Ignorant from the start

[Tart]

As quoted in another thread
"So this tendency that believers have to look towards the past as a time of knowledge and informed wisdom, is actually an ignorant position."

This is talking about looking at our past for knowledge... Like looking at a source from 2000+ years ago... Saying we would be ignorant to do such things...

Actually this conversation was specifically about Aristotle... For Aristotle was perhaps the first of the scientists, and Aristotle put forth scientific arguments for the existence of God... In his Book "Physics" (where the word comes from), Aristotle tells us that "that there must be an immortal, unchanging being, ultimately responsible for all wholeness and orderliness in the sensible world"

Just the same as Newton... "Don't doubt the creator, because it is inconceivable that accidents alone could be the controller of this universe."~Newton


These are scientifically based arguments, and reasoning, that God exists. And they are saying that the orderliness of nature is dependent on a God... That without God there is no reason that science, and the order in nature, should exist...


Its just ironic that atheists have these kind of quotes (like the one above)... They say, why would anyone look at our past for knowledge? That they were just ignorant back then, and conclude that they have no merit...

But the scientific method itself is based upon past experiments, and inductive reasoning. The only way the scientific method can make sense out of the order in nature, is if the past will be like the future. If the experiments we did yesterday can be done today and tomorrow, yielding the same results...

This is what philosophers call "inductive reasoning"... Its funny, because science is based off this stuff... And in order for us to make sense of anything, we need to have a past that is logically coherent...

Its also quite astonishing as well, that atheists have taken this one step further... While many scientist, theologians, philosophers, have made the argument that the order in nature is evidence for a God, a God who keeps things orderly...

Atheist on the other hand have brought to question inductive reasoning itself.. It is called the "problem of induction", as Hume said it. He couldn't make sense of why things make sense.. He said there needs to be a proof for induction that is not dependent on its past (kind of like how atheist dont want to depend on our past)... And this goes on today as something philosophically unproven (without a God)... That inductive reasoning (which the scientific method is based off of, also logic and language itself) needs to have some kind of justification for it....

So, all these believing scientists/philosophers point to induction as proof of God. While all the atheists scientist/philosophers point to induction as not making any sense... Kind of funny..


Isnt it just clear... The evidence is all on one side... The claim is that truth has a start, knowledge has a foundation, that we can learn truths from our past.. And this isnt even limited to our human history... Science itself is built upon our past experiences...

Where atheist say, we started in ignorance, knowing nothing, and then some how stumbled upon truth... (where? or when? they dont say...)

And where theist say that knowledge and truth has a beginning, from the start with God, and builds upon these things...


I think its pretty clear.. All the evidence, including all the "psychical" evidence is on the side of God, the unmoved mover... And nothing but a void of truth on the side of atheism, where we cant even make sense out of induction itself, or our past.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 1 by Tart]

These are scientifically based arguments, and reasoning, that God exists.

No they aren't. They are statements of opinion from two specific individuals who happened to be scientists and/or philosophers. Nothing more than that. There is nothing in the quotes you referenced having anything whatsoever to do with experimentation, measurement, analysis of results, testing of hypothesis, etc. Just statements by two people who believed in a god being that you are trying to twist into something completely different, then use to support your argument.

But the scientific method itself is based upon past experiments, and inductive reasoning. The only way the scientific method can make sense out of the order in nature, is if the past will be like the future. If the experiments we did yesterday can be done today and tomorrow, yielding the same results...

True, but this has nothing to do with your argument that somehow a god is involved. If the laws of nature are such that they don't change, and can be used to make predictions and describe the behavior of physical things via inductive reasoning, then we have a set of laws that describe physical reality. You're again trying to twist this into something different and claim that it points to the existence of god. It is apples and oranges.

So, all these believing scientists/philosophers point to induction as proof of God. While all the atheists scientist/philosophers point to induction as not making any sense... Kind of funny..

What group of atheists point to induction as not making any sense? So far you've taken statements from just 3 people from history (Aristotle, Newton and Hume) and twisted them into a concocted story to try and support your belief that gods exist, and that atheists don't understand inductive reasoning.

Where atheist say, we started in ignorance, knowing nothing, and then some how stumbled upon truth... (where? or when? they dont say...)

