Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 0/368 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum ⇒ Social and Religious Issues ⇒ Faith and Belief ⇒

I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
Author Topic:   I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 633 of 693 (711867)
11-23-2013 10:41 AM 		Reply to: Message 622 by Straggler
11-22-2013 2:43 PM

Re: What happened to methodological naturalism?
Straggler writes:
​
Show me what I can know.
You believe that your wife or girlfriend will come home today. You can "predict" that she will, based on past behaviour but you know that people do fail to come home; there is a finite probability that she will not. You can't know the future; you can only believe in it.
​
You can know to some level of confidence what you can observe.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 622 by Straggler, posted 11-22-2013 2:43 PM Straggler has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 675 by Straggler, posted 11-27-2013 1:31 PM ringo has replied
  
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 634 of 693 (711868)
11-23-2013 10:47 AM 		Reply to: Message 628 by Tangle
11-22-2013 6:46 PM

Re: The Alien Done It
Tangle writes:
​
As the supernatural doesn't exist, the ONLY way they can be discussed is hypothetically.
You remind me of ICANT talking about the existence of existence. (What colour is colour?)
​
I would agree with you that the supernatural doesn't "exist" but I wouldn't say that nothing could be supernatural.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 628 by Tangle, posted 11-22-2013 6:46 PM Tangle has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 636 by Tangle, posted 11-23-2013 1:51 PM ringo has replied
  
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 645 of 693 (711929)
11-24-2013 1:16 PM 		Reply to: Message 636 by Tangle
11-23-2013 1:51 PM

Re: The Alien Done It
Tangle writes:
​
Well anyone can say anything about this stuff because there's no evidence for any of it - and I'm certainly not interested in pseudo-philosophising.
What's the difference between "pseudo-philosophising" and real philosophising? If real philosphising requires evidence, how does it differ from science?
​
Tangle writes:
​
I'm mildly interested in why people here can't accept a hypothetical example of an obvious miracle though.
"Obvious miracle" is an oxymoron. If it's obviously a miracle then it's neither obvious nor a miracle.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 636 by Tangle, posted 11-23-2013 1:51 PM Tangle has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 646 by Tangle, posted 11-24-2013 2:39 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied
  
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 661 of 693 (711991)
11-25-2013 11:07 AM 		Reply to: Message 658 by Dogmafood
11-25-2013 8:09 AM

Re: It's All In your Mind
ProtoTypical writes:
​
It is the same as not needing to add air to your tires and not being able to.
You said that, "belief should only come in when you do not need to make any more adjustments." I'm saying that belief comes when we can not make any more adjustments.
​
ProtoTypical writes:
​
The difference begins when we stop verifying the premises.
But we haven't stopped verifying the premises; we've run out of premises. The lights keep going on and off and we presume that something is causing it but we have tested every premise we can think of and they all have failed. You can call "supernatural" a premise if you like but it is not one that can be tested.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 658 by Dogmafood, posted 11-25-2013 8:09 AM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied
  
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 678 of 693 (712178)
11-28-2013 10:40 AM 		Reply to: Message 675 by Straggler
11-27-2013 1:31 PM

Re: What happened to methodological naturalism?
Straggler writes:
​
Your use of the term "know" imposes unachievable restrictions of certainty that are entirely pointless.
Not at all. I'm using it exactly as you are when you say, "All knowledge, most definitley scientific knowlegde, is both tenative and fallible."
​
Straggler writes:
​
We can know rather than believe when the next eclipse will occur in the same way that we can know rather than believe that evolution occurred. Past or future has little bearing here.
You conveniently ignore the example I gave you in Message 633 (the very message you're responding to):
quote:
You believe that your wife or girlfriend will come home today. You can "predict" that she will, based on past behaviour but you know that people do fail to come home; there is a finite probability that she will not.
You can know to some level of confidence what you can observe. You can not observe everything such that you can make reliable predictions.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 675 by Straggler, posted 11-27-2013 1:31 PM Straggler has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Prev12345
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024