Randolpin

Presupposition, faith and truth

Recommended Posts

Randolpin    24

This topic imposes the idea that all of us presupposes. We are bias of our own worldviews. Example, for a scientist, he is a presuppositional being who presupposes for example that an things if drop will always go to the ground because of gravity. He presupposes that it will also happen in the future, but there is no evidence for the scientist that it will happen nor he can predict it. He just presupposes. He has only a faith that it will happen. Scientist can't really know that things still fall to the ground in the future because his knowledge is finite or limited only. I want to explain more but let me begin by this introduction.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phi for All    4814
2 hours ago, Randolpin said:

He presupposes that it will also happen in the future, but there is no evidence for the scientist that it will happen nor he can predict it. He just presupposes. He has only a faith that it will happen. Scientist can't really know that things still fall to the ground in the future because his knowledge is finite or limited only.

Fix this part, it's extremely wrong. 

There is plenty of evidence for gravity, more than enough to trust predictions based on it. Do you really think we only presuppose the math that leads to successful orbits with spacecraft? I think you don't give enough credence to critical analysis, and assume everyone is as rigor-free as you demonstrate yourself to be. 

The only assumption being made here is that things will continue to function as we've observed them functioning unless something else acts upon them. It's not something we can know, but it doesn't make our predictions any less accurate for all intents and purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Silvestru    55
2 hours ago, Randolpin said:

He (scientist) has only a faith that it will happen.

I think you are confusing two different concepts. 

Quote

Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence, while religions include revelation, faith and sacredness .

 

I would also like to add the below especially the part in bold that clarified this for me.

Quote

 

The USA's National Academy of Science supports the view that science and religion are independent.[60]

Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to put science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.[60]

 

 

A person that comes out with a theory. This theory later on is found to be conflicting with evidence.  This person has "faith" in said theory so he/she refuses to let go of it or deny it. 

This person is not a scientist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
swansont    6251
3 hours ago, Randolpin said:

This topic imposes the idea that all of us presupposes. We are bias of our own worldviews. Example, for a scientist, he is a presuppositional being who presupposes for example that an things if drop will always go to the ground because of gravity. He presupposes that it will also happen in the future, but there is no evidence for the scientist that it will happen nor he can predict it. He just presupposes. He has only a faith that it will happen. Scientist can't really know that things still fall to the ground in the future because his knowledge is finite or limited only. I want to explain more but let me begin by this introduction.

You have presupposed that the scientist is a man. 

We do not presuppose the other things. Science has investigated and modeled, and we have good reason to think that gravity is a real and repeatable phenomenon. The evidence for it is that it has always worked a certain way. It's inductive reasoning, but it's still evidence. Science, in general, proceeds in a similar fashion, under the assumption that there are laws of nature that we can investigate.

Do you, as a non-scientist, really live in fear that gravity might not work, and that you will spontaneously float away?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Randolpin    24
21 hours ago, Silvestru said:

I think you are confusing two different concepts. 

 

I would also like to add the below especially the part in bold that clarified this for me.

 

A person that comes out with a theory. This theory later on is found to be conflicting with evidence.  This person has "faith" in said theory so he/she refuses to let go of it or deny it. 

This person is not a scientist. 

But empirical data themselves gathered from cosmology, morality etc. fits to the concept of God as the best explanation.

20 hours ago, swansont said:

.

Do you, as a non-scientist, really live in fear that gravity might not work, and that you will spontaneously float away?

I do not intended to mean that way. I just want to show that their is still presupposition being happening to a scientist ultimately.

21 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Fix this part, it's extremely wrong. 

There is plenty of evidence for gravity, more than enough to trust predictions based on it. Do you really think we only presuppose the math that leads to successful orbits with spacecraft? I think you don't give enough credence to critical analysis, and assume everyone is as rigor-free as you demonstrate yourself to be. 

The only assumption being made here is that things will continue to function as we've observed them functioning unless something else acts upon them. It's not something we can know, but it doesn't make our predictions any less accurate for all intents and purposes.

Yes, scientist believe that gravity always acts the same way.They presupposes thru those evidences that it will always happen. Their is faith here.

Edited by Randolpin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Silvestru    55
22 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

But empirical data themselves gathered from cosmology, morality etc. fits to the concept of God as the best explanation.

