DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted September 22, 2009 Author Posted September 22, 2009 this is why we have a phrase like burden of proof, the burden rests with the the theists to prove there claim is true....
DC Tom Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 Science is more importantly a method for making accurate predictions about the observable world. No, a THEORY is a description that describes an observable phenomenon. The quality of the theory is directly proportional to the accuracy of the description. And "prediction" is a subset of "description" - a theory is required to "predict" to be a good theory (it's the only way to test accuracy), but a theory that is limited to prediction is not necessarily a good theory. Science is the methodology of developing such theories.
Gene Frenkle Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 The problem with your statement is that since science is a process of infinite regression and the length of that regression is unknowable and unprovable, you can not state with any certainty how far down the path you actually are and how much faith any one of your assumptions require. An infinite regression is infinite. Therefore your statement is retarded. Therefore either according to your argument all knowledge is relative and unprovable or it cannot be fully known and therefore requires faith. Either way neither can explain your existence or for that matter mine... You could be just a pathetic recurring on-line narcissistic dream or just a way for me to waste time. I can be a lot more certain about the plausibility of something that has been repeated a million times than about something that happened once in a story. Say, Gravity vs. the Resurrection of Jesus.
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted September 22, 2009 Author Posted September 22, 2009 An infinite regression is infinite. Therefore your statement is retarded. I can be a lot more certain about the plausibility of something that has been repeated a million times than about something that happened once in a story. Say, Gravity vs. the Resurrection of Jesus. couldnt of said it better.... gravity is something we can know and test and experiment with, the ressurection of jesus cant be know, and the testimony cant be trusted becasuse people report all kinds of miralcles today... great point. we can be more certain in science, much more empirical and much much much more rational!
X. Benedict Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 Religion is non-malleable for the most part. When something is discovered to challenge a religious belief, that belief is either re-interpreted or, as in the case of evolution, the science is attacked and challenged so that the religious belief may survive. Religion is stagnant because it it untestable and unbending. Religion is non-malleable? That's just a weird statement. If everybody practiced Christianity the same way 2nd century Greeks like Origen and Irenaeus did, and if Reformed Judaism never got a foothold I would think you had a point. Religion is always changing.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 when u say faith; are u talking about irrational belief or just day to day belief in having a positve attitude and yes gravity does exist... nothing is certain but the difference between the two is religious faith is irrational while other beliefs like gravity or evolution are (tested) and (proven through actual experience.) there is a difference. religion cant be tested, and is therefore is irrational to claim any empirical data on, like for example god hates homosexual behavior...this is a empirical claim of knowledge with no empircial data to support it. does anyone see a problem with this line of thinking....?????? Ah, the old tried and true actual experience argument... nice try, back to the old circular reasoning form of arguing.. so is your experience based in reality? You cannot prove it to me because you cannot prove to me that you exist, so I would have to take your argument about scientific experience on faith, because perceptually, I, nor you can prove each other's existence.... and as a result the validity of experience, whatever form it might take... Nice try though and a rather light weight one if you ask me.
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted September 22, 2009 Author Posted September 22, 2009 Ah, the old tried and true actual experience argument... nice try, back to the old circular reasoning form of arguing.. so is your experience based in reality? You cannot prove it to me because you cannot prove to me that you exist, so I would have to take your argument about scientific experience on faith, because perceptually, I, nor you can prove each other's existence.... and as a result the validity of experience, whatever form it might take... Nice try though and a rather light weight one if you ask me. ok, lets say i told u colorado was on the east coast of the US... is this a true statment or a false statement?
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 An infinite regression is infinite. Therefore your statement is retarded. I can be a lot more certain about the plausibility of something that has been repeated a million times than about something that happened once in a story. Say, Gravity vs. the Resurrection of Jesus. True IMO opinion, but just because something is believed to have occurred once and something is reported to have occurred many times does not make either any more or less valid. You just have put a value judgment on something that you believe to have been repeated many time achieve the same or similar result, but not proven, unless you did the experiment yourself, a million. On top of which, you have not establish causality which according to the scientific method you can't, just a probability which still could be incorrect or misinterpreted... Once again, either circular reasoning or infinite regression arguments that don't actually get to the truth of anything, just opinion, assumptions and therefore faith.
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted September 22, 2009 Author Posted September 22, 2009 im asking a general question about how we establish what is true and what is not... i can give u reasons for why i exist or u exist, i cant give u reasons for how jesus rose from the dead. there is a major difference in belief...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 ok, lets say i told u colorado was on the east coast of the US... is this a true statment or a false statement? Ahhh, now you get into an interesting example. First off for practical purposes I would stipulate that Colorado is not on the east coast. But from a proof standpoint, my first question back to you is define coast and east? Lets assume the US exists for right now.... we can discuss the provability of its existene later.
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted September 22, 2009 Author Posted September 22, 2009 Ahhh, now you get into an interesting example. First off for practical purposes I would stipulate that Colorado is not on the east coast. But from a proof standpoint, my first question back to you is define coast and east? Lets assume the US exists for right now.... we can discuss the provability of its existene later. east coastline (va, ny, md, nc, sc, fl,) east is the opposite of west lol
X. Benedict Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 ok, lets say i told u colorado was on the east coast of the US... is this a true statment or a false statement? Depends on the Atlantic water level.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 im asking a general question about how we establish what is true and what is not... i can give u reasons for why i exist or u exist, i cant give u reasons for how jesus rose from the dead. there is a major difference in belief... Actually you can try to give me reasons of your existence, but you could just be a figment of my imagination or I yours. We are only typing on a keyboard right now and that is a big assumption to. I perceive, but cannot prove that I am typing on a key board. The only things that can be proven are things by definition and not animate or concrete objects. Things can be proven by definition, such as the color black as I define it and perceive it. 1+1 can be defined as equaling two, although some analytical geometrists on this board have already claimed they make it equal anything they damn well please.
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted September 22, 2009 Author Posted September 22, 2009 whats the differnce between a good reason to support a belief, and a bad reason or no reason?
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted September 22, 2009 Author Posted September 22, 2009 u do acknowledge in epistemolgy that there are good and bad reasons for believing something y n?
DC Tom Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 1+1 can be defined as equaling two, although some analytical geometrists on this board have already claimed they make it equal anything they damn well please. It does, in fact, equal three, for very large values of one.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 whats the differnce between a good reason to support a belief, and a bad reason or no reason? Opinion only, good and bad are value judgments only and therefore either opinion or faith based and either way don't make something any more or less valid unless backed by definitional truths.
DC Tom Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 u do acknowledge in epistemolgy that there are good and bad reasons for believing something y n? This should have been mentioned quite some time ago... It would be much easier to discuss things with you if you didn't have the English skills of a pototo.
DC Tom Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 Opinion only, good and bad are value judgments only and therefore either opinion or faith based and either way don't make something any more or less valid unless backed by definitional truths. Even after reading that, there's absolutely no way he sees the irony of his own position.
Recommended Posts