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.

 

How does your world view justify the use of inductive reasoning?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Inductive reasoning is ultimately the foundation of all world views. It is at the foundation of science and all most every act that we do, yet most world views do not have the foundation to justify belief in the principle of induction.



Bertrand Russell all quotes from problems of philosophy:
" So far, our answer has been that we are acquainted with our sense-data, and, probably, with ourselves. These we know to exist. And past sense-data which are remembered are known to have existed in the past. This knowledge supplies our data."

When we begin to discuss our ability to gain knowledge we must first all agree that we process the incoming sensory input and use that as data to make inferences about the world.

Bertrand Russell:
" But if we are to be able to draw inferences from these data -- if we are to know of the existence of matter, of other people, of the past before our individual memory begins, or of the future, we must know general principles of some kind by means of which such inferences can be drawn."

"Let us take as an illustration a matter about which of us, in fact, feel the slightest doubt. We are all convinced that the sun will rise to-morrow. Why? Is this belief a mere blind outcome of past experience, or can it be justified as a reasonable belief? It is not find a test by which to judge whether a belief of this kind is reasonable or not, but we can at least ascertain what sort of general beliefs would suffice, if true, to justify the judgement that the sun will rise to-morrow, and the many other similar judgements upon which our actions are based.

It is obvious that if we are asked why we believe it the sun will rise to-morrow, we shall naturally answer, 'Because it always has risen every day'. We have a firm belief that it will rise in the future, because it has risen in the past. If we are challenged as to why we believe that it will continue to rise as heretofore, we may appeal to the laws of motion: the earth, we shall say, is a freely rotating body, and such bodies do not cease to rotate unless something interferes from outside, and there is nothing outside to interfere with thee earth between now and to-morrow. Of course it might be doubted whether we are quite certain that there is nothing outside to interfere, but this is not the interesting doubt. The interesting doubt is as to whether the laws of motion will remain in operation until to-morrow. If this doubt is raised, we find ourselves in the same position as when the doubt about the sunrise was first raised."

What we are seeing here is that when someone raises a question about the very concept all of your beliefs are raised on it begins to threaten the logical validity of that world view. The real question Bertrand is alluding to is do we as humans have a logically coherent answer for why we believe that some past input of sensory information will allow us to make an inference about some unobserved future event.

"It has been argued that we have reason to know that the future will resemble the past, because what was the future has constantly become the past, and has always been found to resemble the past, so that we really have experience of the future, namely of times which were formerly future, which we may call past futures. But such an argument really begs the very question at issue. We have experience of past futures, but not of future futures, and the question is: Will future futures resemble past futures? This question is not to be answered by an argument which starts from past futures alone. We have therefore still to seek for some principle which shall enable us to know that the future will follow the same laws as the past."

Some people argue that because we have reason to believe inductive reasoning is logically valid because we have observed the future becoming the past, but as Bertrand state's this simply begs the question at hand. The question is about the inferences we make from inductive reasoning.

Now one might argue that we do not know anything for certain, but we can infer what is most probable, yet the problem of induction even applies here. To say something is probable is to make the claim that some occurrence of A is often associated with some outcome B, therefore we have good reason to believe that an occurrence of A will be accompanied by B, but this again begs the question. The questions would the become what reason do we have for believing some sequence of past observed instances in time will gives us any information about a fresh instance in time. The instinct again is to say because it always has, yet this is not a logically sound basis so we must look else where.


My position:
As A Christian my foundation of the world rest on the belief that Jesus Christ was the Word of God made flesh, and that he is "the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."

God holds all things together as according to design.

I believe "since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."

A functional design is created with the intent of some occurrence of A being followed by some output B. The intent behind the design gives one a reason to assume that some past occurrence of an event will be like some future occurrence of an event.




posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Inductive reasoning is ultimately the foundation of all world views. It is at the foundation of science and all most every act that we do, yet most world views do not have the foundation to justify belief in the principle of induction.


Actually, the foundation of science is Deductive reasoning, not Inductive reasoning. The scientific method uses deduction to test hypotheses and theories. There are certainly instances in science where Inductive reasoning is valuable, but it most surely is not 'the foundation of science'.

