I always hear.

I dont believe the bible is true but the faith helps me in my daily life.

Atheism requires faith therefor its a religion.

Faith, Faith, Faith

Faith does not need to be a non secular activity.

I have faith my dick is still goona be there when i wake up, But i dont belive in the great juju under my matress that keeps it there.

I have faith that my house isnt goona fall down on my face when im sleeping. But that doesnt mean i believe or have to believe there is a God watching over me that will keep it there.

end the faith talk

Have faith neo.

quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:

I have faith my dick is still goona be there when i wake up, But i dont belive in the great juju under my matress that keeps it there.

I have faith that my house isnt goona fall down on my face when im sleeping. But that doesnt mean i believe or have to believe there is a God watching over me that will keep it there.



Belief that your dick will be there in the morning and your house will not fall does not require faith. A reasonable person will have such beliefs based on inductive reasoning and empirical evidence. Also, one does not need a 100% guarantee that something will or will not happen to believe without faith. Of course Lorena Bobbitt can break into your house or your roof can have some structural instabilities that you are unaware of, but neither belief (as long as they're not absolute or based upon a belief in the great juju under your mattress or special protection from God) requires faith.

with these definitions, my two examples do require faith. What is faith to you then?



1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.

7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.

8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

—Idiom

9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.

While atheists do generally have faith in a number of things, religions usually mean that one worships that which one has faith in.

[This message has been edited by fallinghouse (edited 01-12-2007).]

There is a difference between faith and Faith.

Normal faith is belief with certainty in events that are uncertain like whether or not you will grow a giant beard. I have faith that I will, but who knows.

Glorified Faith is the life preserver for religion, something that the priest tells you to have. If you have a miscarriage you "must have faith, because god is testing it through his mystical ways that no mortal can fathom".

religious faith answers the BIG quesitons like "i have faith that my soul will be saved by jesus"

not "my dick will be there next morning" or will it?

Religious faith is glorified. Faith is painted in appealing and friendly colors. If you say you have faith people see you as strong, but if you say you have no faith people think you are crushed. This is one of the reasons christians often rely on faith, it is a stepping stone that they will afraid they will lose if they don't talk about it.

what at idiot....

ATHEISM DOES NOT REQUIRE FAITH! I really hate people who say that it does... Ok, theism is defined as belief in the existence of a god or gods, the 'a' prefix simply negates that... So atheism is not having belief in the existence of a god or gods... How does not having a belief require faith? Really fundies need to do some research...

"Faith" means not wanting to know what is true.

~FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE

quote:Originally posted by B3A5T:



"Faith" means not wanting to know what is true.

~FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE

Hmmm...I suppose that everyone needs to quote someone or something?

What would we do without records of such inspired thoughts from other people. Might we begin to think for ourselves and shed all outside influences in the process?

Only possible if one is born into a vacuum, I presume.

Or....are there any new thoughts today that don't depend upon thoughts of others that were handed down to us?

I wonder. What inspired those original "thinkers" to ponder upon things so? What was the impulse? Simply a need for a solution?

[Yes, I'm rambling. I know.]

quote:Originally posted by chickenpoop:

I'm at idiot....

fixed

[This message has been edited by boozehound420 (edited 01-12-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by B3A5T:

ATHEISM DOES NOT REQUIRE FAITH! I really hate people who say that it does... Ok, theism is defined as belief in the existence of a god or gods, the 'a' prefix simply negates that... So atheism is not having belief in the existence of a god or gods... How does not having a belief require faith? Really fundies need to do some research...

"Faith" means not wanting to know what is true.

~FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE



exactly, the believers will never know untill they come into the light, I dont need faith. I have absoluty no need to hope a supernatural being is going to help me. The idea of this thread was because alot of people say the human race needs faith, its a part of our being. Well if thats the truth then I'd have to say i have faith in MYSELF. And Faith in my friends.

So its not need for people to turn to a religion for faith

[This message has been edited by boozehound420 (edited 01-12-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by chickenpoop:

what at idiot....

I'm sure.

quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:

with these definitions, my two examples do require faith. What is faith to you then?



Your two examples do not fit all of those definitions (unless I'm not clear on why you believe your dick would be here this morning). The definition of faith we're concerned with, is the one used when theists accuse atheists that they must necessarily have faith also, and the only one I see that fits your examples: 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. There is usually some lame attempt made to back this up with an argument such as, "You don't have absolute proof that evolution happened, so you must have faith in it".

One can argue that your beliefs were based on faith, because you didn't have "absolute proof" that your dick and your roof would be intact this morning. However, we are never speaking of absolute proof when speaking of proof. You have sufficient evidence that your dick and your roof would be intact this morning (I would hope), and that is enough to take faith out of the equation.

If a theist is going to argue that he has some other definition of 'faith', such as one that is synonymous with 'belief', then that's fine. But it would probably just be a desperate attempt to attribute equal validity to belief in God and belief with sufficient evidence.

Let's ruin this semantic bullshit, shall we?

"Faith in your senses."

Senses: If you were schizophrenic and saw people who others said did not exist, would you still believe your senses were totally reliable, in light of the new evidence?

And let's not get into solipsism, since that also invalidates religion as it does any belief.

"Faith in friends."

Would you have "faith" in a friend who regularly betrayed you? No? If you're judging someone by their track record of actions and relationships, then it's science, in its most basic form.

"Faith in a lover."

Same again, if your girlfriend slept around, would you continue believing she's not likely to betray you?

Essentially, people take predictions based on past events, and label them "faith". It's not "Faith" since there's evidence. If you have no evidence, then you can't say comment about an issue [try and give me an example of where you can have a logical statement with no evidence. I spent a while trying to think one up]. If you're contravening the evidence you have, that's called retardation, delusion, or faith and sometimes 'hope'.

^^^

you missed faith in religion

""Faith in your senses."

Senses: If you were schizophrenic and saw people who others said did not exist, would you still believe your senses were totally reliable, in light of the new evidence?"

Why does religion over power peoples senses. People have faith in god when somebody they know is going through a surgery or was just in a bad accident. They pray to god, and have faith that he will pull him through. But when the person dies they dont throw out there religion and faith in this magical being.

[This message has been edited by boozehound420 (edited 01-12-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by glutamate antagonist:

And let's not get into solipsism, since that also invalidates religion as it does any belief.

Since religions don't care if they have faith, solipsism is not a problem that they have to deal with. A skeptic on the other hand...

[This message has been edited by fallinghouse (edited 01-13-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:

^^^

you missed faith in religion

I was addressing how the word faith is misinterpreted. Religion is faith. The others are not.



quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:



""Faith in your senses."

Senses: If you were schizophrenic and saw people who others said did not exist, would you still believe your senses were totally reliable, in light of the new evidence?"

Why does religion over power peoples senses. People have faith in god when somebody they know is going through a surgery or was just in a bad accident. They pray to god, and have faith that he will pull him through. But when the person dies they dont throw out there religion and faith in this magical being.



You missed the entire point of what I was saying. I was saying that believing what your senses are telling you, short of solipsism, is not faith. See above.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Since religions don't care if they have faith, solipsism is not a problem that they have to deal with. A skeptic on the other hand...



If your senses cannot be trusted, then nor can your perception of your religion. For all you know, on that basis, you could be being controlled by Satan at every turn.

quote:Originally posted by glutamate antagonist:

If your senses cannot be trusted, then nor can your perception of your religion. For all you know, on that basis, you could be being controlled by Satan at every turn.



Exactly, that is what faith is for.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Exactly, that is what faith is for.

If faith is needed to trust our senses, what would someone lacking this faith be like? Would he walk around in constant fear that his senses will stop playing tricks on him? Does an animal need faith that when it sees a predator that it is real?

Though it is true that you cannot prove the evidence of your senses is correct (or prove anything absolutely for that matter), you act as if it were. If suddenly this causes a problem (like you walk into a wall that you cannot see) you would correct it.

John Maynard Keynes (yes, the economics guy) wrote his first book on just this subject, and concluded that each time your belief is confirmed it adds to the probability that it is true. It might never reach 100%, certainty, but in most cases it gets pretty close.

The more times you act on the evidence of your senses and it turns out to be correct, the more you can and do trust the reliability of you senses.

As British mathematician William Clifford said - Truth is not that which can be contemplated without error. It is that which may be acted upon without fear.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

If faith is needed to trust our senses, what would someone lacking this faith be like? Would he walk around in constant fear that his senses will stop playing tricks on him?

The desirability of the consequences of an argument being correct do no damage to the argument itself.

Regardless, I don't know how such a person would act, because I don't know of any such people. Primarily because faith appears to be placed deep into the human psyche.



quote:Does an animal need faith that when it sees a predator that it is real?

Yep.

quote:Though it is true that you cannot prove the evidence of your senses is correct (or prove anything absolutely for that matter), you act as if it were. If suddenly this causes a problem (like you walk into a wall that you cannot see) you would correct it.

Exactly, we do this using faith.

quote:John Maynard Keynes (yes, the economics guy) wrote his first book on just this subject, and concluded that each time your belief is confirmed it adds to the probability that it is true. It might never reach 100%, certainty, but in most cases it gets pretty close.

The more times you act on the evidence of your senses and it turns out to be correct, the more you can and do trust the reliability of you senses.

1. We cannot know when our beliefs are confirmed.

2. Even if our beliefs had been confirmed in the past, this is just shifting the faith from the senses to faith in the memory.

3. Even if the memory is accurate, acting on it to build a probability means having faith that what happened yesterday lets us predict what will happen tomorrow.

quote:As British mathematician William Clifford said - Truth is not that which can be contemplated without error. It is that which may be acted upon without fear.

The only reason we act upon anything without fear is faith.

fallinghouse, you believe that animals have faith? What's your definition of faith?



quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

The only reason we act upon anything without fear is faith.

As I posted earlier, beliefs in what our senses tell us are true are based on inductive reasoning and empirical evidence. I don't need absolute proof or faith to believe that if I drop a rock, it will fall to the ground. We not only have seen it happen (empirical), and seen it happen a jillion times with no exceptions (inductive that it will continue to happen), but we can explain why it happens and build an unarguable case that makes belief that it will happen the only sane viewpoint. Fear that I would sense something different than usual, such as it propelling toward my face, would be irrational. I do not need faith to be free from this fear.

quote:fallinghouse, you believe that animals have faith? What's your definition of faith?

