Keeping Faith whilst accepting rational evidence.

Page 2 of 6 [ 88 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

26 Jul 2014, 6:24 am

DentArthurDent wrote:

Humanaut wrote:

DentArthurDent wrote:

Angelrho accepts the evidence for evolution arrived at via the scientific method. He just does not accept the scientific method as valid until the method itself is shown to be true.

By what means?

Thats his point, there is none, according to him any solution to this problem leads to infinite regress and ipso facto Faith. He rejects as circular reasoning the idea that the scientific method can validate itself by its success, because as we cannot prove it to be true, how do we know its conclusions eg Theory of Evolution are true. He is bordering on Epistemological nihilism.

Like I said, its his vehicle to have faith in creation whilst accepting the evidence for evolution as determined by the scientific method.

It isn't really all that sophisticated. I don't have a problem with the scientific method.

If the scientific method demands verificationism to accept anything, it can't give itself a free pass. Without an inherent logical flaw, the scientific method is unfalsifiable. The question is how does one resolve the problem of question-begging?

The answer (that I seem to have gotten from a different thread) is you can't resolve it. We know the scientific method gets results and is useful, so we accept as axiomatic its base principles.

Some Christians will say that takes more faith than we believers have. That's debatable, but it does show that one view is no more logically "wrong" than the other. It's possible to arrive at theism logically, same as atheism, and in either case there is only one assumption that need be made: That there is/isn't a God to believe in at all.

If you're going to accept that the choice to believe in God isn't logical, then you have to also accept that the opposite choice is likewise illogical. So what's the real reason you don't believe in God?

Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

26 Jul 2014, 6:38 am

AngelRho wrote:

So what's the real reason you don't believe in God?

Would the absence of a reason (to believe in God) qualify as a reason in itself?

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

26 Jul 2014, 6:38 am

Humanaut wrote:

DentArthurDent wrote:

He is bordering on Epistemological nihilism.

I don't think he can be said to have reached that far. He seems stuck in a limbo between metaphysics and epistemology.

"Stuck" might be too strong a term. I accept the scientific method based on certain assumptions and I accept God based on certain other assumptions. A balanced skepticism will hold both sides accountable and seek honesty. I recognize that my choice to believe in God is not a purely logical one. But neither is the opposite choice. I think I'd have more to lose if I didn't believe the way I do and I turned out to be wrong, though, and that in part is a plus for Christianity.

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

26 Jul 2014, 6:59 am

AngelRho as far as I am aware no scientist worthy of the title would ever state that the scientific method is the absolute word in verifying hypotheses, This to my mind is where your argument falls flat. They will say that whilst it does have it is flaws, it is the best method we have yet devised, and to paraphrase Brian Cox "it has delivered us the technological age, in short it works"

_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx

Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

26 Jul 2014, 7:03 am

AngelRho wrote:

I recognize that my choice to believe in God is not a purely logical one. But neither is the opposite choice.

True. It is not logical to not believe in God. What is logical is to treat all arbitrary claims as nothing at all.

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

26 Jul 2014, 7:12 am

AngelRho wrote:

I think I'd have more to lose if I didn't believe the way I do and I turned out to be wrong, though, and that in part is a plus for Christianity.

So you don't think an almighty god would recognise Pascal's wager, and deem you a fraud?

Spiderpig
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,893

26 Jul 2014, 8:13 am

Not to mention the possibility that there is a God who punishes those who believe in Him.

_________________
The red lake has been forgotten. A dust devil stuns you long enough to shroud forever those last shards of wisdom. The breeze rocking this forlorn wasteland whispers in your ears, “Não resta mais que uma sombra”.

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

26 Jul 2014, 8:34 am

DentArthurDent wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

I think I'd have more to lose if I didn't believe the way I do and I turned out to be wrong, though, and that in part is a plus for Christianity.

So you don't think an almighty god would recognise Pascal's wager, and deem you a fraud?

No. I think an almighty God would recognise good sense and deem me wise! :lol:

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

26 Jul 2014, 8:39 am

Humanaut wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

I recognize that my choice to believe in God is not a purely logical one. But neither is the opposite choice.

True. It is not logical to not believe in God. What is logical is to treat all arbitrary claims as nothing at all.

1. I don't view claims in favor of God as necessarily arbitrary.
2. IF claims in favor of God ARE necessarily arbitrary, how is that different from other claims? I.e. how are other claims less arbitrary?

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

26 Jul 2014, 8:40 am

Spiderpig wrote:

Not to mention the possibility that there is a God who punishes those who believe in Him.

Christians do believe that God punishes those who believe in him, so that's not really an issue...unless you're referring to something else.

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

26 Jul 2014, 8:52 am

DentArthurDent wrote:

Right. I don't dispute that. What I primarily dispute is the hard empiricist position specifically, not to strawman reasonable scientists all into that category. And that touches on the topic we're discussing here, that is, the logical problem of believing in God against the backdrop of empiricism as embodied by the scientific method. You seem to say that the core assumptions of the scientific method are acceptable because the method works. OK, fair enough. Well, God works for me. How is that more/less logical than the opposite view?

Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

26 Jul 2014, 8:54 am

AngelRho wrote:

Humanaut wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

I recognize that my choice to believe in God is not a purely logical one. But neither is the opposite choice.

True. It is not logical to not believe in God. What is logical is to treat all arbitrary claims as nothing at all.

You are talking about nothing. Nothing doesn't exist by definiton.

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

26 Jul 2014, 9:15 am

Humanaut wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

Humanaut wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

I recognize that my choice to believe in God is not a purely logical one. But neither is the opposite choice.

True. It is not logical to not believe in God. What is logical is to treat all arbitrary claims as nothing at all.

You are talking about nothing. Nothing doesn't exist by definiton.

OK, but you see the trap here, right? If claims regarding God aren't arbitrary, then your response is wrong. If they are arbitrary, then so are other claims. We're both talking about nothing. I've got nowhere to take that, sorry...

Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

26 Jul 2014, 9:49 am

The presence or absence of an existent determines whether we are dealing with something or nothing.

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

26 Jul 2014, 11:16 am

Something created the universe, and that thing is a GOD to us, so what is the problem here ?

GOD might be a complicated form of energy, does science prove that wrong ? No.

_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.

TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

26 Jul 2014, 11:43 am

LoveNotHate wrote:

Something created the universe, and that thing is a GOD to us, so what is the problem here ?

GOD might be a complicated form of energy, does science prove that wrong ? No.

It is likely the universe appeared from "nothing" as a simple consequence of mathematics and the concepts of creation and creators are purely a human invention.

_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.

Page 2 of 6 [ 88 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Jump to:

Keeping Faith whilst accepting rational evidence. Post Reply New Topic

Keeping Faith whilst accepting rational evidence.