Science cannnot disprove the existence of God.

Originally posted by Ytse
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.

Youre just scratching the surface of what induction really is. Iv'e already said this once before; induction operates on a much more basic level.The reliability of our eyes, which we need in order to read the Bible, depends on induction. The reliability of our brains to form religious beliefs, depends on induction. Simply put, if you do not trust the accuracy of knowledge obtained by induction, you want believe on ANYTHING, scientific, religious or what not. You might as well be a solipsist vegetable living your personal wet dream enroute to your nearest asylum.

Did you really think that the scientific method is the only one thats gonna be affected by the problem of induction?

As for blind religious faith, its a dangerous and misleading concept to base your "truths" on. Just ask Marshall Applewhite and the members of his Heaven’s Gate cult.

Originally posted by Templares
Youre just scratching the surface of what induction really is. Iv'e already said this once before; induction operates on a much more basic level.

Induction is a type of reasoning. I have no idea what this "basic level" is you're talking about.

The reliability of our eyes, which we need in order to read the Bible, depends on induction.

No. Your eyes would work the same whether you could reason or not.

Did you really think that the scientific method is the only one thats gonna be affected by the problem of induction?

Only inductive reasoning has this problem. That's why it's called the problem of induction. You keep trying to say the problem magically spills over into other types of reasoning when it simply doesn't.

Originally posted by Ytse
Induction is a type of reasoning. I have no idea what this "basic level" is you're talking about.

No. Your eyes would work the same whether you could reason or not.

Only inductive reasoning has this problem. That's why it's called the problem of induction. You keep trying to say the problem magically spills over into other types of reasoning when it simply doesn't.

*Sigh*

I think its apparent now that you dont fully grasp what induction really is, and how SUBTLE it operates in our day to day lives. I believe you mentioned David Hume, the man who framed the problem of induction, and he himself understood that induction works on the basic level in us humans and is necessary for our survival. Heck all of our memories and our learning faculties are all subject to induction.

Originally posted by Templares
I think its apparent now that you dont fully grasp what induction really is, and how SUBTLE it operates in our day to day lives.

No. I realize how subtle it is. For instance I continue to breathe each breath without worrying that the molecules in the air may suddenly rearrange and become poisonous to me. Radical skepticism would say that ultimately it is impossible to prove that in the next instant the laws the govern our known universe won't suddenly stop being applicable. But we live our lives by experience. And experience tells us that this just doesn't happen. So we abandon the radical skepticism...although we still cannot reason our way out of the problem of induction.

You tell me that my belief in god depends on my reasoning from experience. But I'm saying that knowledge begins with god. Let me cite Hebrews 11:3

By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

This is explaining that what we know of god is not by experience or reason, but by faith. And to me this is reflected somewhat in Hume's ultimate solution of the problem of induction. That we cannot reason the problem of induction away. But to insist on sound deduction for everything would render us unproductive.

Originally posted by Ytse
No. I realize how subtle it is. For instance I continue to breathe each breath without worrying that the molecules in the air may suddenly rearrange and become poisonous to me. Radical skepticism would say that ultimately it is impossible to prove that in the next instant the laws the govern our known universe won't suddenly stop being applicable. But we live our lives by experience. And experience tells us that this just doesn't happen. So we abandon the radical skepticism...although we still cannot reason our way out of the problem of induction.

You tell me that my belief in god depends on my reasoning from experience. But I'm saying that knowledge begins with god. Let me cite Hebrews 11:3

By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

This is explaining that what we know of god is not by experience or reason, but by faith. And to me this is reflected somewhat in Hume's ultimate solution of the problem of induction. That we cannot reason the problem of induction away. But to insist on sound deduction for everything would render us unproductive.

Ahh but the mere act of reading the Bible is itself an experience, a reading experience using our reading comprehension, which requires knowledge of the language the Bible is written (in this case English). And we learn language skills via induction.

Originally posted by Templares
Ahh but the mere act of reading the Bible is itself an experience, a reading experience using our reading comprehension, which requires knowledge of the language the Bible is written (in this case English). And we learn language skills via induction.

But as I said, faith in god preceeds all of this. Why must someone read scripture for god to redeem them? This would count all infants out of heaven right there. And what about Christians who were around before the bible was even finished being written? Did they have no prospect at salvation because they couldn't read the scriptures?

The holy spirit itself is what grants salvific grace. Not reading the scriptures.

Ahh yes religious faith. As i mentioned before, this type of faith is a dangerous and misleading concept to base your "truths" on. Anything can be justified by faith, everyone could just pull an imaginary god out of their a$s and start worshipping, so faith ultimately justifies Nothing.

What makes your religious faith special compared to others?

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Or can they?

Science does not care about proving or disproving God. If it did, it would get nowhere.

It is interested in exploring phenomenons, and things deeper and more accurate, nor arguing metaphysical and philosophical arguments. Thats why we have metaphysics and Philosophy.

"Science can not disprove God"

quite true, however the bible can not prove God's existance either, so technically your statement is pointless

w00t

Originally posted by RonnieBarkay
"Science can not disprove God"

quite true, however the bible can not prove God's existance either, so technically your statement is pointless

The bible has proven that he has existed. Why can't people with God-complexes understand that.

"Blessed are those whom believe without seeing."

- Moses

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Science does not care about proving or disproving God. If it did, it would get nowhere.

It is interested in exploring phenomenons, and things deeper and more accurate, nor arguing metaphysical and philosophical arguments. Thats why we have metaphysics and Philosophy.

God is way beyond phenomenons and things deeper and more accurate.

God is unimaginable. People get mad cause they can't see God. Yet he can be felt like the wind just on your spirit it's just no one allows it to happen resulting in saying he doesn't exist.

It's circular.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
God is way beyond phenomenons and things deeper and more accurate.

God is unimaginable. People get mad cause they can't see God. Yet he can be felt like the wind just on your spirit it's just no one allows it to happen resulting in saying he doesn't exist.

It's circular.

Then why call God a "he"?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then why call God a "he"?

Originally posted by FeceMan
Because He is who He is.

Then "he" is limited.

Yeah, that's one of the weakest arguments against the existence of God I've ever seen. "Nuurh, God is a He; therefore, He's limited because He isn't a She."

Originally posted by FeceMan
Yeah, that's one of the weakest arguments against the existence of God I've ever seen. "Nuurh, God is a He; therefore, He's limited because He isn't a She."

Not because god isn't a she, but because god has a sex in the first place.

I just find it funny when someone says "God is way beyond phenomenons and things deeper and more accurate" and then calls this god a "he". 😆

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I just find it funny when someone says "God is way beyond phenomenons and things deeper and more accurate" and then calls this god a "he". 😆

Just because god refers to himself with a male pronoun doesn't mean he has a gender per se.

Originally posted by Ytse
Just because god refers to himself with a male pronoun doesn't mean he has a gender per se.

How in the world did god refer to himself with a male pronoun? 😆

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How in the world did god refer to himself with a male pronoun? 😆

I'm assuming you guys were talking about the god of the bible.