The circular argument of God and miracles

[Loudmouth]

Making a conclusion based on evidence always requires a bit of faith or trust that you're correct in your conclusions because we all could be interpreting the evidence incorrectly without realizing it, but non the less conclusions must be made in order to gain accurate knowledge.

It takes no faith to conclude that the evidence gathered to this point is consistent with the theory. Faith is a belief held in the ABSENCE of evidence, not in the presence of evidence.

 

[miknik5]

It takes no faith to conclude that the evidence gathered to this point is consistent with the theory. Faith is a belief held in the ABSENCE of evidence, not in the presence of evidence.

Not true sir.
Faith is not blind faith ....initially

 

[Loudmouth]

I think believing in the premises as true is important, because in order for soundness to be recognized, one must think that the premises are true. You are correct in saying, "Belief in the truth of premises isn't what makes an argument sound in Philosophy."
However, Belief in the truth of the premises as true, creates the perception that the argument is sound if the argument is a valid one. There are certain things we believe are true, but we can't show them to be true. For example, that we're not all in the Matrix.
1. Socrates is a man
2. All men are mortal
3. Socrates is mortal

The point of premises is to argue from a position that everyone already agrees with. Premises have to either be shown to be true or agreed to be true. If you don't have either, then you don't have a premise.

Now, it can't be shown with certainty that ALL men are mortal.

For the purposes of a philosophical discussion, I can certainly agree that all men are mortal to see what conclusions you reach using that premise. That's why premises like that are used.

However, if someone disputes the veracity of a premise, then you need to demonstrate that they are true. Simply believing them to be true isn't enough.

So, I think the Kalam is a good argument; and a sound one as well.

What matters is what you can demonstrate.

I'm convinced that everything that begins to exist has a cause, since it's a properly basic belief, like how metaphysical solipsism is false, something which cannot be proven with evidence.

Convincing yourself is not the point of a philosophical discussion.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not true sir.
Faith is not blind faith ....initially

Faith is a belief held in the absence of evidence. That is the definition of the word. A scientific conclusion is a tentative theory based on evidence. It isn't faith.

 

[Chriliman]

It takes no faith to conclude that the evidence gathered to this point is consistent with the theory. Faith is a belief held in the ABSENCE of evidence, not in the presence of evidence.

The evidence is what causes someone to form a theory, but they still have to trust(have faith) that the theory is correct since it's not yet proven.

 

[Loudmouth]

The evidence is what causes someone to form a theory,

It is what allows someone to form a hypothesis. Not the same thing.

but they still have to trust(have faith) that the theory is correct since it's not yet proven.

No, they don't. No theory is considered to be proven beyond any doubt. All theories are held tentatively.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You just said, the universe as we know it began at the big bang.
The big bang, is what? It's the universe at it's early stages. That's like saying, the universe began to exist, at the early stages of the universe. okay.

Not quite; the universe as we know it began at the big bang. It's possible the big bang was an evolution of an earlier state.

Something to think about is, why does the universe exist, rather than not?

Assuming you mean that 'why' as 'how' does the universe exist, rather than implying some purpose or intent, I don't think it's possible to answer that. There are plausible physical solutions involving the instability of the quantum vacuum, but that leaves open the question of the origin of the quantum vacuum. We don't know. I'm inclined to think it was a development of an earlier state, but that's just my preference.

As for the phrase, "begins to exist", I don't think you're right in the way you are defining it.
It is not generally understood that beginning to exist exclusively relates to matter and energy taking different forms.
However, let's grant that. We could say that matter and energy were simply in a different form in the non-existence of the universe. The form they were in, was non-existence. They then came a different form form, existence, due to a cause.

This is an acceptable way of thinking of changing forms, non-existence to existence.

It's not acceptable to me . Non-existence isn't a form, it's an absence of form, because it's an absence of stuff that can have form. If you're suggesting abstract Platonism, that won't help without stuff to reify it.

Since human consciousness perceiving what it is like to be alive, somehow comes into existence having previously not existed. I think I can speak for most people when I say, human experience of what it's like to be alive, is not a form of matter or energy, even though it may be caused by matter and energy.

Human experience is an aspect of the process that is consciousness. It's a pattern of activity of matter & energy that leaves a physical trace. How is that relevant?

