What will happen if, science runs across definitive proof of God?

[Archaeopteryx]

Google foundationism

This is the first thing that comes up:

Foundationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Foundationism as presented in the science fiction television series Babylon 5 is an Earth religion, one of several that appeared around the time the Centauri made first contact with the Earth Alliance in 2156.

 

[MoreCoffee]

This is the first thing that comes up:

Foundationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

try again

 

[Archaeopteryx]

try again

I've already tried too much in this conversation with you. You are clearly ill-prepared to defend your claims, so anyone can dismiss them as easily as you can propose them.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I've already tried too much in this conversation with you. You are clearly ill-prepared to defend your claims, so anyone can dismiss them as easily as you can propose them.

Now don't go blaming me for you not knowing what foundationism is

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Erm... so what is foundationalism?

O Lord, make haste to help me.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Erm... so what is foundationalism?

O Lord, make haste to help me.

Foundationalism is a view about the structure of justification or knowledge. The foundationalist's thesis in short is that all knowledge and justified belief rest ultimately on a foundation of noninferential knowledge or justified belief.

Foundationalism concerns philosophical theories of knowledge resting upon justified belief, some secure foundation of certainty.[1] Its main rival is coherentism, whereby a body of knowledge, not requiring a secure foundation, can be established by the interlocking strength of its components, like a puzzle solved without prior certainty that each small region was solved correctly.[1]

Identifying the other options to be either circular reasoning or infinite regress, thus the regress problem, Aristotle found the clear choice to be foundationalism, which posits basic beliefs underpinning others.[2] Descartes, the most famed foundationalist, discovered a foundation in the fact of his own existence and the "clear and distinct" ideas of reason,[1][2] whereas Locke saw foundation in experience. A foundation reflects differing epistemological emphases—empiricists emphasizing experience, rationalists emphasizing reason—but may blend both.[1]

In the 1930s, debate over foundationalism revived.[2] Whereas Schlick viewed scientific knowledge like a pyramid where a special class of statements does not require verification through other beliefs and serves as a foundation, Neurath argued that scientific knowledge lacks an ultimate foundation and acts like a raft.[2] In the 1950s, foundationalism fell into decline largely via Quine,[2] whose ontological relativity found any belief networked to one's beliefs on all of reality, while auxiliary beliefs somewhere in the vast network are readily modified to protect desired beliefs.

Classically, foundationalism had posited infallibility of basic beliefs and deductive reasoning between beliefs—a strong foundationalism.[2] Since about 1975, weak foundationalism emerged.[2] Thus, recent foundationalists have variously allowed fallible basic beliefs, and inductive reasoning between them, either by enumerative induction or by inference to the best explanation.[2] And whereas internalists require cognitive access to justificatory means, externalists find justification without such access.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Foundationalism is a view about the structure of justification or knowledge. The foundationalist's thesis in short is that all knowledge and justified belief rest ultimately on a foundation of noninferential knowledge or justified belief.

And in what way does that substantiate your assertion that "God speaks in and through the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church?"

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Now don't go blaming me for you not knowing what foundationism is

Given that you've misspelled the term, perhaps you should shoulder at least some of the blame?

 

[MoreCoffee]

And in what way does that substantiate your assertion that "God speaks in and through the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church?"

I reckon you can work that out for yourself with a little effort.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I reckon you can work that out for yourself with a little effort.

It's not my claim. I don't have to expend any effort on it. It's yours, and up to you to substantiate it.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It's not my claim. I don't have to expend any effort on it. It's yours, and up to you to substantiate it.

Oh come on

I defined it for you, what more do you need?

One ought to use one's wits and knowledge to draw conclusions ...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Oh come on

I defined it for you, what more do you need?

One ought to use one's wits and knowledge to draw conclusions ...

Lead the way...

 

[MoreCoffee]

Lead the way...

I'll consult the Cybele first

 

[Colter]

On the other hand, what if science discovers that Atheist really are just soulless, spiritless machines living meaningless lives in an ultimately meaningless universe???

 

[bhsmte]

I reckon you can work that out for yourself with a little effort.

It would appear he can't work it out as you have, because he requires a bit of support for the assumption, which you clearly do not require.

 

[bhsmte]

On the other hand, what if science discovers that Atheist really are just soulless, spiritless machines living meaningless lives in an ultimately meaningless universe???

Cool. Let us know when science discovers that.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It would appear he can't work it out as you have, because he requires a bit of support for the assumption, which you clearly do not require.

It doesn't really matter. I am not on a mission to convert anybody in this thread.

 

[bhsmte]

It doesn't really matter. I am not on a mission to convert anybody in this thread.

No problem, you are entitled to your faith beliefs.

On this part of the site though, you can expect people to ask for substantiation of your claims.

 

[MoreCoffee]

No problem, you are entitled to your faith beliefs.

On this part of the site though, you can expect people to ask for substantiation of your claims.

How can one "substantiate" a foundation belief? It's contrary to the definition!

 

[bhsmte]

How can one "substantiate" a foundation belief? It's contrary to the definition!

You are conceding then, that your belief can not be substantiated?