Belief in something without or in spite of evidence.

quote:We not only have seen it happen (empirical), and seen it happen a jillion times with no exceptions (inductive that it will continue to happen)

1. We cannot know whether what we sense corresponds in any way to reality. So we cannot know if the rock really fell, or even if the rock exists at all.

2. Even if we could, there is no reason to believe that because something has happened before that it will happen again.

quote: but we can explain why it happens and build an unarguable case that makes belief that it will happen the only sane viewpoint

No explanation for why something happens cannot be proven to correspond to reality. Asserting as such requires faith.

quote:Fear that I would sense something different than usual, such as it propelling toward my face, would be irrational.

Why?

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Belief in something without or in spite of evidence.



And you believe that animals have this type of belief?



quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

1. We cannot know whether what we sense corresponds in any way to reality. So we cannot know if the rock really fell, or even if the rock exists at all.

It doesn't matter. Again, we do not have to be absolutely certain of anything to have belief based on evidence. Evidence is not the same as absolute proof.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

2. Even if we could, there is no reason to believe that because something has happened before that it will happen again.

Yes, there is. Are you telling me that if you were raised in a primitive society and learned nothing of gravity, you wouldn't come to the conclusion early on in life that what goes up must come down based on repeatable results? Of course you would!



quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

No explanation for why something happens cannot be proven to correspond to reality. Asserting as such requires faith.

I'm not going to keep repeating myself, so this will be my last post in this thread. ABSOLUTE PROOF IS NOT NEEDED! As you already stated, faith is "belief in something without or in spite of evidence". As long as you understand that and that there is ample evidence that rocks fall to the Earth, faith can be thrown out the window.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:



quote:Fear that I would sense something different than usual, such as it propelling toward my face, would be irrational.

Why?

Are you baiting me? If someone thinks that dropped rocks will change direction, you wouldn't find that an irrational belief?

I've explained to the best of my abilities why I do not need any beliefs which lack evidence in my life. What you choose to believe is up to you.

quote:It doesn't matter. Again, we do not have to be absolutely certain of anything to have belief based on evidence. Evidence is not the same as absolute proof.

The definition of evidence I am using is: anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

Hence if a piece of evidence cannot be proven to be reliable, it is not evidence at all, as it cannot be used to differentiate between what is true and what is false.

Empirical evidence only fits the definition of evidence if it is accurate. Since it cannot be proven accurate, using empirical evidence to determine what is true is based on faith. Hence anything that is based on empirical evidence is based on faith.

quote:

Yes, there is. Are you telling me that if you were raised in a primitive society and learned nothing of gravity, you wouldn't come to the conclusion early on in life that what goes up must come down based on repeatable results? Of course you would!

What I would believe in that situation is irrelevant. Science is based on several deep assumptions. One of these is that the patterns of the past will continue in the future. AFAIK this has never been proven, so relying on it requires faith.

quote:As you already stated, faith is "belief in something without or in spite of evidence". As long as you understand that and that there is ample evidence that rocks fall to the Earth, faith can be thrown out the window.

This 'evidence' can only be considered as such with faith in its accuracy. Removing this faith requires absolute proof in the accuracy of the evidence.

quote:

Are you baiting me?

No. That is an important philosophical question

quote:If someone thinks that dropped rocks will change direction, you wouldn't find that an irrational belief?

I might find it strange, but not irrational.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Hence if a piece of evidence cannot be proven to be reliable, it is not evidence at all, as it cannot be used to differentiate between what is true and what is false.

There is plenty of ultra reliable evidence, so much so that it is called proof, that objects with mass have gravity and that dropped rocks will fall to the Earth.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Empirical evidence only fits the definition of evidence if it is accurate. Since it cannot be proven accurate, using empirical evidence to determine what is true is based on faith. Hence anything that is based on empirical evidence is based on faith.

You're not listening. There is proof that dropped rocks will always fall, unless of course another force acts upon it. As you admitted, absolute proof is not required to believe without faith, just evidence.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

What I would believe in that situation is irrelevant. Science is based on several deep assumptions. One of these is that the patterns of the past will continue in the future. AFAIK this has never been proven, so relying on it requires faith.

Repeating patterns absolutely count as proof, whether it's falling rocks, germs causing disease, etc. You seem to be hung up on absolute proof being a necessity to believe without faith.



quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

This 'evidence' can only be considered as such with faith in its accuracy. Removing this faith requires absolute proof in the accuracy of the evidence.

Why do you keep repeating that absolute proof is a requirement? Even beliefs with small amounts of evidence is belief based on evidence, which again, by your own definition is not faith.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

I might find it strange, but not irrational.

I think you're being intellectually dishonest or you're one strange bird. I think most intelligent folks would agree that the fear that dropped rocks will change direction and propel towards one face is an irrational one.

quote:There is plenty of ultra reliable evidence, so much so that it is called proof, that objects with mass have gravity and that dropped rocks will fall to the Earth.

That's all good and well, but how do you know this evidence is ultra reliable?

quote:

You're not listening. There is proof that dropped rocks will always fall, unless of course another force acts upon it. As you admitted, absolute proof is not required to believe without faith, just evidence....

...Why do you keep repeating that absolute proof is a requirement? Even beliefs with small amounts of evidence is belief based on evidence, which again, by your own definition is not faith.

note my definition of evidence:

"The definition of evidence I am using is: anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

Hence if a piece of evidence cannot be proven to be reliable, it is not evidence at all, as it cannot be used to differentiate between what is true and what is false."

Evidence must be absolutely proved to be accurate or else it relies on faith.

Hence your "proof" is not proof at all.

quote:

Repeating patterns absolutely count as proof, whether it's falling rocks, germs causing disease, etc.

Why exactly?

quote:You seem to be hung up on absolute proof being a necessity to believe without faith.

Which makes sense, considering that is what I am arguing.

quote:

I think you're being intellectually dishonest or you're one strange bird. I think most intelligent folks would agree that the fear that dropped rocks will change direction and propel towards one face is an irrational one.

1. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

2. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

It depends on what faith is, because in some senses, people turn to science, for the exact same desires which cause people to turn to religion, it gets complicated and can separate/vary, but in the end, they are both belief systems and thus both religions and sciences. The only thing that isn't, is well, not having to guess, but simply know things.

Well.

If you want to get out of earth life, stop living like an earthling, evolve, don't act like a monkey/man guided by his desires.

No one on earth has done that, because the second you do that, you cease existing, consciously, as a human, and you become something larger, and untethered by such a retarded existence. Then you can actually experience those things, up close, that right now, we can only speculate about, and in doing so, divide ourselves, fight and act like monkey men.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Hence if a piece of evidence cannot be proven to be reliable, it is not evidence at all, as it cannot be used to differentiate between what is true and what is false."

Evidence must be absolutely proved to be accurate or else it relies on faith.



Okay, I'll chime in one last time.

Nothing needs to be proven absolutely in order for evidence to be accepted. I'll borrow an example I used in another thread.

We have tremendous amounts of evidence that antibiotics cure gonorrhea. There will never be absolute proof for this, or anything else, but there is so much overwhelming evidence for it, we call it fact. As Stephen J. Gould said, a scientific fact is not "absolute certainty", but simply a theory that has been "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent".

Now, it would seem that you believe that if doctors don't have absolute proof that antibiotics work for curing gonorrhea, they must be giving those shots with some faith. Absolutely not! The shot is given because it has worked over, and over, and over again. Is it possible that it will stop working tomorrow? On the premise that anything is possible, sure. But there is absolutely no hope involved in giving the shot. It's simply the best treatment we know of based mainly on repeatable results and that's why it's given. If you still believe that researchers need 'faith' to treat patients based on evidence, oh well.

I have faith that you rode/ride the shortbus to school. must be true.

I like your logic, mister.

quote:We have tremendous amounts of evidence that antibiotics cure gonorrhea. There will never be absolute proof for this, or anything else, but there is so much overwhelming evidence for it, we call it fact. As Stephen J. Gould said, a scientific fact is not "absolute certainty", but simply a theory that has been "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent".

And I say once more, this evidence cannot be used to distinguish between what is true and what is false; it is not evidence at all.

This evidence, and all science, assumes:

1. The external world exists.

2. This external world is consistent.

3. Our memories are accurate.

And when someone believes something that requires one to make unverifiable assumptions, that belief is based on faith.

All your argument demonstrates is that gonorrhoea can be treated with anti-biotics based on the assumptions science holds due to faith. What you have done is given an example where faith is used, where your intuition tells us it is not.

quote:Is it possible that it will stop working tomorrow? On the premise that anything is possible, sure.

Calling 'anything is possible' a premise is inaccurate. A state where anything is possible is what exists before premises are added.

Regardless, This is faith. You are working under the assumption that the external world is consistent. You do not know that this is true.

And when someone believes something that requires one to make unverifiable assumptions, that belief is based on faith.

quote:It's simply the best treatment we know of based mainly on repeatable results and that's why it's given.

This is faith. You do not know that your repeatable results even happened.

And when someone believes something that requires one to make unverifiable assumptions, that belief is based on faith.

[This message has been edited by fallinghouse (edited 01-16-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Lamabot:

There is a difference between faith and Faith.

Normal faith is belief with certainty in events that are uncertain like whether or not you will grow a giant beard. I have faith that I will, but who knows.

Glorified Faith is the life preserver for religion, something that the priest tells you to have. If you have a miscarriage you "must have faith, because god is testing it through his mystical ways that no mortal can fathom".

Actually, as a rule, a miscarriage is just Nature's way of preventing defective infants.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

And I say once more, this evidence cannot be used to distinguish between what is true and what is false; it is not evidence at all.

Then you don't believe in any evidence?

Then when Martini asked you what your definition of faith is, why did you answer, "Belief in something without or in spite of evidence."

Doesn't that contradict your belief that evidence doesn't exist? Shouldn't your answer have been some thing like "Any belief, whatsoever"?

quote:Originally posted by xray:

Then you don't believe in any evidence?

There is only one piece of evidence that I know of. That I am capable of thinking is evidence that thoughts exist.

quote:Then when Martini asked you what your definition of faith is, why did you answer, "Belief in something without or in spite of evidence."

Doesn't that contradict your belief that evidence doesn't exist? Shouldn't your answer have been some thing like "Any belief, whatsoever"?

I do believe there is one piece of satisfactory evidence as stated above.

Regardless, a contradiction would mean that the statements are mutually exclusive, when in this case, they are not. So even if I didn't think any evidence existed, these definitions would be fine.

