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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Willing to be you are misinterpreting Genesis and have never looked into the Hebrew.

Genesis is wrong. Period. Genetics and DNA and world populations and diversity prove it.

Wrong again. Polystrata forest and extremely elevated fish fossils.

No .. I"m correct. Science has proven plate movements over millions of years account for elevated fish fossils. Noahs Ark did not happen. Genetics, DNA and population diversity and numbers prove it. The number of animals and types couldn't all fit on an ark the size described in the bible. And that ark couldn't have been built back then with the lack of knowledge and lack of materials anyways. The Earth would have died if a mile high flood happened for a year because the oceans would have died. WIthout the oceans, the world dies. There are coral reefs intact around the world that are a hundred thousand years old and if there was a flood they all would be dead. Ice core samples from the poles show back a hundred thousand years and there was no flood. Tree roots 80,000 years old in the USA prove the flood didn't happen because they would have died under the weight and lack of sunlight in a flood. The overwhelming evidence proves that Noahs Ark did not happen.

For every evidence you can give it didn't happen Christians can give it did..

Incorrect. I've just looked over the threads you've started. Every argument you give for scripture being literal and impeccable have been destroyed in them.

Exodus doesn't have any evidence backing it up

Evidence against Exodus is strong. Even Jewish scholars admit it didn't happen. It's impossible for the Egyptian Army to have been destroyed in Exodus because Egypt remained strong and won wars for a long while after the alleged exodus was supposed to have happened. The complete lack of evidence of exodus in the desert is evidence it did not happen. And yes, a lack of evidence is evidence.

Atheists can make a very good case AGAINST a biblical God using inductive reasoning. The above remarks are proof as to why. Their remarks about God not being a loving father because of the suffering and evil in the world is another good case of inductive reasoning for them.

Theists use also use inductive reasoning to prove that there IS a God. Theists can make a good case. But the atheists can also make a good case against the loving father-God that Christians say exist.

I'm a theist and I believe there is a God and I used inductive reasoning and personal experience to come to this conclusion. Atheists equally used inductive reasoning and personal experience to come to their conclusion.




posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Pinke

This is a very good diagram of the OP's argument. However he does not see the distinction from your point 4. Because he is already presupposing that god exists. Which makes his argument circular and begging the question.



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Pinke




Does God guarantee a logical world for example?


The fact is if we justify induction with Supernatural creator, that creator must some how account for the Laws of Logic(Transcendental argument).




1. Nature makes sense (uniformity etc) 2. Because of this, we can use inductive reasoning 3. Nature must have a creator or we would be saying 'nature makes sense because it makes sense' 4. Therefore a creator exists?


Close.
We are going to start with everything is a belief until it fits the modified definition of knowledge mentioned in the OP.

Nature make sense=The belief that Causality in the future will reflect causality in the past.
Inductive Reasoning is the only form of reasoning one can use to determine causality. (Concepts are always formed from specific to general).

1. Nature makes sense(Uniformity in nature) 2. I know nature makes sense because of inductive reasoning.(The fact that we can use inductive reasoning is not the issue obviously everyone is capable of that) 3. Any claim from an atheistic(atheism grounds one to naturalism/reductionism) stand point that attempts to give a good explanation as to why they should trust inductive reasoning will only beg the question(point three is the problem of induction) which reduces one to absurdity in that they have no logical reason for explaining why they live as though nature makes sense because they cannot justify the very way that they know that.

This is the only argument the OP makes. The OP has nothing to do with does God exist. It has to do with atheism is reduced to absurdity.

In order for me to go any farther in conversation with someone who is an atheist they need to clear this little fact up first.

The atheist will simply continue to beg the question forever, so I will pose a Reductio Ad Absurdum:

God exist(and I will grant you could replace that with any supernatural being but that would be another argument as the creator of the reality we observe would have to have specific attributes) as the denial of his existence reduces ones views to absurdity.

A reductio ad abusrdum is a logical argument that assumes a postion(I have assumed the Christian world view) in order to show that statement is true by showing that the denial of that statement leads one to false, untenable, or absurd conclusions.

Atheism-God does not exist

Denying that God exist leads one to atheism which as of right now is absurd(as per first argument), therefore God exist. This statement is not begging the question, but rather an axiom unless someone can show that atheistic world view is not logically deduced to absurdity.
edit on 1-11-2014 by ServantOfTheLamb because: typo



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Jainine




Genesis is wrong. Period. Genetics and DNA and world populations and diversity prove it.


Genesis is right. See I can use that logic too. Once again ever looked into the hebrew?

As for the Global flood not is there plenty evidence that it did happen, but history disagrees with you as well as pretty much every ancient culture has a great deluge story..
edit on 1-11-2014 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Genesis is right. See I can use that logic too.

No. I used proven science and archeology. You just made a biased statement devoid of any evidence. The science has definitively proven Genesis did not happen.

As for the Global flood not is there plenty evidence that it did happen,

Wrong. I gave the science, archeology, and history showing it absolutely did not. It has been proven not to have happened. Logic and reason demand acknowledgement of this. Not to acknowledge these facts is illogical and unreasonable.

I can lead the horse to water but I can't make him drink.
I"m just going to let the indoctrinated horse stand there and dehydrate to death.
I'm done. This is useless.



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Jainine




Genesis is wrong. Period. Genetics and DNA and world populations and diversity prove it.


Genesis is right. See I can use that logic too. Once again ever looked into the hebrew?

As for the Global flood not is there plenty evidence that it did happen, but history disagrees with you as well as pretty much every ancient culture has a great deluge story..


some cultures might have a great deluge story, but none of those cultures can prove that it happened.



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Jainine




Genesis is wrong. Period. Genetics and DNA and world populations and diversity prove it.


