Villain

Sensory interaction with the world around us is one thing, but concluding that sensory interaction is a.) the only interaction available and b.) capable of identifying all that can and does exist, is unfounded. I can't help but think that the difference between those that have faith and those that don't is irreconcilable through the medium of language. It's like trying to explain sight to someone that was born blind.

What do these people mean by the word 'feelings'? Are they referring to emotion, as in happiness/sadness is the basis of faith or is it something else?

Is this an appeal to authority then? I was highlighting that having a method substantiated by reason doesn't imply that is of any worth with regards to reality. I don't see how any of this solves the problem of induction. Because it happened in the past or do you have a better answer for your probably?

That's like saying Faith, the method, is validated by pure reason. The result is not validated by the empirical world beyond intuitive assumption. Ok, so you fire a bullet and you drop another bullet and they land at the same time. Will it happen again next time and why do you think it will or won't? I don't hold faith and 'trust' as opposing ideas so I can't answer why others do. It seems rather convenient that language and human sensory experience would be able to contain all existing things. If we can't know everything then to access things which we can't know would need faith. Faith in that sense is reliant on the ego and ownership of itself, which it could/should never lay claim to since we did not bring ourselves into being (something which is difficult to dispute regardless of religious view).

If reason isn't a criterion for validation then what is the problem with faith?

My point was that neither science nor faith are validated by pure reason so to attack faith as not having reason to validate it and then propose science as the answer is ridiculous. I'm not saying that science isn't a valid concept, but in order to accept it one has to be willing to give up pure reason as a bases of validation. How then can we classify science as better than religion? It certainly seems better suited for certain criteria but that intuitive assumption is the very fault that is given to faith. Kierkegaard's concept of faith in Fear and Trembling which is taken from the Abraham/Isaac story in the Bible is not a faith that is in competition to science and I see little reason to think that science and faith are competing. If I choose to wear a parachute when I jump out of a plane does that mean I've forsaken my faith?

If only seeming was good enough then your demonstrated fact might mean something.

If you're still making that assertion then there seems little point in debating this any further.

In terms of absolute truth neither science nor religion can demonstrate truth through reason which is the only way of comparing the two in a neutral fashion. Saying that you can mathematically determine which hypothesis is the best doesn't solve Hume's original problem.

What or who are you trusting in when it comes to the problem of induction? Trying to classify one as trust and the other as faith when reason is vacant of both premises sounds a lot like special pleading to me.

Hypothesis are only falsifiable if...

Falsifiable, now that's a big claim. What reason leads you to believe that evidence is falsifiable?

Ok, what is supportive evidence based on observable reality and why should it be considered or trusted? What use does supportive evidence have, can we use it to predict future events and how can we know things will operate in the same way as they did in the past? Are there any unsupported conditions that I would have to blindly accept? How does evidence differ from faith?

It's worth pointing out that others probably haven't taken on your system of Hope, Trust and Faith and when they speak of faith are not referring to it in the same way you do. Considering that all three are based on unprovable assumption, you'd be hard pressed to validate any through pure reason.

Now this is an example of hipocrisy, making a statement about sexual obsession in a topic that has nothing to do with sex only goes to show that the poster is themselves sexually obsessed and condemns others for the very actions that they themselves commit.

Would it be fair to say that you have great faith in science because of the reassuring results that you have gotten from your previous experiences in it's methods? Those that speak highly of their faith in their religion probably have the same reasons.

This suggests that you have misunderstood the word hypocrite.

Age of existence is movement which implies distance.

Definition of time?

Nothing new here.... On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." (Mark 2:17, The Holy Bible:New International Version 1984).

What you have done is take the description of trees and imagined a tree. This tree is by definition a concept of a tree and remains a concept of a tree. At no point in time does our concept of a tree have the value of an existing tree. When we speak of a possibly existing tree, we are not describing a tree that was discovered in 2020 (the point at which we gained knowledge of the tree), we have not travelled back in time and applied the knowledge that we gained in 2020 now. The limitations of the concept remain in place when we ultimately discover the tree in 2020 and a new description is given, but even if it is the same as that of the concept, they have different meaning. That is why I said that the existing thing is not a tree, because as we converse at this present time and with our present knowledge we are not conversing about a tree in reality but merely the concept of a tree. The concept only exists as a concept.

Something can exist without us having knowledge of it's existence, such an existing thing would not be a tree though. We cannot meaningfully describe something that we don't have knowledge of. Even if you describe something that is exactly the same as an existing entity, you have not described that existing entity. The description is only a description of a concept.

The 'concept of x' necessarily exists independently of the actuality of 'x'. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A painter can describe their painting but can a painting describe it's painter.

No, I fail to understand the meaning of the expression. It seems that you think there is one being conveyed. You put forward 'God' as an idea, therefore God exists as an idea.

Is saying God/gods doesn't/don't exist really adding or subtracting from the concept of God/gods though? From what I understand God/gods are not portrayed as material objects (at least not for long durations of time), saying that God/gods don't exist is ultimately taking an agnostic position towards the knowledge that we could portray of God/gods (which is a given considering the definition and meaning of knowledge). Since there is no meaningful word for describing something that might or might not 'exist' outside of our conception of the universe, although 'universe' itself with our limited experience is no doubt limited in meaning, concluding that unicorns and God/gods have equal non-existence is meaningless unless they are both meant to have existence.