The implications of what I am saying are that with the exception of asserting the existence of thoughts or statements based only on logical axioms, there is not a single assertion about truth that can be made without faith. Also, we cannot accurately calculate the probability of our faith being correct, therefore no faith is any more rational then another. Some are simply more widely accepted.

Note that I am using this definition of rational: consistent with or based on or using reason.

quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:

I always hear.

I dont believe the bible is true but the faith helps me in my daily life.

Atheism requires faith therefor its a religion.

Faith, Faith, Faith

Faith does not need to be a non secular activity.

I have faith my dick is still goona be there when i wake up, But i dont belive in the great juju under my matress that keeps it there.

I have faith that my house isnt goona fall down on my face when im sleeping. But that doesnt mean i believe or have to believe there is a God watching over me that will keep it there.

end the faith talk



\\\\

You are one idiotic mother fucker.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Exactly, that is what faith is for.

You're missing the point.

The point is not being a solipsist means you depend on your senses. You, of course, when the meaning is manipulated, have faith in your senses.

But to make any more assumptions takes another huge leap, another jump to a different level, of faith.

Compare "I have faith in my senses."

to "I have faith in my senses. My senses do not show me any evidence of a god. However, I'm going to have faith in it anyway."

Now do you see how you can't justify anything beyond "Existence exists." with the solipsist's argument?

Something fallinghouse doesn't seem to get, no matter how many times he's been told, is that absolute proof is not necessary to believe based upon evidence. There is evidence that our senses can be counted on as being accurate. We can prove (though not absolutely) that when we see an object, it is actually there. There is TONS of evidence for it! Because it can not be absolutely proven does not mean that I need faith to believe my hands actually exist. I have tons of evidence for it, therefore, the belief that I have hands is based on EVIDENCE, which by fallinghouse's own admission means that I don't need faith.

If he sees his hands and is not convinced he can realy on his senses, then in his case the belief that his hands exist may be based on faith. I am convinced (though not absolutely) that my hands exist solely based on evidence, therefore, no faith is needed on my part.

I have no faith in anything. Me typing this didn't require faith, either. Do you need faith to get past flood control, too?

quote:You, of course, when the meaning is manipulated, have faith in your senses.

So you disagree with my definition of faith? I am using a quite common definition. What definition would you propose?

quote:Originally posted by glutamate antagonist:

But to make any more assumptions takes another huge leap, another jump to a different level, of faith.

Compare "I have faith in my senses."

to "I have faith in my senses. My senses do not show me any evidence of a god. However, I'm going to have faith in it anyway."

What makes it a different level? We cannot know the likelihood of either the senses being accurate or God existing being true and yet the former is somehow more reasonable then the latter?

Also, the idea that having less assumptions brings our theories closer to the Truth is an empirical one, and hence based on faith and of unknown accuracy. So, all a person who believes in God needs to do to stop a contradiction is to deny the applicability of Occam's Razor.

Curiously enough, by making the three assumptions of science, we already deny it's applicability. So, people have chosen (subconsciously usually) to dismiss the razor when it gives predictions they don't particularly like.

How then, can one who has faith in his senses criticise another for using the same process to find a faith in God?

quote:Something fallinghouse doesn't seem to get, no matter how many times he's been told, is that absolute proof is not necessary to believe based upon evidence. There is evidence that our senses can be counted on as being accurate. We can prove (though not absolutely) that when we see an object, it is actually there. There is TONS of evidence for it! Because it can not be absolutely proven does not mean that I need faith to believe my hands actually exist. I have tons of evidence for it, therefore, the belief that I have hands is based on EVIDENCE, which by fallinghouse's own admission means that I don't need faith.

If he sees his hands and is not convinced he can realy on his senses, then in his case the belief that his hands exist may be based on faith. I am convinced (though not absolutely) that my hands exist solely based on evidence, therefore, no faith is needed on my part.

I notice that your post completely ignored making any attempts to actually refute any arguments I have made and simply restated your opinion. Truly marvellous debating work. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

This is the reason I 'don't seem to get' it. Because you have so far failed to refute a single one of my points.

Also, I made no such admission that you don't need faith. Read my definition of evidence

quote:I have no faith in anything. Me typing this didn't require faith, either. Do you need faith to get past flood control, too?

I'm betting that when you typed this, you had faith that totse exists and faith that the topic you were posting was the topic you remembered reading before hitting the 'reply' button.



[This message has been edited by fallinghouse (edited 01-16-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:

Actually, as a rule, a miscarriage is just Nature's way of preventing defective infants.



Replace 'rule' with 'personal belief' and that sentence is better.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

I notice that your post completely ignored any attempts to actually refute any arguments I have made and simply restate your opinion. Truly marvellous debating work.

This is the reason I 'don't seem to get' it. Because you have so far failed to refute a single one of my points.

Also, I made no such admission that you don't need faith. Read my definition of evidence

What you admitted was that faith is "belief in something without or in spite of evidence". I have shown you that my beliefs are based on evidence, taking faith out of the equation.

You say, "Hence if a piece of evidence cannot be proven to be reliable, it is not evidence at all".

I can prove that my eyesight is reliable. I can prove that my hands exist. The fact that there is not 'absolute proof' is irrelevant.

There isn't anything for me to refute. You are the one who has failed to refute what the entire scientific community says, which is that evidence for plenty of things exist. Not that there is absolute proof for anything, just that there is evidence that I exist, you exist, evolution happens, etc. Belief based on this evidence is knowledge, not faith. End of story.

quote:What you admitted was that faith is "belief in something without or in spite of evidence". I have shown you that my beliefs are based on evidence, taking faith out of the equation.

You say, "Hence if a piece of evidence cannot be proven to be reliable, it is not evidence at all".

I can prove that my eyesight is reliable. I can prove that my hands exist. The fact that there is not 'absolute proof' is irrelevant.

"The definition of evidence I am using is: anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion."

Note the word 'truth' in there. The word truth, when used in this context, means absolute truth. It doesn't mean approximate truth, or truth according to my best guess.

Absolute truth requires absolute proof. For you to be able to prove your eyesight tells your brain an absolute true representation of reality you need absolute proof of this. You need something that you can point to that demonstrates, beyond all doubt that your eyesight is correct. The burden of proof lies with you.

Ever had a dream? Was your eyesight an accurate representation of reality then?

quote:There isn't anything for me to refute. You are the one who has failed to refute what the entire scientific community says, which is that evidence for plenty of things exist. Not that there is absolute proof for anything, just that there is evidence that I exist, you exist, evolution happens, etc. Belief based on this evidence is knowledge, not faith. End of story.

Saying that something exists is an absolute truth. To assert an absolute truth you need absolute proof. Scientific evidence is not absolute proof because it relies on unproven assumptions.

As I have said, science is based on the following unproven assumptions:

1. The external world exists.

2. This external world is consistent.

3. Our memories are accurate.

And when someone believes something that requires one to make unverifiable assumptions, that belief is based on faith.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

"The definition of evidence I am using is: anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion."

Note the word 'truth' in there. The word truth, when used in this context, means absolute truth. It doesn't mean approximate truth, or truth according to my best guess.

Exactly my point. The entire scientific community disagrees with your definition of evidence being one that requires absolute proof. Science fully admits that absolute proof doesn't exist, but they fully assert that evidence does, as does proof.

Your claim that without faith we'd fear doing anything is bullshit, as is your assertion that animals have 'faith'.

When a baby learns to walk, its fear of taking the next step diminishes after evidence shows him that his foot lands flat on the floor and that his balance is good enough to prevent him from falling. It has fuck all to do with faith.

quote:

Exactly my point. The entire scientific community disagrees with your definition of evidence being one that requires absolute proof. Science fully admits that absolute proof doesn't exist, but they fully assert that evidence does, as does proof.

Science is based primarily on faith. Note the two definitions of evidence being used here:

1. anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

2. anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion assuming:

a) The external world exists.

b) This external world is consistent.

c) Our memories are accurate.

Under definition one, if evidence can be provided, there is no faith. I am using definition 1 in my definition of faith. However, since there is only one thing that fits definition 1, using it means that with the exception of asserting the existence of thoughts or statements based only on logical axioms, there is not a single assertion about truth that can be made without faith.

What you are doing is using definition 2 in my definition of faith and therefore asserting there is no faith required. But I am using definition 1.

Luckily I have seen through to the point of our discussion, and this allows us to get past pointless semantics.

You don't want to consider taking a position of faith as allowable in debate, because it means that there is nothing separating you and the perceived irrationality of the Christian or Muslim or Hindu or any other religion. So you point to your definitions and say that you don't have faith, therefore your position is a more rational one to have.

Unfortunately for you, if we accept your definitions, then a lack of faith can only point to a relative truth. So, in the end you have destroyed that which you hoped to protect, as to place your own beliefs above the theist requires that you be asserting an absolute truth.

As I have seen this, I know now that it matters little which definitions are used, my end point stands. An atheist has no justification for placing own beliefs closer to an absolute truth than a theist. He can only assert that his beliefs are a relative truth, but then, so are the theists.

quote:When a baby learns to walk, its fear of taking the next step diminishes after evidence shows him that his foot lands flat on the floor and that his balance is good enough to prevent him from falling. It has fuck all to do with faith.

Under my definitions it has everything to do with faith.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Science is based primarily on faith.

The exact opposite from the truth.



quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

2. anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion assuming:

a) The external world exists.

b) This external world is consistent.

c) Our memories are accurate.

No one has to assume any of those things. It can be proven (though not absolutely) that the world exists and that there are certain consistencies within it. If I measure an object, it can be proven that my memory from the time I saw it, to the time I recorded its measurement is accurate. No assumptions necessary. With a reasonable amount of evidence, my belief that the Eiffel Tower exists rests solely on evidence. I DO NOT NEED ABSOLUTE PROOF!

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

You don't want to consider taking a position of faith as allowable in debate, because it means that there is nothing separating you and the perceived irrationality of the Christian or Muslim or Hindu or any other religion.

No, it is because there would be nothing separating belief based on evidence from belief based on lack of it, which would make the word 'faith' meaningless.

quote:The exact opposite from the truth.

That statement is a relative truth.

quote:

No one has to assume any of those things. It can be proven (though not absolutely) that the world exists and that there are certain consistencies within it. If I measure an object, it can be proven that my memory from the time I saw it, to the time I recorded its measurement is accurate. No assumptions necessary. With a reasonable amount of evidence, my belief that the Eiffel Tower exists rests solely on evidence. I DO NOT NEED ABSOLUTE PROOF!

