort of like, a belief that people talk to you and now you know what they think… not much different except you have a preconceived notion that there is no God.
But keep in mind that one common belief among theists is that it is impossible to really know the mind of God. You might know God wants you to do this or that, but only as much as you are told.
Many, many things are much, much more arrogant and much more potentially dangerous.
Like believing man is not accountable to anyone higher than himself.
Might makes right
“entitlement”
Oh, I suspect it will be arrogant atheists supremely confident in their superiority that will set things off in the end. There are great atheists with wonderful morals and good philosophies. But a lack of belief in accountability to a higher power, arrogance, contempt for the beliefs of others, and great power are a volatile combination.
I understand where you’re coming from. You’re saying (I think): "Let’s start with what we know. Let’s start with the laws of physics. Let’s start with scientifically observable and measurable reality. From there we’ll determine whether a claim has any credibility.”
That’s a good starting point for any scientific inquiry, or even deciding whether to begin one. The problem is that if God exists, we have no reason to believe he cannot violate physical laws. Of course we are still going to want objectively verifiable evidence that those laws were violated before we believe such things occurred, right? I do, and I’m sure you do as well. But RDO is not arguing that we shouldn’t. And he isn’t trying to provide scientific proof of God. His entire argument is that a sane, rational person can have an experience he rationally interprets as contact with God, and therefore rationally believe in God based on that experience.
Your rebuttal, I think, is that communication with God falls outside of the realm of possibility, and is therefore not a credible claim. I see no problem with that argument, assuming you can make a persuasive argument against the existence of God. But since you do not believe it is possible to prove or disprove the existence of God, your argument falls short.
[quote=“joshini”][quote=“RDO”]Faith is grounded on inductive reasoning. I’ve explained it before and nobody contradicted what I said.
You don’t deduce faith. It’s a choice based on an inductive process and the continual evaluation of experiences in light of schema.[/quote]Ha! I was hoping you would fall for that, and you did![/quote]
Ah, you fell for thinking I fell for something. :loco: You’re bonkers.
I know all about deduction and induction. If you read carefully you will come to realize that inductive reasoning can only be claimed not to exist in terms of proof of a point. Inductive reasoning is perfectly fine for support of a point. When discussing the rationality of things you almost always must use inductive reasoning.
Inductive reasoning is not controversial. The use of inductive proofs in philosophy is. Inductive proofs in computer science is not.
That’s nonsensical. My “known conclusion”? “Can’t be ‘objectively true’”?
Forming the conclusion “God exists” from inductive reasoning is possible. Proving it in an inductive proof may be false.
No, no. Unstated conclusions are not proven true or evaluate to true in a truth table when based on inductive reasoning. And yes, it is subjective. That’s the drawback of inductive reasoning.
Correct. Evidence for God that can be counted up and shown to another person makes for a weak inductive case. That’s why it is easy to be a skeptic. Nothing I haven’t been saying.
My arguments on this thread have been using deductive reasoning. My belief in God can be described as inductive reasoning. So can your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow and that most cats have 4 legs.
These aren’t things that can be proven, but it is rational to believe.
What I’m going to do is make a deductive proof to show that it is rational.
Nobody here besides me is actually using deductive reasoning. Do you know what an inductive proof is? Have you seen me trying to use one?
Faith is an inductive process, yes. That means it cannot be proven. But arguments about the rationality of faith can be made deductively.
Now you sound like Bob. I take that back. Bob’s argument has a lot less holes than that. You didn’t use deductive reasoning. You made sloppy comments. To make a deductive argument from that mess up there you must:
define bonkos
explain why to have proof of something there must be “objective evidence”
define irrational
explain why inductive reasoning cannot be used in faith
No, no. Unstated conclusions are not proven true or evaluate to true in a truth table when based on inductive reasoning.[/quote]Exactly. You need to use deductive reasoning proving your conclusion true in order for your inductive reasoning not to collapse. But your reasoning is purely inductive. Such is faith in God. [quote] And yes, it is subjective. That’s the drawback of inductive reasoning.[/quote]It’s the drawback of your position in this thread.
[quote]I know all about deduction and induction. If you read carefully you will come to realize that inductive reasoning can only be claimed not to exist in terms of proof of a point. Inductive reasoning is perfectly fine for support of a point. When discussing the rationality of things you almost always must use inductive reasoning. [/quote]Deductive reasoning is far more valid than inductive reasoning, and no, there is no need to use inductive reasoning to rationalize about God unless you choose to believe in God.
Inductive reasoning doesn’t prove anything, it only supports your position as you said. Deductive reasoning, OTOH, uses true premises:
It is true that there are no objective evidence that God exists (yet). It is true that people often lie and hallucinate. Those are two true premises. It is then logical to deduct (deductive reasoning) that subjective evidence/ logic and inductive reasoning are invalid in a rational debate about the existence of God. In other words, it is logical to disbelieve that God exists while it is illogical to believe that God exists.
