So why doesn't God write in the sky?

[Kaninchen]

Well thats just another dimension of looking at it. But any system of knowledge is based on assumptions without evidence i.e. faith. Thats a fact.

God Bless

A ‘woven web of guesses’ as Xenophanes put it.

The differences, of course, lie in things like experimental testability and in whether one is looking for ‘certain truth’ or ‘tentative truth’. You seem to be demanding of atheists an acknowledgement of faith in ‘truths’ about method but what an atheist would consider ‘truth’ isn’t the same thing as you are suggesting - ie your ‘truth of Christianity’ isn’t the same thing as ‘truth of scientific method’.

Science isn’t about truth, it’s about explanation, it’s not about establishing truth and any ‘truths’ it may come up with are tentative.

 

[ddarko]

i could bust out my philosophy of science textbook if you like. though it says the exact same thing, so its rather pointless and id rather not repeat myself.

lol. Ok hotshot. Just answer the simple question, what evidence do you have for the claim that “All truths need evidence”. Ask your philosophy professor.

If you can provide evidence for this, then this debate is over.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

On what basis would one demarcate whether Judaism is incomplete or not?

Well if there is a logically consistent system that has more truths than Judaism, why should I not believe in it ?

Muslims would merely reply that the texts upon which Christians would base those arguments are perverted while their texts are correct.

On what basis would one demarcate whether they are correct or not?

Sure but once again there God becomes responsible then. You see, muslims believe that Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe the same God. The only caveat is that Jews and Christians are wrong. But that would mean that God lead his people astray. Especially in the case of Christ, he did something stupid by making it look like Christ died on the cross and rose from the dead. He even made his prophet say that he was equal to God, and son of God. So its actually impossible for a Muslim to overcome this point. If you are looking for some good references, take a look at William Craig’s debates with muslims.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

A ‘woven web of guesses’ as Xenophanes put it.

The differences, of course, lie in things like experimental testability and in whether one is looking for ‘certain truth’ or ‘tentative truth’. You seem to be demanding of atheists an acknowledgement of faith in ‘truths’ about method but what an atheist would consider ‘truth’ isn’t the same thing as you are suggesting - ie your ‘truth of Christianity’ isn’t the same thing as ‘truth of scientific method’.

Science isn’t about truth, it’s about explanation, it’s not about establishing truth and any ‘truths’ it may come up with are tentative.

Aah, no. You see even the terms “testability”, “verification”, “prediction” are all concepts accepted without evidence. For an example, you can’t even provide any evidence that “truths need evidence”. To provide evidence to prove that claim will first have to presuppose the claim it-self. Thus it can never be proved. It just has to be believed without evidence.

It might at first seem like you can get out of this by saying we only assume reasonable things or things that are of use. But then the problem comes back again as to what it means to say “reasonable” and “useful”. Those things will in turn be required to be accepted without evidence to be true. Faith is inescapable. ***“I believe so that I may understand” ***

It does not matter if you interchange explanation for truth. You are still facing the same problem. You have to first define what constitutes an explanation. So in any system of knowledge, the basics are without evidence. Its very elementary really and I am baffled at why you can’t see this.

God Bless

 

[AntiTheist]

We all make certain very basic assumptions. In philosophy, they’re called “rational assumptions,” but I’ve started to prefer the language “necessary assumptions.” These are things like, “There is a world outside of me that my senses reveal” and “Other minds exist in this world.”

I fully admit that you cannot “prove” these assumptions, though indeed experience confirms their utility. It certainly seems, for example, that there’s a world outside of me that operates independently of my thoughts, and it certainly seems that other people have the capability to think in ways that are different from mine. Even if we were wrong about these assumptions, there appears to be no way to ever find out that we’re wrong, and since it’s so dang useful to make these assumptions, we do.

In order to function, I am forced to make the necessary assumption that there’s a world outside of me and that there are other people.

Within the context of the “external world” granted by these assumptions, we can observe that claims made about the external world supported by evidence from the external world are far more likely to be true than claims made about the external world supported by no evidence or by evidence drawn only from my internal world of feelings and emotions. And it’s not just my personal observations that evidence-based inquiry works when evaluating claims about the external world: we have the entire history of human civilization using evidence-based inquiry to determine the likelihood that claims are true.

The computer that you’re reading this message on is a good example of one of the results of evidence-based inquiry. The people who designed it didn’t determine how to do it by consulting their precious feelings or their intuition: they actually examined the real world and supported their claims with evidence from the world outside of their heads.

It’s asinine to think that just because all humans are forced to make a handful of necessary assumptions in order to function, this means that no claim ever needs to have evidence to support it. There’s an old, old game in the land of theology called “Make everything into faith.” It’s a fun game: just claim that everything, everywhere, is a matter of faith. Those scientists? Faith in their scientific method. Judges and juries? Faith in the testimony they hear…and faith in the idea that evidence can be useful. Historians? Total faith. That raving lunatic on the streetcorner? Faith.

See that? Everyone’s got faith, according to this disingenuous argument. Everybody, they claim, is equally clueless about everything and equally wandering around in a fog mumbling vague things about the Matrix movies and wondering if, “Reality is, like, totally a dream, dude.”

It’s a good thing for the human race that there are enough people who aren’t as absolutely in love with ignorance as these folks are.

Believe it or not, folks, there are people in this world who have knowledge, and to try to pretend that they are on equal footing with your fantasy life – on the basis of the fact that all people have to make necessary assumptions! – is to go far off the deep end.

Remember, our assumptions grant the existence of an external world. We’re having a discussion in the context of having already made these assumptions. And in that context, “faith” means accepting claims about the external world without sufficient evidence. People who – again, in the context of the external world granted by our assumptions – hold beliefs based on sufficient evidence have a superior position: they have beliefs that – again, within the context of the external world granted by our assumptions – are much more likely to be true.

If you want to question the assumptions, go ahead – conclude that I’m a figment of your imagination and a glitch in the Matrix and then go do something else. Hey, maybe if you hid under your covers and counted to ten really loudly, that would make all the meany-bo-beanies vanish, eh?

Now, what’s that, you say? God is a necessary assumption to you? You have a special means of detecting “reality” that’s not available to everyone else and can’t be confirmed by any means of inquiry into the world outside your head? That’s great, guys. Have fun with your fantasy life, but before you do, pause and consider that what we’ve been discussing on this thread are claims. People make claims to others because they want to convince other people of something.

If you don’t think that other people should believe in your god – if you really think that you do not have sufficient evidence for your claim, and it all boils down to your precious little feelings and daydreams – then there’s really no point for you to be discussing it in public. By definition, you’ll never be able to rationally convince someone else.

If, on the other hand, you do think that there is sufficient evidence for your god, then we can discuss it. But in order to do this, you have to accept that we use evidence to determine the likelihood of claims about the (assumed) external world.

Your third option, of course, is to forget about all of this and say, “Aw, heck! This evidence stuff is hard! I’m just gonna go watch my Matrix DVD again! And then I’ll watch Donnie Darko, and every other execrable escapist fantasy every made, which only ever appeals to angsty teenagers and others who have to make up their own reality because they can’t deal with actual reality.”

 

[Kaninchen]

Well if there is a logically consistent system that has more truths than Judaism, why should I not believe in it ?

And your means of determining the quantity of truths would be?

Sure but once again there God becomes responsible then. You see, muslims believe that Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe the same God. The only caveat is that Jews and Christians are wrong. But that would mean that God lead his people astray. Especially in the case of Christ, he did something stupid by making it look like Christ died on the cross and rose from the dead. He even made his prophet say that he was equal to God, and son of God. So its actually impossible for a Muslim to overcome this point. If you are looking for some good references, take a look at William Craig’s debates with muslims.

God Bless

Muslims are not saying that God was doing the leading astray, they are saying that the compilers of texts were leading people astray.

I’m still not getting the thing about an ability to determine demarcation on the basis of grand logical cohesiveness. Muslims are supposed to be incoherent by supposing that their prophet is equal to God (I don’t think they do, by the way) but Christians aren’t? Seems all a bit arbitrary to me.

