setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
I think she meant my reasoning which is based on probability.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Reasoning cannot be based on probability unless it is used to justify a hypothesis based on physical evidence.
setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
Apparently you believe that all of modern physics is unreasonable then....can't say that I entirely disagree with you if so.
No, the use of probability in Physics properly uses used on falsifying hypothesis by scientific methods using physical evidence.
Common example in today's Physics: Probability is used in Quantum Mechanics to estimate the predictions of the range of outcomes in cause and effect Quantum events, based on the evidence.
Last edited:
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
Place tectonics you mean? It actually does involve extensive explanations and proposed (and observationally confirmed!) mechanisms for what causes the movements of the plates and how that plays out. Like, did you not even read so much as a Wikipedia stub? This is like geology 101, maybe not even that.
I mean, society has lapped you. You're still here worrying about whether plate tectonics is true (it is), while we're out identifying which exoplanets and exomoons have active geologies or not.
It is a fact of the misuse of 'proof''as defined in the English language. The 'stupid idiots are those that misuse the English language and fo not know the proper use of 'proof.'
Proof does not apply Methodological Naturalism in science, nor can subjective beliefs in religions be proven. The use of proof is best reserved for proving math theorems
Theorem - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
In mathematics, a theorem is a statement that has been proved, or can be proved.[a][2][3] The proof of a theorem is a logical argument that uses the inference rules of a deductive system to establish that the theorem is a logical consequence of the axioms and previously proved theorems.
The concept of proof may apply to structured logical arguments, but the problem is in logical arguments may not be true, because accepting the the conclusion is dependent on accepting the premise, To use proof in this context you must first present the logical argument. Simple demands to prove this or that are meaningless especially in academic science and history,
A classic problem in logical arguments are the old circular apologetic arguments where the premise assumes a 'Source such as God as the conclusion claims.
You are so far from understanding "faith is being sure of what you hope for"! You seem to be reasonably intelligent; why can't you understand a simple phrase?
Here, try again: "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" Do you have a different definition of faith?
Since you are clearly unable to have a reasonable conversation and must resort to personal insults, I am putting you on "ignore".
This has nothing to do with either the OP or the thread of the discussion. If you want to discuss probability of physics hypotheses I'm sure there are forums to do just that.
See my post immediately above this one.
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
Yep, I do. But first, a word on definitions.
Definitions are not facts. They are not true or false. They merely set out what we mean when we use a word. Different words have different definitions in different places and in different times. Language changes over time. Words go in and out of fashion, people coin new terms or phrases, some words develop certain connotations. And sometimes, depending on what you're trying to do with a word, you may need to use a word in an entirely novel way.
So your above devotions are lovely, very poetic. I'm sure they work great in a devotional context. In a theological one they start to become problematic, and for certain philosophical concerns related to faith, not useful at all. This is where you will here people define faith as things like "belief without proof" or "belief without evidence". They're trying to get at the epistemic nature of faith- how does faith relate to reason and evidence? And the definition of faith that philosophers have consistently found to be most useful in that context is that faith is "believe/hope in the absence of rationally sufficient warrant (justification)". From an epistemic perspective, here we have a useful and clear definition that is also faithful to how the word is used in non-technical contexts.
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
So then why did you bring them up? I was responding to you, I was correcting something false you had said about plate tectonic science. If they're off-topic for me, then they're off-topic for you, yes?
Or is this more a matter of you wanting to change the subject?
I understand the above very well. but you need to acknowledge the subjective nature of the bold that many people may make the same statement and believe something very different.
You did not respond to my post, It is unfortunate that you are not addressing the first issue here. I do understand the various forms of Christian belief and their claims.
Please respond coherently concerning the problem of the use of 'proof' in arguments and dialogues.
Do you acknowledge the proper use of "proof" and the limits of fallible human knowledge subjective beliefs?
Last edited:
Hmmm .. I am thinking your premise is false. Reasoning by definition is based on probability .. weighing the predicted consequences of one action over another.
So the proposition - "Reasoning cannot be based on probability" - is false Reasoning , by definition is based on probability .
It would be unreasonable and illogical to believe that Reasoning can not be based on probability -- no physical evidence required other than your brain function .. which is the evidence .. a probability balancing machine .. created on the basis of probability .. swimming in a world of probability .. that we should not ignore.
Try again: "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" It's a simple declarative sentence.
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
I tried it. It was about as effective for the purposes of epistemology as a wet hot dog would be for pounding a nail. Wrong tool for the job.
Like I said, and you apparently ignored or didn't understand, different contexts require different definitions and while your happy-dappy definition above may work for devotional purposes, maybe some light and uncritical theological ones, it simply doesn't work if we're talking about epistemology, i.e. the difference between various propositional attitudes (like faith) and the various epistemic burdens they incur, or how/why they relate to knowledge. If I want to know about how faith relates to knowledge, your definition gets me no where. Which is of course why philosophers define faith as belief in the absence of sufficient rational warrant.
Its fine if my definition doesn't tickle your fancy for the devotional and non-critical purposes for which you seem to want a definition of faith, it doesn't need to. It does the job its designed to, just as your definitions hopefully do the jobs they were designed for as well. To each their own and all.
No, I don't acknowledge your understanding of "proof" and "the limits of fallible human knowledge subjective beliefs" (which has nothing to do with the Biblical phrase).
You are intellectualizing a simple statement. This has nothing to do with belief! It doesn't say "Faith is believing ... the belief..." It says "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" or, if you prefer another translation, "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for, being convinced of what we do not see."
Do you not understand what "assurance" or "being sure" mean? Do you not understand what "conviction" or "being convinced" mean?
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
Yikes, seems we have some linguistic authoritarianism in process?
Since you are dragging the discussion down to nonsensical statements, e.g., "the purposes of epistemology as a wet hot dog would be for pounding a nail" and insults such as "happy-dappy", there is obviously no point in discussing the issue with you until you grow up.
You are now on "ignore".
Yes, but concerning the probability of the statistically likely that a physical event will occur.
Incomplete citation of my post, which is unethical. My correct statement:
Reasoning cannot be based on probability unless it is used to justify a hypothesis based on physical evidence.
Probability - Probability - Wikipedia
Probability is the branch of mathematics concerning events and numerical descriptions of how likely they are to occur. The probability of an event is a number between 0 and 1; the larger the probability, the more likely an event is to occur.[note 1][1][2] The higher the probability of an event, the more likely it is that the event will occur. A simple example is the tossing of a fair (unbiased) coin. Since the coin is fair, the two outcomes ("heads" and "tails") are both equally probable; the probability of "heads" equals the probability of "tails"; and since no other outcomes are possible, the probability of either "heads" or "tails" is 1/2 (which could also be written as 0.5 or 50%).
These concepts have been given an axiomatic mathematical formalization in probability theory, which is used widely in areas of study such as statistics, mathematics, science, finance, gambling, artificial intelligence, machine learning, computer science, game theory, and philosophy to, for example, draw inferences about the expected frequency of events. Probability theory is also used to describe the underlying mechanics and regularities of complex systems
Reasoning can be used in determining the probability of the likely hood that physical events occur, but the above definition is specific probability is used to determined the statistically likely that physical events will occur as proposed by a hypothesis ie as in Quantum Mechanics.