I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-06-2014, 09:19 AM (This post was last modified: 03-06-2014 11:01 AM by rampant.a.i..)
I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(03-06-2014 09:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(03-06-2014 08:15 AM)natachan Wrote:  Science is a process. If my professor says that this beam feels the most stress here and will break at this point here guess what? I take the beam and I put it in the compression chamber to watch how it breaks. I'll do this three or four times, doing calculations beforehand and checking them vs the results. If my professor and my calculations predict the result accurately I can trust that the system works. If the beam breaks in some other way, I bring this to his attention and we find out what's going on. THIS is science. It is a process. This is how science works. It takes nothing for granted that cannot
be tested or demonstrated.

So do I put "faith" in science? This is an odd statement. I don't think of processes that way. I have found reality (at the scale I deal with, so shaddup quantum physicists) to be fairly consistent. Further testing is needed but until proven otherwise I will continue to operate on this assumption.

i agree with much of what you say. i find science fascinating.

You don't understand the basic principles. Define the scientific method in your own words.

(03-06-2014 09:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  but i cannot say that science by itself is a sufficient criterion for rationality for science has a very limited domain or area of operation.

Then why has it it consistently replaced the supernatural worldview from day 1?

(03-06-2014 09:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  at bottom there are things you trust in and believe in that are not verifiable by the scientific method. thats my point.

Wrong. Unsupported assertion

(03-06-2014 09:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  you assume that your cognitive faculties are functioning properly.

You do. We have peer consensus to show this is the case. You have peer consensus showing your cognitive faculties are wearing a helmet and running a motorized Fisher-Price truck into a brick wall repeatedly in front of an audience.

(03-06-2014 09:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  you assume that tomorrow, nature will behave as it has in the past.

You assume that today, the sun rose in the west and set in the east, playing "twinkle twinkle little star" on xylophone.

(03-06-2014 09:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  you assume these things and many more like them and none of them can be proven via science. science itself cannot even be proven by science for to try to do so would be arguing in a circle.

Observable, verifiable, falsifiable facts are not assumptions. Running a Fisher Price motorized truck into a brick wall and banging your head repeatedly expecting to reach Narnia is not a life plan, and yet seems all you're capable of doing.

Save yourself some future embarrassment: Every time you feel compelled to respond to an argument, type the word "Hodor" until the urge passes, and click "post".

[Image: ejygu8yr.jpg]

(03-06-2014 09:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  science is good when used correctly. when it is abused, there are problems.

We know. See: your posting history.

http://youtu.be/jYmn3Gwn3oI

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
03-06-2014, 09:21 AM
I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(03-06-2014 09:11 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(03-06-2014 09:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  you assume that your cognitive faculties are functioning properly. you assume that tomorrow, nature will behave as it has in the past. you assume these things and many more like them and none of them can be proven via science. science itself cannot even be proven by science for to try to do so would be arguing in a circle.

How does a belief in a God solve this problem?

Like this:

[Image: va6ytahe.jpg]

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes rampant.a.i.'s post
03-06-2014, 09:49 AM
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(03-06-2014 08:09 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  i see no one is addressing the points i made about the Kalam.

Because it's presuppositional.

You state a universal rule that everything that begins to exist must have a cause. Now, knowing that you're a Christian, you're going to assume that YHWH is that cause.

So, of course, we'll ask "what is God's cause?" seeing as how you just invoked a universal law to prove his existence and he violates it, and you'll point out that you've conveniently said everything that begins to exist has a cause. So:

How has god existed without beginning to exist? You assert causality is super important to this argument, and yet your conclusion violates it unless you invoke special pleading.

How do you know the universe isn't timeless? You have never answered that question. Until you do, I see no reason to address any of your other points that rest on presupposition. It's not a compelling argument. You're just kicking the "I don't know" can one step further back, and you're doing so by making stuff up.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like RobbyPants's post
03-06-2014, 10:56 AM
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(03-06-2014 09:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(03-06-2014 08:15 AM)natachan Wrote:  Science is a process. If my professor says that this beam feels the most stress here and will break at this point here guess what? I take the beam and I put it in the compression chamber to watch how it breaks. I'll do this three or four times, doing calculations beforehand and checking them vs the results. If my professor and my calculations predict the result accurately I can trust that the system works. If the beam breaks in some other way, I bring this to his attention and we find out what's going on. THIS is science. It is a process. This is how science works. It takes nothing for granted that cannot
be tested or demonstrated.

So do I put "faith" in science? This is an odd statement. I don't think of processes that way. I have found reality (at the scale I deal with, so shaddup quantum physicists) to be fairly consistent. Further testing is needed but until proven otherwise I will continue to operate on this assumption.

i agree with much of what you say. i find science fascinating.

but i cannot say that science by itself is a sufficient criterion for rationality for science has a very limited domain or area of operation.

at bottom there are things you trust in and believe in that are not verifiable by the scientific method. thats my point.
Give me one example. One.

Quote:you assume that your cognitive faculties are functioning properly. you assume that tomorrow, nature will behave as it has in the past. you assume these things and many more like them and none of them can be proven via science. science itself cannot even be proven by science for to try to do so would be arguing in a circle.

So do you. Further you rely on that trust.

Let's say I build you a bridge. A nice suspension bridge crossing a very deep ravine. Do you trust that bridge to hold your car if I say it will? Why?

By your argument you should never drive over that bridge because you can't be sure it will behave the same from moment to moment. Just because a thousand cars use it doesn't mean it won't turn to butter at any second.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes natachan's post
03-06-2014, 11:17 AM
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(03-06-2014 09:04 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(03-06-2014 08:53 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  lol come on Doctor, I know you have something to say about it that you have not said.

you know there are professional philosophers who have attempted to grapple with the Kalam. these people i reference are actually philosophers in the academy and not your run of the mill youtube pseudo philosopher. have you read their work on the kalam? smith, oppy, grunbaum, dennett etc etc?

