You two stop fighting!
The sun also rises ... Ecclesiastes 1:5.
But, we know it really doesn't rise, don't we?
Sylvia
Why do you have to pray to God to beable to understand the Bible?
by Number1Anarchist 77 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
BurnTheShips
Beyond that, there are few to no first principles, premises, or axioms that I accept without evidence.
You take a great many base principles on faith. I assume you at least take that the universe is logical, that your sense perception is an accurate representation of reality, that the external world in general exists outside your mind, and that the future will resemble the past. None of these beliefs are beyond doubt, none of them can be scientifically proven, thus they are beliefs. These are just a few. Prove the law of non-contradiction without using the law of non-contradiction. Prove the scientific method (yet you implicitly believe in it)--you can't. You say there is no convincing evidence for God's existence, but billions of humans have been convinced, so your statement is obviously false.
Whether you believe that the world rests on the back of a great turtle or that Zeus came down and pounded a Swan makes no difference in the end.
If you are correct this is true, and we all rot and the Universe dies.
BTS
-
John Doe
You take a great many base principles on faith. I assume you at least take that the universe is logical, that your sense perception is an accurate representation of reality, that the external world in general exists outside your mind, and that the future will resemble the past.
I do not take that the universe is logical on faith. Scientific evidence exists that the universe follows logical patterns. This is hardly a matter of faith.
I do not take it on faith that my sense perception is accurate. I know that many things alter senses, including sleepiness, drugs, emotional considerations, etc. I accept that we view reality through the filtered viel of our senses, and that senses are not always completely or in some cases remotely accurate.
That the world exists outside of my mind is a moot point. I have no need to accept that it does or does not, and therefore I can't be said to have assumed it does. I interact with what I percieve to be the outside world, and my interactions are in turn given feedback. If the "outside world" is really a product from within myself, if I'm sitting in some loony bin right now, this makes no difference.
I do not assume that the future will resemble the past. I do not know what the future holds and do not claim to know.
Really burns, you'll have to do better than that.
-
BurnTheShips
I do not take that the universe is logical on faith. Scientific evidence exists that the universe follows logical patterns. This is hardly a matter of faith.
No, you've missed the plot. The belief that reason or logic can correctly explain the physical Universe is just that, a belief. It is not provable, and there are phenomena that, while evidentiary, are hardly logical from the human point of view (how can an object be in two places at the same time, how can an object be two things at the same time? Quantum observations confirm this). And incidentally this rational-world idea was a belief inherent in Christan thought (that God is rational and that the world, being created by Him, will reflect this attribute), which is from whence scientific rationalism sprang.
I do not take it on faith that my sense perception is accurate. I know that many things alter senses, including sleepiness, drugs, emotional considerations, etc. I accept that we view reality through the filtered viel of our senses, and that senses are not always completely or in some cases remotely accurate.
Again, you miss the point. The point is not that your sensory perception can be altered (we all think this), but the belief that sensory perception in general is an accurate representation of reality.
That the world exists outside of my mind is a moot point. I have no need to accept that it does or does not, and therefore I can't be said to have assumed it does. I interact with what I percieve to be the outside world, and my interactions are in turn given feedback. If the "outside world" is really a product from within myself, if I'm sitting in some loony bin right now, this makes no difference.
You are evading. Do you believe you are interacting with an external reality or not? You've gone, in the space of a few posts, from: "whoever believes this I do not respect" to: "it makes no difference".
I do not assume that the future will resemble the past. I do not know what the future holds and do not claim to know.
You certainly do, when the weatherman says there is a 90% chance of rain this afternoon, you take an umbrella. When the weather report says sunup is at 7:00 AM tommorrow, you never disbelieve. You believe the future will largely look like that past and act accordingly. Really JD. THINK.
BTS
-
John Doe
No, you've missed the plot. The belief that reason or logic can correctly explain the physical Universe is just that, a belief. It is not provable, and there are phenomena that, while evidentiary, are hardly logical from the human point of view (how can an object be in two places at the same time, how can an object be two things at the same time? Quantum observations confirm this). And incidentally this rational-world idea was a belief inherent in Christan thought (that God is rational and that the world, being created by Him, will reflect this attribute), which is from whence scientific rationalism sprang.
I've got to go to work, so I only have time to respond to this point--don't take this as an evasion.
Where have I said that logic or reason can correctly explain the physical universe? Go back a few posts and find an example of something I said is unknowable. In fact, nothing can currently explain the physical universe in its entirety. The closest thing that can be said is that logical reasoning has a chance to explain the physical universe if enough evidence and data is collected.
And this comes down to a basic problem I have with "faith." Believers are unwilling to say "I don't know why the world is as it is." Instead, you tend to say "God did it" as if that's an explanation. It's not an explanation, and it's not an answer. The only honest answer can be "we don't know." I find it ironic that you see me as arrogant.
-
BurnTheShips
Where have I said that logic or reason can correctly explain the physical universe?
Ok, then I put the question to you.
The closest thing that can be said is that logical reasoning has a chance to explain the physical universe if enough evidence and data is collected.
And you just answered it.
Believers are unwilling to say "I don't know why the world is as it is." Instead, you tend to say "God did it" as if that's an explanation.
Believers think God did certain things, the most important being bringing all else into being. And it's funny, I've never met one of these people that look at every gap in knowledge and say God is the answer; these "godidits." Even fundies that I've met are not like this outside of certain narrow areas that conflict with their interpretation of scripture. Do these "godidits" look like Unicorns?
You have lots of beliefs and assumptions about the world, JD, I just have one more than you.
Going back to work also.
BTS
-
gymbob
I think John Doe is right on....
The real question is, why does believing in the existence of God have to be so #%&! complicated?? If he is who you believers say he is, why doesn't he just make it clear and be done with it?
I'll believe, just give me a reason to believe......but don't expect me to believe on nothing but faith. Faith is to the christian, what a hole in the ground is to the ostrich. Gymbob
-
gymbob
And now i'm going back to work!