Science has no metaphysics, so it seems this statement applies to you.The problem is most people simply don't understand science or its metaphysics.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Science has no metaphysics, so it seems this statement applies to you.The problem is most people simply don't understand science or its metaphysics.
I agree that the first two fold into each other, but I see the universe being knowable as a valid assumption of science. I like your metaphor of the baby and how we enter this world without any assumptions and learn through experience as we develop. But even without assumptions at that stage, can we know if what we learned from experience as a baby is useful in understanding the past through observation of the present for instance. Can a baby know that gravity worked the same way for it's parents?
I feel my execution here is a bit awkward, but I'll leave it as it came out of my head.
It's not an assumption. Science has simply never found any evidence or need for 'god' or even one consistent definition of the term to use as an assumption or not. Scientifically, it's a meaningless word without a single and relevant definition.It's not assumptions that are the problem. The problem is erroneous assumptions like the one tha6t says there's no room for God inside of human knowledge.
Because it's a huge waste of time. Why would I waste my time one someone who won't even engage honestly and plays the "I believe nothing" games?
Dont project your methods onto me okay? I dont decide something is true or not simply based on subjectively finding it insufficient.
Hopefully you haven't, and surely you know that you not doing X doesn't mean nobody does.
My gods are immaterial, physicalism would falsify them for instance.
It's not you, it's all of us. Without faith we couldn't function, this is why things like solipsism are important but also impractical. I mean can you so much as prove you're talking to a real person right now?
Faith means faith, trust without certainty.
I already did in this thread haha.
So theres so much evidence for atheism you could write books on it, yet you cant present any.
I don't really care what you find subjectively sufficient lol.
This obsession with the burden of proof gets embarrassing
, it's a fun way to know someone doesn't have reasons for their beliefs.
1. This very thread had an atheist gaslighting a theist. The same person is calling theism "woo". Another atheist had a mod edit their post haha.
2. RF is good specifically because with a couple ignores you can avoid this, much better than like r/debatereligion
No.3. Are you saying if atheists on RF didn't abuse theists this implies it never happens in any context?
.... for theism?
Sigh indeed, don't you guys get tired of these silly games? "Agnostic atheism" is a pointless term
because nobody rational is ever asking you to prove with metaphysical certainty there are no gods.
There's atheism, Agnosticism, theism,
The atheist simply does this so they can say "well I can't prove gods don't exist"
Finding something "likely" is not the same as expressing "certainty".as if this means they don't find a godless universe most likely.
My attention was first directed to my own assumptions when I came across some remarks of Descartes, in particular where he points out that if you want to argue that reason is a valid tool then you can't use reason to support your argument.
This got me thinking about what other assumptions I make that likewise I can't validate without first assuming they're already correct.
I therefore assume not only that (1) reason is a valid tool, but that (2) a world exists external to me, and (3) that my senses are capable of informing me about that world.
(Actually I start with (2), then (3), then (1), for whatever difference that might make.)
I was reminded of this recently in Stephen Pinker's book Rationality. The reason, of course, that we go on using reason is basically because it works. It allows us to reach conclusions that consistently turn out to be correct.My attention was first directed to my own assumptions when I came across some remarks of Descartes, in particular where he points out that if you want to argue that reason is a valid tool then you can't use reason to support your argument.
I'd argue that 2 and 3 are justified by the fact that, even if they aren't true, they might as well be for all practical purposes. Whatever it is that we perceive with our senses as the 'external world' is inescapable and behaves consistently.I therefore assume not only that (1) reason is a valid tool, but that (2) a world exists external to me, and (3) that my senses are capable of informing me about that world.
This.So absolutely they are assumptions but not ones that cannot be defended.
This is an open forum and comments of your posts are not a sin. My objections to the course of the thread are specifics. The posts by the thread author were insulting to atheists and other non-believers, and made generalizations that were not true. Also, the actual topic of the thread the epistemological arguments for the existence and non-existence of Gods was never addressed.Whatever @shunyadragon .