I can't even be bothered reading your posts properly any more (e.g. the post above). Repeating what you say and going round in circles for the umpteenth time is not going to convince anyone. And trying to goad people into replying isn't sufficient. People know what trolls are and they are quite easy to ignore. So if you want responses then you need to go away and think of some new tactic to make things interesting for people and motivate them to respond to you.

Just repeating yourself incessantly until people give up trying to reason with you and then saying "Hah! I won!" is pointless. The only person you are convincing is yourself (if that). You aren't even convincing any lurkers because they will see how the forum have dismissed you as incompetent.

I see no reason to continue trying to reason with you when you're too scared to even go one on one with either me or Mark Fulton in a boxing match.

Now shoo fly or come up with a more interesting tactic. My time is too valuable to waste and you bore me.

i take the above to mean you have nothing left to say about the Kalam.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2014, 11:20 AM
I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(03-06-2014 11:17 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(03-06-2014 09:04 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  I can't even be bothered reading your posts properly any more (e.g. the post above). Repeating what you say and going round in circles for the umpteenth time is not going to convince anyone. And trying to goad people into replying isn't sufficient. People know what trolls are and they are quite easy to ignore. So if you want responses then you need to go away and think of some new tactic to make things interesting for people and motivate them to respond to you.

Just repeating yourself incessantly until people give up trying to reason with you and then saying "Hah! I won!" is pointless. The only person you are convincing is yourself (if that). You aren't even convincing any lurkers because they will see how the forum have dismissed you as incompetent.

I see no reason to continue trying to reason with you when you're too scared to even go one on one with either me or Mark Fulton in a boxing match.

Now shoo fly or come up with a more interesting tactic. My time is too valuable to waste and you bore me.

i take the above to mean you have nothing left to say about the Kalam.

It's already been demolished.

You've failed to support premise 1 or 2 at least 4 times.

Out of arguments? Too stupid to come up with any of your own? Too stupid to google search for something new to present? Jeremy E. Walker? Yep.

http://youtu.be/T5GogfqtbJ8

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
03-06-2014, 11:22 AM
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(03-06-2014 10:56 AM)natachan Wrote:  
(03-06-2014 09:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  i agree with much of what you say. i find science fascinating.

but i cannot say that science by itself is a sufficient criterion for rationality for science has a very limited domain or area of operation.

at bottom there are things you trust in and believe in that are not verifiable by the scientific method. thats my point.
Give me one example. One.

Quote:you assume that your cognitive faculties are functioning properly. you assume that tomorrow, nature will behave as it has in the past. you assume these things and many more like them and none of them can be proven via science. science itself cannot even be proven by science for to try to do so would be arguing in a circle.

So do you. Further you rely on that trust.

Let's say I build you a bridge. A nice suspension bridge crossing a very deep ravine. Do you trust that bridge to hold your car if I say it will? Why?

By your argument you should never drive over that bridge because you can't be sure it will behave the same from moment to moment. Just because a thousand cars use it doesn't mean it won't turn to butter at any second.

your logic is horrible. i am not arguing that we cannot trust our cognitive faculties. I am not arguing that we cannot trust that tomorrow objects will still fall to the ground like they do today. I am arguing that we do trust in these things and they are not provable scientifically.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2014, 11:24 AM
I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(03-06-2014 11:22 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(03-06-2014 10:56 AM)natachan Wrote:  Give me one example. One.


So do you. Further you rely on that trust.

Let's say I build you a bridge. A nice suspension bridge crossing a very deep ravine. Do you trust that bridge to hold your car if I say it will? Why?

By your argument you should never drive over that bridge because you can't be sure it will behave the same from moment to moment. Just because a thousand cars use it doesn't mean it won't turn to butter at any second.

your logic is horrible. i am not arguing that we cannot trust our cognitive faculties. I am not arguing that we cannot trust that tomorrow objects will still fall to the ground like they do today. I am arguing that we do trust in these things and they are not provable scientifically.

http://youtu.be/A8ulmUrEJEE

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2014, 11:31 AM
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(03-06-2014 11:20 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(03-06-2014 11:17 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  i take the above to mean you have nothing left to say about the Kalam.

It's already been demolished.

You've failed to support premise 1 or 2 at least 4 times.

Out of arguments? Too stupid to come up with any of your own? Too stupid to google search for something new to present? Jeremy E. Walker? Yep.

http://youtu.be/T5GogfqtbJ8

ok. saying you have demolished the kalam does not equate to you having demolished it. by demolish i take it to mean "refute".

saying it is circular is not a refutation. saying that the universe is exempt from the causal principle and saying the reason it is exempt is because the universe is all there is is question begging for metaphysical naturalism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2014, 11:31 AM
I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(03-06-2014 11:31 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(03-06-2014 11:20 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  It's already been demolished.

You've failed to support premise 1 or 2 at least 4 times.

Out of arguments? Too stupid to come up with any of your own? Too stupid to google search for something new to present? Jeremy E. Walker? Yep.

http://youtu.be/T5GogfqtbJ8

ok. saying you have demolished the kalam does not equate to you having demolished it. by demolish i take it to mean "refute".

saying it is circular is not a refutation. saying that the universe is exempt from the causal principle and saying the reason it is exempt is because the universe is all there is is question begging for metaphysical naturalism.

It's empirical deduction, not unlike the logical deduction that your arguments are the intellectual equivalent of single-ply toilet paper.

http://youtu.be/G6W3xSnukZY

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes rampant.a.i.'s post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: