The Value of Testing

[bricklayer]

Human beings cannot prove anything. Not even the Holy Bible is proof positive.

Of course, someone will make the claim that they can prove that 2+2=4,
which amounts to claiming that everything = everything, which is easily des-proven.
What that one actually claims is that 2+2 exclusively =4.
Establishing such a claim requires that all other answers be des-proven.

Intellectually, to me, nothing is really ever proven.
It's just that all the other ideas I've considered have been des-proven,
and what remains is what I am left to believe. Then, that's tested, and so on and so forth.

 

[Drathnor]

The more we learn the more we realise how much we dont know, and so forth.

I prefer to belive in what i can test myself, failing that pick the best possible explaination.

But yeah, nothing can really be proven.

 

[NNSV]

Human beings cannot prove anything. Not even the Holy Bible is proof positive.

Of course, someone will make the claim that they can prove that 2+2=4,
which amounts to claiming that everything = everything, which is easily des-proven.
What that one actually claims is that 2+2 exclusively =4.
Establishing such a claim requires that all other answers be des-proven.

Intellectually, to me, nothing is really ever proven.
It's just that all the other ideas I've considered have been des-proven,
and what remains is what I am left to believe. Then, that's tested, and so on and so forth.

Perhaps that is why faith is so important.

Quantum mechanics would call your conclusion the Uncertainty Principle. It is not hard as imperfect humans to be reminded that we do not know everything. The real test is in which you put your belief and trust (= faith.) Whether it is science, Christ, or believing your boss will pay you in the future, everyone puts faith in something.

 

[bricklayer]

Perhaps that is why faith is so important.

Quantum mechanics would call your conclusion the Uncertainty Principle. It is not hard as imperfect humans to be reminded that we do not know everything. The real test is in which you put your belief and trust (= faith.) Whether it is science, Christ, or believing your boss will pay you in the future, everyone puts faith in something.

I was refering to the intellectual, not necessarily the emotional and willful aspects of a person.
Faith involves the entire person: intellect/emotion/will.

 

[quatona]

Human beings cannot prove anything. Not even the Holy Bible is proof positive.

This "not even" gave me a chuckle.

Of course, someone will make the claim that they can prove that 2+2=4,

You needn´t prove that 2+2=4. It´s true by definition in mathematics mathematics.

which amounts to claiming that everything = everything,

Whut?

which is easily des-proven.

I´d like to see you disprove that everything=everything.

Intellectually, to me, nothing is really ever proven.
It's just that all the other ideas I've considered have been des-proven,
and what remains is what I am left to believe. Then, that's tested, and so on and so forth.

What about the untestable stuff? Do you believe it simply because it can´t be disproven?

 

[3sigma]

Intellectually, to me, nothing is really ever proven.
It's just that all the other ideas I've considered have been des-proven,

So the claim that your God is real has never been proven, but you’ve disproven the claims that Allah, Vishnu, Odin, Zeus, Ra, Quetzalcoatl and all other gods are real. How did you disprove all those other claims? Please explain the method you used to disprove each claim. Or is it that you have never even considered those claims or the possibility that no gods are real?

 

[Tatian]

So the claim that your God is real has never been proven, but you’ve disproven the claims that Allah, Vishnu, Odin, Zeus, Ra, Quetzalcoatl and all other gods are real. How did you disprove all those other claims? Please explain the method you used to disprove each claim. Or is it that you have never even considered those claims or the possibility that no gods are real?

Well, in the words of one our above posters, nothing is ever actually proven. So then, you could describe it as, the hypothesized, or theorized God ought to look this way or that way. This God should look like this or that because it best describes my ethical world view, or perhaps something to that affect.

 

[bricklayer]

The truth is that which corresponds to its predicate.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The truth is that which corresponds to its predicate.

Example?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

It's just that all the other ideas I've considered have been des-proven,
and what remains is what I am left to believe. Then, that's tested, and so on and so forth.

That's not a safe way of reasoning.

First, it assumes that your ability to imagine possibilities is almost god-like in its thoroughness and accuracy.

Second, no amount of disproof of alternate hypotheses justifies an insufficiently supported hypothesis. ALL of your guesses may be unsupported and unproven.

Example: Disproving creationism would not in and of itself establish evolution as justified belief.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[3sigma]

Well, in the words of one our above posters, nothing is ever actually proven. So then, you could describe it as, the hypothesized, or theorized God ought to look this way or that way. This God should look like this or that because it best describes my ethical world view, or perhaps something to that affect.

I’m not asking him to prove anything. I’m asking him to explain how he disproved all the claims that other gods are real. He said, “It's just that all the other ideas I've considered have been des-proven, and what remains is what I am left to believe.” How did he test all claims that other gods are real or did he just not consider either them or the possibility that no gods are real?

 

[3sigma]

The truth is that which corresponds to its predicate.

Is that meant to be an answer to my question, “How did you disprove all those other claims?” If so, it is a complete failure. Please explain the method you used to disprove each claim other religious believers make that their gods are real. Or is it that you have never even considered those claims or the possibility that no gods are real? You titled this thread “The Value of Testing” so please explain how you tested the claims that other gods are real and how you disproved all of them.