Referring to the phrase began to exist, when speaking of the universe, it is no different from saying a rational mind began to exist.

We know how rational minds begin to exist, we've seen them develop. We don't know how the universe as we know it came to exist, as we weren't there to observe it. So we can't say whether the same or similar principles are involved or not.

Anyways, it seems like you don't think premise 1 is true. It seems like you'd like to maintain premise 1 by creating a very narrow definition especially for beginning to exist when it comes to the universe; but I see no reason to think doing so is correct.

As I said, I don't think 'begins to exist' is well-defined in the argument. If it means 'a new form of something that already exists', as it is used later in the argument, I'm happy to accept it.

So, do you think things can come into existence uncaused?

That's a difficult question. The short answer is that I don't know, it looks like it might be the case (in terms of new forms), but I'm uncomfortable with the idea.

The long answer: If you mean can something come into existence from nothing, the complete absence of anything, uncaused, I'm of the opinion that the question is incoherent; it seems to me that nothing cannot become something any more than something can become nothing (and I don't mean the nothing of 'empty' spacetime, the quantum vacuum, so much used in cosmology - and I'm not talking about empty, as in an empty box. A box with literally nothing in it wouldn't be a box, it would be flat, with literally nothing separating its opposite sides; i.e. they'd be touching).

If you're asking whether something can change form uncaused, it would be comforting to think not. Intuitively, causality seems obvious, but as Hume showed, in practice, the concept of causation has experiential contingency, and that arguing constant conjunction in terms of necessary connection is ultimately circular. But even if we loosen the screws of logic and accept constant conjunction as sufficient - for all practical purposes - to establish necessary connection, and that we can depend on physical law when it comes to the behaviour of the contents of the universe despite the problem of induction, the fallacy of composition still applies in trying to extend this to the universe itself.

Not only is there no good reason to suppose the universe must behave according to the laws that describe the behaviour of its contents, but whether we do suppose that or not, we still have no experiential grounds for making any assumptions about the causality or otherwise of the universe. All we know is that it exists; we have no experience of the origin of other universes to inform us (nor any experience of the origin even of our own universe).

The other problem is quantum mechanics, which, as it stands, tells us that certain events are truly stochastic - random, non-deterministic, with only a certain probability of occurring; and it's not just that we don't know enough about the particular quantum system, it's not determined by local hidden information. So, it seems, some events are uncaused... this is still debatable, so although it looks that way, we can't be sure.

While it may seem that quantum mechanics is only relevant at sub-microscopic scales, that isn't the case when you deal with extremely hot, dense states such as in black holes, or big bangs. In those situations quantum mechanics and gravity share the stage.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Examining evidence won't really get you anywhere unless you make conclusions based on the evidence. Your conclusions will then either be supported by new evidence or the new evidence will show your conclusions were wrong, this is really the only way to gain accurate knowledge. You could examine piles and piles of evidence, but if you don't make any conclusions you won't get anywhere.

This is why one cannot gain knowledge unless they make conclusions based on evidence. Making a conclusion based on evidence always requires a bit of faith or trust that you're correct in your conclusions because we all could be interpreting the evidence incorrectly without realizing it, but non the less conclusions must be made in order to gain accurate knowledge.

Well, one can clearly have knowledge of the evidence itself; but you're quite right that one needs to do more to discover its implications - and that's what abductive reasoning is about - inference to the best explanation.

There is also a bit of a philosophical problem with defining exactly what knowledge is - in the mid 1960's, Edmund Gettier showed that justified true belief is necessary but not sufficient - one can have justified true belief without knowledge, and it's quite hard to find a further refinement that works for all situations. But for most practical purposes, justified true belief will do.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't have 100% certainly that he isn't an AI, so I can only believe it's true that he's not an AI.

We can't be 100% certain about anything. What evidence would convince you that he's not an AI?

My beliefs don't impact the reality of whether or not he's an AI, just like how my belief in God doesn't impact whether or not he exists.

No, indeed, and that's an important point. Your beliefs can change, but the facts of the matter (in this case) cannot.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

For the purposes of a philosophical discussion, I can certainly agree that all men are mortal to see what conclusions you reach using that premise. That's why premises like that are used.

However, if someone disputes the veracity of a premise, then you need to demonstrate that they are true. Simply believing them to be true isn't enough.

Yes; the idea that Jesus was a man but wasn't mortal, is sometimes used try and confound the Socrates argument example, but it's really a question of defining or refining the terms of the premise.

 

[Chriliman]

Well, one can clearly have knowledge of the evidence itself; but you're quite right that one needs to do more to discover its implications - and that's what abductive reasoning is about - inference to the best explanation.

There is also a bit of a philosophical problem with defining exactly what knowledge is - in the mid 1960's, Edmund Gettier showed that justified true belief is necessary but not sufficient - one can have justified true belief without knowledge, and it's quite hard to find a further refinement that works for all situations. But for most practical purposes, justified true belief will do.

Agreed. If what you believe is actually true then you will know it's true. IOW, knowledge of what's actually true comes after you believe it. We aren't injected with all knowledge at birth, we actually have to accept things as true based on evidence that we find sufficient to form a belief, then after that acceptance, we gain accurate knowledge.

Hence, the foundation of Christianity is belief that Jesus is who he says he is. If you don't believe that then you won't gain the knowledge that it's actually true.

No one is expecting you to believe without evidence, God provides plenty of evidence, but it's still up to you to accept it as sufficient to believe.

 

[miknik5]

Faith is a belief held in the absence of evidence. That is the definition of the word. A scientific conclusion is a tentative theory based on evidence. It isn't faith.

Well sir. That would be the first problem

For without faith it is impossible to please God for one would have to First believe that HE is and the rewarder of all who diligently seek HIM

I guess one would have to have faith first then

But I will tell you one thing. I didn't have faith.

It was given to me.

Therefore faith is also a Gift from God

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...If what you believe is actually true then you will know it's true.

Not necessarily - that was my point; even if you are justified in your belief, and it is true, you may not have knowledge.

Imagine if, one year, you saw Venus & Serena Williams on TV, playing the Wimbledon Women's Singles Final on the afternoon of finals day. You see Venus win, and so have a justified true belief that she is that year's Wimbledon Women's Singles champion, and the fact is that Venus has won that year's Wimbledon Women's Singles finals match against Serena. So, having seen the match on TV, you are justified in believing Venus has won and she actually has won, so you have a justified true belief that she has won.

But what you saw on TV was actually the previous year's Wimbledon Women's Singles final in which the same two players played with the same result. So although you have a justified true belief that is correct, you don't have knowledge of the current year's result - it could have been different and your belief would still be the same, and for the same reasons, because it was based on the previous year's game and result.

IOW, knowledge of what's actually true comes after you believe it.

No; philosophically, knowledge is a particular kind of belief, a belief that satisfies certain conditions.

Hence, the foundation of Christianity is belief that Jesus is who he says he is. If you don't believe that then you won't gain the knowledge that it's actually true.

No. If you believe it on grounds that are justified (you don't need certainty, that it is beyond reasonable doubt is sufficient), and if it is true, then (pace the caveat above) you have knowledge of it.

In the case of Jesus, that his claim is true beyond reasonable doubt has not been established, so the belief is unjustified, and the truth is unknown; so the belief doesn't satisfy the criteria for knowledge in two respects - that's why it is a matter of faith.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well sir. That would be the first problem

For without faith it is impossible to please God for one would have to First believe that HE is and the rewarder of all who diligently seek HIM

So claims a person.

But I will tell you one thing. I didn't have faith.

It was given to me.

Therefore faith is also a Gift from God

Any evidence for these claims?

 

[miknik5]

So claims a person.



Any evidence for these claims?

Myself and the Truth that the same outpouring of The Holy Spirit upon His disciples then is the same outpouring on His disciples today

That Jeremiah 31 is truth
That 1john 2 is truth
That John 3:8 is truth

That this anointing is real
And it is the reason why no man will ever be able to convince those reborn of His Spirit otherwise

For they know who they learned of and from whom they learned it

And it was not from a man but from GOD

The "wind" does go where it listeth

 

[Loudmouth]

Myself and the Truth that the se outppuring
of The Holy Spirit upon His disciples then is the same outpouring on His disciples today

That Jeremiah 31 is truth
That 1john 2 is truth
That John 3:8 is truth

All written by people and claimed to be true by people, all without evidence.

That this anointing is real
And it is the reason why no man will ever be able to convince those reborn of His Spirit otherwise

For they know who they learned of and from whom they learned it

And it was not from a man but from GOD

Any evidence for these claims?