 

[Kaninchen]

Aah, no. You see even the terms “testability”, “verification”, “prediction” are all concepts accepted without evidence. For an example, you can’t even provide any evidence that “truths need evidence”. To provide evidence to prove that claim will first have to presuppose the claim it-self. Thus it can never be proved. It just has to be believed without evidence.

Science isn’t about proof and certain truth, it’s about explanation - and you’re playing with meanings.

It might at first seem like you can get out of this by saying we only assume reasonable things or things that are of use. But then the problem comes back again as to what it means to say “reasonable” and “useful”. Those things will in turn be required to be accepted without evidence to be true. Faith is inescapable. ***“I believe so that I may understand” ***

It rather depends on what you mean by ‘faith’, can one put one’s trust in something that ‘works’? Tentatively, one can at least - scientific knowledge does not legitimise itself by its pedigree but by its ability to be tested - ‘if we do this then that will happen, yes/no’ - and it’s always tentative.

It does not matter if you interchange explanation for truth. You are still facing the same problem. You have to first define what constitutes an explanation. So in any system of knowledge, the basics are without evidence. Its very elementary really and I am baffled at why you can’t see this.

God Bless

Hey, I’m the one saying that everything is a woven web of guesses, I’m the one saying that there is no certain basis for anything!

Perhaps we ought to consider the question epistemological humility?

 

[ddarko]

And your means of determining the quantity of truths would be?

Ha? Its simply like this, if Relativity can account for aspects of classical theory of physics, Relativity is a superior theory. Same with Christianity vs. Judaism. Judaism is not wrong. Its simply incomplete.

Muslims are not saying that God was doing the leading astray, they are saying that the compilers of texts were leading people astray.

I’m still not getting the thing about an ability to determine demarcation on the basis of grand logical cohesiveness. Muslims are supposed to be incoherent by supposing that their prophet is equal to God (I don’t think they do, by the way) but Christians aren’t? Seems all a bit arbitrary to me.

lol of course they are not saying that. But since they accept Christ as a prophet, then they run in to the same problem. Its all in the problem of God pretending that Christ died on the cross when he never did according to Muslims. So God screwed up by picking the wrong trick with unintended consequences. Thus, it would contradict the nature of God that Muslims believe in. Do you see the problem?

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Science isn’t about proof and certain truth, it’s about explanation - and you’re playing with meanings.

As I said, I am not the one playing with meanings. Even if you want to look at it as explanations, then you still fall in to the same problem of defining what is an explanation.

It rather depends on what you mean by ‘faith’, can one put one’s trust in something that ‘works’? Tentatively, one can at least - scientific knowledge does not legitimise itself by its pedigree but by its ability to be tested - ‘if we do this then that will happen, yes/no’ - and it’s always tentative.

lol. You can’t make the claim “I believe that all truths need evidence because it works”. That is circular. You first have to accept that claim by faith. So when you say that “Testability” is a greater quality, that is by faith. You really have no evidence to prove that testability gives greater quality to knowledge.

Hey, I’m the one saying that everything is a woven web of guesses, I’m the one saying that there is no certain basis for anything!

Perhaps we ought to consider the question epistemological humility?

lol you might be saying that but you are failing to see the simple point I am making. Some of the arguments you bring up to escape the fact that Science requires faith are arguments that are circular. So I am more baffled now that you seem to state “everything is a guess” while trying to prove something entirely different using incorrect logical arguments

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

We all make certain very basic assumptions. In philosophy, they’re called “rational assumptions,” but I’ve started to prefer the language “necessary assumptions.” These are things like, “There is a world outside of me that my senses reveal” and “Other minds exist in this world.”

LOL wow genius, what IS “RATIONAL”? That it-self is WITHOUT evidence. What is wrong with people like you. What is a “RATIONAL” assumption? What is a “NECESSARY” assumption? Stop being an idiot and answer the questions. Is it not true that “RATIONAL” and “NECESSARY” are themselves definitions you accept WITHOUT evidence?