Furthermore, there's a difference between "science" and a "worldview based on science". Scientists can be of any background and hold any worldview, and still be responsible in their scientific studies because science itself is not a worldview, it's just a tool used to study naturally occurring phenomena

Lastly, Religion also doesn't adhere to a foundation principle stemming from Inductive Reasoning. Belief in religion and/or a creator is partially based on SOME degree of inductive argumentation. Nonetheless, the majority of belief in religion and/or a creator is very often little to do with logic of any kind to begin with.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Now one might argue that we do not know anything for certain, but we can infer what is most probable, yet the problem of induction even applies here. To say something is probable is to make the claim that some occurrence of A is often associated with some outcome B, therefore we have good reason to believe that an occurrence of A will be accompanied by B, but this again begs the question. The questions would the become what reason do we have for believing some sequence of past observed instances in time will gives us any information about a fresh instance in time. The instinct again is to say because it always has, yet this is not a logically sound basis so we must look else where.


How is this train of thought 'not a logically sound basis'? The core of Inductive Reasoning is that we have evidence to support a conclusion, and that we understand the conclusion isn't absolutely finite. If your example were to have been on a conclusion that was assumed to be absolute, infallible truth, then your end comment would make sense. However, the conclusion isn't claimed to be of an absolute, infallible truth, so your end comment doesn't apply to Inductive Reasoning.



originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
As A Christian my foundation of the world rest on the belief that Jesus Christ was the Word of God made flesh, and that he is "the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."

God holds all things together as according to design.

I believe "since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."

A functional design is created with the intent of some occurrence of A being followed by some output B. The intent behind the design gives one a reason to assume that some past occurrence of an event will be like some future occurrence of an event.


This is not Inductive Reasoning. It's belief, not based on inference of general laws from particular instances, but based on unobserved instances that you simply believe happened, without any actual proof. Scripture is not proof that specific instances occur, so you cannot use Inductive Reasoning to make predictions upon future events.

Sorry, but your entire topic is built upon several False Premises



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




Now one might argue that we do not know anything for certain, but we can infer what is most probable
For me coming to grips with the probability of a God in the first instance ,was bridged by me "knowing" that I am me and no other is me .In order for a me, there had to be another .It was through this process ,I jumped off the fence of doubt and looked to search Him/it out . Just as we are capable of believing things we are unsure about ,we are also capable of becoming more sure about what we believe in . I think Paul or Peter wrote something towards this in that it's a faith to faith process in which we grow ......peace



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147




Actually, the foundation of science is Deductive reasoning, not Inductive reasoning. The scientific method uses deduction to test hypotheses and theories. There are certainly instances in science where Inductive reasoning is valuable, but it most surely is not 'the foundation of science'.

Furthermore, there's a difference between "science" and a "worldview based on science". Scientists can be of any background and hold any worldview, and still be responsible in their scientific studies because science itself is not a worldview, it's just a tool used to study naturally occurring phenomena
There does seem to exist a Dogma in science and there are gate keepers ...Rupert Sheldrake's studies ,observations ,as well as the experience with the gate keepers or Materialism is a great case study .

Joe Rogan interviews Rupert Sheldrake is not the beginning of the story but is a great talk to introduce and get a context for the bigger story .


This is the TED talk that started the Materialistic gate keepers to start digging the hole they find themselves in.



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Sorry, but I'm not going to watch a 2.5 hour video without any information backing your claim other than the video itself. There's no enticement for it
edit on 12/12/15 by Ghost147 because: typo



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

NP ...It's more of a historical issue that is kind of one of those rabbit holes many don't want to go down . Not that it's not scientific but that it's one of those vein's of enquiry MSS wants to call pseudo science but many wonder if it's more of the fear they have of a paradigm shift in the standard models of materialistic discovery ,which basic science wants to keep . Is there a God, becomes a spooky question to be answered by science ,and so they are hesitant to look for the answer ......



