It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Uniformity in nature, and the problem of induction.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
OP. All you are doing is giving essence to the old saying...

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance. Baffle them with BS."

You are not leading anyone to Christ. You are pushing them away... and you certainly aren't "glorifying god". You were told to preach the gospel. We both know what that means. You were also told what to do when it is rejected, and what you're doing here ain't it. Do any of your threads sound anything like what Jesus would author? We both know the answer to that one as well.

You're obviously an evangelical/fundamentalist type. Why don't you focus on sharing the "good news", instead of trying to prove to atheists how mentally imbalanced and unrealistic they are. Instead, it is you that is looking mentally imbalanced and unrealistic at the moment. The threads you have created here at ATS exemplify one of the reasons no one wants anything to do with your version of god.

I spent just shy of 30 years of my life preaching, teaching, and witnessing "for Christ". Make sure you never examine your version of xtianity objectively, because you might just find yourself thinking thoughts you aren't allowed to think. Cause you know...

edit on 10/31/2014 by Klassified because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
The theist can justify inductive reasoning, and therefore none of that is an issues for the theist.


Non-believers can't justify anything they believe or don't believe because they don't have God. But you do. So regardless of how intelligent, or stupid the responses in this thread will be, it is you who will have the most logical position. In the face of overwhelming evidence and rationale that challenges your world view, you hold fast. Your evidence and rationale for your beliefs? Subjective experiences and assertions. Does that sound about right?

This will no doubt be a repeat of your previous thread.
edit on 31-10-2014 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: AlephBet

Your habitual tantrum of accusing people of ad hominem martyr syndrome is completely unfounded..ad hominem criticism is a form of criticism DIRECTED at something ABOUT the person rather than the statements made by the person however it is not ad hominem when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact.

Sensible people are using reason to deduce your statements are not reasonable and valid.Your “facts” originate from you as the source by twisting words into your meanings and forming convoluted theories of religious belief.That is what reasonable people are objecting to because you are the embodiment source of “your “ Belief System .

You have also expressed numerous times(directly or indirectly) in your many posts that your “theology” is not your own but your “God’s” and in that regard you are correct ….it is “your God” the one of your theology of your Belief System religion…. the God you have made in YOUR image(and is you) in your religious carnal mind which you base the the fallacy of false “appeal to authority” of your statements.

However as TzarChasm has so aptly pointed out it is only YOUR belief…

By deductive reasoning
1.You believe your theology is God’s theology
2.Your theology is conceived by you because it is belief of faith not fact
3.therefore-You believe you are God


By deductive reasoning your statements are strong evidence that you “believe” you are God because your statements of your theology “appeal to authority”…yourself(and is subtly reflected in your the user names).That is why people that are thinking with reason do not accept what you say as valid.

Until you can clarify you statements with reasonable English syntax(since you are writing in English) and site a credible source "of fact" outside of yourself being the “appeal to authority” there is no reason to believe what you postulate.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver




You quoted him. But now that i pointed out what his quote meant, it's not important anymore? Come on.


The quote didn't mean what you said it meant...The quote was on topic its obvious by this post that you are the one who doesn't fully understand what I am presenting.




Inductive reasoning requires that you have evidence to induct your reasoning from. It in itself is certainly not evidence for god. You would still have to find and present this god to examine so that you could use inductive reasoning. What is so hard to understand about this? It says so in your OP.


Do you even read what I say?

Since you didn't catch it the first time around, when the Christian poses the argument it is a Reductio ad absurdum. The argument itself is what the Christian is producing as evidence for God. The presupposition of God is axiomatic(it proves itself) in this case. God exist because refuting he exist leaves you with absurdity. (Reductio ad absurdum)

So now you must prove that your justification for inductive reasoning is not absurd by justifying that it is knowledge without begging the question.

Causality must be determined by inductive reasoning there is no way around that. There is also no reason from a naturalistic stand point that causality in the future should reflect causality past. Reasoning that something is probable is still inductive reasoning, and in order to assume that probability to be accurate one must already assume that causality in the future should occur as causality in the past.

From the OP:

Person A: Why does Opium induce sleep?
Person B: Opium induces sleep because it has a soporific quality.

Question:why should causality in the future reflect causality in the past?
Answer I am being given: Causality in the future most probably reflects causality in the past because it Causality in the future has most probably always reflected causality in the past. (Same situation as above just different words.)




About turning your car? The reasoning comes from actually studying the physical mechanical parts of a car to deduce how it works. Where is the god so that we can study him and compare him to your claims.


Once again just because you use the word deduce doesn't mean thats actually what your using. You have determined that your car will turn left when you move the wheel left. That is a general idea. This general idea came about from studying causality in the past and the present and you have determined after multiple times of observing this in action that most probably your car will turn left when you turn the wheel left, but this is not the question. The question why should the causality or even the probability of causality in the future reflect what you have already observed?



