Faith and Reason.

[kareface]

Something that can't be proven and assumed to be true IS a belief.

No, because nothing outside of the realm of math is true. Truth is an ideal concept, unobtainable in the natural world. That, however, does not mean that all assertions are held equal.

[kareface]

Hypothesis don't pop out of nowhere, they are based on previous observation obtained through the scientific methods.

Not poping out of no where doesn't not preclude them from being subjective.

[Linliel]

Thank goodness it's not just me... thanks for grabbing the baton kareface... lol in three pages you'll be wondering why you bothered ^^;

[Kaylia]

This is back to the neo argument. Yes, certainty is something that only exists in the realm of mathematics. Everyone knows this. If I'm to represent the scientific process accurately, I will never use absolutes. If you want to use the super generic reference of belief, then yes, everything that is held to be true is a belief. But some beliefs are also based on evidence, and observation, so I'm not going to call them beliefs, because then you'll conflate the term. There are no religious laws, no god theories, no angle hypothesizes, because they are super-natural. As in, beyond the realm of nature. As we can only test things that exist in the realm of nature, then there is no way to establish their truth. The same can be said for the Easter bunny and santa clause.

And no, we dont assume aspects of science are true. We prove them true, or discard them

Funny, pretty sure Neo talked about proving them true.

Can we assume there was a belief when he said that?


I've no issue when you say "there is nothing absolute", but people still confuse themselves with their own definition. On one side, they argue that science is the absolute truth, but on the other side, they admit there is nothing absolute.

Yes, that's why they exist. But the reason why they are logical is because they are so simple that they are their own explication. Think of it like this. What are you made of, cells, they are made of many organic materials, which are composed of atoms, which are composed of Bosons, electrons, muons, up and down quarks, ect. ect., now imaging there is a single element that composes all of the subatomic partials. We can define all of the larger elements by it's lower counterparts. But you can only define the sub-sub-atomic partial as itself. The lowest and simplest state. That acts as a logical starting point, a self defining material. As it can't be defined any other way. This is the bases for mathematical & physical axioms. In that regard it's logic.

This material would need two state.

Wow, you blew my mind for like the 8th time now... Dude, you seriously sound like 1/2 of the jackasses in every first year phillo course. We HAVE to draw that reasoning, and you keep relying on that argument because none of your other ones have any basis.

Again, you use the wrong terms. Self existence is an axiom, because it's the simplest state of understanding and it's self defining.

Only difference between those jackasses and me is that I have no issue accepting that we all exists. I'm just saying it's the axiom behind science, but everyone and their mother jump on me saying it require no axiom..etc

Axiom is the mathematical term, beliefs is the state of mind.

OR YOU FUCKING DEFINED IT FOR YOURSELF.

No, it's a quote from wiki. I can get similar one from any dictionary if you prefer.

[kareface]

You defined it with an or, meaning one or the other. It does not require the scientific process.

Who said it didn't? I didn't notice, but I really skimmed though. Either way, what I'm saying is the foundation of science isn't something you can parallel to religion accurately. Again, results matter more then anything, using the foundation, the axioms we've established, we see consistent results and have yet to be shown a more accurate foundational philosophy. If you were to apply that same criteria to religion, what results would you find?

I might add, your last post was the most coherent you've been in the last 5 pages. You actually developed the discourse instead of retreating to one of your 3 staple arguments.
Came at the worst time too, I was working my MSpaint magic, but I'll post it either way because I'm almost done.

[Seraph]

Faith and Reason. And Semantics.

[Neosutra]

Faith and Reason. And Kaylia. To be more specific.

[Kaylia]

You defined it with an or, meaning one or the other. It does not require the scientific process.

Who said it didn't? I didn't notice, but I really skimmed though. Either way, what I'm saying is the foundation of science isn't something you can parallel to religion accurately. Again, results matter more then anything, using the foundation, the axioms we've established, we see consistent results and have yet to be shown a more accurate foundational philosophy. If you were to apply that same criteria to religion, what results would you find?

I might add, your last post was the most coherent you've been in the last 5 pages. You actually developed the discourse instead of retreating to one of your 3 staple arguments.
Came at the worst time too, I was working my MSpaint magic, but I'll post it either way because I'm almost done.

I bolded the "or" and addressed this point in the same post you quoted. Don't act like I ignored it. Anyway, scientific evidences are based on "scientific observation", which refer to the 2nd part of the definition, not the first one.

If you really want to argue about the first definition, you should know that the word knowledge isn't well defined in any language, because it is related to the "truth". However, you still need another axiom to define this concept of "truth", and this axiom would be the one I stated.


