Faith and Reason.

[Demosthenes11]

Well, the definition of faith you're using here is simply a reasonable expectation. You expect your car to get you to work because it has done so in the past.

that definition should be specified. faith does not only mean religious. in fact, the leading definition has nothing religious attached to it

poster above me: semantics. the word can be used interchangeably with what you said

[Melchiah]

If you refuse to differentiate between a reasonable conclusion and an unreasonable conclusion, you have no place in this discussion.

Faith in the context of this discussion has been agreed upon to specifically mean that which is not or cannot be observed. This is not semantics, these definitions were established at the beginning of the discussion, and if you cannot tell the difference, you can't argue either side.

[Max™]

But isnt it better for my seed to fall into the belly of a whore than on the ground?!

Just as long as you aren't squeezing one off in your neighbors back yard at 3 AM!


Also: you want the equivalent of a mathematical proof, fine.

If you want math to work the same way science works, it is because 3 is not any other number.

1 =/= 3, 2 =/= 3, 4 =/= 3, etc, etc, etc.

You can then state after enough experiments that until further notice, 3 is not any other number... though it is sort of -3, and 3i, but I digress for sanity, and so help me if you bring up complex numbers, I'm going to skullfuck you.


When you exhaust the methods by which you could invalidate something, you note any other ways you could attempt to do it, but lack the means to perform, and then say it is valid enough.


We know Relativity works to explain the motion of bodies within the solar system, yet we know it cannot claim unlimited validity due to the inability to reconcile quantum mechanics, and certain large scale aspects of the universe with Relativity (dark matter/etc which while they are workable, are still uncertain in the specifics, and as such unsatisfying to most).

Does that mean you throw the theory out?

Baby with the bath water?



Btw, expecting your car to take you to work is logic, not faith.

I don't magically expect the car to take me to work without any reason, I know the car is functioning, I know it had gas in it last night, aired up tires, the appropriate fluid levels, and I can perform simple experiments to confirm this.

Will the car take me to work?

Step 1: start it.

*kerkerkerkerVrummm*

Yes, it will start.

Step 2: put it in gear and see if it is operating nominally.

*squeakkk-kerchunk*

Hmmm, it sounds like something broke just now.

Did something break?

Step 1: release the brake pedal and see if the car moves as desired.

*nothing happens*

I just blew up my transmission.

Result: the car will not take me to work in it's current state. Further testing is required after adjusting the apparatus.


Faith method.

Will the car take me to work?

Yes it will!

*prays the transmission fixes itself*

[Kaylia]

^
Only thing you do is make your result match the reality you assumed to be true. It doesn't say anything about the reality itself.


That's like trying to find a limit in R....your experiment allow you to find this limit, but you still need axioms to define R, or the concept of limit isnt even defined.

Basically, I can't prove this reality exist, but I'm convinced enough that it exists to build the scientific methods on top of it. This conviction isn't based on "logic", or "reason", it's just something you accept because it feel right to you.

[Neosutra]

The axiom is that this reality does exist. If this reality doesnt exist then it doesnt matter. The sheer fact of action on our parts and cognitive awareness is enough evidence for us to state we do indeed exist. You are dancing around the point.

[Kaylia]

The axiom is that this reality does exist.

=

You have to believe there is a reality that can be explained (consciously or not) if you want to do sciences .

=/=

No. No form of faith is at the base of the scientific method. I dont have "faith" that I will find the answers to the problems Im trying to solve, I simply want to solve them, and am working towards that goal. I have no idea if I will ever solve it, but I still try. There isnt some blind "faith" that I will someday find that answer.

QED?

[Zalius]

i get uncomfortable when people talk about religion rocl im uncomfortable will you lock this thread plz

[Blubbartron]

So the entire derailment of this perfectly good debate by Kaylia has been to force us into admitting that we cannot tell for sure if we exist or not? Thanks a fucking lot for the massive waste of time. Arguments in futility are amazing. If we don't really exist, neither choice matters. If we do exist, the scientific method wins. End of story.

[Neosutra]

=




=/=



QED?

We dont assume we exist, we state we exist due to empirical evidence. Stop deluding yourself.

[Kaylia]

So the entire derailment of this perfectly good debate by Kaylia has been to force us into admitting that we cannot tell for sure if we exist or not? Thanks a fucking lot for the massive waste of time. Arguments in futility are amazing. If we don't really exist, neither choice matters. If we do exist, the scientific method wins. End of story.

I'm not the one who disagreed with the obvious. Neo did.

[Kaylia]

We dont assume we exist, we state we exist due to empirical evidence. Stop deluding yourself.

Empirical evidence? Which one?

[Max™]

I said we cannot prove we exist, so for simplicities sake we assume that we do.

Whether we do or not, it doesn't appear to have significant effects on most experiments, so it is irrelevant except in a philosophical manner.

Empirical evidence I exist.

I am reading this, I am responding to it, I am aware of my motion through time.

I can conceive of a point when I did not exist, also one when I will not exist as a thinking entity.

There are differences between those states and my current state, so whatever my current state is now, it does not seem to be non-existence.

[Neosutra]

I'm not the one who disagreed with the obvious. Neo did.