As I said in my last post, I understand your position. As I also said in my last post, if we take your definitions to be correct, then since this evidence is not absolutely true then it cannot be used to say that your position is in absolutely better than a theists position. You can only use this to say that your position is relatively better. But guess what, the theist can say the exact same thing. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

quote:

No, it is because there would be nothing separating belief based on evidence from belief based on lack of it, which would make the word 'faith' meaningless.

It is the same thing.

[This message has been edited by fallinghouse (edited 01-17-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

This statement is a relative truth.

Relative to what?



quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

As I said in my last post, I understand your position. As I also said in my last post, if we take your definitions to be correct, then since this evidence is not absolutely true then it cannot be used to say that your position is in absolutely better than a theists position.

You seem to be saying that a position based on evidence is no better than a position based on none, because there isn't absolute proof for anything. That's nonsense! Belief based on some evidence far outweighs that which is based on none. If you are suffering serious stomach problems, would you give equal weight to opinions from a professional gastroenterologist and a supermarket bag-boy? No. Your belief that you are better off following the opinions of the gastroenterologist is based on evidence you have of their helpful knowledge.



quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

It is the same thing.



What's the same thing?

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

As I said in my last post, I understand your position. As I also said in my last post, if we take your definitions to be correct, then since this evidence is not absolutely true then it cannot be used to say that your position is in absolutely better than a theists position.

Stop changing the argument. This debate is about whether or not faith is needed to believe in things that there is evidence for. My atheism rests on my lack of belief, not a belief.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html

note: in this post I am attempting to argue from the position of temporarily assuming your flawed definitions.

quote:

Relative to what?

Your definitions.

quote:

You seem to be saying that a position based on evidence is no better than a position based on none, because there isn't absolute proof for anything. That's nonsense! Belief based on some evidence far outweighs that which is based on none.

In order for beliefs based on evidence to be absolutely better than beliefs based without the evidence must be absolute. Since your evidence is not absolute, you cannot assert that your beliefs are absolutely better.

quote:If you are suffering serious stomach problems, would you give equal weight to opinions from a professional gastroenterologist and a supermarket bag-boy? No. Your belief that you are better off following the opinions of the gastroenterologist is based on evidence you have of their helpful knowledge.

Of course I would. But it would be personal preference, not because it is objectively better, as I cannot know whether it is objectively better.

quote:

What's the same thing?

you:

"No, it is because there would be nothing separating belief based on evidence from belief based on lack of it, which would make the word 'faith' meaningless."

me:

"You don't want to consider taking a position of faith as allowable in debate, because it means that there is nothing separating you and the perceived irrationality of the Christian or Muslim or Hindu or any other religion."

quote:

Stop changing the argument. This debate is about whether or not faith is needed to believe in things that there is evidence for.

As far as I am concerned, the answer to that debate will never be known as it depends on definitions, and neither of us accept the other's. However, the repercussions of either of us being right are favourable to me but not for you.

quote:http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html

I have never disagreed with evolution. But if I were to do so, for you to assert my position was absolutely wrong would require absolute proof. And since that can't be done, you could only provide relative proof, meaning I would only be relatively wrong. And from my standpoint you would be relatively wrong.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

note: in this post I am attempting to argue from the position of temporarily assuming your flawed definitions.

Which definition of mine is flawed? YOU are the one that thinks evidence is a word that describes there being enough information for the absolute truth of something. YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON IN THE WORLD WITH THIS DEFINITION.



quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

In order for beliefs based on evidence to be absolutely better than beliefs based without the evidence must be absolute.

What's with this absolutely better nonsense? Some evidence is better than none. That's why science uses pieces of evidence to get closer to the absolute truth of something, while fully knowing absolute proof doesn't exist.



quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Since your evidence is not absolute, you cannot assert that your beliefs are absolutely better.

I asserted that some evidence is better than none. Stop attempting to change my words.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Of course I would. But it would be personal preference, not because it is objectively better, as I cannot know whether it is objectively better.

Why do you have a personal preference for seeing a gastroenterologist over a supermarket bag-boy for a serious stomach problem? Do you find them generally cuter? Could it be because you have knowledge (belief with evidence) that gastroenterologists are very well trained to handle stomach problems and that supermarket bag-boys aren't? Of course that's the reason! Saying "but it would be personal preference", without going deeper into why you have that preference, was a cop out on your part to not admit why you would pick the gastroenterologist.



quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

As far as I am concerned, the answer to that debate will never be known as it depends on definitions, and neither of us accept the other's. However, the repercussions of either of us being right are favourable to me but not for you.

Again, you are the only one in the fucking world who defines evidence as giving absolute proof for something.

What repercussions are you talking about and how are they favorable to you over me? And how would you come to that conclusion without evidence?



quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

I have never disagreed with evolution. But if I were to do so, for you to assert my position was absolutely wrong would require absolute proof.

Unless you chose to believe in evolution willy nilly, which I doubt, your belief in evolution is based on evidence. I linked to that web page, not because I thought you disbelieved in evolution, but because I thought you could learn about evidence and faith from it.

quote:The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed. There is a great amount of this evidence. When evidence is found to contradict previous conclusions, those conclusions are abandoned, and new beliefs based on the new evidence take their place. This "seeing is believing" basis for the theory is exactly the opposite of the sort of faith implied by the claim.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

for you to assert my position was absolutely wrong would require absolute proof.

Why would you write this again after I have explained my position ad nauseum? I explained over and over that I agree that there is no such thing as absolutely proving that someone is wrong and that absolute proof does not exist!

Fallinghouse, justify to me then why, using the same argument, I could not assume I am god? I, my thoughts, are all that definately exist. So am I not god?



[This message has been edited by glutamate antagonist (edited 01-17-2007).]

quote:

Which definition of mine is flawed? YOU are the one that thinks evidence is a word that describes there being enough information for the absolute truth of something.

And in this context it is.

quote: YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON IN THE WORLD WITH THIS DEFINITION...

...Again, you are the only one in the fucking world who defines evidence as giving absolute proof for something.

No.

quote:

What's with this absolutely better nonsense? Some evidence is better than none. That's why science uses pieces of evidence to get closer to the absolute truth of something, while fully knowing absolute proof doesn't exist...

...I asserted that some evidence is better than none. Stop attempting to change my words.

Heh, you're saying you can find absolute truth without absolute proof.

quote:

Why do you have a personal preference for seeing a gastroenterologist over a supermarket bag-boy for a serious stomach problem? Do you find them generally cuter? Could it be because you have knowledge (belief with evidence) that gastroenterologists are very well trained to handle stomach problems and that supermarket bag-boys aren't? Of course that's the reason!

Using your definitions, yes. Using mine, it is because I have faith in the assumptions made by science. Either way, it doesn't let us know if the specialist is objectively better.

quote:What repercussions are you talking about and how are they favorable to you over me?

This sentence is proof (assuming science of course) that you are incapable of reading. I have written it three or four times.

quote:And how would you come to that conclusion without evidence?

logic.

quote:

Why would you write this again after I have explained my position ad nauseum? I explained over and over that I agree that there is no such thing as absolutely proving that someone is wrong and that absolute proof does not exist!

Once again you have failed to read what I have been saying for several posts now.

If you have no absolute proof, you cannot say your position is closer to absolute truth.

quote:Originally posted by glutamate antagonist:

Fallinghouse, justify to me then why, using the same argument, I could not assume I am god? I, my thoughts, are all that definately exist. So am I not god?

I am sorry, I'm a bit confused as to which argument this is using? I've gotten a bit distracted.

But sure, if you are a solipsist, you could say you are God (depending on your definition of God).

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

And in this context it is.

Which definition of mine is flawed? You're not answering my question. There is no definition of evidence that requires absolute proof!



quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

No.

Nothing like backing up your answer, is there? Where do you find a definition of evidence that requires that it prove something absolutely in order to be called evidence?



quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Heh, you're saying you can find absolute truth without absolute proof.

Where the fuck did I say that? I have repeated over, and over, and over again that there is no absolute truth or absolute proof!



quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

This sentence is proof (assuming science of course) that you are incapable of reading. I have written it three or four times.

Well, if that's not the pot calling the kettle black! I have repeated over and over that there is no absolute proof and you keep mentioning that I must. Answer the question! And what do you mean "assuming science of course"?



quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

logic.

Logic? You follow logical steps based on evidence! Please explain what the logical steps are that lead you to believing that it is better to see a gastroenterolgist than a bag-boy?





quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

If you have no absolute proof, you cannot say your position is closer to absolute truth.

You can! Absolute proof would not lead you closer to absolute truth; it would bring you straight to it!

quote:The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed. There is a great amount of this evidence.

The more evidence you have, the closer you getting to the truth of something, without ever getting to an absolute truth. This is what all of science is based on! Claiming that science does not use evidence is plain wrong! I can give you cite after cite that this is how science works and you fail to accept.

xray, you appear to be working under the laughable idea that we can somehow work out absolute truth using science, which cannot provide any absolute proof. You are attempting to use common speech definitions in a debate and fail to grasp the basic assumptions that science is based upon. I have no further intention to debate you.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

xray, you appear to be working under the laughable idea that we can somehow work out absolute truth using science

Wow! I guess no matter how many times I repeat myself, it won't sink through. I can probably quote myself about ten times in this thread where I repeated that there is no such thing as absolute proof.

Not going to tell me which definition I have that is flawed?

Not going to tell me where you find a definition of evidence that requires that it prove something absolutely in order to be called evidence?

Not going to tell me where I said that I can find absolute truth without absolute proof in this quote?:

quote:What's with this absolutely better nonsense? Some evidence is better than none. That's why science uses pieces of evidence to get closer to the absolute truth of something, while fully knowing absolute proof doesn't exist...

...I asserted that some evidence is better than none. Stop attempting to change my words.

Not going to tell me what "assuming science of course?" means?

Not going to tell me why repercussions of either of us being right are favorable to you and not me?

Not going to explain what the logical steps lead you to believing that it is better to see a gastroenterologist than a bag-boy?

The answers to all of your questions are already in this thread.

No, they're not.

You never told me what definition I have that is flawed.

You never told me where you find a definition of evidence that requires that it prove something absolutely in order to be called evidence.

