Restating the Paradox

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm assuming this has something to do with the "fundamental truth" concept, but since you never would explain what you meant by that, I can't be sure.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I meant by saying you can have a high degree of confidence in the laws of probability but seem to contradict it in another context. First, I believe in the validity and usefulness of probability. But those calculations are only valid when the chances are finite and known. For instance, you know the chance is 1/52 the top card in a standard deck is the A of spades. But what are the odds if the deck is infinite and there are an infinite number of types of cards? It can't be calculated. It is this idea that Hume uses to show that order in nature cannot be based on probability. Probability itself assumes order in nature and therefore can't be the basis of proof.


[ QUOTE ]

In either case, the core of your argument:

Quote:
Everything is evidence that God exists because it's impossible for anything to exist without God.

is a ridiculous tautology anyway.


[/ QUOTE ]

The presupposition is that the God of the Bible exists. I believe there is solid and overwhelming evidence this is true but it's a presupposition. Given that presupposition the statement you quote is neither ridiculous nor a tautology. If He exists it's impossible for anthing else to exist without him since He is the Creator of everything, and if He is the Creator everything, since it's His creation, everything provides some information about Him.

[ QUOTE ]


If you *were* being honest, you wouldn't have started by saying "science is based on faith", since, using the most common definition of the term, that i! sn't wha t you meant and you *had* to know how it would be taken.


[/ QUOTE ]


Eastbay's post said

[ QUOTE ]

This is quite a bit better however, than "faith" where you accept something based on no evidence at all.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's totally untrue that "faith" has no evidence at all. It was that false allegation so often made by atheists that prompted my response. The evidence for the existence of God is overwhelming. The evidence for the truth of Christianity, some of which I later stated to EB, is voluminous. To flatly state that religious faith has no evidence is totally false.

Now, you want to discuss this according to definitions, these are two of the entries from American Heritage under faith.

[ QUOTE ]

faith

PRONUNCIATION: fth
NOUN: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.


[/ QUOTE ]

This paper says

[ QUOTE ]

The conclusion of Hume’s famous argument is widely regarded as an extremely negative evaluation of the evidentiary value of inductive inferences, and is often paraphrased as the claim that inductive arguments never provide any real “evidence” or “grounds” for their conclusions; that inductive inferences are “unreasonable”, “irrational”, and/or “unwarranted”; or that the premises of inductive arguments do not render their conclusions “more probable”


[/ QUOTE ]

I specifically had in mind Hume's position that induction is logically unjustifiable when I made the statement that science is based on faith. I don't see how you can contest this if Hume is right. If what I said was true how am I being intellectually dishonest? From the standpoint of logical argumentation, order in nature is a presupposition that can't be proved. Faith or belief is therefore involved. To state that doesn't carry with it the implication that I mean that kind of faith is identical to religious faith or belief in God. The point is that faith is not synonymous with irrationality - there are good reasons to believe, just like in science there are good reasons to believe. I may be comparing apples to oranges, but they are both fruit. There are differences but also similarities. You may reject the argument but you are unjustified to call me intellectually dishonest.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would add that religion also needs induction, in addition to faith. And, induction is not a different degree of faith, it's a different type of faith. It's a "faith" based on an abundance of evidence. Religious faith, by definition, is not based on an abundance of evidence. If it were, it would be induction, not faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Induction is not faith at all. Induction is a type of logic. What I meant to say, is that believing that induction is rational, is a type of faith. Barely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait a sec Kip,

You are disagreeing with yourself? Are you high or do I just need my coffee? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

RJT

[ QUOTE ]
Wait a sec Kip,

You are disagreeing with yourself? Are you high or do I just need my coffee? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

That's allowed, right? [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] I wish I liked coffee... or wish I liked marijuana... one of the two. Or both.

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
But what are the odds if the deck is infinite and there are an infinite number of types of cards? It can't be calculated. It is this idea that Hume uses to show that order in nature cannot be based on probability.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that all current evidence points to a finite (bounded) Universe, the Universe should not be assumed infinite and so this argument does not apply. I went over this already.

Once again, you have not explained what you mean by "fundamental truth".

[ QUOTE ]
The presupposition is that the God of the Bible exists. I believe there is solid and overwhelming evidence this is true but it's a presupposition. Given that presupposition the statement you quote is neither ridiculous nor a tautology.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Assume that God exists and that he is the creator of anything else that exists.
2. Since things exist, God exists.

You're telling me you don't call this circular reasoning? How this even passes for a valid argument in your mind is beyond me. I could just as easily say:

1. Assume that I am God and that everything else exists only because I do.
2. Other things exist, therefore I am God.

and BAM, I'm God!

*boggle*

[ QUOTE ]
The evidence for the existence of God is overwhelming.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol Only because of your "presupposition" that he exists in the first place!

[ QUOTE ]
You may reject the argument but you are unjustified to call me intellectually dishonest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Up until the point where you actually tried explaining what you meant, you were. Until that point, all you had given us was equivocation.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The evidence for the existence of God is overwhelming.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



lol Only because of your "presupposition" that he exists in the first place!


