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

[MoreCoffee]

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

Yes. But that is true of all foundation beliefs.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes. But that is true of all foundation beliefs.

Did you then decide to form these unsubstantiated beliefs, arbitrarily?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes. But that is true of all foundation beliefs.

Including ones that are incompatible with yours.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Including ones that are incompatible with yours.

Yes. Isn't that blindingly obvious?

But this thread is about some kind of proof of God existing so the foundation belief that God exists is somehow substantiated in the imaginary world posited in the original post. That's the point here, isn't it?

 

[Eudaimonist]

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

Not really. Foundational beliefs can't be proven by reference to any more basic beliefs, but that doesn't mean that they can't be substantiated.

For instance, the belief that "something exists" is substantiated simply by awareness of the issue. If it is possible to wonder about whether something exists or not, then wondering exists, meaning that something exists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[MoreCoffee]

Not really. Foundational beliefs can't be proven by reference to any more basic beliefs, but that doesn't mean that they can't be substantiated.

For instance, the belief that "something exists" is substantiated simply by awareness of the issue. If it is possible to wonder about whether something exists or not, then wondering exists, meaning that something exists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

But foundation beliefs are the most basic and hence cannot be derived from other foundation beliefs. Check the philosophical definition of foundationism.

 

[Eudaimonist]

But foundation beliefs are the most basic and hence cannot be derived from other foundation beliefs. Check the philosophical definition of foundationism.

I'm not saying that they can be derived from other foundational beliefs. I'm saying that this is not necessary in order to substantiate them.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Paradoxum]

I do not think a complete accounting of God's reasoning is possible. Jesus was asked about spiritual and religious matters and he gave answers in parables to specific situations. Nontheless, generalities can be drawn across the parables.

I merely suggested studying the parables because the accusation was that God has given no explanation at all in regards to his ethic, and I pointed out that this is simply not true, from the Christian perspective.

God has given no full explanation of his ethics. I know that the Bible says a few things about what God thinks is right and wrong, but it it's a fully explanation of why God thinks that.

I understand that, but there is an error in the premise that God "chose" what is good as if goodness exists apart from God. Hence my comment that what is of God is good.

I want to know why God would say X is wrong. What is his reasoning behind that.

Is there reasoning, or is it arbitrary?

If you want to say it just is good, without reason, then I see no reason to do what God says... because it's just an arbitrary opinion.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

But foundation beliefs are the most basic and hence cannot be derived from other foundation beliefs. Check the philosophical definition of foundationism.

You have not shown that the belief in question is foundational. You've merely asserted it. It seems that you think simply declaring something "foundational" means it is somehow rendered true. More to the point, I think you're just looking for a way to avoid having to defend your claims.

 

[bhsmte]

You have not shown that the belief in question is foundational. You've merely asserted it. It seems that you think simply declaring something "foundational" means it is somehow rendered true. More to the point, I think you're just looking for a way to avoid having to defend your claims.

Furthermore, the poster states foundational beliefs can not be substantiated. It takes quite a bit of psychological gymnastics, to claim something is true, if it can't be substantiated.

In other words, it is true because I say it is.

 

[MoreCoffee]

One of the nice things about foundationism is that one can pick one's foundations and build from there. As long as the foundations are more or less orthogonal and independent one is more or less set

 

[bhsmte]

One of the nice things about foundationism is that one can pick one's foundations and build from there. As long as the foundations are more or less orthogonal and independent one is more or less set

Sure. Pick until your heart is content.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

One of the nice things about foundationism is that one can pick one's foundations and build from there. As long as the foundations are more or less orthogonal and independent one is more or less set

It sounds like one of the "nice things" about foundationism is that one can pretend to know things one does not know. I suppose that is "nice" if you don't care about intellectual honesty.

 

[KCfromNC]

One of the nice things about foundationism is that one can pick one's foundations and build from there. As long as the foundations are more or less orthogonal and independent one is more or less set

You seem to thing this sort of approach is a good thing, but I can't understand why. A system of belief where one of the features is you get to pick anything you want as unquestionably true doesn't seem to be all that useful in actually understanding reality. Or for that matter even acknowledging that reality exists.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You seem to thing this sort of approach is a good thing, but I can't understand why. A system of belief where one of the features is you get to pick anything you want as unquestionably true doesn't seem to be all that useful in actually understanding reality. Or for that matter even acknowledging that reality exists.

That's assuming that the goal is to actually understand reality.

 

[Gottservant]

"What if science discovers proof of God?"

It will overlap, with a reason to doubt (selah)

 

[MoreCoffee]

One of the nice things about foundationism is that one can pick one's foundations and build from there. As long as the foundations are more or less orthogonal and independent one is more or less set

Sure. Pick until your heart is content.

It sounds like one of the "nice things" about foundationism is that one can pretend to know things one does not know. I suppose that is "nice" if you don't care about intellectual honesty.

You seem to think this sort of approach is a good thing, but I can't understand why. A system of belief where one of the features is you get to pick anything you want as unquestionably true doesn't seem to be all that useful in actually understanding reality. Or for that matter even acknowledging that reality exists.

In epistemology one need not represent reality; with one's fundamental beliefs one need only produce a set of beliefs that are either coherent or consistent with a set of foundation beliefs that are non-contradictory. Theories of justified true belief depend on one's definition of true. There's nothing incoherent or untrue about accounting belief in God as foundational.

Evidently it annoys some folk, but hey! What can one say but "hard cheddar to you"

 

[True Scotsman]

What will happen if science someday runs across definitive proof of a God?, or a force that they find has a mind and a will, and is exerting that will in our world in measurable quantum ways? or something like that...

How would our world change if something like this happened?

God Bless!

More people would believe in God.

 

[TillICollapse]

More people would believe in God.

You mean more people would acknowledge the existence of a God, or more people would believe in (as in trust in) that being ?

There are people who don't even think Obama is actually the President of the US, he's just an actor on a sound stage somewhere. He exists, but he's not who he's claimed to be IOW. Similarly, there are people who believe he's a reptilian shapeshifter. So what do you mean by "believe in God" in this context ?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In epistemology one need not represent reality; with one's fundamental beliefs one need only produce a set of beliefs that are either coherent or consistent with a set of foundation beliefs that are non-contradictory. Theories of justified true belief depend on one's definition of true. There's nothing incoherent or untrue about accounting belief in God as foundational.

Evidently it annoys some folk, but hey! What can one say but "hard cheddar to you"

So long as you don't pretend that others are being unreasonable in dismissing your theology, then no, it doesn't annoy us per se.