 

[bricklayer]

I have made no claim to having considered all ideas.

I have a hypothesis then seek to des-prove it, by testing.
What stands, what remains, is what I am left to believe. Then, that's tested.

I did not come to what I am left to believe by proof positive means.

The example I gave: The Correspondence of Truth
I am left to believe that the truth is that which corresponds to its predicate, because I have not been able to des-prove it, to my satisfaction. Any explicit attempt to deny it implicitly affirms it.
To me, that's about as close as I can get to intellectually believing anything.

Again, it is important to point out, I have not, cannot, consider all ideas;
but I'm trying.

 

[bricklayer]

That's not a safe way of reasoning.

First, it assumes that your ability to imagine possibilities is almost god-like in its thoroughness and accuracy.

Second, no amount of disproof of alternate hypotheses justifies an insufficiently supported hypothesis. ALL of your guesses may be unsupported and unproven.

Example: Disproving creationism would not in and of itself establish evolution as justified belief.


eudaimonia,

Mark

2+2=4 is a good example of the correspondence of truth, but it cannot prove that 2+2 exclusively =4, that requires des-proof.

As to God-like abilities:
God does not reason as man reasons.
God ontologically sequences eternally present intellectual conceptions.
Man ontologically sequences a chronological sequence of intellectual perceptions.

Your accusation assumes that I consider myself a conceiver of ideas, I do not.
I am a mere perceiver of ideas.

 

[3sigma]

I have made no claim to having considered all ideas.

So… exactly how many claims of other religions that their gods are real have you considered, tested and disproven? Have you considered, tested and disproven any of them at all? Have you considered, tested and disproven the possibility that no gods are real? Or is it just that you’ve continued to believe what you were probably indoctrinated with from childhood and you’ve never tested any claims of other religions?

 

[bricklayer]

So… exactly how many claims of other religions that their gods are real have you considered, tested and disproven? Have you considered, tested and disproven any of them at all? Have you considered, tested and disproven the possibility that no gods are real? Or is it just that you’ve continued to believe what you were probably indoctrinated with from childhood and you’ve never tested any claims of other religions?

I have been able to dismiss a number claims: pantheism, panantheism, polytheism, theistic and atheistic spontaneous increases in complexity.
Most of the religious ideas are sorted out long before they are considered for their doctrine.

What I am left to believe has changed 180%, from what I grew up being told.
Perhaps the only thing that has remained the same is that I am forever being reformed.

 

[3sigma]

I have been able to dismiss a number claims: pantheism, panantheism, polytheism, theistic and atheistic spontaneous increases in complexity.

Good, now we’re getting somewhere. You titled this thread The Value of Testing and you said in your OP, “It's just that all the other ideas I've considered have been des-proven [sic], and what remains is what I am left to believe.” I’m curious to know how you dismissed those beliefs in your quote above so could you please explain how you tested pantheism, panentheism, polytheism and atheism and disproved them. As an atheist, I’m particularly interested in how you tested and disproved atheism.

 

[bricklayer]

Good, now we’re getting somewhere. You titled this thread The Value of Testing and you said in your OP, “It's just that all the other ideas I've considered have been des-proven [sic], and what remains is what I am left to believe.” I’m curious to know how you dismissed those beliefs in your quote above so could you please explain how you tested pantheism, panentheism, polytheism and atheism and disproved them. As an atheist, I’m particularly interested in how you tested and disproved atheism.

Of course all resoning is presuppositional, so I may not be able to regress to a point where we have a common context, but I'll try.

I find that the idea of a spontaneous increase in complexity to be without example. I am left to believe that the matter/space/time continuum is not a necessary or open system. This begs a necessary cause. Thus I am a creationist.
I am left to believe that no effect can transcend its cause, therefore non-person cannot produce person. Thus I am left to believe that the Creator is a person, a personal God.
It doesn't take more than that, for me, to dismiss the belief systems I cited above.

 

[3sigma]

I find that the idea of a spontaneous increase in complexity to be without example.

You’ve never heard of snowflakes?

I am left to believe that the matter/space/time continuum is not a necessary or open system. This begs a necessary cause. Thus I am a creationist.
I am left to believe that no effect can transcend its cause, therefore non-person cannot produce person. Thus I am left to believe that the Creator is a person, a personal God.
It doesn't take more than that, for me, to dismiss the belief systems I cited above.

Sadly, the premise on which you base these conclusions is false so your conclusions are not sound. I think you need to do some more testing.

 

[bricklayer]

You’ve never heard of snowflakes?


Sadly, the premise on which you base these conclusions is false so your conclusions are not sound. I think you need to do some more testing.

The crystaline patterns in a snowflake do not equate to an increase in complexity.

Why series questions beg a common context, as I sespected, we do not have a common context. We do not hold the same things to be self-evident.

The premises on which I base my conclusions are the first-principles of logic.
The first of these is existence. I am left to believe that there is a metaphysical, spiritual existence. It is at this very starting point that we part ways. So be it.