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   
You keep watching the same people over and over again and get it all completely wrong over and over.

No understanding of basic processes.

And why do you keep quoting your own opinions? You aren't famous or have a book on the subject are you?. Unless your opinion just so happens to be what you just heard 10 mins ago, which is most likely.


edit on 12-12-2015 by rossacus because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-12-2015 by rossacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Is there a God, becomes a spooky question to be answered by science ,and so they are hesitant to look for the answer ......


Science doesn't work this way, though. It's not about coming up with a question, then seeking answers. It's about making an observation, then questioning how that observation functions, then finding evidence to support the observations made.

God has not been observed in any way or form, therefor science has nothing to do with answering any questions at all pertaining to a god.
edit on 12/12/15 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147




It's not about coming up with a question, then seeking answers. It's about making an observation, then questioning how that observation functions, then finding evidence to support the observations made.
Which is the exact process that .Rupert Sheldrake' presented at the TED talk and which it was banned from pressure by Scientist . Some known and some not known . The study was on Morphic Resonance . www.sheldrake.org... .



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1
Banned by scientists? Doesn't that say it all to you no?



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Actually, the foundation of science is Deductive reasoning, not Inductive reasoning. The scientific method uses deduction to test hypotheses and theories. There are certainly instances in science where Inductive reasoning is valuable, but it most surely is not 'the foundation of science'.


inductive reasoning calls upon the experiences of previous deductive reasoning under the assumption that the conclusions reached then still hold true. because in most cases, being that inductive reasoning would only apply if deductive reasoning had addressed a similar or identical question previously, thats a pretty reasonable assumption.

otherwise, you would have to perform the same experiment over. and over. and over. and over. and over. until either you gave up on isolating the solution, or accepted that inductive reasoning possesses practical (and intellectual) merit.

thats my personal breakdown.

edit to add: also, lets be clear here, you arent interesting in your mind being changed, you are interested in an angle by which reinforce your unscientific beliefs. neither inductive reasoning or deductive reasoning will help you with that, good sir.
edit on 12-12-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147




Actually, the foundation of science is Deductive reasoning, not Inductive reasoning. The scientific method uses deduction to test hypotheses and theories. There are certainly instances in science where Inductive reasoning is valuable, but it most surely is not 'the foundation of science'.


I think what you are missing is that the justification for the belief that deductive reasoning works is inductive reasoning. We go thru many instances of the scientific method to reach a general conclusion. For example, You cannot assume you know how gravity is going to act after just one experiment. You'd have to repeat that experiment multiple times to reach a general conclusion which is inductive reasoning. To even begin preforming the experiments you must assume inductive reasoning.




Furthermore, there's a difference between "science" and a "worldview based on science". Scientists can be of any background and hold any worldview, and still be responsible in their scientific studies because science itself is not a worldview, it's just a tool used to study naturally occurring phenomena


I never equated the two. I simply made a point that everything we do requires us to first assume inductive reasoning. I assume you look both ways before you cross the street.




How is this train of thought 'not a logically sound basis'? The core of Inductive Reasoning is that we have evidence to support a conclusion, and that we understand the conclusion isn't absolutely finite.


"The question would the become what reason do we have for believing some sequence of past observed instances in time will gives us any information about a fresh instance in time."

When you respond to this by saying because it always has you are saying that some sequence of past observed instances in time will give me information about an unobserved(maybe that was unclear)instance in the future because past observed instances have always given us information about an unobserved instance in the future. It assumes the very thing it is trying to prove.




This is not Inductive Reasoning. It's belief, not based on inference of general laws from particular instances, but based on unobserved instances that you simply believe happened, without any actual proof. Scripture is not proof that specific instances occur, so you cannot use Inductive Reasoning to make predictions upon future events.

Sorry, but your entire topic is built upon several False Premises


I disagree. I did not give those verses to prove inductive reasoning. I gave those verses to display the foundation upon which my world view rest. I then explained how the fact that my world views foundation is an eternal God who designed and sustains the universe. Then I explained how the nature of a design gives one a reason to believe that a past instance in time will give the some information as to how something will act in an unobserved instance in the future.