It’s like I said earlier, religious faith defies logic, it doesn’t apply logic. Er, well, it applies inductive logic, but that logic collapses with the absence of any proof/truth which requires to be based on deductive reasoning. “It is controversial whether a logic of induction is even possible.”
[quote]Correct. Evidence for God that can be counted up and shown to another person makes for a weak inductive case. [/quote]Yes, and that’s why your position in this thread is quite weak.
RDO believes that his experience of God are eyewitness experiences, ass he experienced them. but that is a false position. he did not witness these events as occurring external to his body, but as internal experiences in his mental realm.
You can’t see God with your eyes in a way that an unbiased co-observer would be able to corroborate, therefore it is NOT eyewitnessing. It is exactly the kind of evidence that is NOT accepted in a court, or if it is presented, the very next witness is a psychiatrist who ends up prescribing lithium. it is not objective evidence, but subjective experience, and the two are streets apart.
RDO’s entire ‘logical’ position here relies on that assumption, that there is evidence because he has ‘seen’ it. Well, i would reject that argument immediately.
Inductive reasoning doesn’t collapse. Inductive proofs (in philosophy) do.
Actually, no, Bob’s is. The only thing I use induction to support is my belief in God, and I make no claim that my belief in God constitutes a proof. My arguments that it is rational to have belief in God are purely deductive. They are deductive because they begin with premises which lead to conclusions.
Bob’s argument that it is more likely that people lie, hallucinate, etc. is using induction. It is looking at experiences and attempting to generalize from the experiences. That is the essence of induction. And since he is trying to prove that belief in a talking god is less rational than belief that anyone who belief that anyone who has seen god lies or hallucinates, his use of induction makes his argument collapse. Use of induction in a deductive proof creates a fallacy.
I don’t use induction in a deductive proof. Everyone uses induction for things they believe.
No, it’s only the drawback of my faith. I cannot use my faith as proof of something. My position in this thread is founded on deductive logic. It is universal. If the form of my arguments are valid and the premises I give are true, then I am right. My faith in god is based on inductive logic, it is subjective. But I don’t attempt to show that my belief must be correct.
Who’s doing that? The other side. They’re the ones trying to apply inductive reasoning in a deductive proof.
Inductive reasoning only supports my belief in God. Deductive reasoning will prove my position that it is rational to have such a belief.
Sure. And here are two more true premises:
There exists no objectively verifiable evidence that God does not exist.
It is true that people often tell the truth and see things as they really are.
How can you go from your two premises to your conclusion? You’re bonkers! Your premises don’t include anything about the validity of induction. If you want to discuss the validity of induction in your conclusion then you must introduce it in your premises. The same is true about the word rational. It must be defined before the conclusion. Nutty, nutty, nutty.
For a valid, correct argument you must do something like this:
In deductive logic the premises of the argument must always evaluate to be true for the argument to evaluate to true.
Correct deductive arguments always evaluate to true.
Inductive arguments do not necessarily evaluate to true in philosophical discussion.
Arguments concerning the existence and qualities of God or gods are philosophical discussions.
Inductive arguments cannot be used in correct deductive arguments concerning the existence and qualities of God or gods.
In other words, that’s bonko. It’s a non sequitur of the 12th magnitude. (I made up the '12th magnitude part.)
In a deductive proof. If you are trying to use experiences that cause faith as part of a deductive proof of God’s existence then the argument collapses. That’s why I expressly say that you can’t prove the existence of God.
Only in philosophical debate. In day to day life induction is standard practice for all rational people. you use it without even thinking. In computer science where it is possible to know all possible results through algorithms, inductive proofs work perfectly.
It would be if that is what I’ve ever been arguing. But I’ve never been arguing that you can show your beliefs to someone else and they should believe you based on your evidence. You’re so totally bonkers.
There are many reports of the dead being resurrected. You yourseld have stated that you know over a dozen people who have been deceased and then lived to tell about it.
[quote=“urodacus”]RDO believes that his experience of God are eyewitness experiences, ass he experienced them. but that is a false position. he did not witness these events as occurring external to his body, but as internal experiences in his mental realm.
You can’t see God with your eyes in a way that an unbiased co-observer would be able to corroborate, therefore it is NOT eyewitnessing. It is exactly the kind of evidence that is NOT accepted in a court, or if it is presented, the very next witness is a psychiatrist who ends up prescribing lithium. it is not objective evidence, but subjective experience, and the two are streets apart.
RDO’s entire ‘logical’ position here relies on that assumption, that there is evidence because he has ‘seen’ it. Well, I would reject that argument immediately.[/quote]
Good argument, urodacus.
You are right. I probably cannot use my personal experiences in a court of law. At least, not the majority of them. Most of them are only useful to me. My mentioning eyewitness testimony as being court admissible was in response to Sandman saying that a person telling his Mom he saw something wasn’t evidence. That’s incorrect. It’s strong evidence.
A person’s feelings and uncorroborated experiences are not evidence for another person. But they are evidence to the person experiencing them. (Those who don’t have the experience have no access to the evidence.)