 

[miknik5]

All written by people and claimed to be true by people, all without evidence.



Any evidence for these claims?

The Holy Spirit who testifies with our spirit to the Truth of The Word of God

The written word of God does not contradict the Voice and Spirit of God and the Voice and Spirit of God does not contradict His Written Word

 

[Chriliman]

Not necessarily - that was my point; even if you are justified in your belief, and it is true, you may not have knowledge.

Imagine if, one year, you saw Venus & Serena Williams on TV, playing the Wimbledon Women's Singles Final on the afternoon of finals day. You see Venus win, and so have a justified true belief that she is that year's Wimbledon Women's Singles champion, and the fact is that Venus has won that year's Wimbledon Women's Singles finals match against Serena. So, having seen the match on TV, you are justified in believing Venus has won and she actually has won, so you have a justified true belief that she has won.

But what you saw on TV was actually the previous year's Wimbledon Women's Singles final in which the same two players played with the same result. So although you have a justified true belief that is correct, you don't have knowledge of the current year's result - it could have been different and your belief would still be the same, and for the same reasons, because it was based on the previous year's game and result.

No; philosophically, knowledge is a particular kind of belief, a belief that satisfies certain conditions.

No. If you believe it on grounds that are justified (you don't need certainty, that it is beyond reasonable doubt is sufficient), and if it is true, then (pace the caveat above) you have knowledge of it.

In the case of Jesus, that his claim is true beyond reasonable doubt has not been established, so the belief is unjustified, and the truth is unknown; so the belief doesn't satisfy the criteria for knowledge in two respects - that's why it is a matter of faith.

Even if your hypothetical scenario actually happened, I'd still have to accept the fact that it was actually last years match, thus accepting that I was wrong in believing it was this years match. Acceptance must come before true knowledge of facts. The facts will still be presented, but one must accept them before they can confidently say that they know it's true.

 

[miknik5]

Not necessarily - that was my point; even if you are justified in your belief, and it is true, you may not have knowledge.

Imagine if, one year, you saw Venus & Serena Williams on TV, playing the Wimbledon Women's Singles Final on the afternoon of finals day. You see Venus win, and so have a justified true belief that she is that year's Wimbledon Women's Singles champion, and the fact is that Venus has won that year's Wimbledon Women's Singles finals match against Serena. So, having seen the match on TV, you are justified in believing Venus has won and she actually has won, so you have a justified true belief that she has won.

But what you saw on TV was actually the previous year's Wimbledon Women's Singles final in which the same two players played with the same result. So although you have a justified true belief that is correct, you don't have knowledge of the current year's result - it could have been different and your belief would still be the same, and for the same reasons, because it was based on the previous year's game and result.

No; philosophically, knowledge is a particular kind of belief, a belief that satisfies certain conditions.

No. If you believe it on grounds that are justified (you don't need certainty, that it is beyond reasonable doubt is sufficient), and if it is true, then (pace the caveat above) you have knowledge of it.

In the case of Jesus, that his claim is true beyond reasonable doubt has not been established, so the belief is unjustified, and the truth is unknown; so the belief doesn't satisfy the criteria for knowledge in two respects - that's why it is a matter of faith.

But that is the difference and the problem. Jesus does not lie. HE does not change What He promised today is steadfast and sure yesterday today and tomorrow. And HE does not have to do anything else and neither does the man need to do or to see anything beyond HIS WORD and PROMISE

Serena and Venus are "men" subject to change and error. What they do or have done today is not and will not be guaranteed to be the same tomorrow

 

[miknik5]

God requires that a man believe. A man is to do nothing more than to believe that what God promises are steadfast and true and that He being God will not change even as things around us change and circumstances and conditions change that He Does Not. And that what He promised even amongst all the troubles He will bring to pass

Read Romans 11 with regards to true faith directed in and on God in all things.

Christ said in this world you will have trouble but take heart for I have overcome the world

It is very easy to have and profess faith in seasons of flowers and sunshine

Another thing completely in seasons of troubles and rain

Blind faith. Walking by faith and not by sight is a mature and steadfast faith which comes through trials and perseverance. For God is a launderer. And He rebukes and disciplines and refined His children so that our faith (more precious than gold though tried in the fire) will prove genuine resting in and entirely in Him in all seasons