To all believers on this site...

[appolose]

vlad321 said:

appolose said:
I'm under the impression that science, by itself, cannot prove anything (by coherent argument or sense data). The method of science involves logical fallacies; for one, repeating a test hundreds of times and getting the same result for each does not prove that it will always be that way. It does not follow logically. No amount of appealing to "common sense" or claiming that science is all we have (which it isn't) will avoid this.

While one might argue that science is true because it works, or that it can get us very close to truth, it should be understood that in order to say such a thing, we have to use "sense data", a part of science, to see and say it's working. Not only is that circular, but sense data, as a method, comes with its own set of impossibilites. The short, simple, water-tight, and obnoxious example for the problems of sense data would be the "brain in a vat" theory. The problem in principle is that the evidence we call sense data can represent an infinite number of theories (and of course... testing a theory only involves MORE sense data).

Empricial evidence is completely useless for establishing any belief. Now, why then do I believe in God? In fact, why do I believe in anything at all? My point is, evidence does not nor cannot preceed a belief. You have to start somewhere, and that's why I lean toward being a presuppositionalist. So the long and short of it is, I agree with bardicverse. I believe God exists, because I know (presuppositionally speaking) he exists. I also believe the sun will rise tomorrow because I know it will. And I can't "prove" either of these beliefs.

 

Please tell me you are not serious. Nothing is proven like this unless ALL possibilities are proven to be true. Since that is rarely the case we resort to math. The only true, unbiased, cold, hard math. It neve changes it never goes away. 1+1 is always 2, 1=1, 2=2, and 1+2 = 2+1. This is always the case and you build from that. You prove it with math it is for sure and infallible (assuming the proof itself isn't rotten). As far as I am concerned the only thing that is true for sure is what has been proved by math.

 

Science and empiricism can't get close to proving anything; one can't even say they can lend evidence to any idea.   Again, there is no way to prove you are not a brain floating in a vat, and one can't say science has had success because the only way to know that is to use empiricism; i.e., observing such success.  It's circular.  It doesn't have the rigour of mathematical proof because it has no rigour at all.

I can also tell you why you believe in god. It probably has nothing to do with actually believeing in god as much as it does believing what people you trust tell you. Probably when you were a little kid, your parents started talking to you about god. Now, from my own experiences I know that I believed that my parents are infallible and my trust in them was complete and whatever they said was 100% true. Yours started to preach to you about god and then probably told you to trust in your priest (or whatever the head of your church is) and then he fed you even more of god. You don't actually believe in god, you believe that what your parents and priest told you when you were a little kid. The way religion spreads is despicable and horrible. Anything that exploits a child's gullibility to influence him is, in my eyes, outright criminal. When you have children you will do the exact same and unless they rebell against you they will do that to their children an so on. I can throw out many cases of genocides and wars in which the spread of hate in the people was spread in the exact same way.

A parent will generally want what is best for their children; why wouldn't they try to convince them of their own religion, seeing as the parents themselves are convinced of it?  Should they not tell them to eat their veggies, too?  While you may argue that religous matters are too undecided to be taught to children, parents tell their children many things apart from religion, and many a thing one parent teaches their child will radically differ from what another parent teaches theirs.  It's hardly criminal then, because we know they think they know what's best for their kids. 

Again, I believe in God partly because I presuppose he exists.

My house was religoin neutral, no one talked about god and no one talked about there not being god. Now I've formed what I wanna "believe" in and I stated what that was abov without the influences of my parents or anyone else for that matter. I sternly believe that religion should not be taught to children at least until they hit 13, after that preach all you want. Or are the religious types just afraid that if they don't preach from early on their child won't be a believer?

Here's a quick example. Let's say I told you about my friend Victor, great guy, perfect man for the women, etc. etc. Then I got all of my and your friends to tell you the same thing, including your wife/gf.  Then I got a billion more people to say the same. Just because everyone believes Victor is the perfect man in the world doesn't mean he exists, just means that everyone else is gullible enough to believe in him. Eventually I'm pretty sure, when the people you trust most also tell you about Victor you will start thinking Victor is real and then you will tell your kids and the cycle I described above will begin. I just described you religion in a tiny nutshell.