Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[SimpleGuy]

The only argument against the statement of Spectrum is, that there is no common contradiction free query language, for this knowledge base to assert persistency in a deadlock free sense.

[Eduk]

My take (on what Spectrum says) is that the scientific method is itself a philosophy. For example falsifiability is at route a philosophical choice about epistemology. It is at heart a decision about what can be known and why and how to go about it. I would also say it leans heavily on practicality. So not just knowledge but useful repeatable practical knowledge.
The scientific method is not the only route to knowledge but it is the best, so far, route to the 'most' accurate knowledge humans can devise. If you have a theory which has no mechanism, makes no predictions and cannot be falsified and then ignore methodologies like double blinding and so on then you need an extremely good reason to do so. And no one should simply take your word for it. For example show me a God powered computer and I might start to reconsider my position on your religion.

[LuckyR]

Some individuals trust their experience/perception more than expert opinion or knowledge/experience that is second hand for all facets of their life. Perhaps they live in the "Show Me" state. These folks make threads like this one: why believe in something that is unobservable and unproveable?

OTOH, there are two other sets of people: those that separate their life into things they feel should be observable/provable and those that aren't. They are OK with the concept of faith, in an area that is unprovable (like religiosity). A second group feels that everything might have at least a portion of metaphysical qualities, so everything can be more (perhaps much more) than what can be observed. They might be OK with the idea of sprites helping airplanes fly, even after taking and believing/understanding an aeronautics course.

[Eduk]

You could trust your own perception to the extent that is warranted. And trust other opinion to the extent that that is warranted. Proportional belief is the way to go.
Regarding sprite based flight I would require evidence. Whereas I feel perfectly safe boarding a BA flight to Berlin.

[Dark Matter]

The only argument against the statement of Spectrum is, that there is no common contradiction free query language, for this knowledge base to assert persistency in a deadlock free sense.

Spectrum is still in the 19th century. Logical positivism is dead, making his "philosophy" obsolete at best.

[LuckyR]

You could trust your own perception to the extent that is warranted. And trust other opinion to the extent that that is warranted. Proportional belief is the way to go.
Regarding sprite based flight I would require evidence. Whereas I feel perfectly safe boarding a BA flight to Berlin.

OK. So where does god fall into your proportional belief? Proof or faith?

[Namelesss]

Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Why believe in gravity when...
Why believe in anything?
Science never 'proves' anything!
Philosophy never 'proves' anything!
'Proof' (an emotional plea) is whatever it takes to convince you.
For some, a flower is 'proof' of God!
And you cannot argue that.
You can make your acceptable 'proof' so impossible that you never have to deal with it. A big wall.
'Proof' and 'facts' and 'beliefs' are the same thing!
You question tells me that you have no clue what 'beliefs' are.
One is not rationally, logically, talked into, or out of, 'beliefs'.
They are caught and spread like the infection of 'thought/ego' that they are!
Criminy, just look around you for the evidence.
'Beliefs' are insanity!
No one ever deliberately harms another unless they host a 'belief' infection!

I have demonstrated ... 'God is an Impossibility.'

A legend in your own mind, no doubt, but logically, rationally, you have 'demonstrated' no such thing!
The 'impossibility' is for the vain ego to attempt to 'prove/demonstrate' that anything, ever, 'doesn't exist'!
Existence is ALL inclusive!
Again, your claim is shallow, self-serving and ignorant!

Despite the above, why do theists continue to believe in a God even to the extent of killing non-theists when they perceive threats against theism?

Because 'beliefs' are an infection of the EGO! Who we 'think' ourselves to be!
We identify with our thoughts/ego/beliefs!
As mentioned, it is emotional.
A perceived threat to a belief is acted upon symptomatically!
A threat to the 'belief' is a threat to the 'self', and must be defended at all costs!
A contrary Perspective of a simple logical, rational thought, is not perceived as a threat, but a differing opinion. Perhaps one worthy of discussing, rather than burning them at the stake?

Get the difference?

[Spectrum]

But Spectrum what has the scientific method ever done for us?

Isn't it obvious, the scientific method as a process within the Scientific Framework and System has provided human with scientific knowledge that are objective and has benefited humanity greatly and acknowledging it has its cons.

