a LOT has happened in 12 hours...so I'm going to confirm what I can...these are the replies to the points I have been making, followed by my replies:
1) Where is the leap of faith in science?
- The leap of faith is found within the fundamental assumption of science, that is, if something happens once, twice, a thousand times before; it will happen again. This is where the idea of experimentation to prove a hypothesis comes from. As I've mentioned earlier, you cannot say the future will be consistent simply because in the past, the future was consistent.
. For example, water has always boiled at 100 degrees (celcius...I'm Australian). I cannot know for certain that tomorrow it will not boil at 20 degrees. I can be pretty damn sure, but not certain (Mahou has pointed this out already).
Okay, so someone has kindly pointed out that:
uncivlengr wrote:a_toddlers' argument is essentially that you can't "absolutely" prove that the material you tested wouldn't cease to exist tomorrow, or turn into a bowl of grapes, so I'd be perfectly justified in believing either of those things, or anything else I could come up with.
Granted - this is only half my point. The annoying this is that I argue half my point and then when I'm done, I find I have to argue the other half again. So here is the other half, all in one place!
As I've said before, the key here is consistency. I DO believe in science because it has so far proved to be consistent within itself. Same goes for maths (although I'm aware most people consider this within science), and same goes for Christianity. My FULL point is, the "truth" of anything requires some sort of leap of faith. My personal method of distinguishing between such truths is to look for consistency between it's claims.
Basic example; if someone told me <this> and <that>. My leap of faith is that whatever they told me is true. However, if <this> and <that> are inconsistent with each other, or it <this> and/or <that> are inconsistent with what I already hold as true, then I would need to re-examine. Hopefully my point is clear!
2) Your argument is circular!
- My answer is. Yes. I've conceded that. In fact when I first brought it up, I pre-empted it. My point about why
seems to have been ignored. Here again, is said point:
When one decides to choose something
as the highest authority (ie. when push comes to shove, this
is what will decide what I believe), the thing which is of highest authority must support itself circularly. If I believe it's the Bible, for example, I can't say "because logically, I can deduce this is the case", because this would mean I would hold logic to be of highest authority. This is why I keep giving that quip about "Why should
logic be our highest authority?" saying "because I see no reason otherwise" or "because it's logical to do so" is circular.
Now I used to leave it at that, but I realised I must round up my point or people get angry that I'm somehow using logic to say logic is stupid. Okay, so my point is this. You claim logic to be your highest authority. I put that this claim has to be circular
, otherwise if you could validate it via other means, this means would instead be your highest authority. So if someone says "I believe that the bible is God's word, and whatever within it is true, then yes.", instead of just going:
That's the worst circular argument I think I've ever seen.
Does the Easter Bunny exist? If I assume that the baskets the Easter Bunny brings to children are brought by the Easter Bunny...
You should realise, "Oh ok, so this person places the bible as their highest authority."
Now for the sake of consistency, I'd also add that this is indeed my stance, however in my experience I have yet to come across something which causes conflict between my highest authority (the bible) and my second highest (logic). Which kinda leads to the most recent topic of:
3) Evolution. Kgo
- to which I say: Genesis 1 (the bit where God creates the world in 6 days) is not a literal account. I sort of assumed this was common knowledge, but it is evident from the historical context of when Genesis was (supposedly) written, and from the literary genre itself that this was not a historical recount. The point of Genesis 1 was to tell the Israelites that "yes, you may have heard all these accounts from your heathen neighbours as to how the world began. Well long story short, it was God that made the world.". Someone has noted that:
Mapar wrote:(and I also feel the obligation to say that "goddidit" is pure crap as an explanation. This has been pointed out multiple times. It doesn't explain anything. Evolutionary theory does, it makes falsifiable predictions, none of which have failed the test so far.)
Well yes. Science is the ability to explain the world without having to refer to "goddidit" (lol, that's a clever phrase! I'm filing it away for future use :p). Why did the apple fall? Not because "goddidit", but because objects with mass have gravity which acts upon other objects with mass. Just an example btw, if i failed to describe gravity, please don't tunnel vision your next point into it please :p
4) Inexplicable evil exists, how can you prove God exists
and what if God exists but isn't as described in the bible?
- the short answer, however obnoxious, is read the bible. It has a (what I reckon) decent explanation of the source of evil and God's stance on said evil and how a good God co-exists with such evident 'evil'. Beyond that, I can't really answer your question, seeing as "prove God exists" is in the ballpark of "prove evil exists".
I realise now that your:
sje46 wrote:It's a hypothetical situation. You can't just say "Well I don't believe in that" to get out of a hypothetical question. So I'll ask you again: if God exists, but the Bible is false, and God told you at the pearly gates that the correct morality is to cause as much suffering as possible, would you accept that as the correct morality?
is purely hypothetical and you weren't trying to make me prove something that I didn't believe. Okay. Well my response to God at that point would go along the lines of "Wtf? Screw you.". I believe I have answered your hypothetical? So why listen to God at all? Well it seems you insist on describing a God which is inconsistent to the one described in the bible, in which case I can't really answer you because that's not what I believe.
Awesome. That took me more than an hour, and I know I didn't (and can't) answer it all. Outnumbered at least 4 to 1 and in a different timezone = lengthy lengthy response that only covers like a third of replies.
TL;DR: I tried to make it as readable as possible. I also tried to make it so that you can read the points u find interesting. So read it!