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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Now one might argue that we do not know anything for certain, but we can infer what is most probable
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 .
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
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 ......
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... .
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.
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'.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
I never denied that Science uses Inductive reasoning. I just showed that Deductive Reasoning is what is primarily used.
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?
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.
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.
'If the designer does not need a designer to create it, why should other things?'
My universal view is that nature begets nature, subject to change upon further observations.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147 That doesn't prove anything of the sort.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
...something you still haven't done.
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
I think you and I define faith differently.
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
You are obviously defining it as belief without proof.
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.