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.
So do you have trust in your intellectual faculties capability to discover truths about reality?
Yes, that is sufficient.The oxford dictionary defines reliable as, able to be depended on or trusted. I trust my intellectual faculties to be capable of discovering truths about reality the majority of the time.
Is that sufficient for you to start your argument?
I know this all seems like semantics, but there has to be some nuance involved with discussions of this sort
Hi there,
Give me an argument or two as to why I should believe in God? Not including the sentence or one like this: "You know there is a God really."
Steve C.
P.S. Was a "Christian"/christian for many years.
I suggest that the reason you trust anything, including the calculator, is experience. Plenty of things with "teleological explanations" are failures. If all the calculators that were ever designed and manufactored failed to do sums, you'd not trust them regardless of their teleos.The reason I trust the machine is primarily due to it's teleological explanation, rather than the factory that assembled it's physical make up.
Experience can evoke a sense that something is reliable, yes, and that is merely an intuition of our intellectual faculties. And that is correct that if my experience of a calculator was that it only produced the wrong answer then I would distrust the teleological explanation for the calculator and assume that it's random answers are the product of it's random construction. However this situation has the luxury of a third party, namely the intellectual faculty which considers the state of the calculator. That luxury of a third party is not provided for the intellectual faculties themselves, and that includes the intellectual products of our senses. The intellectual faculties must have an explanation that acquires their purported ability, it does no good to say that our intellectual faculties tell us our intellectual faculties work.I suggest that the reason you trust anything, including the calculator, is experience. Plenty of things with "teleological explanations" are failures. If all the calculators that were ever designed and manufactored failed to do sums, you'd not trust them regardless of their teleos.
Reliability is a quality we impute to objects/processes. It is not something intrinsic to an object or process.Experience can evoke a sense that something is reliable, yes, and that is merely an intuition of our intellectual faculties. And that is correct that if my experience of a calculator was that it only produced the wrong answer then I would distrust the teleological explanation for the calculator and assume that it's random answers are the product of it's random construction. However this situation has the luxury of a third party, namely the intellectual faculty which considers the state of the calculator. That luxury of a third party is not provided for the intellectual faculties themselves, and that includes the intellectual products of our senses. The intellectual faculties must have an explanation that acquires their purported ability, it does no good to say that our intellectual faculties tell us our intellectual faculties work.
Reliable mental faculties have already been defined, and agreed upon in the thread. Every Calculator I have purchased has achieved the goals of their creation.Reliability is a quality we impute to objects/processes. It is not something intrinsic to an object or process.
Regardless of teleological explanation, I hear you failing to impute reliability to the calculators WRT their ostensible function. You *know* they are designed and yet that design has nothing to do with their reliability.
So you would be happy to live and work in China? or to start promoting Christianity in islamic countries, or even oppose the current secular fad and be confident that you would be treated fairly?Justice does sometimes disappear, if God is taken out of the equation, because the world isn't always fair. Morality doesn't disappear, it is just transformed into something different. Equality is always going to be a difficult one, as you're saying there is a God and yet people don't treat people of colour, Christians, Muslims, Homosexuals etc. equally.
In answer to your question we believe in these things because we want to live in a better world. Cue...
And you believe this because of your experience. That is the point in question.Reliable mental faculties have already been defined, and agreed upon in the thread. Every Calculator I have purchased has achieved the goals of their creation.
No, I don't believe my intellectual faculties are capable because of my experience, that would be circular as I mentioned. I believe they are reliable because they have a teleological explanation in addition to their physical explanation. Further, I trust that experience means something, in regards to truth, because that intuition itself has a teleological explanation.And you believe this because of your experience. That is the point in question.
Usually this line of argument is that we trust our senses because they are designed. I say that you trust them because you get reliable results (until such time as you need to see a dementia specialist).
We might wonder as to why they are reliable, but this is not why we trust them. We trust them because they are predictable--we get the results we expect. The origin of the process is immaterial to this trust.
I trust gravity to work in the consistent way I've come to expect. And yet, there is no definitive theory as to how it works. I trust it without regard to its mechanisms.
We have no choice but to trust our intellectual faculties, since a conscious choice not to trust them would also come from our intellectual faculties, invoking a contradiction. We also use our intellectual faculties to observe anything at all, reality or otherwise, so we couldn't turn to our observations for help. So what you're really asking is "Do you think what you observe is reality?" And the answer to that is far more complex than a simple "yes" or "no." What you observe and experience could be the only reality there is, or it could be something completely different. If you can figure out how to tell which it is, you let me know. Until then I'll be here assuming it's all real because I have no choice.Reliable doesn't mean that it never fails, but that you can put your trust in it. So do you have trust in your intellectual faculties capability to discover truths about reality?
Hi there,
Give me an argument or two as to why I should believe in God? Not including the sentence or one like this: "You know there is a God really."
Steve C.
P.S. Was a "Christian"/christian for many years.
We should not have any reason to trust our intellectual faculties if our mind does not have an adequate explanation for why those intellectual faculties can be trusted.
There are no natural theories that can provide that trust because natural selection is not concerned with truth, but survival behaviour.
I don't need to know the truth about something to behave in a way that leads to survival and procreation, a lie will do that.
For any behavior there is only one true belief that can acquire that behavior and a multitude of false beliefs that can acquire that behavior.
So for any behavior it is more probable than not that the belief for that behavior is false rather than the one true belief in the jar.
So a strong teleological explanation, like God, better explains and greatly increases the likelihood of the trustworthiness of our intellectual faculties, than non teleological, or weak teleological explanations.
So you would be happy to live and work in China? or to start promoting Christianity in islamic countries, or even oppose the current secular fad and be confident that you would be treated fairly?
Even in America the rejection of Christian based morality see strange desissionsbeing made, let alone the problems found in countries where there is no equality under the law.
Since you were a "Christian"/christian ... Do you find the principles of Gods Word (how to treat one another) good principles to live by?
No, I don't believe my intellectual faculties are capable because of my experience, that would be circular as I mentioned. I believe they are reliable because they have a teleological explanation in addition to their physical explanation. Further, I trust that experience means something, in regards to truth, because that intuition itself has a teleological explanation.
Would it be worth asking Him for help to discover Him? What would you have to lose if you found Him to be as kind as I found He is?
Some principles seem good, but some seem terrible.
We have a choice to trust our faculties or not, the choice doesn't have to be rationally derived, but if that choice is rationally derived there should be an explanation that acquires it. With the exception of this thread, every time I have brought this up people deny their own intellectual faculties - that is why I took the steps I did. It's a bit like cops/robbers. If you turn the siren on too early the robber hides all the merchandise to reacquire it at night. In any case, the OP has confirmed a belief in reliable intellectual faculties, and that is what is at hand.We have no choice but to trust our intellectual faculties, since a conscious choice not to trust them would also come from our intellectual faculties, invoking a contradiction. We also use our intellectual faculties to observe anything at all, reality or otherwise, so we couldn't turn to our observations for help. So what you're really asking is "Do you think what you observe is reality?" And the answer to that is far more complex than a simple "yes" or "no." What you observe and experience could be the only reality there is, or it could be something completely different. If you can figure out how to tell which it is, you let me know. Until then I'll be here assuming it's all real because I have no choice.
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?