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.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
Not true sir.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.
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
Now, it can't be shown with certainty that ALL men are mortal.
So, I think the Kalam is a good argument; and a sound one as well.
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.
Not true sir.
Faith is not blind faith ....initially
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.
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.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.
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.Something to think about is, why does the universe exist, rather than not?
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.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.
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?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.
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.Referring to the phrase began to exist, when speaking of the universe, it is no different from saying a rational mind began to exist.
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.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.
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.So, do you think things can come into existence uncaused?
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.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.
We can't be 100% certain about anything. What evidence would convince you that he's not an AI?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.
No, indeed, and that's an important point. Your beliefs can change, but the facts of the matter (in this case) cannot.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.
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.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.
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.
Well sir. That would be the first problemFaith 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.
Not necessarily - that was my point; even if you are justified in your belief, and it is true, you may not have knowledge....If what you believe is actually true then you will know it's true.
No; philosophically, knowledge is a particular kind of belief, a belief that satisfies certain conditions.IOW, knowledge of what's actually true comes after you believe it.
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.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.
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
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
Myself and the Truth that the same outpouring of The Holy Spirit upon His disciples then is the same outpouring on His disciples todaySo claims a person.
Any evidence for these claims?
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
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 Holy Spirit who testifies with our spirit to the Truth of The Word of GodAll written by people and claimed to be true by people, all without evidence.
Any evidence for these claims?
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 PROMISENot 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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?