Just more of the same made up nonsense. What atheist claims that we only "stumbled" upon truth and we don't know how that happened? We know a great deal about human achievements from the first use of stone tools to the present day, and for the last roughly 5,500 years this has all been documented in writing, art, archeology, etc. You are cherry picking a few statements from a few people and trying to build up a case to support your views, which can't be inferred from those few cherry picked statements and opinions.

I think its pretty clear.. All the evidence, including all the "psychical" evidence is on the side of God, the unmoved mover... And nothing but a void of truth on the side of atheism, where we cant even make sense out of induction itself, or our past.

As clear as mud. You haven't presented ANY evidence of any kind. Just a few random statements of opinion from three people from history, that you've twisted into your own personal narrative that doesn't even follow from those chosen quotes. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any gods. It is not a belief system or a position on inductive reasoning, or anything of the sort.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 1 by Tart]

These are scientifically based arguments, and reasoning, that God exists.

No they aren't. They are statements of opinion from two specific individuals who happened to be scientists and/or philosophers. Nothing more than that. There is nothing in the quotes you referenced having anything whatsoever to do with experimentation, measurement, analysis of results, testing of hypothesis, etc. Just statements by two people who believed in a god being that you are trying to twist into something completely different, then use to support your argument.

But the scientific method itself is based upon past experiments, and inductive reasoning. The only way the scientific method can make sense out of the order in nature, is if the past will be like the future. If the experiments we did yesterday can be done today and tomorrow, yielding the same results...

True, but this has nothing to do with your argument that somehow a god is involved. If the laws of nature are such that they don't change, and can be used to make predictions and describe the behavior of physical things via inductive reasoning, then we have a set of laws that describe physical reality. You're again trying to twist this into something different and claim that it points to the existence of god. It is apples and oranges.

So, all these believing scientists/philosophers point to induction as proof of God. While all the atheists scientist/philosophers point to induction as not making any sense... Kind of funny..

What group of atheists point to induction as not making any sense? So far you've taken statements from just 3 people from history (Aristotle, Newton and Hume) and twisted them into a concocted story to try and support your belief that gods exist, and that atheists don't understand inductive reasoning.

Where atheist say, we started in ignorance, knowing nothing, and then some how stumbled upon truth... (where? or when? they dont say...)

Just more of the same made up nonsense. What atheist claims that we only "stumbled" upon truth and we don't know how that happened? We know a great deal about human achievements from the first use of stone tools to the present day, and for the last roughly 5,500 years this has all been documented in writing, art, archeology, etc. You are cherry picking a few statements from a few people and trying to build up a case to support your views, which can't be inferred from those few cherry picked statements and opinions.

I think its pretty clear.. All the evidence, including all the "psychical" evidence is on the side of God, the unmoved mover... And nothing but a void of truth on the side of atheism, where we cant even make sense out of induction itself, or our past.

As clear as mud. You haven't presented ANY evidence of any kind. Just a few random statements of opinion from three people from history, that you've twisted into your own personal narrative that doesn't even follow from those chosen quotes. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any gods. It is not a belief system or a position on inductive reasoning, or anything of the sort.

Ya i understand that atheism is a void, you guys make that abundantly clear...
And the claim in the Bible is that God is a foundation for truth and knowledge... Substance... That there is a beginning of truth, and it start with the alpha, with God.. That is the entire point... We can point to something as being true, and not a void...


And let me say right now, supporting our words with references is a good thing... Not a bad thing.... id really like to know how you think im twisting peoples word, as if im taking them out of context and not properly representing what they say.

Also, the claim isnt "that atheists don't understand inductive reasoning."... we all make sense out of induction... We wouldnt be able to speak any language without induction... And the Word tells us that everyone, including atheists are made in the image of God. The claim is on whether or not induction has justification for its intelligibility... Im not the one who brought this problem up, it was an atheist who brought it up to begin with, who was being consistent with his belief.. Hume believed that you shouldn't believe in anything unless its proven... And Hume looked at induction, the order in nature (the same problem many others have pinned God on), and Hume stated this needs to be proven in order for it to be justified... If its not proven, you are more then willing to still believe in science, but I suppose that would be more like faith in science, and the idea that "thats just the way things are"... Or do you have a justification for why there is order in nature?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 3 by Tart]

... id really like to know how you think im twisting peoples word, as if im taking them out of context and not properly representing what they say.

