Re: Restating the Paradox
 

[ QUOTE ]

so I'm not going to waste any more of my time.


[/ QUOTE ]

Or mine. Thanks.

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

[ QUOTE ]

lol. NR, I think I "believe" in "the infinity of possibility". Where does that lead?


[/ QUOTE ]


I don't remember exactly what context this came up in and since jthegreat has blessedly departed the scene I'm not going back to look it up so I'll give you what I think I was trying to say long ago before he and eastbay jumped on me.

It stems from Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding and especially his critique of induction. What he called the Uniformity Principle, or what I've been calling order in nature, which is a necessary premise for induction to be justifiable or warrantable logically, can't be proved deductively which leaves probability. As part of his demonstration that the UP can't be proved through probability he stated that if there are an infinite number of chances (events) then probability can't apply. He went into more detail to show this but I think it's kind of obvious.

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

Ok, so that means it's not possible to prove that order exists in the universe by use of reason and sensory perception. I think I'm ok with that.

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

Wow. I've heard many, many Christian apologists, and NotReady you are absolutely the most intellectually dishonest of the whole lot. Nearly every post I read of yours I wanted to band my head against my dog and throw the monitor out the window. You were totally evasive and your use of specious arguments and definition-shifting is sickening. You will not convince anyone using deceptive techniques. Not anyone intelligent, that is.

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

[ QUOTE ]

Ok, so that means it's not possible to prove that order exists in the universe by use of reason and sensory perception. I think I'm ok with that.


[/ QUOTE ]


This position of Hume is used by a branch of apologetics that I mostly agree with. But there is much in Hume neither they nor I agree with and so I'm concerned to understand Hume's thoughts on induction with more precision. It's a famous proposition in philosophy, I've even heard it called the most important single statement of Western Philosophy since the Greeks. There is much controversy surrounding it and a great deal of scholarly work pro and con. But it's a fascinating area and I'm still trying to understand what it means, its validity, and the implications.

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

[ QUOTE ]

NotReady you are absolutely the most intellectually dishonest of the whole lot.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to make one response to you and then I'm done. Unless you provide reasons instead of insults and allegations I will not respond further.

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

NotReady you are absolutely the most intellectually dishonest of the whole lot.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to make one response to you and then I'm done. Unless you provide reasons instead of insults and allegations I will not respond further.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have to. Others have. How many times have you been called intellectually dishonest on just this one thread? People have pointed examples out. It's the opinion of those casting the accusations that your explanations trying to rid yourself of the accusations are severely lacking.

Are you 100% sure that you're not being intellectually dishonest? Are you certain? Or are you taking it on faith that you're not being intellectually dishonest? If you're taking it on faith, is it God that is bridging the gap between your faith and what is truth? Or are you leaving it to chance (accident)?

Doesn't it suck when people are being intellectually dishonest with you?

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You need to take Hume 101.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are arguing that induction is considered rational only by faith, since it's can't be proven.

Here's a good response: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p71.htm

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that is a very weak response. It may be rational to assume induction is valid but it is an act of faith to believe induction is valid.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

That was a weak response, too. Of course it's an act of faith. If by faith you mean something that is unproven by deductive logic, and taken on presupposition. The point is, some presuppostions are necessary, and some are not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Science doesn't require any presuppositions (unless you mean we have to assume logic).

Believing that the results of science are naked truth is irrational i.e. suppositions/faith are required.

Maybe we aren't disagreeing about anything, I thought the link was an attempt to defend induction against NotReady's claim it require faith to believe, which it did very badly - maybe because it agreed with him [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I presuppose that induction is a rational tool for belief.

I have to in order to say that my belief in any scientific theory is rational.

The "umph" of Hume's argument, is that you cannot use induction to prove that induction is a rational tool for belief -- it's circular logic.

So, science doesn't "need" to presuppose that induction is a valid tool for belief... but it certainly requires one to presuppose that it is, in order to accept scientific theories as rational.

But, as that URL also said, there is mountains of evidence that point to the reliability of induction. So, even though this doesn't "prove" that induction is valid, any and all rational people assume it to be.

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

[ QUOTE ]

So, even though this doesn't "prove" that induction is valid, any and all rational people assume it to be.


[/ QUOTE ]

No argument. When I used "prove" in my debate with EB I had Hume in mind which concerns logical proof or rational justification, not scientific or mathematical proof. This is a discussion board, not a PHd thesis, and I've completely lost interest in playing gotcha. If it gives certain people a feeling of superiority to major in the minors, they're welcome to it - I'm not interested.

Re: Restating the Paradox
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So, even though this doesn't "prove" that induction is valid, any and all rational people assume it to be.


[/ QUOTE ]

No argument. When I used "prove" in my debate with EB I had Hume in mind which concerns logical proof or rational justification, not scientific or mathematical proof. This is a discussion board, not a PHd thesis, and I've completely lost interest in playing gotcha. If it gives certain people a feeling of superiority to major in the minors, they're welcome to it - I'm not interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to agree with you. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

I think the argument started with your equivocation of the word "faith". When you argue that it takes the same kind of "faith" for me to believe that my chair will hold me up when I sit down, as it does for me to believe that God exists, then you are just asking for a heated argument. Hopefully you can see that it's nowhere near the same "faith".

The "chair faith" is the same as the "induction faith". If God were to convice me that he exists, I would no longer need your "religious faith" to believe that. But, I would still need the "chair faith" to believe that he still exists the next day.