P.S. you didn't give your world view and explain how it explains its use of inductive reasonin.
edit on 12-12-2015 by ServantOfTheLamb because: added ps



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




My position:
As A Christian my foundation of the world rest on the belief that Jesus Christ was the Word of God made flesh, and that he is "the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."

God holds all things together as according to design.

I believe "since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."

A functional design is created with the intent of some occurrence of A being followed by some output B. The intent behind the design gives one a reason to assume that some past occurrence of an event will be like some future occurrence of an event.


I don't see that as an act of reason. That's a leap of FAITH.



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

I think you missed the point of the thread. Nor do I see how that is a leap of faith its simply a fact about my world view



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
I think what you are missing is that the justification for the belief that deductive reasoning works is inductive reasoning.


Yes, in order for Deductive Reasoning to function, we must assume that multiple premises that are generally assumed to be true. However, Deductive reasoning is still a process, and that process is what science uses to determine things the majority of the time. Inductive reasoning is an entirely different process.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
We go thru many instances of the scientific method to reach a general conclusion. For example, You cannot assume you know how gravity is going to act after just one experiment. You'd have to repeat that experiment multiple times to reach a general conclusion which is inductive reasoning. To even begin preforming the experiments you must assume inductive reasoning.


I never denied that Science uses Inductive reasoning. I just showed that Deductive Reasoning is what is primarily used.



originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
I never equated the two. I simply made a point that everything we do requires us to first assume inductive reasoning. I assume you look both ways before you cross the street.


The very topic of this thread is "How does your world view justify the use of inductive reasoning?", and then in the very first paragraph you state "Inductive reasoning is ultimately the foundation of all world views. It is at the foundation of science and all most every act that we do". How could you possibly not be implying that science is a worldview?

You're either being dishonest, ignorant, or intentionally or unintentionally misleading. Why mention it at all if you didn't assume Science was a worldview?


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
When you respond to this by saying because it always has you are saying that some sequence of past observed instances in time will give me information about an unobserved(maybe that was unclear)instance in the future because past observed instances have always given us information about an unobserved instance in the future. It assumes the very thing it is trying to prove.


Except the conclusion isn't assumed to be 100% infallible. It's intrinsically understood to be a generalized view. Which is why it's perfectly logical to use that form of reasoning.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
I disagree. I did not give those verses to prove inductive reasoning. I gave those verses to display the foundation upon which my world view rest. I then explained how the fact that my world views foundation is an eternal God who designed and sustains the universe. Then I explained how the nature of a design gives one a reason to believe that a past instance in time will give the some information as to how something will act in an unobserved instance in the future.


Again, this isn't inductive reasoning. You're making up attributes to this 'god' such as it being eternal, creating things from nothing, ensuring that the universe doesn't transcend into chaos. I would go further to say that you have several other attributes to god that are based off of absolutely no reasoning what so ever.

Furthermore, your logic is flawed at it's foundation, you assume that something that is perceived to be designed, such as the things humans have made, must also have an anthropomorphized designer.

However, we can prove that design doesn't need an anthropomorphized designer. Designs appear in clouds, for example, with no more of a designer than uneven heating, evaporation, and other natural causes, which we can also replicate to prove true.

Furthermore, an anthropomorphized designer need not be a deity. The atheistic religion of Raelianism, for example, proposes that humans were created by extraterrestrials.

Your logic is also flawed because you believe God to be Eternal. So, using your very same logical that made you come to the conclusion you did about design, we could similarly state 'If the designer does not need a designer to create it, why should other things?'


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
P.S. you didn't give your world view and explain how it explains its use of inductive reasonin.


My universal view is that nature begets nature, subject to change upon further observations.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: olaru12

I think you missed the point of the thread. Nor do I see how that is a leap of faith its simply a fact about my world view


Your facts are wrong. sorry, but there is no inductive or deductive logical reasoning in the belief in god. It's faith, because there is no evidence.



