Originally posted by Templares
Your blind faith will not erase the logical possibility within the context of the problem of induction that your God's benevolent behavior will remain unchanged in the future.
There is no inductive reasoning being used on my part in regards to this. Ergo, no context in induction.
Originally posted by Ytse
There is no inductive reasoning being used on my part in regards to this. Ergo, no context in induction.
For a Christian believer, yes. You have blind faith after all. For an outside observer using objective logic, i see a problem of induction in God's characterization as a benevolent being. He may be benevolent now, but whose to say he will remain benevolent in the future.
Originally posted by Templares
For an outside observer using objective logic, i see a problem of induction in God's characterization as a benevolent being. He may be benevolent now, but whose to say he will remain benevolent in the future.
An outside observer? If you could observe god why would you need faith in the first place?
Originally posted by Ytse
Then what the hell are they observing?
Semantics, shemantics. I bet JIA probably understand what i meant (no wait scratch that).
Look i really need to go and since this debate is no fun anymore because its degenerating into semantics, i'll just see the rest of you guys next week (as usual).
Here is a tip: Close your eyes, cover your ears, and concentrate on the word "observer". In time you'll understand what i meant.
For a Christian believer, yes. You have blind faith after all. For an outside observer using objective logic, i see a problem of induction in God's characterization as a benevolent being. He may be benevolent now, but whose to say he will remain benevolent in the future.
Originally posted by Templares
Here is a tip: Close your eyes, cover your ears, and concentrate on the word "observer". In time you'll understand what i meant.
ob·serv·er
–noun
someone or something that observes.
For a Christian believer, yes. You have blind faith after all. For an outside observer using objective logic, i see a problem of induction in God's characterization as a benevolent being. He may be benevolent now, but whose to say he will remain benevolent in the future.
How on earth does this "outside observer" observe the characteristics of a god they don't believe exists? If there is no god then he has no characteristics. If there is no god then the scriptures mean nothing, so you can't look there to see his characteristics.
So, explain what you're talking about.
Originally posted by Ytse
ob·serv·er
–noun
someone or something that observes.How on earth does this "outside observer" observe the characteristics of a god they don't believe exists? If there is no god then he has no characteristics. If there is no god then the scriptures mean nothing, so you can't look there to see his characteristics.
So, explain what you're talking about.
He is observing the characterization of God put forth by believers in relationship to the natural state of the world. Nowhere did he state that he is directly observing God.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
He is observing the characterization of God put forth by believers in relationship to the natural state of the world. Nowhere did he state that he is directly observing God.
Right, I understand that. But as I said, if he doesn't believe god exists then the scriptures can tell him nothing at all about the characteristics of god.
Originally posted by Ytse
Right, I understand that. But as I said, if he doesn't believe god exists then the scriptures can tell him nothing at all about the characteristics of god.
He can understand it from an observer's point of view. I know that Santa Clause does not exist, but I can learn all of his characteristics.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The only thing The Bible is proof of is that ink sticks to paper.
Well, I'm sure he feels the same way. This is why I'm finding his argument to be very odd. Inductive reasoning begins with empirical observation. You make lots of specific observations and eventually you reason that you specific observations tell you a general fact about reality. For example:
everytime I've touched fire it was hot (specific proposition)
---->
all fire is hot (general proposition)
I'm wondering why he is citing the scripture as an observation of god's characteristics when he doesn't believe the scripture can tell us such a thing about god if there even is such a thing as god in the first place.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
He can understand it from an observer's point of view. I know that Santa Clause does not exist, but I can learn all of his characteristics.
That analogy fails. Santa Claus is different all around the world. Some places he's fat, other's he's not. Some places he wears red, other places he doesnt.