|
|
#61
11-07-2005, 05:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Restating the Paradox
[ QUOTE ]
Christians have *zero* empirical evidence to create any level of confidence that God exists. They have their belief and that is it. [/ QUOTE ] Interpretation of the evidence depends on one's presuppositions. If you exclude the possibility of God no evidence will prove He exists. [ QUOTE ] Confidence as a result of evidence is *not* the same thing as belief in spite of no evidence. [/ QUOTE ] Everything is evidence that God exists because it's impossible for anything to exist without God. Again, all evidence is interpreted according to your bias. [ QUOTE ] Your position is intellectually dishonest. Context-dropping in the usage of a word is a logical fallacy. [/ QUOTE ] Faith is belief in something that can't be proved. Prove there is order in the universe. To maintain there is on the basis of empiricism is intellectual dishonesty. 
|
|
#62
11-07-2005, 06:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Restating the Paradox
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] BTW, keep it simple and define "random" as "an event whose outcome cannot be predicted" [/ QUOTE ] This definition does not make things easier (as most other "definitions" on this thread) since there are certain events which we can't predict (according to normal senses of the word), but we can assign accurate probabilities to them while STILL call them random (some of us even make money, _consistently_, using this process, that is - by being better than other people in predicting those random events). Randomness is an extremely tricky concept. [/ QUOTE ] It is only tricky when you try and make it tricky, which you obviously are trying to do.
|
|
#63
11-07-2005, 06:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Restating the Paradox
[ QUOTE ]
But after a mere 3b years I'm out and in heaven. Where will you be? [/ QUOTE ] 
|
|
#64
11-07-2005, 07:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Restating the Paradox
[ QUOTE ]
If you exclude the possibility of God no evidence will prove He exists. [/ QUOTE ] That's absolutely ridiculous. [ QUOTE ] Everything is evidence that God exists because it's impossible for anything to exist without God. Again, all evidence is interpreted according to your bias. [/ QUOTE ] This is circular logic, another logical fallacy. Do you understand what circular logic is? [ QUOTE ] Faith is belief in something that can't be proved. Prove there is order in the universe. To maintain there is on the basis of empiricism is intellectual dishonesty. [/ QUOTE ] Now you just redefine the word to suit your whim. You don't understand logic, semantics, or the nature of science. You don't understand the difference between confidence based on empirical evidence and simple belief.
|
|
#65
11-07-2005, 07:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Restating the Paradox
[ QUOTE ]
This is circular logic, another logical fallacy. Do you understand what circular logic is? [/ QUOTE ] Hmm, lesse, how bout: There is order in nature. I know this because natural laws can be observed. The reason this is circular is because law is defined by order. All human reasoning concerning fundamental truth is circular. This was established so long ago I feel silly repeating it. It's an axiom of philosophy. [ QUOTE ] Now you just redefine the word to suit your whim. You don't understand logic, semantics, or the nature of science. You don't understand the difference between confidence based on empirical evidence and simple belief. [/ QUOTE ] What redefinition? And what is the difference between the unprovable assumtion that empirical evidence establishes universality and simple belief?
|
|
#66
11-07-2005, 07:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Restating the Paradox
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] But after a mere 3b years I'm out and in heaven. Where will you be? [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] That reminds me of the saying: "Arguing on the internet, is like racing in the Special Olympics -- even if you win, you're still retarded." Not that there's anything wrong with that. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
|
|
#67
11-07-2005, 07:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Restating the Paradox
[ QUOTE ]
There is order in nature. I know this because natural laws can be observed. The reason this is circular is because law is defined by order. [/ QUOTE ] Wow, you're really bad at this. How about: If there is order in nature, then we could derive laws to make predictions about it. Since we can and the predictions are correct, we can conclude that there is order in nature. [ QUOTE ] All human reasoning concerning fundamental truth is circular. This was established so long ago I feel silly repeating it. It's an axiom of philosophy. [/ QUOTE ] What do you mean here by "fundamental truth"? [ QUOTE ] What redefinition? And what is the difference between the unprovable assumtion that empirical evidence establishes universality and simple belief? [/ QUOTE ] I was mistaked about the redefinition so I take that back. As far as proving order exists in nature, the proof is that we can derive models to make accurate predictions about the world. They work.
|
|
#68
11-07-2005, 08:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Restating the Paradox
[ QUOTE ]
Wow, you're really bad at this. How about: If there is order in nature, then we could derive laws to make predictions about it. Since we can and the predictions are correct, we can conclude that there is order in nature. [/ QUOTE ] Wow, you're even worse. Predicting that an event will occur because it did before, then having it occur, doesn't prove order. It doesn't prove it will happen again. You predict it will happen again because you assume order. You need to take Hume 101. [ QUOTE ] What do you mean here by "fundamental truth"? [/ QUOTE ] Basic. [ QUOTE ] As far as proving order exists in nature, the proof is that we can derive models to make accurate predictions about the world. They work. [/ QUOTE ] I've said before, all non-theistic worldviews reduce to pragmatism. Which is fine, just don't pretend there's logical justification. It's a faith position.
|
|
#69
11-07-2005, 08:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Restating the Paradox
[ 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
|
|
#70
11-07-2005, 09:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Restating the Paradox
[ 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
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