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147




Yes, in order for Deductive Reasoning to function, we must assume that multiple premises that are generally assumed to be true. However, Deductive reasoning is still a process, and that process is what science uses to determine things the majority of the time. Inductive reasoning is an entirely different process.


Again I think you missed the point of what I am saying. Yes deductive reasoning is a separate process, I never said it wasn't. My point here is that we assume deductive reasoning works based on inductive reasoning. This is fine because they are different processes. The problem arises when you try to justify the belief that inductive reasoning works, because you will always use inductive reasoning to verify inductive reasoning which would be circular reasoning or begging the question. This is not something that is disputed in philosophy so I don't know why you are arguing against it so hard.






I never denied that Science uses Inductive reasoning. I just showed that Deductive Reasoning is what is primarily used.


I never questioned that Science used deductive reasoning. I said our justification for the belief that deductive reasoning works is inductive reasoning. How do you verify deductive reasoning works? You cannot use deductive reasoning as that would be circular reasoning, so you have to use inductive reasoning to answer that question. How do you justify inductive reasoning? Unfortunately whenever we try from a naturalistic perspective of reality we always use induction to verify induction. It is called the problem of induction and as I said before it isn't something questioned by logicians.




The very topic of this thread is "How does your world view justify the use of inductive reasoning?", and then in the very first paragraph you state "Inductive reasoning is ultimately the foundation of all world views. It is at the foundation of science and all most every act that we do". How could you possibly not be implying that science is a worldview?


Or maybe you just didn't read carefully enough. Yes that is the topic of the thread and rather than give your position all you did was attempt to discredit mine. Yes I explained that inductive reasoning was ultimately the foundation of all world views and then I made a statement to back up my belief that inductive reasoning is the foundation for all world views. That was because Science and almost every action we do is based on inductive reasoning. It was a statement to elaborate on my position. I mentioned Science because I knew some people would ignore the fact that induction is also at the corner stone of Science.




Except the conclusion isn't assumed to be 100% infallible. It's intrinsically understood to be a generalized view. Which is why it's perfectly logical to use that form of reasoning.


The problem of induction argues that probability is not even trustworthy so its not just some probability that you've come up with that doesn't escape the problem it just begs the question. Just accepting that its not an absolute conclusion doesn't make it logical.




Again, this isn't inductive reasoning. You're making up attributes to this 'god' such as it being eternal, creating things from nothing, ensuring that the universe doesn't transcend into chaos. I would go further to say that you have several other attributes to god that are based off of absolutely no reasoning what so ever.



Our last conversation went well, but are you even reading what I am saying? I mean you respond to "I disagree. I did not give those verses to prove inductive reasoning. I gave those verses to display the foundation upon which my world view rest" with your just making up attributes...no I am not just making up attributes. Those are the attributes of the God I believe in. As I have said three times now. That was to give the foundation of my world view so people who were reading understood my position.




Furthermore, your logic is flawed at it's foundation, you assume that something that is perceived to be designed, such as the things humans have made, must also have an anthropomorphized designer


Again you missed my point. My foundation starts with God, a top-down conclusion, it does not work to God..If God created the universe then by definition the universe would be designed. Functional Designs by nature are made with the intent to function in a particular way. It gives a justification for the belief that something observed in the past will give us some information about something in the future, Hume called this the principle of uniformity in nature.




However, we can prove that design doesn't need an anthropomorphized designer. Designs appear in clouds, for example, with no more of a designer than uneven heating, evaporation, and other natural causes, which we can also replicate to prove true.


That doesn't prove anything of the sort. Design which is purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object does not exist in the shape of a cloud unless some entity intended for that shape appear. You are trying to use the existence and description of mechanisms to explain away the existence of an agent. This simply is not possible. The fact that we can replicate evaporation and explain how it works doesn't discredit the idea of a designer in any way.




'If the designer does not need a designer to create it, why should other things?'


Based on our observations here everything we observe including the current state of space-time is contingent. The way in which my personal God is defined he has necessary existence rather than contingent existence. You are basically asking if the timeless being didn't have a beginning why should a temporal being have a beginning? If you cannot see the issue with that statement then I am afraid I simply cannot help you understand my position.