What was the point in bringing up those quotes? The OP offers nothing for debate. It doesn't even ask a question. It is just some statements from you about your interpretation of quotes from three historical individuals, and some random comments showing that you don't like atheism and believe it is somehow a "void" (whatever that means). Was the point only to complain about atheism, or do you have an issue for debate?

[Tart]

[Replying to post 3 by Tart]

... id really like to know how you think im twisting peoples word, as if im taking them out of context and not properly representing what they say.

What was the point in bringing up those quotes? The OP offers nothing for debate. It doesn't even ask a question. It is just some statements from you about your interpretation of quotes from three historical individuals, and some random comments showing that you don't like atheism and believe it is somehow a "void" (whatever that means). Was the point only to complain about atheism, or do you have an issue for debate?

No, it was a statement open for debate... They can move it to random ramblings if they want, that doesnt concern me much... This was sparked by a quote (at the top of the page), that i have thought about for a while, heard this kind of thing many times...

To be perfectly honest, i think it isnt even logically valid to claim that knowledge didnt exist from the start, and we are only stumbling upon it in modern era. That seems like an anti logical statement, as truth needs to develop upon truth, not on where there is no truth... Logic and truth need to be present from the start, which actually is a Greek philosophical claim and as well as a Christian, and it is illogical to say otherwise, yet we hear this kind of thing all the time from atheist... Seems illogical to me... The original post then developed to... well... If you want something to debate about, I can certainly narrow a question down for you...

So you have no explanation for your claim that i am miss using peoples words?

[Bust Nak]

Im not the one who brought this problem up, it was an atheist who brought it up to begin with, who was being consistent with his belief..

For what it's worth, the problem of induction dates back to fourth century BC/BCE Greece, and seperately back to sixth century BC/BCE India. Hume merely made it popular.

As for the meat of your post, the rejection of so called "evidence" as pointing to God by to induction, isn't because we reject induction, it is because we have founded the black swan.

[Divine Insight]

These are scientifically based arguments, and reasoning, that God exists. And they are saying that the orderliness of nature is dependent on a God... That without God there is no reason that science, and the order in nature, should exist..

It's incorrect to say that these are "scientifically based arguments" just because individual scientists had expressed these personal thoughts. That is no indication that they had put these thoughts through a rigorous scientific method of analysis.

Isaac Newton was never recognized by the scientific community for having "discovered" or demonstrated that the orderliness of nature is dependent upon some God. That amounts to nothing more than a personal opinion that the man happened to express. That doesn't make his opinion a "scientifically based argument".

So you are jumping to am unwarranted conclusion when you proclaim this to be the case.

Its just ironic that atheists have these kind of quotes (like the one above)... They say, why would anyone look at our past for knowledge? That they were just ignorant back then, and conclude that they have no merit...

There problem here is that Isaac Newton actually was able to obtain much knowledge of the world without relying on ancient religious texts to show him the answers. He didn't obtain his knowledge from ancient religious texts, he obtained his knowledge from experimenting with the natural world and drawing rational and logical conclusions based on what he observed.

So why should atheists think that Isaac Newton was looking to ancient religious texts for answers?

But the scientific method itself is based upon past experiments, and inductive reasoning. The only way the scientific method can make sense out of the order in nature, is if the past will be like the future. If the experiments we did yesterday can be done today and tomorrow, yielding the same results...

And what exactly would this have to do with placing our faith in ancient mythologies that were written by superstitious people thousands of years ago?

I don't see the connection.

This is what philosophers call "inductive reasoning"... Its funny, because science is based off this stuff... And in order for us to make sense of anything, we need to have a past that is logically coherent...

Again, what does this have to do with ancient mythologies?

Are you suggesting that because of this we should take the tales of Greek mythology seriously?

Or would you prefer to focus in on Hebrew mythology instead, and possibly only one of the many offshoots that have evolved from that original theology as well?

I don't see where your arguments support the idea that we should view ancient superstitions as anything more than this.

Its also quite astonishing as well, that atheists have taken this one step further... While many scientist, theologians, philosophers, have made the argument that the order in nature is evidence for a God, a God who keeps things orderly...