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Go read some of the other post, because I have already presented my evidence.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Klassified




I spent just shy of 30 years of my life preaching, teaching, and witnessing "for Christ". Make sure you never examine your version of xtianity objectively, because you might just find yourself thinking thoughts you aren't allowed to think.


Just because you decided to turn your back on God doesn't make it untrue.Just because I am here telling people they are wrong, doesn't mean that I am not following Jesus's message. Actually Jesus did that all the time.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The presupposition of god is what proves god?

Stating that god is real is proof that god is real?

Is that what your saying?

God exists because not believing is absurd?

Does the presupposition of unicorns prove the exisistence of magical single horned horses?

You gonna really have to break this down better because so far this flies in the face of everything logical and reasonable.
edit on 31-10-2014 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

Nope not what I am saying at all. I am saying the God exist because denial of his existence leads you to a point in which you cannot logically justify your belief in anything in everyday life(absurdity). God exist because of a Reductio Ad Absurdum. The presuppostion is that God exist, and the reductio ad absurdum is proof that unless you accept that statement your reduced to absurdity. This is axiomatic in the the presuppostion that God exist proves itself through reductio ad absurdum.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Klassified




I spent just shy of 30 years of my life preaching, teaching, and witnessing "for Christ". Make sure you never examine your version of xtianity objectively, because you might just find yourself thinking thoughts you aren't allowed to think.


Just because you decided to turn your back on God doesn't make it untrue.Just because I am here telling people they are wrong, doesn't mean that I am not following Jesus's message. Actually Jesus did that all the time.

Just because you decided to turn your back, and close your mind to other possibilities doesn't make them untrue. Just because we're telling you there's more than just your explanation for existence, doesn't mean we're wrong, because you're afraid to look at anything that doesn't confirm your bias.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

That is exactly what i just said and it is absurd.

You know dogs exist because we see them. We know dinosaurs used to exist because we see their bones.

We do not see god. Therefore to make claims of his existence would be absurd.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver




That is exactly what i just said and it is absurd.


If you think we said the same thing then you don't understand the words I am using. Go look them up.




You know dogs exist because we see them. We know dinosaurs used to exist because we see their bones. We do not see god. Therefore to make claims of his existence would be absurd.



Not everything that exist in reality is concrete. The laws of logic and math are just two easy examples. A justified true belief doesn't need physical evidence in order to have justification. It can have a logical justification, and be a justified true belief. Do you know what a reductio ad absurdum is ?



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Oh yes, i know what it is. You are doing it wrong. It is used to show an idea is true or false. Not things. We prove things are real by examining the evidence. Your use of the RAU is misplaced.

Otherwise it would also prove the existence of unicorns. Do your homework.
edit on 31-10-2014 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The example that is best used to describe a reductio ad absurdum argument is

"Rocks have weight, otherwise we would see them floating"

It is absurd to think of rocks floating because of inductive reasoning. we have never witnessed floating rocks and everything we know about rocks says that they shouldnt float

Your argument is that god is real because you can't imagine it any other way and you think it is absurd to think otherwise. There is a huge difference. The argument you are actually using is the argument from ignorance. You can't imagine a world without a god therefor you find it absurd to deny him.

Completely different.



God exist because denial of his existence leads you to a point in which you cannot logically justify your belief in anything in everyday life(absurdity). God exist because of a Reductio Ad Absurdum.


This is not RAA. This is argument from ignorance. RAA requires inductive reasoning which takes everything you have examined about the properties of the object in question into account, to make an absurd statement that proves your claim about the object.


edit on 31-10-2014 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-10-2014 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Rex282

Quote me, then refute what I have said with scripture.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

Its not at all either you really don't know or you are being super dishonest in this conversation.

Point A: Reductio Ad Absurdum- is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial

or

Point B: Reductio Ad Absurdu- in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance

I have done the first.

Point A: God exist because the denial of his existence leads a person to a point of absurdity.(If you deny this claim then you must show that its denial doesn't lead to a point of absurdity) This statement is proof of God's existence unless the enclosed area is shown.

The whole OP is about how you cannot get a rational reason for why you believe in the uniformity in nature from a naturalistic stand point, that is that causality in the future will occur as it has in the past (which is presupposition required for all science and daily activity). Without justification for that presupposition you have no knowledge as to why you behave the way you do. You have no logical reason as to why you wake up expecting the sun to rise and gravity to be the same.

The reason you know that causality in the future will be like the past friend is because you know God, but you suppress that knowledge because of your sin.

Why not do the second.