My universal view is that nature begets nature, subject to change upon further observations.


That assumes matter and energy are eternal and I'd say you'd have a pretty hard time justifying that belief nor does that belief give you any reason to believe the inductive reasoning brings us to any form of knowledge.




Your facts are wrong. sorry, but there is no inductive or deductive logical reasoning in the belief in god. It's faith, because there is no evidence


The facts about my world view cannot be wrong. They are my beliefs you don't get to tell me what I believe? Second, those again had nothing to do with inductive reasoning they were explaining the foundations upon which my world view rest so that I could answer the question the title asked myself...something you still haven't done. I think you and I define faith differently . You are obviously defining it as belief without proof. The greek word we translate faith in the Bible is pistis and it means a deep trust in someone. Trust in a relationship, or at least my relationships, is not blind. When I put my trust in people I have reasons for trusting that person.
edit on 12-12-2015 by ServantOfTheLamb because: typo



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Your beliefs are scientifically ignorant and intellectually dishonest, but I will defend to the death your right to have and express them.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

I disagree. I haven't even said anything about Science other than the undisputed fact that at its foundation it relies on inductive reasoning and all of it was strictly my own answer to the topic of the OP. I am glad everyone feels the need to tell me I am being intellectually dishonest when not one person has answered the question themselves.



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 12:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Again I think you missed the point of what I am saying. Yes deductive reasoning is a separate process, I never said it wasn't. My point here is that we assume deductive reasoning works based on inductive reasoning. This is fine because they are different processes. The problem arises when you try to justify the belief that inductive reasoning works, because you will always use inductive reasoning to verify inductive reasoning which would be circular reasoning or begging the question. This is not something that is disputed in philosophy so I don't know why you are arguing against it so hard.


Essentially, what you're attempting to say is that "there is no such thing as certainty". That statement is an obvious one, so why bring it up at all? I would say that it would be dishonest for anyone to claim 'this and that' is absolute 100% fact, and there is no way 'this and that' can be wrong. This should be common knowledge, so why bring it up in the first place?


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
I never questioned that Science used deductive reasoning. I said our justification for the belief that deductive reasoning works is inductive reasoning. How do you verify deductive reasoning works? You cannot use deductive reasoning as that would be circular reasoning, so you have to use inductive reasoning to answer that question. How do you justify inductive reasoning?


Again, you're trying to make a point here about how nothing can really be absolute, even though that point is obvious. So why make the point in the first place?


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147 Unfortunately whenever we try from a naturalistic perspective of reality we always use induction to verify induction. It is called the problem of induction and as I said before it isn't something questioned by logicians.


it's not questioned because it's already admitted that it is impossible for us to know anything with absolute certainty. This 'issue' isn't an issue at all, you're simply viewing it as an issue because you use 'faith' in your reasoning, which is claims absolute correct belief based off of nothing at all.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Or maybe you just didn't read carefully enough.... Yes I explained that inductive reasoning was ultimately the foundation of all world views... That was because Science and almost every action we do is based on inductive reasoning. It was a statement to elaborate on my position. I mentioned Science because I knew some people would ignore the fact that induction is also at the corner stone of Science.


In your very first paragraph you couple 'Science' as being a world view. That's not me being careless with my reading, it's pretty evident that is what you meant. If you truly believe that science is not a world view, then simply acknowledge your first paragraph is written in a misleading way.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
The problem of induction argues that probability is not even trustworthy so its not just some probability that you've come up with that doesn't escape the problem it just begs the question. Just accepting that its not an absolute conclusion doesn't make it logical.


What are you even talking about? Induction intrinsically uses probability! We have statistics for a reason, it's not to claim something is definitely going to happen because we have a record of it usually happening, it claims that something will probably happen because it usually happened previously.

It is completely logical to accept statistical evidence to base future events on.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Our last conversation went well, but are you even reading what I am saying? I mean you respond to "I disagree. I did not give those verses to prove inductive reasoning. I gave those verses to display the foundation upon which my world view rest" with your just making up attributes...no I am not just making up attributes. Those are the attributes of the God I believe in. As I have said three times now. That was to give the foundation of my world view so people who were reading understood my position.