You never told me where I said that I can find absolute truth without absolute proof in this quote:

quote:What's with this absolutely better nonsense? Some evidence is better than none. That's why science uses pieces of evidence to get closer to the absolute truth of something, while fully knowing absolute proof doesn't exist...

...I asserted that some evidence is better than none. Stop attempting to change my words.

You never told me

what "assuming science of course?" means.

You never told me why repercussions of either of us being right are favorable to you and not me.

And you never explained what the logical steps lead you to believing that it is better to see a gastroenterologist than a bag-boy.

quote:Originally posted by xray:

You never told me where you find a definition of evidence that requires that it prove something absolutely in order to be called evidence.

And he won't be able to. There is no definition of 'evidence' that has 'absolute proof' as a necessity for evidence to exist.

quote:Originally posted by xray:

You never told me where I said that I can find absolute truth without absolute proof in this quote:

You didn't, so of course he can't point that out either, and he seems to be above admitting that he was wrong to claim that you did.



quote:Originally posted by xray:

You never told me why repercussions of either of us being right are favorable to you and not me.

On the contrary. The repercussions of believing that evidence is meaningless unless it points to absolute truths are far greater.

quote:Originally posted by xray:

And you never explained what the logical steps lead you to believing that it is better to see a gastroenterologist than a bag-boy.

Because it's the same reason any rational person would see a gastroenterologist over a bag-boy for a serious stomach problem. It's because evidence proves (no, not absolutely) that they are more qualified in treating illness.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

The answers to all of your questions are already in this thread.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

The answers to all of your questions are already in this thread.

That's not true fallinghouse. xray said, "you are the only one in the fucking world who defines evidence as giving absolute proof for something."

You answered "no".

He then asked, "Where do you find a definition of evidence that requires that it prove something absolutely in order to be called evidence?"

You NEVER answered.

That's only one example. You never answered his other questions either.

You claim that you would see a gastroenterologist over a bag-boy for a serious stomach problem, based on logic.

What evidence do you have (using your definition of evidence, that requires absolute proof) that your logic works?

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

The answers to all of your questions are already in this thread.

wow this thread got a lot farther then i thought it would. I've been bored these last few days so I've been doing some reading and things.

The title of my thread should have read something along the lines of "The human mind doesn't need faith"

The human brain is complex enough that it can find its beliefs in evidence. Depending on the individual the amount of evidence varies, also the amount varies on the subject. The more crazy a thought is, the more conclusive the evidence has to be.

Religion on the other hand needs absoluty no evidence. This is why its a discrace to the human brain. Its a waste. The word Faith was created to give religion followers something to say so they feel there accomplishing something while wasting there brain power.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

The answers to all of your questions are already in this thread.

WHERE?

People should do what they is goin to make them happy and not worry how others think how they should live their life.

I am completely agree with boozehound420 when says everything takes faith. Even science with the belief of evolution, you didn't actually see evolution happen, then you BELIEVE it did happen.

quote:Originally posted by The Violent Pacifist:

Even science with the belief of evolution, you didn't actually see evolution happen, then you BELIEVE it did happen.

All forms of evidence do not require direct personal observation. There is much historical evidence for the existence of George Washington. My belief that he existed is based on evidence. Absolutely none of my belief in his past existence is faith based. My beliefs in evolution are also evidence based. The genetic evidence, fossil evidence, anatomical evidence, etc., is so overwhelming that it is considered a fact. Belief based on such strong evidence that we call the conclusion a fact, requires no evidence.

Check out the link below and the link within it for more on evolution and faith.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html

quote:Originally posted by glutamate antagonist:

WHERE?

I was not referring to you. Their questions, however were answered in several of my posts on this and the first page.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

I was not referring to you. Their questions, however were answered in several of my posts on this and the first page.

glutamate antagonist didn't say that you were referring to him. What he's asking you is where did you answer xray's questions?

xray and I have pointed out to you several times that you never did answer the questions.

Most importantly, "Where do you find a definition of evidence that requires that it prove something absolutely in order to be called evidence?"

Which definition of his is flawed?

What made you say, "Heh, you're saying you can find absolute truth without absolute proof.", especially when xray made it clear that he never attempts to find absolute truth?

what do you mean "assuming science of course"?

Please explain what the logical steps are that lead you to believing that it is better to see a gastroenterolgist than a bag-boy?

Why are the repercussions of either of you being right favorable to you and not him?

^Exactly.



quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

I was not referring to you. Their questions, however were answered in several of my posts on this and the first page.

If that is true, quote the questions posted by Martini above, and then quote your answer to each of them. You could have easily done that using the energy needed to argue they've already been answered but not citing where.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

The answers to all of your questions are already in this thread.

I don't know why I am doing this... it's not my responsibility to ensure you read my arguments before 'refuting' them.

quote:"Where do you find a definition of evidence that requires that it prove something absolutely in order to be called evidence?"

"The definition of evidence I am using is: anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

Hence if a piece of evidence cannot be proven to be reliable, it is not evidence at all, as it cannot be used to differentiate between what is true and what is false.

Empirical evidence only fits the definition of evidence if it is accurate. Since it cannot be proven accurate, using empirical evidence to determine what is true is based on faith. Hence anything that is based on empirical evidence is based on faith."



quote:Not going to tell me which definition I have that is flawed?

"Note the two definitions of evidence being used here:

1. anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

2. anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion assuming:

a) The external world exists.

b) This external world is consistent.

c) Our memories are accurate.

Under definition one, if evidence can be provided, there is no faith. I am using definition 1 in my definition of faith. However, since there is only one thing that fits definition 1, using it means that with the exception of asserting the existence of thoughts or statements based only on logical axioms, there is not a single assertion about truth that can be made without faith.

What you are doing is using definition 2 in my definition of faith and therefore asserting there is no faith required. But I am using definition 1."

quote:What made you say, "Heh, you're saying you can find absolute truth without absolute proof.",

He said:

"What's with this absolutely better nonsense? Some evidence is better than none. That's why science uses pieces of evidence to get closer to the absolute truth of something, while fully knowing absolute proof doesn't exist...

...I asserted that some evidence is better than none. Stop attempting to change my words."

I said:

"In order for beliefs based on evidence to be absolutely better than beliefs based without the evidence must be absolute. Since your evidence is not absolute, you cannot assert that your beliefs are absolutely better."

To say that some evidence is more accurate or better than no evidence in respect to finding absolute truth is saying that evidence is absolutely better.

quote:what do you mean "assuming science of course"?

"As I have said, science is based on the following unproven assumptions:

1. The external world exists.

2. This external world is consistent.

3. Our memories are accurate."

quote:Please explain what the logical steps are that lead you to believing that it is better to see a gastroenterolgist than a bag-boy?

I never made such an assertion. In fact, I said:

"it would be personal preference, not because it is objectively better, as I cannot know whether it is objectively better."

quote:Why are the repercussions of either of you being right favorable to you and not him?

"Unfortunately for you, if we accept your definitions, then a lack of faith can only point to a relative truth. So, in the end you have destroyed that which you hoped to protect, as to place your own beliefs above the theist requires that you be asserting an absolute truth.

As I have seen this, I know now that it matters little which definitions are used, my end point stands. An atheist has no justification for placing own beliefs closer to an absolute truth than a theist. He can only assert that his beliefs are a relative truth, but then, so are the theists."

Not to mention, that if evidence does not need to be absolute, then the bible counts as evidence of the ridiculous stuff it proposes. So using your definitions, Christians don't have faith.

I suspect you are going to complain of how untrustworthy that evidence is. But declaring that a piece of evidence is inaccurate is a statement of absolute truth, which as you have already stated, cannot be reliably made.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

"The definition of evidence I am using is: anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

That's a fine definition for evidence. However, you are not answering the question.

You stated, "Evidence must be absolutely proved to be accurate or else it relies on faith."

Regarding that statement I said, "Again, you are the only one in the fucking world who defines evidence as giving absolute proof for something."

You answered, "No".

I then asked. "Where do you find a definition of evidence that requires that it prove something absolutely in order to be called evidence?"

You never answered and you're still not answering.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Hence if a piece of evidence cannot be proven to be reliable, it is not evidence at all, as it cannot be used to differentiate between what is true and what is false.

And you've made it quite clear that when you talk about proof, you are talking about absolute proof, which is not what any scientist in the world is talking about when he talks about evidence.



quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Empirical evidence only fits the definition of evidence if it is accurate.

What does that even mean? You're talking gibberish.



quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Since it cannot be proven accurate, using empirical evidence to determine what is true is based on faith. Hence anything that is based on empirical evidence is based on faith."

No. beliefs based on empirical evidence are based on knowledge. If I know nothing about gravity, my belief dropped rock will fall to the Earth is based on empirical evidence. I can not absolutely prove that a dropped rock will fall, but my belief that it will is based on evidence. To use your definition, it would not be a "belief in something without or in spite of evidence."



quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

qu0te:Not going to tell me which definition I have that is flawed?

"Note the two definitions of evidence being used here:

1. anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

2. anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion assuming:

a) The external world exists.

b) This external world is consistent.

c) Our memories are accurate.

Under definition one, if evidence can be provided, there is no faith. I am using definition 1 in my definition of faith. However, since there is only one thing that fits definition 1, using it means that with the exception of asserting the existence of thoughts or statements based only on logical axioms, there is not a single assertion about truth that can be made without faith.

What you are doing is using definition 2 in my definition of faith and therefore asserting there is no faith required. But I am using definition 1."

Am I the only one who doesn't know what the fuck he's trying to say?

WHICH ONE OF MY DEFINITION'S IS FLAWED?

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

qu0te:What made you say, "Heh, you're saying you can find absolute truth without absolute proof.",

He said:

"What's with this absolutely better nonsense? Some evidence is better than none. That's why science uses pieces of evidence to get closer to the absolute truth of something, while fully knowing absolute proof doesn't exist...

...I asserted that some evidence is better than none. Stop attempting to change my words.

Riiight...and where did I say that absolute truth can ever be found?



quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

qu0te:Please explain what the logical steps are that lead you to believing that it is better to see a gastroenterologist than a bag-boy?

I never made such an assertion. In fact, I said:

"it would be personal preference, not because it is objectively better, as I cannot know whether it is objectively better."

That's not answering the question. You're telling me you would see a gastroenterologist

based on personal preference, but not telling me why you would have that preference. It's obvious that anyone would see a gastroenterologist over a bag boy based on evidence. You don't seem to want to admit such a basic fact. Are you going to tell us now?





quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

"Unfortunately for you, if we accept your definitions, then a lack of faith can only point to a relative truth. So, in the end you have destroyed that which you hoped to protect, as to place your own beliefs above the theist requires that you be asserting an absolute truth.

