Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by praty, Apr 27, 2011.
lol you dont give up do you? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Do you know what Winston Churchill's commencement speech was?
You did - as a literary device.
"Why?" as in why is Occam's razor an answer? Because it offers what you were asking for... an oriented thinking as to why the idea of God not existing is superior... due to not having the redundancy offered by the idea of God existing.
It is valueless to me in the way that saying my kettle boils water because God does it is valueless.
And as to whom it is valueless - to people who see no cause to call on the concept of "God" as an explanation.
If my opinions happen to coincide with the many then so be it, but I try not to be swayed by numbers, rather by the arguments put forth.
If someone wishes to posit a definition of God and a means to identify God then they are free to. Science will work with that definition, or any other that is brought forward.
Some are entirely unscientific, however.
In that particular response, the reference to my own position was after the more general point that agnostic atheism is the most rational position for those who do not consider there to be any evidence for the existence of God. i.e. I merely added that I considered myself part of those labelled as agnostic atheists.
It is precisely due to lack of evidence... or more accurately it is lack of evidence that can rationally be attributed to "God".
Evidence that could be attributed to "God" would be something that can never be explained by the underlying laws of the universe.
If one suggests something that merely currently can not to be explained then unless you can prove that it is actually impossible to explain it with the natural laws then the rational position would be to not assume some additional/redundant concept (God)... until such time as it can be shown to be required.
Some concepts of God are admittedly beyond the realm of evidence, but then for those how can we be other than agnostic?
To most current concepts of God, that have pushed themselves outside the realm of science, I can only be agnostic, and from there atheist (the "no belief" variety). To those that remain within the bounds of science I could possibly be strong-atheist... but would depend upon the precise definition put forward. I have yet to see a definition that is within the realm of science that has been proven as true.
If you seem to actually understand the meaning intended by someone but seem to then deliberately respond to the most negative interpretation you can come up with, I consider that to be disingenuous.
I guess I could always choose to believe you... that you speak the truth and that God exists and has spoken to you... and to rely on your authority... but then if I was to do that I would surely already have chosen to believe one of those you reference.
Begin with the assumption that it is not evidence (the rational position of not assuming something until necessary) and wait until it is necessary to call on "God" as an explanation for the evidence at hand.
It (rationally) is (or should be) the default position from the very start until "God" is a necessary explanation for the evidence.
So far to me it has not become so.
Again, that is to say God does not exist, but so far I have not seen God as a necessary explanation.
One can choose either to start with the assumption of God's existence, or the assumption of God's non-existence, and wait until there is no alternative but to change your view.
The former would lead one also to believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the FSM, the Celestial Teapot etc and everything else that people lay claim to without evidence to the contrary.
The latter, however, is (what I consider to be) the rational position.
Look who just joined in...
It's Stephan Hawking.
Faith is the opposite of knowledge.
as mentioned earlier, one cannot arrive at any knowledge based claim without initially implementing faith ... and as a further point, one cannot begin to hope to expand one's knowledge base without utilizing faith.
To do you justice however, I think you have to more properly define the words "faith" and "knowledge" if you want to classify them as opposites, because their broadness places them more succinctly as interactive .
'Unknown' is the opposite of 'known'.
and inductive knowledge is ...?
I would say faith is a kind of knowledge.
Take a look at this long article which goes into what Catholics mean by faith:
I highly encourage you to read it, please!
the inference of general laws from particular instances.
I pretty much ignore the strong belief stuff now that goes nowhere.
Once in a while I may come out of this retirement.
No, it's useless.
Stolen from FraggleRocker and extended:
Supernaturalism is (almost certainly) an instinct, plus it can be greatly grooved upon, and you can't reason some people out of an instinct. Very few can inspect and reject their own thoughts. "Knowledge" you are born with feels more true than knowledge you acquire later through reasoning and learning. And when they think of God they will ‘see’ more God and/or mistake felt sensations for it. Bypassing the believer works, though, to save time.
Working toward another opportunity for an apology?
Is "inductive knowledge" something that can be classified as "known", or should it be classified as "unknown"?
Since it is knowledge it is known.
The topic is inductive knowledge.
"Inductive" means as much as 'on faith' - do you realize that??
Deductive reasoning is much stronger, as inductive reasoning extends probability to 100%. (but a black swan was found in Australia). Inductive reasoning is still of observation of the actual; faith is about proposed unknowns and invisibles.
1 characterized by the inference of general laws from particular instances : instinct rather than inductive reasoning marked her approach to life.
i would think inductive would lead to deductive,
one has to actually decide to devote attention to deductive reasoning,
inductive is more of a generalized reasoning (see def below)
(deductive being a specific instance)
true enough with respect to definition of the term 'unknowns'
(unknowable/unknown right now/unknown how to describe?)
and the term 'invisibles' is only your own prejudice showing through..
they accepted on faith that all swans were white, no?
(or are you making the folly of "preserving strong belief" as you outlined in your OP?)
Separate names with a comma.