I fully admit that you cannot “prove” these assumptions, though indeed experience confirms their utility. It certainly seems, for example, that there’s a world outside of me that operates independently of my thoughts, and it certainly seems that other people have the capability to think in ways that are different from mine. Even if we were wrong about these assumptions, there appears to be no way to ever find out that we’re wrong, and since it’s so dang useful to make these assumptions, we do.

I already ASKED you this. WHAT IS IT TO BE “USEFUL”/“UTILIZABLE”? That it-self is a definition accepted without evidence. You are spattering the most stupidest replies here.

In order to function, I am forced to make the necessary assumption that there’s a world outside of me and that there are other people.

LOL Why do you need to function? Isn’t that an assumption you make? Plus, religious people think that God is required to function properly. So if you are going to play that “little game”, you should just stay silent because we are going to do what we think is required for us to function

Within the context of the “external world” granted by these assumptions, we can observe that claims made about the external world supported by evidence from the external world are far more likely to be true than claims made about the external world supported by no evidence or by evidence drawn only from my internal world of feelings and emotions. And it’s not just my personal observations that evidence-based inquiry works when evaluating claims about the external world: we have the entire history of human civilization using evidence-based inquiry to determine the likelihood that claims are true.

LOL you are seriously driving me MAD haha. EVIDENCE cant be used to PROVE the claim that “TRUTHS REQUIRE EVIDENCE”. The first thing you should do if you can’t see this is take a course on LOGIC. You are beyond my help otherwise.

The computer that you’re reading this message on is a good example of one of the results of evidence-based inquiry. The people who designed it didn’t determine how to do it by consulting their precious feelings or their intuition: they actually examined the real world and supported their claims with evidence from the world outside of their heads.

lol and that proves that “TRUTHS REQUIRE EVIDENCE” ? You are so logical

It’s asinine to think that just because all humans are forced to make a handful of necessary assumptions in order to function, this means that no claim ever needs to have evidence to support it. There’s an old, old game in the land of theology called “Make everything into faith.” It’s a fun game: just claim that everything, everywhere, is a matter of faith. Those scientists? Faith in their scientific method. Judges and juries? Faith in the testimony they hear…and faith in the idea that evidence can be useful. Historians? Total faith. That raving lunatic on the streetcorner? Faith.

Nothing is forced. Its not an old game. Its the truth lol. You are just too intellectually retarded to realize it and hence you think you are superior haha. What can I say, only way out is for you to sit down and really think hard and I pray to God you are capable of understanding.

 

[ddarko]

See that? Everyone’s got faith, according to this disingenuous argument. Everybody, they claim, is equally clueless about everything and equally wandering around in a fog mumbling vague things about the Matrix movies and wondering if, “Reality is, like, totally a dream, dude.”

Everyone has faith. FAITH is a necessity for knowledge. No we are not living in a dream. That I know by faith. That is what I believe. Its idiots like you who think “we don’t have faith” while still making claims that this world is real that’s being stupid lol.

It’s a good thing for the human race that there are enough people who aren’t as absolutely in love with ignorance as these folks are.

Talk about irony lol. Coming from the person who cant seem to realize he already has faith haha.

Believe it or not, folks, there are people in this world who have knowledge, and to try to pretend that they are on equal footing with your fantasy life – on the basis of the fact that all people have to make necessary assumptions! – is to go far off the deep end.

lol I already pointed out the stupidity of your comment. What is a “necessary assumption”? Is it not true that even that is accepted by faith?

Remember, our assumptions grant the existence of an external world. We’re having a discussion in the context of having already made these assumptions. And in that context, “faith” means accepting claims about the external world without sufficient evidence. People who – again, in the context of the external world granted by our assumptions – hold beliefs based on sufficient evidence have a superior position: they have beliefs that – again, within the context of the external world granted by our assumptions – are much more likely to be true.

lol no they don’t. How do you know they hold a superior position? Is there EVIDENCE for that ? Do you even think through what you type yourself?