Point B:God doesn''t exist, Causality in the future will be like causality in the past because causality in the future has always been like causality in the past. (Begging the question and there for an illogical view)



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver




Does the presupposition of unicorns prove the exisistence of magical single horned horses?


Denying the existence of unicorns doesn't prove your world view to be absurd, so strawman argument meaning you have done nothing.





Your argument is that god is real because you can't imagine it any other way and you think it is absurd to think otherwise. There is a huge difference. The argument you are actually using is the argument from ignorance. You can't imagine a world without a god therefor you find it absurd to deny him



so wrong....



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver




Does the presupposition of unicorns prove the exisistence of magical single horned horses?


Denying the existence of unicorns doesn't prove your world view to be absurd, so strawman argument meaning you have done nothing.





Your argument is that god is real because you can't imagine it any other way and you think it is absurd to think otherwise. There is a huge difference. The argument you are actually using is the argument from ignorance. You can't imagine a world without a god therefor you find it absurd to deny him



so wrong....



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You and Alpha can not prove God.....no one can.
Even less you can prove you are worshiping the right God....most people on earth do not follow your club and some have different ideas on what God is..what makes your one so right? and everyone elses wrong?.
THE PLACE YOU WERE BORN...that's it, If you were born in Japan you would likely be a Shintoist If in the ME a Muslim.
So please stop trying to prove the unprovable.
You are doing a great job in turning people away from your club btw.
Well done
.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

You asked for one sentence at a time.

Great post. It's a question of authority. Compare This Thread (Defining the Mind) to what you are saying here.

---The question of authority is that of the Father/Son relationship. I then showed a thread I had written identifying the mind of Nous that is a prize setup by God.

Duct means to lead. We use the word ducting to denote a conduit that leads the flow of something in one direction. Induction is the flow of something inside. Compare to this thread: How Phoenician Reveals Babel

---Duct means what I said it means. Babel is outlined in the thread I linked to identifying the soil as both the Earth and Heart. Filling the heart is the flow of wisdom from God into the hearts of man. Induction.

Induction is a comparison of universal archetype. Each time you find a universal truth, it appears in a mirror. You then make the choice between by knowing that only one reflection can be true. The other is a mirror. In the end, the determination of the true must adhere to the will reflected in nature, which is the first archetype of the monad. What is that true reflection? Giving and Receiving. All mirrored points of reflection can be deduced by simply knowing that positive or neutral is nature's primary point of unity. Philosophy grappled with the question of unity with multiplicity in all levels of existence.

---Universal truth always appears in reflection when you eliminate all other considerations that are related to the central truth you identify. See the example below. What can we determine between the two sets of will? Crowley state his will. Jesus state God's will.

Example:

Aleister Crowley "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law"

Jesus - Matthew 22

37 Yeshua answered him, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and most important commandment. 39 The second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as you love yourself.’ 40 All of Moses’ Teachings and the Prophets depend on these two commandments.”
How Can David’s Son Be David’s Lord?

41 While the Pharisees were still gathered, Yeshua asked them, 42 “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?”

---He asks a question here to help us identify the Son. Who's Son is He?

They answered him, “David’s.”

43 He said to them, “Then how can David, guided by the Spirit, call him Lord? David says,

44 ‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Take the highest position in heaven
until I put your enemies under your control.”’

45 If David calls him Lord, how can he be his son?”

46 No one could answer him, and from that time on no one dared to ask him another question.

---Why could they not deduce this? They didn't realize that Yahweh is the Son of God, Adam First and Adam Last. Induction is also a word we use when referring to people who are focused into one stream of leadership. What is the highest position in Heaven? The Right hand of God, or the Son that is at the right hand of God.

Whose Son is He?

Elohim's Son (Son of the Father in Genesis 1). That God is the God of Love and keeps NO records of wrongs. Why? Positive is the right side of truth, the right hand of God and the right way to determine the truth.

It's the deduction we can make from the induction flowing from the Aleph to Tav. Aleph Tav (Plowman's Mark)


The rest of this is related to the authority of the Son of God in relation to the Father. This is why I stated that induction is an aspect of authority. We are blocked from seeing if we are not facing God as the authority. In this case, we are blinded to his wisdom.


edit on 31-10-2014 by AlephBet because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-10-2014 by AlephBet because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 09:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlephBet
a reply to: Rex282

Quote me, then refute what I have said with scripture.



I won’t be quoting you to stroke your ego.There is an abundance of evidence in your posts for all to see, to support the fact that you believe you are God yet you cannot perceive it.

I also won’t be playing games of bible chess with you since you have proven you’d rather play with yourself.

I will however deny your abundance of ignorance you publish at ATS because what you write is not the Truth.




new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join