Originally posted by Templares
It doesnt matter if these "truths" were reached by induction or not.
You can't hold me to the limitations of inductive reasoning if I'm not even using it to reach these beliefs. As I said, that's totally nonsensical.
Im aware that you reached those "truths" by blind faith, thats why i mentioned faith be damned.
Faith be damned? Haha. My belief in these things is based on faith. If you take that away then what are we even talking about?
Originally posted by Ytse
You can't hold me to the limitations of inductive reasoning if I'm not even using it to reach these beliefs. As I said, that's totally nonsensical.Faith be damned? Haha. My belief in these things is based on faith. If you take that away then what are we even talking about?
Im talking here as an outside observer who doesnt share your faith. Have fun and be content with your faith but im telling you now that your God's actions and behavior doesnt pass logical scrutiny, specifically the problem of induction.
Originally posted by Templares
but im telling you now that your God's actions and behavior doesnt pass logical scrutiny, specifically the problem of induction.
I really don't think you understand inductive logic at all. You cannot arrive at the Christian presuppositions via induction. That's why they're called suppositions.
Originally posted by Ytse
I really don't think you understand inductive logic at all. You cannot arrive at the Christian presuppositions via induction. That's why they're called suppositions.
No matter how much you toot your supposed ability to logic, you can't actually make valid conclusions unless you have your facts straight.
Originally posted by Ytse
No, I don't believe in a dualistic natural/supernatural metaphysic. I believe reality was created.
Interesting, I don’t believe in a point of creation at all. I believe that the big bang was just one of an endless number of big bang and big crunches.
Originally posted by Ytse
1) I've never said "the scriptures are true. prove me wrong." What I said was that science cannot prove or disprove such a thing.
I disagree; science will one day prove the bible to be a book of stories. However, people with power in the church will not give up the power easily. They will fight science or adapt. In the past, they have done both.
Originally posted by Ytse
2) While I would question the premises of your argument, the conclusion you reach follows logically. If one supposes that there are indeed green dragon eggs, and one supposes that they cannot be seen by anyone who does not believe they exist, then it would follow that I, being a non-believer in green dragon eggs, could not see them.
My point saw to show the difficulty in disproving a belief. It can be done, but it has to be done indirectly.
Originally posted by Ytse
I really don't think you understand inductive logic at all. You cannot arrive at the Christian presuppositions via induction. That's why they're called suppositions.
I said it once and i'll say it again, it doesnt matter if these "truths" or suppositions were reached by induction or not. Nothing is exempt from logical scrutiny, even your God's actions, especially from an outside observer like yours truly. Youre blind faith may accept God's goodness and consistent behavior as is but going by the problem of induction which you championed in your earlier posts, your God and his actions fail it.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I disagree; science will one day prove the bible to be a book of stories. However, people with power in the church will not give up the power easily. They will fight science or adapt. In the past, they have done both.
Hasn't that already happened though? I mean most of the Bible has been shown to be total fiction. People might still believe it as they're clinging onto their dying religion, but sooner or later they will too realise that it is not real.
And if they don't.... I feel sorry for them. Sad that people do not want to know the truth.
Originally posted by Templares
I said it once and i'll say it again, it doesnt matter if these "truths" or suppositions were reached by induction or not.
How can it be limited by induction when it's not even using induction at all? Prove your point because I'm still saying you don't quite grasp inductive logic.
but going by the problem of induction which you championed in your earlier posts, your God and his actions fail it.
The problem of induction is just that...the problem of induction. Not the problem of any kind of reasoning you want to say it is.
Originally posted by Boris
Hasn't that already happened though? I mean most of the Bible has been shown to be total fiction. People might still believe it as they're clinging onto their dying religion, but sooner or later they will too realise that it is not real.
So?
Is the Sermon on the Mount, not real?
Originally posted by Boris
Hasn't that already happened though? I mean most of the Bible has been shown to be total fiction. People might still believe it as they're clinging onto their dying religion, but sooner or later they will too realise that it is not real.And if they don't.... I feel sorry for them. Sad that people do not want to know the truth.
Ya, but we are still in the dark ages. 😉