I apologize for not confirming to your expectations of debate and discussion by displaying solidarity with a person who felt attacked.
I didn't write my response you quoted for your approval, or for you at all.
Indicating you are giving un-asked for advice.
That's a real Sin.
I think you're framing it in terms of individual psychology. No one would argue that baby's first experiences weren't observations, but what's unclear to me is what that has to do with scientific epistemology. That's just the human experience. Unless you meant to draw a connection between the two, which is fine, I suppose. But I see the baby and positivism as two different things. The baby is human experience. Positivism is an abstract logical structure that suggests a research method.
Well, we might be using different definitions of "assumption". I'm thinking about an assumption as a basic principle, an axiom of sorts, which is the necessary basis for a logical sequence that we call science.
"Miracle" is merely another word for "luck", simply referring to a specific case where something going in your favor or against all odds.What is really "miracle" or "magic" or "supernatural" in an atheist mind?
IMHO, they are just things they cann't explain with their current personal knowledge
No. You did. Right here in post #294:Actually you changed it
It simply distinguishes between knowledge and belief. This isn't hard, surely?
I said epistemological unfriendliness, this is a specific term.
I simply defined the term for you.
This was in response to, “I've not seen any that I find convincing. And quite often when I ask for evidence, I don't actually get any."Of course it isn't subjectively convincing to one who has concluded atheism, who cares what is convincing but what is true.
I mean if being subjectively convinced is defining of truth for you but nobody else, that's not equal standards.
Not a good one.It was a comparison...
You missed the point here. The point is about evidence.Only 160 years? We've been interacting with the gods for over 10,000!
Um, no. That’s about as intellectually honest as well as reasonable and rational as it gets. It’s also the definition of the word.To the intellectually dishonest sure, who cares at this point.
Then it sounds like “the theist” needs to pay closer attention.For theists the term is equally pointless
No. Show me that atheists make that claim.Give me a break.
There is evidence for neither, in my opinion. Unevidenced claims of invisible dragons aren’t all that different to me than unevidenced claims of invisible gods. And they both manifest in reality in the same way – which is to say not at all.You cannot think of any way the garage dragon differs from gods?
Or you could just explain the difference instead of claiming that I’m feigning ignorance or something.Then I would again direct you to compare Dawkins to Rowe. It's funny how only new atheists ignore the existence of new atheism when even other atheists call or out.
I've listed these [assumptions of science] countless times so I'm not going to try for comprehensiveness for the dozens of assumptions.
There is an assumption that we can be logical. That we are understood. That theory can be extrapolated and reality interpolated. That progress is linear. That experiment can be interpreted in only a single way. That our species pre-dates recorded history. That we can will ourselves to see what exists. That we can reason to correct answers given sufficient evidence. That computer modelling has a meaning. That understanding consciousness is unnecessary to understand life and how it changes. That reductionistic science can be applied to all of reality even in its current incarnation. That there is no God. That free will is unnecessary to explain life. That reality conforms to law. That math can exactly be applied to reality. That knowing every variable is unnecessary to calculation.
The list goes on and on and on. All the assumptions are false. There are not even two identical objects in all of creation so math doesn't directly apply to reality. People close their minds to the complexity of reality which is far more staggering than any concept of "infinity" which is puny in comparison. We believe in our reductions of science without understanding even the definitions of things like "space" may be a poor representation of the reality. Every belief derived from language and every old wives tale is false or only correct from a specific perspective.
If reductionistic science has taught us anything it is the universe nor reality are clockworks. Species succeed by dancing with reality not by taming it. People want to believe in science. They want to believe what they learned on their parents' knees. They want to believe all you have to do is look and see reality. This is why we live in a crazy world where Egypto9logists refuse to even look and see how the pyramids were built. They already looked and saw it could only have been ramps and it doesn't matter because it had to be some savage and ignorant means like ramps, perhaps, or even ramps.