I really don't know what I am expecting when asking this but... source needed for the above please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phi for All    4814
1 hour ago, Randolpin said:

Yes, scientist believe that gravity always acts the same way.They presupposes thru those evidences that it will always happen. Their is faith here.

I stepped in to correct misinformation so your error didn't gain any tacit support. Redefining the word "faith" to force merit on your argument is intellectually dishonest. 

Have a nice thread.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StringJunky    1511
2 hours ago, Randolpin said:

Yes, scientist believe that gravity always acts the same way.They presupposes thru those evidences that it will always happen. Their is faith here.

Faith implies that scientists will stick with something through thick and thin. Nothing could be further from the truth.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Strange    2543
2 hours ago, Randolpin said:

But empirical data themselves gathered from cosmology, morality etc. fits to the concept of God as the best explanation.

Only if you already believe in god and, therefore, believe that she is the best explanation for everything. 

For everyone else it is no explanation at all. You might as well say “magic” or “unicorns”. 

2 hours ago, Randolpin said:

Yes, scientist believe that gravity always acts the same way.

No they don’t. Otherwise they wouldn’t continuously be looking for ways to test it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
swansont    6251
3 hours ago, Randolpin said:

 Yes, scientist believe that gravity always acts the same way.They presupposes thru those evidences that it will always happen. Their is faith here.

Bollocks. Einstein came up with a new theory of how gravity worked that supplanted Newton. His theory is continually being tested, and it keeps passing the tests. This is not faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moontanman    1966
10 hours ago, Randolpin said:

But empirical data themselves gathered from cosmology, morality etc. fits to the concept of God as the best explanation.

 

Yes, some citation for this baseless assertion is needed.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Silvestru    55
9 hours ago, iNow said:

Also, which god(s)?

Judging by the premise, Flying Spaghetti Monster is my guess.

Spoiler

1200px-Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage_H

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sensei    618
On 13.11.2017 at 1:50 PM, Randolpin said:

Example, for a scientist, he is a presuppositional being who presupposes for example that an things if drop will always go to the ground because of gravity. He presupposes that it will also happen in the future, but there is no evidence for the scientist that it will happen nor he can predict it. He just presupposes. He has only a faith that it will happen.

If you would be true scientist you would make model where laws of physics change over time, and how much they change. From predictions from model, try to search for physical evidence proving or disproving your model.

On 13.11.2017 at 1:50 PM, Randolpin said:

Scientist can't really know that things still fall to the ground in the future because his knowledge is finite or limited only.

If gravity would be weakening with time, there would be no such thing as "ground" anymore. The all particles of this planet are kept together by gravitation (and at short distance by electrostatic forces). So after turning off gravitation, the all planets, the all stars, would stop existing as one solid piece, and the all their particles fly away in the all directions.

 

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Strange    2543
16 hours ago, iNow said:

Also, which god(s)?

I was just reading about the Bogomils, Christians who believed in two gods; the (evil) god of the Old Testament who created the material world and the (good) god of the New Testament who created the spiritual world. I quite like that idea. (They are also where we get the word “bugger” from!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
koti    140
On 14.11.2017 at 3:41 PM, Phi for All said:

I stepped in to correct misinformation so your error didn't gain any tacit support. Redefining the word "faith" to force merit on your argument is intellectually dishonest. 

Have a nice thread.

Phi, are you sure it’s conscious incompetence? I generally have a good eye and ear to judge this and in this case I’m not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phi for All    4814
50 minutes ago, koti said:

Phi, are you sure it’s conscious incompetence? I generally have a good eye and ear to judge this and in this case I’m not sure.

Using a definition of faith that includes belief in a theory like evolution is fairly worthless to anyone but those like Randolpin who argue for god(s) at any cost. He's consciously doing it, and he's been told before why it doesn't work. I think the incompetence in this case is conscious, repetitive, and actually predictable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
koti    140
2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Using a definition of faith that includes belief in a theory like evolution is fairly worthless to anyone but those like Randolpin who argue for god(s) at any cost. He's consciously doing it, and he's been told before why it doesn't work. I think the incompetence in this case is conscious, repetitive, and actually predictable.