So you're saying that Inductive reasoning is the foundation to all world views, but not yours?


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Functional Designs by nature are made with the intent to function in a particular way. It gives a justification for the belief that something observed in the past will give us some information about something in the future, Hume called this the principle of uniformity in nature.


I can't tell if you're professing your belief that there are "Functional Designs by nature [that] are made with the intent to function in a particular way." or you believe that scientists claim that? could you elaborate?

Because scientists don't claim that Nature is capable of intending anything. It's not a conscious thing.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147 That doesn't prove anything of the sort.


Yes, It actually does prove my point, it's simply a matter of you not understanding the evidence.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Design which is purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object does not exist in the shape of a cloud unless some entity intended for that shape appear.


The eye has a purpose, to see. It had no planning, it had no intention, and we can see how it arises without magic. Thus, it cuts out the need for a designer.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
You are trying to use the existence and description of mechanisms to explain away the existence of an agent. This simply is not possible. The fact that we can replicate evaporation and explain how it works doesn't discredit the idea of a designer in any way.


Yes, actually, it does discredit the idea of a designer because it proves that a designer doesn't have to be there to create things. There are naturally occurring processes that manage the creation of planets, and it certainly isn't because they come from nothing, it's because other processes allow for the 'building materials' to exist, and gravity allows for the accumulation of those materials, and so on and so forth.

If your argument is simply "there is a god", sure, go ahead and have that. But don't go around claiming that this god built anything in this universe other than whatever came before it, because we do actually know the naturally occurring processes that require to form the things such as planets, galaxies, variation in life, so on and so forth. If we find a naturally occurring process that shows how a singularity is formed, then you'll have to move your goal post again.



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Based on our observations here everything we observe including the current state of space-time is contingent. The way in which my personal God is defined he has necessary existence rather than contingent existence. You are basically asking if the timeless being didn't have a beginning why should a temporal being have a beginning? If you cannot see the issue with that statement then I am afraid I simply cannot help you understand my position.


You can make up whatever you want about your definition of god. It makes no difference until you begin to state that it had some hand in creating something within the universe that we already have observed has a naturally forming process.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
That assumes matter and energy are eternal and I'd say you'd have a pretty hard time justifying that belief nor does that belief give you any reason to believe the inductive reasoning brings us to any form of knowledge.


I'm not sure how many times I have to state that I it is impossible to know anything in an absolute form. I'm not claiming I know these things. I'm saying all the evidence points to this answer. I don't assume Matter and energy are eternal, you assume I do. Matter can be broken down, and from our current observations, energy cannot be created or destroyed. That certainly does not mean we will never find out that energy has the ability to be created or destroyed, that simply means we don't see how it's possible as of yet.

Again, the foundation of your argument with inductive reasoning is meaningless because no one is claiming absolute knowledge!



originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
The facts about my world view cannot be wrong. They are my beliefs you don't get to tell me what I believe?


I'm not telling you what to belief. However, if you say "this and that is a matter of fact" when we can prove otherwise, I will disprove your claims.

The strength in a wrong belief doesn't validate it's accuracy. It just means the believer is increasingly delusional.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Second, those again had nothing to do with inductive reasoning they were explaining the foundations upon which my world view rest so that I could answer the question the title asked myself


At least you can admit the foundation on your world view relies on no form of reason at all.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
...something you still haven't done.


I have, and you already responded to it.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
I think you and I define faith differently.


Theistic people do tend to forget that many words in English can describe several different things. Faith is a common misconception among theists.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
You are obviously defining it as belief without proof.


In your case, yes. That would be what religious faith would be.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
The greek word we translate faith in the Bible is pistis and it means a deep trust in someone. Trust in a relationship, or at least my relationships, is not blind. When I put my trust in people I have reasons for trusting that person.


Yes, that is another form of faith. However, that is not the correct terminology for religious faith, which is, in fact, a belief without proof.




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join