[/ QUOTE ]
How does that compare to the evidence for induction only being overwheling because we presuppose it in the first place.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Given that all current evidence points to a finite (bounded) Universe


[/ QUOTE ]

I told you I was using Hume's argument which assumes an infinite number of chances. And even if the universe is bounded, if time isn't, an infinity of chances still exists.

Edit: Also, even if the chances aren't infinite, if there is a significantly large number of unknown chances with unknown characteristics, and/or laws of nature that are unknown, order in nature is still an unprovable assumption.

[ QUOTE ]

Once again, you have not explained what you mean by "fundamental truth".


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't remember where I used it or in what context so you're probably trying to trap me again. A fundamental truth is a presupposition that can't be proved - like order in nature.

[ QUOTE ]

You're telling me you don't call this circular reasoning?


[/ QUOTE ]

Circular reasoning and tautology are not synonymous. I've stated before all human reasoning about ultimate (fundamental) truth is circular. It isn't offered as proof - it's explication. Given X then Y.

[ QUOTE ]

1. Assume that God exists and that he is the creator of anything else that exists.
2. Since things exist, God exists.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not a correct formulation of what I said. 2 is wrong. It should be 2. Since God created things, things give evidence of God ("The heavens are telling of the glory of God").

[ QUOTE ]

Only because of your "presupposition" that he exists in the first place!


[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect. Only is wrong.

[ QUOTE ]

Up until the point where you actually tried explaining what you meant, you were. Until that point, all you had given us was equivocation.


[/ QUOTE ]


It appeared equivocal to you because you didn't understand it and still don't. You're assuming your lack of understanding is dishonesty on my part. You should make an effort to engage in truth seeking rather than name calling.

[RJT]

(Note: I wrote this before jthegreat responded and your tete-a- tete going on now. Also, I don’t mean to hijack the already hijacked thread, by I see no harm with either hijack.)


I don’t get it NotReady,

Jthegreat sounds pretty smart. I can’t figure out if he does not understand what you are saying (I think your last post might help to that regard) or does and still disagrees with your point(s). Or he is right and I don’t get his point(s). We’ll see when he responds to the first post of the morning of yours.

Just out of curiosity and for future reference I would describe your posts in general (you really) like this:

Certainly thought out and having a great degree of knowledge of your subjects.
Short and to the point.
Self assured.
A bit impatient.

I am wondering - and this is kind of personal for me to inquire, but I will anyway – if you would critique yourself for a moment. Feel free to decline the offer.

Would you say this is more of a reflection of your personality or your posting style? By “posting style” I have in mind your debating method. For example: You seem to have the mannerism of a college professor. (Perhaps, you are one?)

Some professors allow the student the benefit of the doubt and don’t assume the student is up to speed. Others take the role that if the student is taking the class he should be up to speed or should have the wherewithal to get up to speed and do so (including simply asking for clarification) or drop the class.

I get the impression for you it is the latter of my college professor examples. But, in light of one of your personal anecdotes you spoke of; I am not ruling out mere impatience.

Either way, my thoughts are not meant as criticism (positive nor negative), only observations. I think knowing how you would describe yourself, might make for better understanding of you and really ourselves in the process. That is we all are to benefit. (This is really a possible start of a new thread – not specifically you as the example – I have in mind: what data do people use or ignore when processing opinions and conclusions and things of that nature in every day lives.)

RJT

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Certainly thought out and having a great degree of knowledge of your subjects.
Short and to the point.
Self assured.
A bit impatient.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have some confidence in what I say because of your first point, not a great degree of knowledge but a great degree of effort. I present an idea that I have thought about, sometimes for years, a few for decades. I don't mean it to be self assured which connotes arrogance but some measure of confidence that at least the idea is worth discussing. Reasonably show I'm wrong and I will change my view. I can't argue with impatience though - no doubt a fault.

[ QUOTE ]

For example: You seem to have the mannerism of a college professor. (Perhaps, you are one?)


[/ QUOTE ]

Nah.

[ QUOTE ]

Some professors allow the student the benefit of the doubt and don’t assume the student is up to speed.


[/ QUOTE ]

How many professors have you had that are patient when their students call them intellectually dishonest or worse? I'm not equating myself with a professor, just working within your ananogy.

Perhaps, besides my faults, one reason I have impatience is I'm very familiar with debate. I get very, very aggragvated when debate is warped and abused as it so often is on this forum. Name calling shows not only an inability to debate but it presents me with an intolerable situation. I can respond or not. If I don't respond it gives the appearance of acquiesence. If I do respond I'm doing the same thing. Neither of the two options available are desirable. This totally undermines the purpose of debate. That's why I stop engaging with name callers. I believe that if someone is making an honest effort to debate (my exchanges with chezlaw are one example), I am very patient, at least for me.

[jthegreat]

Let's see if we agree on the following:

Argument 1:

If (God exists and if God is the only possibility for that which creates all things) then (things existence = evidence for God)

Argument 2:

If (nature is ordered and therefore predictable) then (accurate predictions = evidence for order in nature)

Your position is that these two arguments are equivalent (from a logical standpoint) because in both, you are making unprovable assumptions.

Is this correct?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Your position is that these two arguments are equivalent (from a logical standpoint) because in both, you are making unprovable assumptions.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your arguments are well stated. I don't think they are equivalent in the sense of identical but are similar.