If you want to question the assumptions, go ahead – conclude that I’m a figment of your imagination and a glitch in the Matrix and then go do something else. Hey, maybe if you hid under your covers and counted to ten really loudly, that would make all the meany-bo-beanies vanish, eh?

lol I am not questioning any assumptions. I am simply pointing out to you that it has to be accepted by FAITH. You are the moron whose going around claiming that people with faith are idiots.

Now, what’s that, you say? God is a necessary assumption to you? You have a special means of detecting “reality” that’s not available to everyone else and can’t be confirmed by any means of inquiry into the world outside your head? That’s great, guys. Have fun with your fantasy life, but before you do, pause and consider that what we’ve been discussing on this thread are claims. People make claims to others because they want to convince other people of something.

lol do you see the stupidity?

You claim that “I believe necessary assumptions without evidence”. Then you are asking me for “special means of detecting reality to detect God’s necessity”. This is the exact double standard I condemn in atheist like you. Its IRRATIONAL.

If you don’t think that other people should believe in your god – if you really think that you do not have sufficient evidence for your claim, and it all boils down to your precious little feelings and daydreams – then there’s really no point for you to be discussing it in public. By definition, you’ll never be able to rationally convince someone else.

lol before I get in to why you should believe in my God, you need to be logically capable of understanding that you have FAITH. Otherwise its like teaching calculus to a kid who doesn’t know how to add lol.

If, on the other hand, you do think that there is sufficient evidence for your god, then we can discuss it. But in order to do this, you have to accept that we use evidence to determine the likelihood of claims about the (assumed) external world.

LOL. HYPOCRISY at its finest.

Your third option, of course, is to forget about all of this and say, “Aw, heck! This evidence stuff is hard! I’m just gonna go watch my Matrix DVD again! And then I’ll watch Donnie Darko, and every other execrable escapist fantasy every made, which only ever appeals to angsty teenagers and others who have to make up their own reality because they can’t deal with actual reality.”

lol those were very entertaining movies. But unforunately they mean nothing to me because by faith, I believe everything is real. BUT since you deny faith, those movies apply to YOU more than to ME lol. I bet you didn’t even see that haha.

Here is my advice, start understanding what circular logic is. That might cure your insanity

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

AntiTheist:
Here is a nice discussion on this matter

The person who thinks like you
tech.mit.edu/V121/N32/col32matt_.32c.html

The reply to the person
tech.mit.edu/V121/N35/col35guest.35c.html

So my advice, think about doing some soul searching. If logic isn’t your strongest subject (considering your arguments I would say it isn’t), get some help in that area. Then give some thought to this.

Otherwise you are just wasting my time by reiterating the same old illogical **** like "our entire history is evidence that “truths require evidence”*"*.

I hope this will cure your insanity

God Bless

 

[Kaninchen]

Well if there is a logically consistent system that has more truths than Judaism, why should I not believe in it ?

Provide a demarcation for determining the quantity of truths.

Sure but once again there God becomes responsible then. You see, muslims believe that Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe the same God. The only caveat is that Jews and Christians are wrong. But that would mean that God lead his people astray. Especially in the case of Christ, he did something stupid by making it look like Christ died on the cross and rose from the dead. He even made his prophet say that he was equal to God, and son of God. So its actually impossible for a Muslim to overcome this point. If you are looking for some good references, take a look at William Craig’s debates with muslims.

God Bless

Nope, Muslims are saying that people have been leading Jews and Christians astray.

 

[Kaninchen]

As I said, I am not the one playing with meanings. Even if you want to look at it as explanations, then you still fall in to the same problem of defining what is an explanation.

As I said, you are the one playing with meanings. Establishing truth is not what science is about, it’s what you want to pretend it’s about.

Now, here’s something for you to consider - any attempt to establish meaning or truth leads to an infinite regress.

lol. You can’t make the claim “I believe that all truths need evidence because it works”. That is circular. You first have to accept that claim by faith. So when you say that “Testability” is a greater quality, that is by faith. You really have no evidence to prove that testability gives greater quality to knowledge.