I have destroyed nothing and none of the above gibberish explains what repercussions i have to face and which ones you won't.

If someone has faith that a dropped rock will fly towards the sky, and I believe that it will fall to the Earth based on evidence, yes, I am placing my beliefs above the one with faith. My belief based on evidence is infinitely better than the belief based on faith.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

As I have seen this, I know now that it matters little which definitions are used, my end point stands. An atheist has no justification for placing own beliefs closer to an absolute truth than a theist. He can only assert that his beliefs are a relative truth, but then, so are the theists."

As I stated in an earlier post, you are changing the argument. My atheism is based on absence of evidence, not evidence. We are talking about beliefs based on evidence as compared to faith.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Not to mention, that if evidence does not need to be absolute, then the bible counts as evidence of the ridiculous stuff it proposes. So using your definitions, Christians don't have faith.

I suspect you are going to complain of how untrustworthy that evidence is.

How'd ya guess? Especially when there is evidence (not absolute) to prove the Bible wrong in many places.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

But declaring that a piece of evidence is inaccurate is a statement of absolute truth, which as you have already stated, cannot be reliably made.

How the fuck does someone making a declaration become a statement of absolute truth?

You seem to lack a basic understanding of the basic methods used in debate and appear to have little reading comprehension.

When someone writes something about a topic in a debate, you need to read what they are saying. Then you need to work out what they are arguing. Then you need to demonstrate why their reasoning is either unsound or invalid. You also need to guarantee that there are no logical fallacies contained within your counter-arguments. You have done none of these things.

Restating your opinion over and over is the debating style of a toddler. But then, I am beginning to suspect that you are one.

quote:

That's a fine definition for evidence. However, you are not answering the question.

You stated, "Evidence must be absolutely proved to be accurate or else it relies on faith."

Regarding that statement I said, "Again, you are the only one in the fucking world who defines evidence as giving absolute proof for something."

You answered, "No".

I then asked. "Where do you find a definition of evidence that requires that it prove something absolutely in order to be called evidence?"

You never answered and you're still not answering.

You know I didn't include those two other paragraphs in that quote for no reason.

quote:

And you've made it quite clear that when you talk about proof, you are talking about absolute proof, which is not what any scientist in the world is talking about when he talks about evidence.

When philosophers talk of solipsism, this is the definition used. And since this is a philosophical discussion...

quote:

What does that even mean? You're talking gibberish...

...Am I the only one who doesn't know what the fuck he's trying to say?...

...I have destroyed nothing and none of the above gibberish explains what repercussions i have to face and which ones you won't.

Just because you are incapable of understanding something doesn't make it false. If you want to say it is nonsensical and you want that to be a refutation, you need to say why.

quote:

No. beliefs based on empirical evidence are based on knowledge. If I know nothing about gravity, my belief dropped rock will fall to the Earth is based on empirical evidence. I can not absolutely prove that a dropped rock will fall, but my belief that it will is based on evidence. To use your definition, it would not be a "belief in something without or in spite of evidence."

Are you illiterate? Did you even read what I said? Your 'evidence' is of unknown accuracy as it relies on the unverified assumptions of science. Beliefs based on assumptions of unknown accuracy are based on faith. You are using definition 2:

"Note the two definitions of evidence being used here:

1. anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

2. anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion assuming:

a) The external world exists.

b) This external world is consistent.

c) Our memories are accurate.

Under definition one, if evidence can be provided, there is no faith. I am using definition 1 in my definition of faith. However, since there is only one thing that fits definition 1, using it means that with the exception of asserting the existence of thoughts or statements based only on logical axioms, there is not a single assertion about truth that can be made without faith.

What you are doing is using definition 2 in my definition of faith and therefore asserting there is no faith required. But I am using definition 1."

quote:WHICH ONE OF MY DEFINITION'S IS FLAWED?

I am clearly stating that your definition of evidence is not the one being used in my definition of faith.

quote:Riiight...and where did I say that absolute truth can ever be found?

Once again, your reading comprehension skills have failed you.

'"In order for beliefs based on evidence to be absolutely better than beliefs based without the evidence must be absolute. Since your evidence is not absolute, you cannot assert that your beliefs are absolutely better."

To say that some evidence is more accurate or better than no evidence in respect to finding absolute truth is saying that evidence is absolutely better.'

But, since you appear unable to read anything I say, I will need to use your own words.

"What's with this absolutely better nonsense? Some evidence is better than none. That's why science uses pieces of evidence to get closer to the absolute truth of something, while fully knowing absolute proof doesn't exist...

...I asserted that some evidence is better than none. Stop attempting to change my words."

Saying that your evidence is better than none is saying that it is closer to an absolute truth. Since you cannot know the absolute truth in question, you cannot say that your evidence is closer to it. This is basic stuff.

quote:

That's not answering the question. You're telling me you would see a gastroenterologist

based on personal preference, but not telling me why you would have that preference. It's obvious that anyone would see a gastroenterologist over a bag boy based on evidence. You don't seem to want to admit such a basic fact. Are you going to tell us now?

It is because I accept on faith the assumptions made by science that lead to a relative understanding that makes the bag boy a bad choice. And I accept them on faith due to personal preference.

quote:

As I stated in an earlier post, you are changing the argument. My atheism is based on absence of evidence, not evidence. We are talking about beliefs based on evidence as compared to faith.

I am just answering your questions.

quote:

How'd ya guess? Especially when there is evidence (not absolute) to prove the Bible wrong in many places...

...How the fuck does someone making a declaration become a statement of absolute truth?

Saying that this counter evidence is better than the evidence given is saying that it is closer to an absolute truth than the original evidence. Since you cannot know the absolute truth in question, you cannot say that your evidence is closer to it.

Hence, if, as you said, 'beliefs based on empirical evidence are based on knowledge' then Christianity, and any other religion are not based on faith, they are based on knowledge.

quote:If someone has faith that a dropped rock will fly towards the sky, and I believe that it will fall to the Earth based on evidence, yes, I am placing my beliefs above the one with faith. My belief based on evidence is infinitely better than the belief based on faith.

Saying that your evidence is better than none is saying that it is closer to an absolute truth. Since you cannot know the absolute truth in question, you cannot say that your evidence is closer to it.

[This message has been edited by fallinghouse (edited 01-23-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

You know I didn't include those two other paragraphs in that quote for no reason.

Nice way to avoid what I said.

You NEVER told us where we can find a definition of evidence that requires that it prove something absolutely in order to be called evidence!!!!



quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

When philosophers talk of solipsism, this is the definition used. And since this is a philosophical discussion...

You NEVER told us where we can find a definition of evidence that requires that it prove something absolutely in order to be called evidence!!!!

Another shitty attempt to not answer the question.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Just because you are incapable of understanding something doesn't make it false. If you want to say it is nonsensical and you want that to be a refutation, you need to say why.

You NEVER told us why repercussions of either of us being right are favorable to you and not me!

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Are you illiterate? Did you even read what I said? Your 'evidence' is of unknown accuracy as it relies on the unverified assumptions of science. Beliefs based on assumptions of unknown accuracy are based on faith. You are using definition 2:

"Note the two definitions of evidence being used here:

1. anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

2. anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion assuming:

a) The external world exists.

b) This external world is consistent.

c) Our memories are accurate.

And I have explained to you that none of those assumptions are necessary. There is strong evidence that the world exists. There is strong evidence that it is consistent. If there weren't, experiments would be useless because they wouldn't be repeatable. Over and over and over again, dropped rocks fall. THAT IS PROOF OF CONSISTENCY! I explained already in another post how we can prove that are memories are accurate. NO ASSUMPTIONS NECESSARY!!!!!!!

Even if I we had to make assumptions that this isn't a dream or we aren't a computer programmer's character in a computer, that wouldn't mean that scientific evidence doesn't exist, even if that too is made up by the programmer. We have evidence that dropped rocks fall to the Earth. If my belief that a rock will fall based on this evidence, it is not based on faith. It is what my belief is based on that defines whether or not I have faith or not. It's not based on whether or not I can absolutely prove that I'm not a character in the Matrix.

qu0te:Riiight...and where did I say that absolute truth can ever be found?

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Once again, your reading comprehension skills have failed you.

"In order for beliefs based on evidence to be absolutely better than beliefs based without the evidence must be absolute. Since your evidence is not absolute, you cannot assert that your beliefs are absolutely better."

To say that some evidence is more accurate or better than no evidence in respect to finding absolute truth is saying that evidence is absolutely better."

No moron, you're the one lacking reading skills. I NEVER SAID THAT ABSOLUTE TRUTH CAN BE FOUND.



quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Saying that your evidence is better than none is saying that it is closer to an absolute truth. Since you cannot know the absolute truth in question, you cannot say that your evidence is closer to it. This is basic stuff.

I can not know the absolute truth in question? You're a fucking idiot! We have established that there is so much evidence that dropped rocks fall to the Earth, that we call it a fact. The absolute truth we attempt to establish without ever being able to prove anything absolutely, is THAT DROPPED ROCKS FALL TO THE EARTH!!!! Having this belief takes no faith, even if I live in a fucking computer!



quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

It is because I accept on faith the assumptions made by science that lead to a relative understanding that makes the bag boy a bad choice. And I accept them on faith due to personal preference.

Personal preference my ass! You have evidence! We all see doctors for medical illness over bag-boys because of evidence!



quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Saying that your evidence is better than none is saying that it is closer to an absolute truth. Since you cannot know the absolute truth in question, you cannot say that your evidence is closer to it.

I explained this above. Evidence does not become useless because we know that there will never be an absolute truth for anything.

If some evidence is not any better than none, should we take any old medicine for an illness, or should we take the one that researchers have established (not absolutely) that are most effective? It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that we take the medicine which we have SOME evidence for. Some evidence is better than none.

When you say that you would see a gastroenterologist over a bag-boy “made by science that lead to a relative understanding that makes the bag boy a bad choice”, you’re just changing the words in order to avoid using the word ‘evidence’. You realize that although absolute truth can never be found, “some” (more like “lots of”) evidence based on research that doctors use to treat illness is better than treating you based on “none”.

You said, “The only reason we act upon anything without fear is faith.”

You then said that babies an animals have faith which is a ridiculous notion.