If i apply science to religion, I would say that religion is bullshit and/or unneeded, but people who believe in religion are working under a different set of axioms. Unless their axioms are leading to contradicting result, I've no choice but to say there is no possible argument against them.

[kareface]

http://stomped.com/mini/kaylia.jpg

POW!

Ok, just like with science, we can judge the accuracy of the assumptions based on the results. What axioms can you draw from religion anyways? I can't think of anything that isn't logically inconsistent. How are the results of a world view based on the beliefs that religion draws? You can pick just about any religion too.

Edit: your last 2 posts don't fit into the graph; ;
But that's ok, I'd rather move past the pointless universally assumed arguments.

Edit2: Alright, going to sleep.

[Kaylia]

I'm sorry, but it's not a "logic tree", you should change your title to "sequence of action" and use the correct wording.

1st: Where is the logical fallacy? it's just a set of definition. Axiom (mathematics) = belief (psychology) = true
Also, it doesn't mean every axioms are the same statement

A fallacy is an argument that appears right, but is wrong...aka your picture.


2nd: I never made a reference to a matrix like reality, you're the one who put those words in my mouth. Reality is my axiom, and it's the only statement I'm doing since the beginning.

3rd: My definition come from the dictionary. You didn't even defined yours, and from your post, the only thing I see is: FAITH = RELIGION, BELIEF = RELIGION, TRUTH = SCIENCE. i mean..come on. If this is how you define the word, your argument will be very different obviously.

4th: Truth is a mathematical concepts, and your conclusion depend of your axiom. Is it causing you any problem?

[kareface]

Screw all the semantics. Address the actual arguments. Just like with science, we can judge the accuracy of the assumptions based on the results. What axioms can you draw from religion? I can't think of anything that isn't logically inconsistent. How are the results of a world view based on the beliefs that religion draws? Not just what you cherry pick, what the religious text actually says. You can pick just about any religion too.

Sleep.

[Kaylia]

Screw all the semantics. Address the actual arguments. Just like with science, we can judge the accuracy of the assumptions based on the results. What axioms can you draw from religion? I can't think of anything that isn't logically inconsistent. How are the results of a world view based on the beliefs that religion draws? Not just what you cherry pick, what the religious text actually says. You can pick just about any religion too.

Sleep.

If you define god before your definition of reality, it won't create issue. What can you say about a bigger set when you're working on a subset?

[Kuya]

Kareface, why do you make the distinction between beliefs with some logic and or evidence behind them and beliefs that have no evidence behind them and may be illogical? I presume the argument has now moved on to what beliefs are valid and what beliefs aren't, since it seems we already moved away from the old argument of whether there are any beliefs in science.

edit: perhaps people would be happier if we used the word paradigm instead of axioms.

[meson]

Belief is simple, "I believe something is true". It has no relation to evidence or knowledge. That's why when we "believe" something is true based on observation, it's called something that isn't belief. You can try and give it an broader definition, it's already really broad. But the problem is, when you try and conflate the word belief with logic based statements, you then end up saying, "LOOK DAT SHIOOCE AND MY GOD R D SAME". When your definition of faith is based on nothing but a factless desire for something to be true, and ours is based on logic, evidence and experience.

That's the real problem. If you want to expand the definition, you can't then turn around and use it to draw parallels between religion and science because of a personal interpretation of the word.

How exactly is defining faith as a willingness to act in the face of uncertainty in anyway a factless desire for something to be true? Please tell me what I wrote specifically to suggest that "belief" and "logic based statements" are the same thing.
I didn't use my definition to draw parallels with anything, let alone science and religion.
Did you meant to quote someone else?

[Blubbartron]

I think there's a good chance he's making that distinction because believing something that has no support whatsoever in reality is a sure sign of a mental illness. Believing things that have logical and evidential support is a sure sign of rational thought.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

I can't believe this same line of argument has gone nearly 10 pages.

[Neosutra]

Apparently you've never talked with Kaylia.

Edit: Any answers to the questions I posted above?

[Lordwafik]

I hope you are still using my quote in your sig Neosutra. I've disabled sigs because I can't stand 90% of the weeaboo near 1 meg sigs people have round here.

[Neosutra]

I hope you are still using my quote in your sig Neosutra. I've disabled sigs because I can't stand 90% of the weeaboo near 1 meg sigs people have round here.

Changed it to new favorite quote, but that old sig does seem a bit fitting for this topic. Ive done my best to not take the bait this time, but the others keep getting distracted Q.Q.

[Kaylia]

Ive done my best to not take the bait this timeQ.Q.

Translate into:

I've done my best to make a huge bait Q____Q


And sorry Neo, not everyone here are willing to change their statement in the middle of an argument like you do, that's probably why it last so long.