I never said or claimed anything of the kind, so I have nothing to defend here. The problem is that you are re-interpreting things that people say through the prism of your own paradigms and then reflecting them back as assertions of something they haven’t been saying.

lol you might be saying that but you are failing to see the simple point I am making. Some of the arguments you bring up to escape the fact that Science requires faith are arguments that are circular. So I am more baffled now that you seem to state “everything is a guess” while trying to prove something entirely different using incorrect logical arguments

You are baffled because you ignore what people are saying to you and are holding a solipsistic discussion with ‘straw’ arguments you are pretending have been made.

 

[ddarko]

Provide a demarcation for determining the quantity of truths.

Ha? Ok from your profile it appears that you are Jewish. If you want this to be a debate about your religion vs. mine then please open a new thread. I would be happy to debate you

Nope, Muslims are saying that people have been leading Jews and Christians astray.

Well I can say something but what I say can have many implications. Its these implications I refer to than what they intend to say.

As I said above, you seem to want to debate on Judaism vs. Christianity or something along the lines of comparing religions. That is obviously not the topic here. Please open a thread and we can talk about this more

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

As I said, you are the one playing with meanings. Establishing truth is not what science is about, it’s what you want to pretend it’s about.

I am not pretending its about anything. My point is that AS LONG AS IT IS ABOUT SOMETHING be it TRUTH, EXPLANATION, MODEL, you have to have FAITH first. Pretty basic stuff here. Please take the time to read the two links I posted for AntiTheist as well. Might help you understand my position better.

Case: tech.mit.edu/V121/N32/col32matt_.32c.html
Reply: tech.mit.edu/V121/N35/col35guest.35c.html

Now, here’s something for you to consider - any attempt to establish meaning or truth leads to an infinite regress.

Of course. Which is why you can only terminate this regress WITH FAITH. In fact, the need to terminate it, it-self comes from FAITH in a notion that we must move forward in knowledge or something equivalent.

I never said or claimed anything of the kind, so I have nothing to defend here. The problem is that you are re-interpreting things that people say through the prism of your own paradigms and then reflecting them back as assertions of something they haven’t been saying.

Hey, I’ve been quoting exactly what you wrote. There is no interpretation when I press the button “QUOTE”. So to me, all you’ve been trying to tell me is that "Science is different because it has testable hypothesis. While the difference is correct it does not mean that Science requires no faith. It has already pre-suppossed its required rules (empirical method, induction through faith.

You are baffled because you ignore what people are saying to you and are holding a solipsistic discussion with ‘straw’ arguments you are pretending have been made.

Haha, how about…, you lay down your position POINT by POINT.

So far from what you’ve said, you seem to be under the illusion that “Science doesn’t need faith”. Please PLEASE PLEASE correct me if I am wrong?

On the other hand if you agree that “Science does need faith”, then you’ve wasted my time by not understanding that it has been my position all along

God Bless

 

[Soulewolf]

you dont need faith. You just need an educated approximation of what truth is.

 

[Contarini]

In answer to the OP:

Because God already wrote the sky.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

lol of course they are not saying that. But since they accept Christ as a prophet, then they run in to the same problem. Its all in the problem of God pretending that Christ died on the cross when he never did according to Muslims. So God screwed up by picking the wrong trick with unintended consequences. Thus, it would contradict the nature of God that Muslims believe in. Do you see the problem?

But do Muslims think that God “pretended that Christ died on the cross”? Where do you find this in Muslim teaching?

Also, where do you find in Muslim teaching that God does not deceive? If it was a “trick” in the Islamic view, it was a trick played on the wicked people who tried to play Jesus. I don’t think that the Islamic view of God rules out the possibility that God might deceive the wicked. That is in fact one of the disturbing aspects of Islamic theology as I understand it.

Edwin

 

[ddarko]

you dont need faith. You just need an educated approximation of what truth is.

lol oh hello

so how do you know that all you need is an “educated approximation of what truth is.”? What does it mean to be “educated”? What does it mean to be a “good approximation”?

Please use your intelligence before you make stupid comments like this.

God Bless