For example, you could say you felt very sad when someone died. That isn’t evidence for someone else. Nobody else could feel your emotions. A police detective would likely be quite skeptical of your statement if you were the murder suspect. But, you personally would know that you had been sad. That’s all the evidence you need.
So, as I’ve been saying many times, religious experience is usually not objective or able to be corroborated. Those instances where it is objective and able to be corroborated are usually called miracles and generally everyone involved in the event can be thought to be biased before the event occurred and their testimony given little weight.
Scientific evidence is really necessary to convincingly give evidence to another person. It is not necessary to rationally hold a belief yourself.
I admit to the logical possibility of God but do not agree that there is enough scientifically valid evidence for the theory that he talks to make belief in such a theory even remotely rational. People say they speak to God but there are more rational explanations than the conclusion that God actually did talk. Perhaps some of the prophets intended that their stories be interpreted figuratively, perhaps they were edited somewhere along the line, perhaps they were suffering from delusions and hallucinations, perhap their whole society was waithing for a word from God so they provided one on the hope of some recognition. There are loads of other explanations beyond the idea that the creator of the universe actually spoke, something we have zero scientific evidence for.
There are many reports of the dead being resurrected. You yourseld have stated that you know over a dozen people who have been deceased and then lived to tell about it.
I believe in bein resurrected. [/quote]
Technically, that’s being raised from the dead. I believe most Christian denominations that believe in resurrection of the physical body to include immortality as part of resurrection.
But your belief in coming back from the dead is based on personal experience. Not everyone will believe it.
[quote=“R. Daneel Olivaw”] Faith is grounded on inductive reasoning. I’ve explained it before and nobody contradicted what I said.
You don’t deduce faith. It’s a choice based on an inductive process and the continual evaluation of experiences in light of schema.[/quote]
Faith… yes that’s a powerful catalyst.
Where do you draw your faith from? Does it come from what you learnt as a child? Or perhaps from years of reading religious texts and choosing from amonst those texts excerpts that fit your own thoughts.
What does God have faith in? Does God have faith that mere mortals will have faith in God?
Question for RDO… you have mentioned the human soul. When do we aquire those souls? Does it come when the one lucky sperm does a big bang with that egg and conception takes place?
Or does the soul develop along with ones intellectual development.
Does a child born without a brain have a soul?
Does God have a soul?
If Sandman is souless how are we going to get him to heaven as you claim we all get there eventually. Does he have to provide community service to get in?
Does God reside within the dark matter?
If God is all around us, isn’t it also true that Satan is also all around us at the same time?
Ahhhhhhhweeeeeee Bob is wavering… soon to be saved and off to heaven for Bob wee heeee
Bob before you get there you get baptized first, and then surely you will soon be talking to God.
Come back real soon and tell us all about it please.
Bob if God exists then there is no reason that the all powerful would not be able to communicate with us in a fashion that cannot be scientifically proven.
We’ve all had those time when we’ve been with close friends and for f’s sake didn’t it seem they were reading our thoughts without a word spoken.
I’ve had it… you know the feeling your friend just spoke to you when they physicaly didnt? RDO is a bit slow on this one he should have had an experience like that before ( I would assume… but not proven )
Why is it that my cat will wait in one place at our house when I’m on the way home. How the hell does he know when I’m on the way? MY wife calls me to ask when I will be home as she knows I’m coming.
[quote=“R. Daneel Olivaw”] It’s only circular reasoning if I assume what I am trying to prove. If I’m explaining why your argument doesn’t work, then I’m not assuming what I am out to prove.
don’t believe I have used circular reasoning in any of my posts. If you can show where I used what I am trying to prove as a premise, I’ll admit to an error. But if you are trying to say words are coming from thin air then you are assuming there is no god to do so, and it is proper for me to point out that if there’s a god then no natural laws are broken and there is an entity speaking the words. [/quote]
You assume there is a God. On the bassis of that assumption you believe it is possible that he could do anything, including talk. Next you sift through the mountains of claims that people have of hearing God talk, mostly from schizophrenics, and decide which were authentic.
See
No, I assume they are crazy if they say crazy things like that they just spoke to God.
You are using almost the same circular reasoning as me but in the opposite direction. You say there is a god so some of the thoughts in your head likley come from him. I say we don’t know if there is a god but we do know people can do extraordinary things with their brains such as convince themselves that their thoughts are messages from God so the chances that the messages come fromn God are infinitely small. So small as to hardly worth considering.
If they start unecessary wars every aspect of their belief structure should be examined
He asked for God’s permission before the war and apparently received it. That and the fact that the majority of Bush supporters were Christian brings the whole religion up for a good look over from the rest of the population. This thing has been growing and morphing like brain rot for decades and explains a lot of what is wrong with the world and your country.
[quote=“Satellite TV”] Bob if God exists then there is no reason that the all powerful would not be able to communicate with us in a fashion that could [edit] be scientifically proven.
[/quote]