Yeah, I just went through some of his posts in other threads, consider my question invalid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phi for All    4814
1 hour ago, koti said:

Yeah, I just went through some of his posts in other threads, consider my question invalid.

There is a certain mindset that knows science is difficult to understand and requires a great deal of time and resources, and prefers the ease of blind faith. Just write "God did it!" at the top of your final test, turn it in, and start your summer break. This mindset wants science to be based on nothing more than what religion is based on, so it has no special importance and its evidenced arguments have no added validity.

I think part of the difference is that when a scientist trusts something that turns out false, he knows there's something else he needs to learn. When you believe something with faith that turns out false, was it because God thought you didn't need to know, or because you didn't have enough faith, or because you didn't wait for God to give guidance, or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
koti    140
23 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

When you believe something with faith that turns out false, was it because God thought you didn't need to know, or because you didn't have enough faith, or because you didn't wait for God to give guidance, or what?

I’m surprised you don’t know the answer to  this one Phi:

”God works in mysterious ways” 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Strange    2543
2 hours ago, koti said:

I’m surprised you don’t know the answer to  this one Phi:

”God works in mysterious ways”

Which, of course, is why “god” is the worst possible explanation: whatever happens, whatever evidence is found can always be attributed to some new and arbitrary behaviour of god. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
koti    140
1 minute ago, Strange said:

Which, of course, is why “god” is the worst possible explanation: whatever happens, whatever evidence is found can always be attributed to some new and arbitrary behaviour of god. 

Sometimes I wish God would actually be out there so I can stand in front of her after I die and tell her that I admit I was wrong but at least I stayed rational throughout my life. I’d also be acused by all the angels of assaulting her for telling her she’s a total dick for giving zero evidence for her existence through out the thousands of years of the human civilisation. I hope I’d be thrown into hell with the rest of the a holes which are alike. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Randolpin    24
On 11/14/2017 at 10:41 PM, Phi for All said:

I stepped in to correct misinformation so your error didn't gain any tacit support. Redefining the word "faith" to force merit on your argument is intellectually dishonest. 

Have a nice thread.

But I mean faith is trust on evidences and Christianity is not far from this definition.

On 11/15/2017 at 7:42 AM, Moontanman said:

Yes, some citation for this baseless assertion is needed.... 

First if God doesn't exist, objective moral values do not exist. It is only pure subjective.In a deep sense there is no real right and wrong. Right and wrong are the same.But heres the catch.Why we tend to see things really wrong and really right if there is no objectivity of it?

On 11/14/2017 at 11:44 PM, Strange said:

Only if you already believe in god and, therefore, believe that she is the best explanation for everything. 

For everyone else it is no explanation at all. You might as well say “magic” or “unicorns”. 

honestly, believing that there is a God is not blind faith or just I believe it without any convincing reasons. Like the great thinkers of the old-Anselm, Augustine,Aquinas, Leibniz etc, it's not just blind faith that I believe in God aside from my personal experience of Him. Obviously like them, I critically think it.Anselm for example invented the ontological argument which is still hotly debated today.

On 11/14/2017 at 9:21 PM, Silvestru said:

I really don't know what I am expecting when asking this but... source needed for the above please.

Watch the debate between William lane Craig and Kevin Scharp-" Is there evidence for God in youtube and it is explaiined well by WLC.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Silvestru    55
23 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

First if God doesn't exist, objective moral values do not exist.

The origin of the philosophy that talks  about morality and moral values can be found in the works of Aristotle and Plato - both famous Christians of course.

So you are saying that someone who does not believe in (your?) God, they have no morals?

My point is that you cannot mention "God" and then say the word objective in that same sentence.

Also, If I may, I have a question as you quoted Ansel and his Proslogion. If you were born in India and raised in a traditional Hindu family and found the Bible, Proslogion and any christian book that comes to mind - do you think you would say, all this way of life (Hinduism)  is wrong and I found the "true" religion and become a Christian? ooooooor would you just say - "that's a nice collection of fables and fiction now let's also read Harry Potter while we're at it?"

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Randolpin    24
20 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

 

My point is that you cannot mention "God" and then say the word objective in that same sentence.

God is the judge of our actions.He is the universal judge for our right or wrong doings does it become objective only if there is a God.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now