Evidence for God from Science

August wrote:If we should question everything, does it mean there is no truth?

Truth is that which survives intensive questioning.

For example, "correspondence truth" is that which when you stop believing it, it doesn't go away. If believe it is true that I can float in air without aid, I will discover the truth in a hard way if I step off a tall building.

Blob wrote:

August wrote:If we should question everything, does it mean there is no truth?

Truth is that which survives intensive questioning.

For example, "correspondence truth" is that which when you stop believing it, it doesn't go away. If believe it is true that I can float in air without aid, I will discover the truth in a hard way if I step off a tall building.

Christianity has survived intense questioning...so is it truth?

Blob wrote:

August wrote:If we should question everything, does it mean there is no truth?

Truth is that which survives intensive questioning.

For example, "correspondence truth" is that which when you stop believing it, it doesn't go away. If believe it is true that I can float in air without aid, I will discover the truth in a hard way if I step off a tall building.

How do we know that the questions we ask will lead us to the truth, since we have to assume something to be true in order to ask questions? And how do we know that the questions are true questions?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Christianity has survived intense questioning...so is it truth?

I find Christianity, like all absolutist ideologies, crumbles under scrutiny, so no it is not truth.

Blob wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Christianity has survived intense questioning...so is it truth?

I find Christianity, like all absolutist ideologies, crumbles under scrutiny, so no it is not truth.

A man who believes in nothing then? But that can't be true, such a statement is utterly nonsensical. So, what other than an absolutist foundation can you use to scrutinize everyone else? Or is your platform relativistic, in which case, you've lost the ability to scrutinize.

August wrote:How do we know that the questions we ask will lead us to the truth, since we have to assume something to be true in order to ask questions?

Regarding correspondence truth we cross-reference it against perceived reality. This is why I am certain I cannot float in air.

And how do we know that the questions are true questions?

I don't see how a truth value can be ascribed to an interrogative statement.

"Will I float or fall if I step off a tall building?" is neither a true nor false question. To label it as either is a category error.

Blob wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Christianity has survived intense questioning...so is it truth?

I find Christianity, like all absolutist ideologies, crumbles under scrutiny, so no it is not truth.

Is atheism not an absolutist ideology too?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:A man who believes in nothing then? But that can't be true, such a statement is utterly nonsensical. So, what other than an absolutist foundation can you use to scrutinize everyone else? Or is your platform relativistic, in which case, you've lost the ability to scrutinize.

I do not believe in nothing. I believe I fall to earth if I fall off a tall building, for example.

I acknowledge I am a limited human being. I prefer to acknowledge my limits than declare my opnions absolutely correct.

August wrote:Is atheism not an absolutist ideology too?

No. "I am an atheist" is a statement of lack of conviction regarding the god claims of others, not a knowledge claim.

Blob wrote:

August wrote:Is atheism not an absolutist ideology too?

No. "I am an atheist" is a statement of lack of conviction regarding the god claims of others, not a knowledge claim.

I have a lack of conviction regarding the no god claim, so maybe that also isn't a knowledge claim?

Kurieuo

Blob wrote: Regarding correspondence truth we cross-reference it against perceived reality. This is why I am certain I cannot float in air.

But that assumes that we answer all questions in the same way. And how do we know what reality is?

I don't see how a truth value can be ascribed to an interrogative statement.

"Will I float or fall if I step off a tall building?" is neither a true nor false question. To label it as either is a category error.

Not quite what I meant, I was not talking about truth value, merely about the fact that questions have to make sense. Yours does, but what if I ask:
"How is Blob purple?". My point is that the answers we get depends on the questions we ask, and those questions are built on presuppostions, theories etc.

Blob wrote:

August wrote:Is atheism not an absolutist ideology too?

No. "I am an atheist" is a statement of lack of conviction regarding the god claims of others, not a knowledge claim.

How is it not a knowledge claim? You claim to absolutely know there is no God or gods.

Kurieuo wrote:I have a lack of conviction regarding the no god claim, so maybe that also isn't a knowledge claim?

Kurieuo

That's correct - you would not be making a knowledge claim. You are merely stating you are unconvinced by claims there definitely is no god.

August wrote:

Blob wrote: Regarding correspondence truth we cross-reference it against perceived reality. This is why I am certain I cannot float in air.

But that assumes that we answer all questions in the same way. And how do we know what reality is?

No I was referring specifically to correspondence truth, which relates to confirming statements against perceived reality.

We do not know what reality is, we merely have perceptions of it. We compare truth claims against what we perceive because, sadly, we humans can do no better than this.

I don't see how a truth value can be ascribed to an interrogative statement.

"Will I float or fall if I step off a tall building?" is neither a true nor false question. To label it as either is a category error.

Not quite what I meant, I was not talking about truth value, merely about the fact that questions have to make sense. Yours does, but what if I ask:
"How is Blob purple?". My point is that the answers we get depends on the questions we ask, and those questions are built on presuppostions, theories etc.

"How is Blob purple?" begs the question "Is Blob purple?" and your (intentional to make a point) presupposition is clear in this example.

Again, sadly, our human condition makes it very difficult to analyse our own presuppositions in less contrived examples. If it didn't I'd expect to live in a world where people did not have different ideas opinions on what truth is.

August wrote:

Blob wrote:

August wrote:Is atheism not an absolutist ideology too?

No. "I am an atheist" is a statement of lack of conviction regarding the god claims of others, not a knowledge claim.

How is it not a knowledge claim? You claim to absolutely know there is no God or gods.

I claim no such thing.

Let make a hypothesis: "A green monster lives on the Planet pluto"

Do you believe that?

Do you know for sure?