The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Deleted................................

So, do you wish to attempt to prove that christian belief represents the "truth"?

Certainly. Are you sitting or standing?

Corp769, with all due respect, I think this is inappropriate, especially for a senior contributing member. You set the standards here.

Originally Posted by reed9 Yes, I've never understood that. Where is the curiosity, the sense of wonder? People postulate all sorts of ghosts and gods and mystic energies and other banalities like that, and yet remain oblivious or insensitive to the utter beauty and wonder of what's right under their noses.

Either that, or they jump straight into all the philosophical negatives (e.g. the nothing after death, determinism, etc.)…

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that a purely scientific worldview isn't necessarily all hearts and roses. I'm sure some people (myself included) do nothing more than become hopelessly angsty/depressed over certain issues. Although, I suppose you could say that those are more personal philosophical issues, rather than scientific ones. They can be informed through scientific means, however.

Again, I'm not trying to start a separate argument here, I'm just sharing my POV…hopefully this isn't dragging the thread too far off-topic.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Corp769, with all due respect, I think this is inappropriate, especially for a senior contributing member. You set the standards here.

+1 to that. I am notorious for posting posts, then deleting them

Originally Posted by bluegospel Is it safe to assume when you stand where you are now the ground will support you? ... Okay, then I won't assume you're afraid to answer the question. I'll ask, are you afraid to answer the question? There's not a right or wrong answer, my point will follow. Or don't you leave room to allow me to prove my point since now we're supposed to be arguing here.

You're talking about the Problem of Induction, though I'm not sure if that's where you meant to go with this. To answer it would require getting pretty deep into the philosophy of science, and especially given your previous request for brevity, that would be difficult to do here.

Short answer, some well thought of philosophers, most famously Hume, answered that no, we are not justified in assuming that the ground will support me when I stand, or to put it more generally, that the past will resemble the future. However, all science is a statement of probability, and given that every time I have stood to date the ground has supported me, I can assign a high probability, ie, have high confidence, that it will do so the next time.

You're talking about the Problem of Induction, though I'm not sure if that's where you meant to go with this.

Okay, since I'm going to talk to you about the problem of induction, I'll need you to educate me first, since I have no idea what it is. Will you please just answer the question so I'll know how to answer it?

Originally Posted by MrCode Either that, or they jump straight into all the philosophical negatives (e.g. the nothing after death, determinism, etc.)… I guess the point I'm trying to make is that a purely scientific worldview isn't necessarily all hearts and roses. I'm sure some people (myself included) do nothing more than become hopelessly angsty/depressed over certain issues. Although, I suppose you could say that those are more personal philosophical issues, rather than scientific ones. They can be informed through scientific means, however. Again, I'm not trying to start a separate argument here, I'm just sharing my POV…hopefully this isn't dragging the thread too far off-topic.

Well, I would argue that the science aspect is value neutral. It's just telling us what is (probably and provisionally) true. How we feel about that information, or whether we value even knowing that information are separate issues. Personally, I think truth and facts are intrinsically of value, they don't need to be practical to be worthwhile. Not everyone agrees with that. I also don't get the hubbub about nothingness after death - I've never been bothered by the thought of not existing, or that the universe has no inherent meaning. So what if the universe is indifferent to me and my life? I'm not indifferent to me and my life, and I can make my own meaning handily enough.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Okay, since I'm going to talk to you about the problem of induction, I'll need you to educate me first, since I have no idea what it is. Will you please just answer the question so I'll know how to answer it?

I thought I did answer it? I cannot know for certain the ground will support me when I stand, being incapable of having an empirical experience of the future. I can assign a high probability that it will continue do so, given that it always has to date.

Originally Posted by bluegospel There's not a right or wrong answer, my point will follow.

The right answer would be "it is not always safe to assume that ground will support you where you're standing". "safe" != "wise", by the way. However, it is irrelevant to supporting your argument. To support arguments with logic, every statement should be always true.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Certainly.

You're very unlikely to be successful. Aside from the fact that I have never seen any kind of "divine intervention"... The universe has truly horrifying size. At a night, take a look at the sky. Each star is larger than our entire planet. Each star is very very far away - your entire life won't be enough to get there. Some stars could be dead for thousands years, but we're still seeing them. Moreover, entire sky is filled with thousands of galaxies we can't see because they aren't bright enough. If you take the look at the whole picture, humanity is utterly insignificant. Is this world supposed to be created in 6 days just for humans to live in? Doesn't sound right for me.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Okay, since I'm going to talk to you about the problem of induction, I'll need you to educate me first, since I have no idea what it is. Will you please just answer the question so I'll know how to answer it?

On a broader note, this brings something up. Everything you've brought, and everything we've brought up, have been discussed by people for centuries. We're not breaking new ground. If you're going to choose to base your life around a belief, wouldn't you want to educate yourself on the best arguments for and against it that have been presented over the years?

I cannot know for certain the ground will support me when I stand, being incapable of having an empirical experience of the future. I can assign a high probability that it will continue do so, given that it always has to date.

Would you say that probability is sufficient to deduce that there's not much risk in walking across the room?

Originally Posted by bluegospel Would you say that probability is sufficient to deduce that there's not much risk in walking across the room?

Yes. As I said, high probability.

So you're pretty confident in that? That if you wanted to you could do that?

Originally Posted by bluegospel So you're pretty confident in that? That if you wanted to you could do that?

Confident that I can stand and walk across the room? Yes. I'm curious to see where this is going, since it seems to have nothing to do with the logical validity of an argument, which is where it started.