All you did was make a statement and name Genetics. This is not something I can say anything to. Also if the research your looking at it based on an incorrect interpretation of Genesis then it does you no good. So Hebrew ever bothered to research it?




I'm a theist and I believe there is a God and I used inductive reasoning and personal experience to come to this conclusion. Atheists equally used inductive reasoning and personal experience to come to their conclusion.


The problem was never if we could use induction....you misunderstand....and your right everything your saying is based on induction which an atheist would have no justification for trusting induction so whats your point.

I am not going to go through everything you said but I will show you why many of them are misrepresentations of evidence.




And that ark couldn't have been built back then with the lack of knowledge and lack of materials anyways.


Many structures that are very old that we have no idea how they were built. Stone henge and american stone henge. Ollantaytambo and Sacsayhuaman . There is one in flordia called Coral Castle. The list goes on, so just because you can't fathom how Noah could have built the ark doesn't mean he couldn't have been done it.




There are coral reefs intact around the world that are a hundred thousand years old and if there was a flood they all would be dead


"Professor Richard Aronson at the Florida Institute of Technology and his colleagues discovered that by taking a core sample of the reef, just as a tree expert takes a sample of tree rings.

'We jammed 17-foot-long irrigation pipes down into the reef and pulled out a history, a section of the reef, that told us what the ups and downs of the reef had been," Aronson says.

It turns out that this 6,000-year-old reef hadn't simply been growing steadily throughout its history. In fact, the reef had actually died off for quite some time.

"These reefs were shut down for 2,500 years," Aronson says, "and the reefs have only been living for 6,000 years, so that represents about 40 percent of their entire history. So that's really shocking.' "

Source: www.npr.org...

The current great barrier reef is actually only 20000 years old.

You didn't even attempt to mention why pretty much every ancient culture has a great deluge story.

www.constellation7.org...

check some of this out



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You're SO focused on making the atheist "wrong", it seems you'll try just about anything. Your philosophical problem poses absolutely no problem for me because I'm not afraid to say that I don't know everything. I don't have to know every nuance of the beginning of our existence, why we're here or what happens when we die. I'm comfortable saying that I don't actually know.

Theism - Belief
Gnosticism - Knowledge

Here's a video you may find interesting.



www.youtube.com...


That has to be one of the best videos I have ever seen on the matter. Clear concise it doesn't wander off topic nor does it poke fun at theists it just explains. Theists and atheists alike should watch it IMO.

You should start a thread based around it if you don't feel up to it do you mind if I do maybe sometime tomorrow? I really hope you do though because I think you write better threads than I.



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jainine
...................
I can lead the horse to water but I can't make him drink.
I"m just going to let the indoctrinated horse stand there and dehydrate to death.
I'm done. This is useless.


Congratulations Jainine
(I'm not being facetious to you or anyone else) it only took you seven posts to arrive at this conclusion.Unfortunately logic would seem to be the most "logical" pursuit to resolve an argument but when dogma rears it's religious hard head the ouroboros begins to devour itself.

SOTL
The only thing I've seen you accomplish in your threads is to make God in your image(illogic).None of the "unbelievers" have tried to indoctrinate you with faulty logic however that is all you have done.The fact is and will always be the "creator" God can not EVER be proved.Even if those that do not believe had a mountain of evidence they would not "believe" because it is not their nature and character to "believe in a God …why do you fault them for that.

The fact is they do not believe in “’your God” that is absolutely false because you have created "your God" in your religious carnal mind(satan..the adversary) through your belief in faith of YOUR Belief System which can NEVER be proved to be true either because your Belief System is completely illogical and is based in belief not fact(knowing).

The fact is:
1.An unbeliever does not believe in a God that is not real and that is only a small element of their Belief System
2.You do believe in a God that is NOT real and your faith in them is the core foundation of your Belief System.

The unbelievers belief is not in contradiction to any logic however your belief is.If you truly understood this you would drop your arguments and examine more closely why and what “you” believe(which is the log in your eye) and not the speck that is in the unbelievers eye.

The fact is the creator God is very aware the unbeliever doesn’t believe..they created them that way because that is the persons nature and character.The creator God does not have to answer to you “why” or need you illogical defense.By your line of accusation through your illogical argument you are in disagreement with the creator God......vanity of vanities all is vanity....As Paul(Simon) said…..”All lies and jest ,still a man only hears[believes] what he wants to hear and disregards the rest”.


edit on 1-11-2014 by Rex282 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 04:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Rex282




The only thing I've seen you accomplish in your threads is to make God in your image(illogic).


Thats funny because the OP wasn't even about whether God exist or not. I mentioned that my world view had a response to this, and people preferred to focus on that rather than the point I presented. You lose the right to call something illogical if you cant justify inductive reasoning and uniformity in nature...




The fact is they do not believe in “’your God” that is absolutely false because you have created "your God" in your religious carnal mind(satan..the adversary) through your belief in faith of YOUR Belief System which can NEVER be proved to be true either because your Belief System is completely illogical and is based in belief not fact(knowing).


Cool glad you have an opinion but this is just a statement and I reject it.




1.An unbeliever does not believe in a God that is not real and that is only a small element of their Belief System 2.You do believe in a God that is NOT real and your faith in them is the core foundation of your Belief System.


Once again just claims that I can reject, as you still have no basis for induction and the uniformity in nature...

You seem to think I am completely illogical so please produce a basis from your world view for A)Objective Truth B)Inductive reasoning C)Uniformity in Nature



posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 06:40 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

At least three of us have shown you and outlined in detail the fallacy of your logic yet you refuse to consider it.As Jainine says ..it is futile.



posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   
You have it so backwards. You are not interested in the truth, so the facts mean little to you. For your argument to work, you have to pre assume that god is real. You state It yourself that it is the first step in your process.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join