The problem is that there is no evidence for any such God.

Also, this entire line of thinking is grossly flawed and many philosophers have actually acknowledged this.

If we assume that some orderly creature must exist in order to explain how anything can be orderly, then there must be an orderly "God" who existed that created the orderly God that these philosophers imagine to exist.

In other words, where is there explanation for how this God became "orderly"?

You can't used an unexplained concept to explain something. And since they can't explain how an orderly God could have miraculously existed prior to anything else, then they don't have a viable explanation for anything.

In short, their so-called "philosophical pondering" isn't even logical or reasonable.

How is it that they cannot see the flaw in their own reasoning?

Atheist on the other hand have brought to question inductive reasoning itself.. It is called the "problem of induction", as Hume said it. He couldn't make sense of why things make sense.. He said there needs to be a proof for induction that is not dependent on its past (kind of like how atheist dont want to depend on our past)... And this goes on today as something philosophically unproven (without a God)... That inductive reasoning (which the scientific method is based off of, also logic and language itself) needs to have some kind of justification for it....

So how exactly does imagining an invisible undetectable entity called "God" justify anything, when you are demanding that this God is the source of everything you claim cannot even exist without it. From whence did this God obtain these powers that you cannot explain?

Like I have already said, imagining an unexplained God in an attempt to offer an explanation for the unexplained is itself an absurd notion.

So there is no argument for the existence of this God that basically violates everything that you claim needs to be explained.

If this God existed he would himself be in direct violation of everything that you deem to be impossible without him. All this amounts to is an arbitrary label (i.e. "God") being used to place everything we can't understand. If we can't understand it, or explain it, just place it in the box marked "God" and pretend that this explains it.

That is hardly rational thinking.

In fact, all it amounts to is a cop-out to no longer need to think about difficult questions.

It's certainly neither an answer nor an explanation for anything.

I think its pretty clear.. All the evidence, including all the "psychical" evidence is on the side of God, the unmoved mover... And nothing but a void of truth on the side of atheism, where we cant even make sense out of induction itself, or our past.

So you think that it's pretty clear that if we take everything we don't yet know about or can't understand and place it in the little black box marked "God" that will take care of it?

I don't think so.

Also I think it's pretty clear that just the opposite is true.

Remember that at one time humans places a lot of things they didn't know about in the little black box marked "God".

Lightening - We can't explain it, so it must be the angry God-box doing it.

Earthquake - What in the world could cause a mountain to erupt? Must be that little black God-box acting up again.

Plagues - The God-box is angry again.

Tsunami - Ok, who was it that ticked-off the God-box this time?

And the list goes on.

However, SCIENCE had indeed answered all of those previously mysteries. We now know what causes lightening, earthquakes, plagues, tsunamis, etc.

Science was only possibly because some humans didn't believe that the little black "God-box" is the answer to all our questions.

In fact, Isaac Newton himself at one time believed that it would be impossible to mathematically describe the motions of all the planets in the solar system. Yet he himself was able to do that before he died.

Often times what we think we need to shove into the little black "God-box" we can actually find answers to if we are just willing to work at it long enough and hard enough.

The little black "God-box" has never truly panned out yet.

All we end up doing is taking problems OUT of that box that we had previously believed were unexplained.

The "God-box" is the "God of the Gaps" and it's an ever-receding idea. It's not gaining credibility, it's been losing credibility for centuries.

The "God-box" serves no purpose other than a place for people to shove things they can't explain. And when they shove them into the "God-box" they are still left with no explanations. Because the idea of an unexplained God explains nothing.

[Clownboat]

I think its pretty clear.. All the evidence, including all the "psychical" evidence is on the side of God, the unmoved mover... And nothing but a void of truth on the side of atheism, where we cant even make sense out of induction itself, or our past.

Before I can comment...
Which god and how did you arrive at THAT god?

[Tart]

[Replying to Clownboat]

Christian God, i arrived here from studying the evidence...

[Tart]

How is it that they cannot see the flaw in their own reasoning?

Thats a great question DI, i totally agree with you that humans have shown evidence that their reasoning can be flawed, even without their own personal knowledge of it...

Maybe you'd benefit from reflecting on that for your own self.