Keep thinking that we are the ones somehow missing your points in futility due to our ignorance. We all know what you are trying to say Kaylia, and we are all saying it is silliness. There is no assumption of existance, there is empirical evidence that to even have this debate, we must exist. You aren't enlightening anyone here, and your sophmoric attempts to apply the bounds of axioms to the definative process of the scientific method, as if it were itself a theory, and not just a standard by which we test our theories, shows only your misunderstanding of the debate or your willingness to argue through anything, if only to reveal your near insurmountable obtuseness.

If you want to contribue to this debate, tell us a bit about your background, your beliefs, and how you justify them; stop wasting everyone's time talking in circles.

And Max, stop wasting your time arguing with Kaylia Q.Q.

[Kaylia]

Keep thinking that we are the ones somehow missing your points in futility due to our ignorance. We all know what you are trying to say Kaylia, and we are all saying it is silliness. There is no assumption of existance, there is empirical evidence that to even have this debate, we must exist. You aren't enlightening anyone here, and your sophmoric attempts to apply the bounds of axioms to the definative process of the scientific method, as if it were itself a theory, and not just a standard by which we test our theories, shows only your misunderstanding of the debate or your willingness to argue through anything, if only to reveal your near insurmountable obtuseness.

If you want to contribue to this debate, tell us a bit about your background, your beliefs, and how you justify them; stop wasting everyone's time talking in circles.

And Max, stop wasting your time arguing with Kaylia Q.Q.

Funny, I thought empirical evidence were based on the scientific method. Mind rewording it in a way that doesnt imply self reference.


And sorry for attempting to use mathematical reasoning in an argument. Instead, I should be doing like you who define nothing and make contradictory statement.

[Linliel]

Funny, I thought empirical evidence were based on the scientific method. Mind rewording it in a way that doesnt imply self reference.

You thought wrong.

ETA okay I'll explain why.

Evidence is outside of any method to deal with that evidence. You observe something, you don't need a scientific method for that. I don't know why you're persisting with this silly argument.

[Kaylia]

You thought wrong.

ETA okay I'll explain why.

Evidence is outside of any method to deal with that evidence. You observe something, you don't need a scientific method for that. I don't know why you're persisting with this silly argument.

Empirical evidence are result obtained through experiments developped by the scientifical methods. It's the most common definition I see.


If you want me to apply your definition, it would become an equivalent of the axiom I proposed many pages ago, and doesn't prove anything. It's just something you accept.

The argument isn't silly. What is silly is saying you don't need axiom/belief in order to make the scientifical methods work. No sane scientist would hold this position. People disagreed with my statement for over 7 pages, and eventually ended up stating the exact same thing...
If my statement wasn't wrong in the first place and is an "evidence", why argue against it?


[edit]
It's important to understand this axiom, especially in a religion debate, because many people don't seem to understand where "scientifical truth" come from. If you want to convince any religious people that he is wrong, you will need to make him agree with this axiom first.

[Neosutra]

Ok, for this debate, we can all assume Kaylia doesnt exist since we cant prove it, and go back to more important discussions.

I had a question I wanted to ask the theists:

What are your specific perceptions of whatever "afterlife" you believe in? Do you think you will be in a paradise? another world? another reality? What effect do you think your current living actions will have on that afterlife?

[Linliel]

Empirical evidence are result obtained through experiments developped by the scientifical methods. It's the most common definition I see.

No, you obtain empirical evidence through experiments, sure. That doesn't mean that you can *only* obtain empirical evidence through experiments.

If you want me to apply your definition, it would become an equivalent of the axiom I proposed many pages ago, and doesn't prove anything. It's just something you accept.

The argument isn't silly. What is silly is saying you don't need axiom/belief in order to make the scientifical methods work. No sane scientist would hold this position.

You don't need beliefs about old men in the sky to do science. You need some of the epistemology I was talking about before though, such as justified true beliefs ("facts") or similar, depending on how you like to argue about these things. Just because it uses the word "belief" in there doesn't mean it's religious though. Read through the epistemology stuff I posted before.

[recuperi]

Ok, for this debate, we can all assume Kaylia doesnt exist since we cant prove it, and go back to more important discussions.

I had a question I wanted to ask the theists:

What are your specific perceptions of whatever "afterlife" you believe in? Do you think you will be in a paradise? another world? another reality? What effect do you think your current living actions will have on that afterlife?

I won't pick one side or the other, but I know from religion studies that the perception of an afterlife really depends on which religion you're looking at. Basically, a Buddhist or I think it was Hindu wouldn't believe in a final afterlife as far as I understood (deals with karma; you keep coming back until you reach enlightenment; bad karma during one form can hinder furthering yourself in the next) In the end you become nothing/everything. Religions of the Book are more of what you're looking for though, I assume.

[Kaylia]

Ok, for this debate, we can all assume Kaylia doesnt exist since we cant prove it, and go back to more important discussions.

Fallacy: A fallacy is an argument which may convince others but is not logically sound. Note that the truth of the conclusions of an argument does not determine whether the argument is a fallacy - it is the argument which is incorrect.


According to my experiment, the last 10 pages prove that I exist, and can't be ignored.