We can't help but see only our assumptions and when we reason or study we always end up right back at our assumptions. It is definitional to our species which arose at an event we know only as the tower of babel.
[Science assumes] That there is no God.
You already demonstrated your absurd ignorance of math and science and know more ignorance piled on how the Egyptologists investigate how the pyramids were built, The egyptologists and other scientists are constantly researching the pyramids from the course and origin of the stone to the construction of the pyramids,I've listed these countless times so I'm not going to try for comprehensiveness for the dozens of assumptions. There is an assumption that we can be logical. That we are understood. That theory can be extrapolated and reality interpolated. That progress is linear. That experiment can be interpreted in only a single way. That our species pre-dates recorded history. That we can will ourselves to see what exists. That we can reason to correct answers given sufficient evidence. That computer modelling has a meaning. That understanding consciousness is unnecessary to understand life and how it changes. That reductionistic science can be applied to all of reality even in its current incarnation. That there is no God. That free will is unnecessary to explain life. That reality conforms to law. That math can exactly be applied to reality. That knowing every variable is unnecessary to calculation.
The list goes on and on and on. All the assumptions are false. There are not even two identical objects in all of creation so math doesn't directly apply to reality. People close their minds to the complexity of reality which is far more staggering than any concept of "infinity" which is puny in comparison. We believe in our reductions of science without understanding even the definitions of things like "space" may be a poor representation of the reality. Every belief derived from language and every old wives tale is false or only correct from a specific perspective.
If reductionistic science has taught us anything it is the universe nor reality are clockworks. Species succeed by dancing with reality not by taming it. People want to believe in science. They want to believe what they learned on their parents' knees. They want to believe all you have to do is look and see reality. This is why we live in a crazy world where Egypto9logists refuse to even look and see how the pyramids were built. They already looked and saw it could only have been ramps and it doesn't matter because it had to be some savage and ignorant means like ramps, perhaps, or even ramps.
We can't help but see only our assumptions and when we reason or study we always end up right back at our assumptions. It is definitional to our species which arose at an event we know only as the tower of babel.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't your last sentence simply confirm "A world exists external to me" is an assumption? An axiom? Not something whose correctness you could demonstrate without first assuming it was already correct?To me, assumptions would be required to imagine anything other than the world that exists external to myself. When first thrust into the world and becoming conscious of it, we have not yet developed abstract thought with its inherent need to differentiate between which of our abstract thoughts are and remain representative of actual reality, the world around us, and which thoughts no longer conform to reality. I think it is more than appropriate to take this abstraction-free awareness of the external world, and the existential demands it places on us, at face value.
Indeed. I defend them the same way I defend science ─ because they appear to work very well.I was reminded of this recently in Stephen Pinker's book Rationality. The reason, of course, that we go on using reason is basically because it works. It allows us to reach conclusions that consistently turn out to be correct.
I'd argue that 2 and 3 are justified by the fact that, even if they aren't true, they might as well be for all practical purposes. Whatever it is that we perceive with our senses as the 'external world' is inescapable and behaves consistently.
As Philip K. Dick said "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".
So absolutely they are assumptions but not ones that cannot be defended.
Yea, this is what posting on RF teacheth.Proverbs 12
"Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge,but whoever hates correction is stupid."
"Good people obtain favor from the Lord,but he condemns those who devise wicked schemes."
"A person is praised according to their prudence,and one with a warped mind is despised."
"The way of fools seems right to them,but the wise listen to advice."
"Fools show their annoyance at once,but the prudent overlook an insult."
You play their game , that's how you win
The problems you allude to are not assumed to not exist, rather they are acknowledged and effort is made to mitigate them.
I agree of course that science has no supernatural metaphysics; but (just to keep things clear) separately from the supernatural there's a branch of philosophy called 'metaphysics'. David Armstrong said ─Science has no metaphysics, so it seems this statement applies to you.