Ground Rules

This thought came upon me when examining theistic claims. For instance we cannot *prove* that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist somewhere because we lack complete knowledge of everything. However, I find it unsatisfying to say that we conclude that the FSM is nonexistent in a practical sense because the same could be said for other things that do not particularly influence our daily lives. For instance, I don’t see anything in my daily life that hinges on my belief or disbelief of a hydrogen atom. I could very well choose to disbelieve its existence for practicality and get by fairly well.Does this mean that we cannot deny the existence of the FSM? Well, no. In fact I support the 100% decision that it does not exist. My response to the argument that we possess subjectively sufficient information but not objectively complete information and should therefore only conclude that it probably does not exist is thus: To modify our conclusion in such a manner is necessitated by the assumption that we cannot be incorrect, an assumption that I find arrogant and more importantly highly inaccurate.We can, and for proper conclusions should, make absolute statements about things in the appropriate circumstances. For instance, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. We don’t say probably because the concept that we could be in error is already part of the scientific system in which the statement is set. I argue that all human discussion, even in philosophy, should and for the most part does contain this understanding. Because of this I suggest the argument against absolute statements about gods is invalid because it attempts to damage an argument through selectively restating ground rules.Now to the question: Do you think that there are situations in which this ground rule should not apply, making its inclusion in the statement necessary? Is the possibility of error justification for any belief?

"Humans are fallible."

Actually I go a step further; agnostic is *not* the logical conclusion because uncertainty is already an inherent quality of the system. People can make absolute conclusions even without considering themselves to be infallible, so a Gnostic viewpoint is redundant. Actually I was asking that if {A} is believed by someone who does not believe themselves to be infallible, is this sufficient cause to consider belief in {B} (which is mutually exclusive to {A}) a valid viewpoint?In any case the overall point is that fallibility is, or should be, already part of our thought processes. This means that our ability to make absolute conclusions is not compromised because of the possibility of being wrong. For instance, a Gnostic might conclude that because we lack complete information we cannot make a decision regarding the existence or non-existence of gods. However, the Gnostic will necessarily admit that they are fallible and thus it is possible that their logical process to reach Gnosticism was flawed, and thus they cannot be sure that they cannot make such a decision. The entire thought process leads to a non-functional loop because uncertainty is already a part of the thought process and does *not* prevent conclusions being made, and so applying it in specific circumstances is special pleading.

Out of curiosity, would you consider this part of your own thought process? For instance if you were asked "Is it possible that you are wrong about your current beliefs?" what would your answer be? What do your think the breakdown would be (yes or no) among your friends and relatives?

Since your faith originated in prayer and not by selecting the Bible, why does it bother you when rational investigation disproves some of its claims? If your faith does not come from the Bible why would this affect you?Since you still appear to have some misconceptions about science let me explain a bit more about their motivations. Scientists do not go "Lets find a natural explanation for the origin of life as opposed to religion." They instead go "Lets find out how the origin of life came about, by studying the evidence available." Note that there are no assumptions or goals other than the truth. The key is that scientists start with no assumptions or information, and through observation of the world gather information which they then analyze and make conclusions from.God is not part of their hypotheses because they do not observe anything that particularly indicates a god was involved. There is no malice involved, scientists look only in the natural world because it is the only place they can objectively look.As a continuation on the original train of thought, how would you react if whatever communication you get through prayer indicated something that you could plainly view was incorrect? For example, what if your prayer response told you that an apple on your kitchen table was actually a jelly doughnut? Would you still continue to trust it?

Which Bible? Every Bible is a compilation of separate texts, and many denominations have different texts either included or excluded. In addition almost all of those texts are going to be translations of the original text, and there are multiple versions of the translation which can in certain situations greatly alter their meaning.You describe an event that would reasonably cause you to think there is something to the Bible, but how was it specific to the particular books and translators? If it wasn't, how can you be sure that you accept *all* of the Bible?

Why not? Do you consider yourself to be infallible? Do you know of anyone else you, or they, consider to be infallible? That is after all what we are talking about here; it is not a statement that they are uncertain about or they would add qualifiers. They are quite sure that the sun will be here tomorrow, they are quite sure that things will continue to fall down, and they are quite sure that the Earth is much older than the Bible claims. If the sun vanishes and does not return then they will admit they were wrong, just as if the Bible turns out to be right. But it probably isn't, to the extent that they don't feel the need to mention it.

I don't agree, at least not in the specific manner you stated that science wants to avoid people in particular. When scientists seek to understand a specific process it is important that unknown and *known* factors are eliminated to the best of their ability. In the same way that your assistant is prevented from messing with the container, you also prevent squirrels from peeing in it, or it simply being rained on.Note that rain would be something that happens on its own; the key is isolation of a particular process, not some bias against intent. After all, experimentation involves a fair bit of intent!