Look at my baby learning to walk analogy again:

When a baby learns to walk, its fear of taking the next step diminishes after evidence shows him that his foot lands flat on the floor and that his balance is good enough to prevent him from falling. It has fuck all to do with faith.

The baby does not need to prove absolutely that :

a) The external world exists.

b) This external world is consistent.

c) His memories are accurate



As long as those things seem obvious to him, the confidence that he gains in his walking ability is based on evidence, which of course involves his memory (that he doesn’t need to absolutely prove is accurate). The fact that the baby fears falling until he has proved to himself he has pretty good walking skills based on evidence, can’t be denied. Babies and animals have no concept of faith.

quote:Originally posted by xray:

Look at my baby learning to walk analogy again:

When a baby learns to walk, its fear of taking the next step diminishes after evidence shows him that his foot lands flat on the floor and that his balance is good enough to prevent him from falling. It has fuck all to do with faith.

The baby does not need to prove absolutely that :

a) The external world exists.

b) This external world is consistent.

c) His memories are accurate



As long as those things seem obvious to him, the confidence that he gains in his walking ability is based on evidence, which of course involves his memory (that he doesn’t need to absolutely prove is accurate). The fact that the baby fears falling until he has proved to himself he has pretty good walking skills based on evidence, can’t be denied. Babies and animals have no concept of faith.

fallinghouse, can't you see from the above example that the baby in the example did not lose fear in walking based on faith?

If "the only reason we act upon anything without fear is faith", why didn't the baby in the example have this faith from the beginning? Why does the baby gradually lose his fear of falling as he gets better at walking?

The baby is slowly proving to himself that he is a good walker and that the short fall doesn't hurt all that much through the experience of repetitively falling (requiring his memory). He does not need to absolutely prove that his memory is accurate. He believes he has an accurate memory through repetitive experiences that provide evidence to him that his memory is accurate.

The proof that he is a good walker and that short falls don't hurt much that he is acquiring is what we call 'evidence'. His fears are not waning due to faith.

quote:

Nice way to avoid what I said.

You NEVER told us where we can find a definition of evidence that requires that it prove something absolutely in order to be called evidence!!!!...

...

You NEVER told us where we can find a definition of evidence that requires that it prove something absolutely in order to be called evidence!!!!

Another shitty attempt to not answer the question...

...You NEVER told us why repercussions of either of us being right are favorable to you and not me!

Please continue to debate when you learn how to read. What are you? 12 years old?

quote:

And I have explained to you that none of those assumptions are necessary. There is strong evidence that the world exists.

O RLY?

Do you know what 'Begging the question' is? It's when you assume to be true what you are claiming to demonstrate. It is a logical fallacy. hint: that means you can't use it in an argument.

Any evidence that could show that the external world exists uses sense data. It therefore assumes that which it is trying to show. Begging the question.

quote: There is strong evidence that it is consistent. If there weren't, experiments would be useless because they wouldn't be repeatable. Over and over and over again, dropped rocks fall. THAT IS PROOF OF CONSISTENCY!

First of all, this is begging the question as it assumes that you observed the rock correctly on past occasions and it assumes that our memories are giving an accurate recount of what happened.

Second, you have yet to provide any justification for why something happening in the past allows us to predict what happens in the future. (Also, any such justification would be guilty of begging the question)

quote: I explained already in another post how we can prove that are memories are accurate. NO ASSUMPTIONS NECESSARY!!!!!!!

Oh yes, you did, didn't you:

'If I measure an object, it can be proven that my memory from the time I saw it, to the time I recorded its measurement is accurate.'

Guess what. Begging the question. You are assuming that your senses even fed accurate information to your memory at all.

These assumptions made by science are not some obscure thing I am making up, this is some of the first stuff you will learn if you ever look at the philosophy of science.

quote:Even if I we had to make assumptions that this isn't a dream or we aren't a computer programmer's character in a computer, that wouldn't mean that scientific evidence doesn't exist, even if that too is made up by the programmer. We have evidence that dropped rocks fall to the Earth. If my belief that a rock will fall based on this evidence, it is not based on faith. It is what my belief is based on that defines whether or not I have faith or not. It's not based on whether or not I can absolutely prove that I'm not a character in the Matrix.

'We have evidence that dropped rocks fall to the Earth'

Any such evidence is guilty of begging the question.

quote:

No moron, you're the one lacking reading skills. I NEVER SAID THAT ABSOLUTE TRUTH CAN BE FOUND.

You said that some evidence is better than none, which is the same thing.

quote:I can not know the absolute truth in question? You're a fucking idiot! We have established that there is so much evidence that dropped rocks fall to the Earth, that we call it a fact. The absolute truth we attempt to establish without ever being able to prove anything absolutely, is THAT DROPPED ROCKS FALL TO THE EARTH!!!! Having this belief takes no faith, even if I live in a fucking computer!

Any 'evidence' assumes the assumptions of science. Any evidence of those assumptions is guilty of begging the question. You do not know that this 'fact' is closer to the truth than one would be if one denied it because you do not know what that truth is. Hence you cannot say your belief is better

quote:Evidence does not become useless because we know that there will never be an absolute truth for anything.

The only way to prevent it from becoming useless is to take on faith the assumptions of science.

quote:If some evidence is not any better than none, should we take any old medicine for an illness, or should we take the one that researchers have established (not absolutely) that are most effective?

This is another logical fallacy. Argument from consequences. If the consequences of an argument are undesirable that does not in any way damage the argument itself.

quote:It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that we take the medicine which we have SOME evidence for. Some evidence is better than none.

We do this because we make the assumptions of science. And since we cannot justify these assumptions, we do this because of faith.

quote:When you say that you would see a gastroenterologist over a bag-boy “made by science that lead to a relative understanding that makes the bag boy a bad choice”, you’re just changing the words in order to avoid using the word ‘evidence’. You realize that although absolute truth can never be found, “some” (more like “lots of”) evidence based on research that doctors use to treat illness is better than treating you based on “none”.

Precisely, because I have faith in the assumptions of science that gave us this 'evidence'. But since my faith cannot be shown to be more accurate than faith in the bag-boy, I cannot say that my beliefs are better than his.

quote:You said, “The only reason we act upon anything without fear is faith.”

You then said that babies an animals have faith which is a ridiculous notion.

When a baby learns to walk, its fear of taking the next step diminishes after evidence shows him that his foot lands flat on the floor and that his balance is good enough to prevent him from falling.

The baby does not need to prove absolutely that :

a) The external world exists.

b) This external world is consistent.

c) His memories are accurate

The baby cannot prove those assumptions, but it makes them anyway. This is faith. This is why the fear decreases, because of faith.

All this analogy does is provide an example where your intuition tells you there is no faith, and then you therefore asserting that no faith is required. Unfortunately, it seems as though your intuition is wrong.

quote:

As long as those things seem obvious to him, the confidence that he gains in his walking ability is based on evidence, which of course involves his memory (that he doesn’t need to absolutely prove is accurate). The fact that the baby fears falling until he has proved to himself he has pretty good walking skills based on evidence, can’t be denied.

When you say, 'As long as those things seem obvious to him' that is faith. He has no reason for those things to be seen as obvious but he subconsciously assumes them regardless. As he continues to walk, he gains more memories that he can walk, making him more confident. But, since the reliability of said memory is unknown, he takes them on faith.

quote:Babies and animals have no concept of faith.

Just because it is subconscious and automatic does not mean it is not faith.

quote:If "the only reason we act upon anything without fear is faith", why didn't the baby in the example have this faith from the beginning? Why does the baby gradually lose his fear of falling as he gets better at walking?

He did have faith in the assumptions of science at the beginning. But, this faith in an external, consistent world that he can remember accurately, had not yet provided him with any experiences to suggest he could walk. Once he takes a few steps, he has experience, so he can now use his in built faith to say that he should be able to make further steps - reducing fear. Without faith in a consistent world and accurate memory, this experience is useless and no reason to believe that he will be able to take more steps.

quote:The baby is slowly proving to himself that he is a good walker and that the short fall doesn't hurt all that much through the experience of repetitively falling (requiring his memory). He does not need to absolutely prove that his memory is accurate. He believes he has an accurate memory through repetitive experiences that provide evidence to him that his memory is accurate.

The proof that he is a good walker and that short falls don't hurt much that he is acquiring is what we call 'evidence'

He assumes this evidence to be accurate because he assumes an external, consistent world that he can remember accurately. Faith.

[This message has been edited by fallinghouse (edited 01-24-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Please continue to debate when you learn how to read. What are you? 12 years old?

You never did tell us where we can find a definition of evidence that requires that it prove something absolutely or what repercussions are favorable to you over xray.





quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Do you know what 'Begging the question' is? It's when you assume to be true what you are claiming to demonstrate. It is a logical fallacy. hint: that means you can't use it in an argument.

There is proof the Earth exists because we stand on it. We land planes on it. Some of us have had loved ones fly above the Earth, only to crash into it. Just as there is evidence that evolution happens, there is evidence that the Earth exists. The evidence does not have to prove anything absolutely.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

First of all, this is begging the question as it assumes that you observed the rock correctly on past occasions and it assumes that our memories are giving an accurate recount of what happened.

We don't have to assume that our memories are accurate. We have proof that people remember how to do their jobs every day, based on knowledge that it takes a memory to have. You're unnecessarily bringing this debate down to elementary basics.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Second, you have yet to provide any justification for why something happening in the past allows us to predict what happens in the future. (Also, any such justification would be guilty of begging the question)

Do you really not believe that it has been proven (no, not absolutely) that dropped rocks will fall to the Earth unless acted upon by another force? It has been!



quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Guess what. Begging the question. You are assuming that your senses even fed accurate information to your memory at all.

No, he's not. That's why the tests can be done. To prove that the memory is accurate. You can look at a picture of a rock and write down that you saw a rock. Other people can verify that both things were done. Of course you can say that there is not absolute proof. We've already established that evidence does not rely on absolute proof existing. Evidence is used to find proof.



quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

You said that some evidence is better than none, which is the same thing.

Saying that some evidence is better than none, is not the same thing as admitting that absolute truth exists.

The entire scientific world admits that nothing can be proven absolutely. That doesn't mean that they have stopped doing experiments to find medicines to help people. Would they bother with research if some evidence is no better than none? No. Why would they? The obvious answer is that some evidence that a medicine helps regulate an under active thyroid, is better than giving them Tic Tacs, which there is no evidence for.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

He assumes this evidence to be accurate because he assumes an external, consistent world that he can remember accurately. Faith.

The baby in the example doesn't make any assumptions. His reality is what he senses. He doesn't need to have the intellect to wonder if he really exists.

You're changing the definition of both evidence and faith to support your argument. According to you, there is only one piece of evidence you know of, and that is that "you are capable of thinking" Well, you can't prove that absolutely either. You can't prove that all of your thoughts are pre-programmed and nothing at all like what we call thoughts exists and your experiences of what it feels like to think are totally artificial. This, of course, does not mean that there is no evidence for anything.

It doesn't matter if the baby's perceptions are all wrong or that he's a computer animation and doesn't realize it. If he perceives his pain is real and he believes he is walking, the confidence that gets from his awareness is from evidence.

quote:You never did tell us where we can find a definition of evidence that requires that it prove something absolutely or what repercussions are favorable to you over xray.

I have done both of these things a number of times.

quote:

There is proof the Earth exists because we stand on it. We land planes on it. Some of us have had loved ones fly above the Earth, only to crash into it. Just as there is evidence that evolution happens, there is evidence that the Earth exists. The evidence does not have to prove anything absolutely.

That's called begging the question. All of this evidence is based on the premise that the senses are accurate. And this premise is being challenged in the first place.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

quote:

We don't have to assume that our memories are accurate. We have proof that people remember how to do their jobs every day, based on knowledge that it takes a memory to have.

More circular arguing. This is based on the premise that the senses are accurate. And this premise is being challenged in the first place.

quote:You're unnecessarily bringing this debate down to elementary basics.

All valid positions should hold at a basic level or else they are useless.

quote:Do you really not believe that it has been proven (no, not absolutely) that dropped rocks will fall to the Earth unless acted upon by another force? It has been!

This is not justification for why something happening in the past allows us to predict what happens in the future.

quote:No, he's not. That's why the tests can be done. To prove that the memory is accurate. You can look at a picture of a rock and write down that you saw a rock. Other people can verify that both things were done.

Begging the question. You assume the accuracy of the senses of your hearing. You assume the accuracy of other people's eyesight. You assume the existence of other people. But these assumptions are being challenged, so making them is a logical fallacy.

quote:

Saying that some evidence is better than none, is not the same thing as admitting that absolute truth exists.

Yes it is. To say that something is closer to the truth is a clear statement that truth exists. And when one says that evidence is better than none, they are saying that it is closer to truth.

quote:The entire scientific world admits that nothing can be proven absolutely. That doesn't mean that they have stopped doing experiments to find medicines to help people. Would they bother with research if some evidence is no better than none? No. Why would they? The obvious answer is that some evidence that a medicine helps regulate an under active thyroid, is better than giving them Tic Tacs, which there is no evidence for.

Science only does this because it uses faith to take the assumptions it has made as truth.

quote:

The baby in the example doesn't make any assumptions. His reality is what he senses. He doesn't need to have the intellect to wonder if he really exists...

...It doesn't matter if the baby's perceptions are all wrong or that he's a computer animation and doesn't realize it. If he perceives his pain is real and he believes he is walking, the confidence that gets from his awareness is from evidence.

It doesn't matter if the faith is subconscious, it is still faith. And I agree that he gets his confidence from his awareness, but without faith in the assumptions of science, he has no reason to use this awareness as evidence.

quote:According to you, there is only one piece of evidence you know of, and that is that "you are capable of thinking" Well, you can't prove that absolutely either.

Sure I can, as it is self-proving. By pondering whether thoughts exist I am required to use thought.

quote:. You can't prove that all of your thoughts are pre-programmed and nothing at all like what we call thoughts exists and your experiences of what it feels like to think are totally artificial.

It's a good thing I am not trying to prove that then, isn't it?





[This message has been edited by fallinghouse (edited 01-25-2007).]

it is not faith we ( well i lean to) it's that life is a miracle. I'm religously fanatic about life itself.

edit: philosophy is a beautiful thing

[This message has been edited by eXo5 (edited 01-25-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

I have done both of these things a number of times.

There are three of us in this thread who can't seem to find it. I'll leave you alone about this since you're ignoring it anyway.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

More circular arguing. This is based on the premise that the senses are accurate. And this premise is being challenged in the first place.

What you're claiming is that proof for anything is an example of circular arguing, because we can never absolutely prove that our and everyone's five senses are accurate. That's not circular arguing. Researchers proving that medicine works is not part of a circular argument.



quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

This is not justification for why something happening in the past allows us to predict what happens in the future.

Yes, it is. long before the hows and whys of gravity were thought about, it was reasonable to come to the conclusion that what goes up, must come down. The fact that it happened over and over again within someone's experiences, was enough to cause someone to be in total amazement if a rock dropped towards the sky and not the Earth. Each person had evidence based upon repeatable results that things go down and not up. No one needs to prove absolutely that a rock will never go up. Belief that they fall is based on evidence, not faith. The evidence is gathered through inductive reasoning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning



quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

It doesn't matter if the faith is subconscious, it is still faith. And I agree that he gets his confidence from his awareness, but without faith in the assumptions of science, he has no reason to use this awareness as evidence.

How does the baby have faith residing in his subconscious? The baby has faith in the assumptions of science? That's a pretty ridiculous notion. Just as you believe that you have proof that you think, the baby has enough proof that falling hurts. He doesn't wonder whether or not his thoughts and feelings are real. He does have a reason for using awareness for evidence. Pain hurts! Just as you don't need to prove to yourself absolutely that a gastroenterologist is a better choice for stomach pain than a bag-boy. Your life seems real enough to you, so you make decisions based on evidence.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Sure I can, as it is self-proving. By pondering whether thoughts exist I am required to use thought. [

That's as equal as an example as me saying that I see, feel ,and hear my hands clapping so they must exist. You can't absolutely prove that those thought are your own or if they are actually anything like what you perceive thoughts to be.



Try to understand this:

Although I can't absolutely prove that I exist, I have reasonable evidence to believe that I do. Whether or not that evidence is sufficient for you to believe you exist, is irrelevant.

If there is some evidence that a drug may grow hair, someone wouldn't have to wait for more evidence to come out before he took the drug. The reason he's taking the drug is based on evidence. He doesn't need absolute proof that the drug will work, nor does he need absolute proof that he exists. He is taking the drug based on evidence alone!

quote:There are three of us in this thread who can't seem to find it.

Which is funny because I put them directly after quotes of your questions.

quote:

What you're claiming is that proof for anything is an example of circular arguing, because we can never absolutely prove that our and everyone's five senses are accurate. That's not circular arguing. Researchers proving that medicine works is not part of a circular argument.

Not proof for anything. Proof for the assumptions of science. And since this medical research is based on assumptions that would be fallacious to prove, it is therefore of unknown accuracy, and accepting it requires faith.

Anyway, even if I was arguing that proof for anything is a circular argument, which I was not, then: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adconseq.html

The undesirability of the consequences of an argument being correct does not damage the argument at all.

quote:

Yes, it is. long before the hows and whys of gravity were thought about, it was reasonable to come to the conclusion that what goes up, must come down. The fact that it happened over and over again within someone's experiences, was enough to cause someone to be in total amazement if a rock dropped towards the sky and not the Earth. Each person had evidence based upon repeatable results that things go down and not up. No one needs to prove absolutely that a rock will never go up. Belief that they fall is based on evidence, not faith. The evidence is gathered through inductive reasoning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning



From your link:

"In contrast to deductive reasoning, conclusions arrived at by inductive reasoning do not necessarily have the same degree of certainty as the initial premises... Inductive arguments are never binding but they may be cogent. Inductive reasoning is deductively invalid. (An argument in formal logic is valid if and only if it is not possible for the premises of the argument to be true whilst the conclusion is false.) In induction there are always many conclusions that can reasonably be related to certain premises."

While all of the above damages the credibility of one stating that inductive reasoning can be used without faith, one part in particular stands out.

Inductive arguments are never binding but they may be cogent. In case you don't know, cogency means that if the premises are true, then the conclusion is probable. The argument you are asserting is:

All my experience of falling rocks is that they fall to the ground,

therefore

If I drop a rock, it will fall to the ground.

And under inductive logic, that argument is cogent. But this doesn't answer the question. It only shifts it from a question to science to a question to inductive logic. What reason is there for inductive logic to use the past to predict the future?

quote:

How does the baby have faith residing in his subconscious? The baby has faith in the assumptions of science?

Just because the baby does not make a conscious choice to accept these assumptions, does not change the fact that he does accept them.

quote:Just as you believe that you have proof that you think, the baby has enough proof that falling hurts. He doesn't wonder whether or not his thoughts and feelings are real. He does have a reason for using awareness for evidence. Pain hurts!

The only reason he sees pain as undesirable is because he has faith that his senses are accurate, faith that what hurt in the past will hurt in the future and faith that he is correctly remembering the past.

quote:Just as you don't need to prove to yourself absolutely that a gastroenterologist is a better choice for stomach pain than a bag-boy. Your life seems real enough to you, so you make decisions based on evidence.

Evidence which I assume is accurate, because I have faith in order to continue living my life.

quote:

That's as equal as an example as me saying that I see, feel ,and hear my hands clapping so they must exist. You can't absolutely prove that those thought are your own or if they are actually anything like what you perceive thoughts to be.

Incorrect. This proof is absolute, as it makes no assumptions whatsoever and denying it inadvertently proves it. Your proof assumes the accuracy of your senses.

I'm not making this up, the absolute truth of the existence of thought has been accepted in western philosophy for hundreds of years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum

quote:

If there is some evidence that a drug may grow hair, someone wouldn't have to wait for more evidence to come out before he took the drug. The reason he's taking the drug is based on evidence. He doesn't need absolute proof that the drug will work, nor does he need absolute proof that he exists. He is taking the drug based on evidence alone!

And how did he find out this evidence? Somebody informed him of experiences they have had. But since this evidence is of unknown accuracy, he requires faith to accept it.

However, if we assume you to be correct, then we don't need to know the accuracy of our evidence to have belief without faith.

Are you willing to accept that the people of religions have no faith then? Because they find their evidence for their beliefs in holy texts, which are the record of someone telling of their past experiences. If you say that this is faith, but the hair growth drug is not, then what is the specific difference between them?

Just a reminder that saying that one is more accurate than the other is a statement that requires evidence, but any such evidence will beg the question.



[This message has been edited by fallinghouse (edited 01-26-2007).]

Yep.