[Spectrum]

Empirical evidence by themselves are not very credible in correspondence to reality [possibility of sense illusions]. To be credible they must be processed within a reliable Framework and System, i.e. the Scientific Framework and System, and other Frameworks. Currently Scientific Knowledge is the most credible objective source of the knowledge of reality [emergent not pre-existing].

To ensure Scientific and other sources of empirical knowledge are more credible, it need to be reinforced with rationality and philosophy-proper. This is what I called empirical-rational basis of knowledge.

How do you know that the particular mixture you have chosen had resulted in a better 'basis of knowledge'?

To know that you would need some meta-'basis of knowledge', that showed that your own choice of mixture was correct.

But then, how would you know your meta-'basis of knowledge' was correct? You need something to check that against. A meta-meta basis. And so on, forever.

Science is more modest. It does not claim to be a 'basis for knowledge' in that sense. It is only a particular form of description.

The scientific Framework and System is the basis for scientific knowledge.
Scientific knowledge do not stand by itself, scientific knowledge must always be qualified to its scientific Framework and System, otherwise it cannot be claimed to be scientific.

It is obvious, scientific knowledge is more reliable, credible and objective form of knowledge than any other form of known basis of knowledge, e.g. common sense. This is due to its inherent qualities, i.e. testability, reproducibility and falsifiability.
Can you tell me what other Framework and System has more reliable, credible and objective form of knowledge?

Note, repeat,
"To ensure Scientific and other sources of empirical knowledge are more credible, it need to be reinforced with rationality and philosophy-proper. This is what I called empirical-rational basis of knowledge."

Philosophy-proper reveal the limits of Science re problem of induction and take into account its assumptions and expounds its Framework and System.

[Spectrum]

It's perhaps for him not a better basis of knowledge, but how about that persistency and control is better achieved for him. Every Node of the knowledge basis , does a control for himself about correspondence to other nodes and tries to determine by himself correctness. This is perhaps the advantage of the meta-basis of scientific knowledge Spectrum was talking about. Nobody claims that the information to get access is more detailed or even more correct. But it's more widespread and even if one node of the network fails , due to illness it doesn't collapse in it's capability to provide information. The interdependency , provides additional control of correctness of the knowledge base. I think , this is what Spectrum wants to tell us. It's not better, it's more widespread and with it it's more difficult to erase knowledge and the participants control each other in logical correctness.

Yes.

[Spectrum]

The only argument against the statement of Spectrum is, that there is no common contradiction free query language, for this knowledge base to assert persistency in a deadlock free sense.

The above is not an issue. Any deadlock can be dealt via philosophy proper not by Science.

According to Popper, scientific theories are at best polished conjectures.
With support of its objectivity, testability and reproducibility what count is scientific knowledge has the greatest potential to contribute extensive positive benefits to humanity with a mindfulness of its related cons.

[Spectrum]

My take (on what Spectrum says) is that the scientific method is itself a philosophy. For example falsifiability is at route a philosophical choice about epistemology. It is at heart a decision about what can be known and why and how to go about it. I would also say it leans heavily on practicality. So not just knowledge but useful repeatable practical knowledge.
The scientific method is not the only route to knowledge but it is the best, so far, route to the 'most' accurate knowledge humans can devise. If you have a theory which has no mechanism, makes no predictions and cannot be falsified and then ignore methodologies like double blinding and so on then you need an extremely good reason to do so. And no one should simply take your word for it. For example show me a God powered computer and I might start to reconsider my position on your religion.

Agree and good point.

[Spectrum]

Some individuals trust their experience/perception more than expert opinion or knowledge/experience that is second hand for all facets of their life. Perhaps they live in the "Show Me" state. These folks make threads like this one: why believe in something that is unobservable and unproveable?

OTOH, there are two other sets of people: those that separate their life into things they feel should be observable/provable and those that aren't. They are OK with the concept of faith, in an area that is unprovable (like religiosity). A second group feels that everything might have at least a portion of metaphysical qualities, so everything can be more (perhaps much more) than what can be observed. They might be OK with the idea of sprites helping airplanes fly, even after taking and believing/understanding an aeronautics course.

The OP is critical to balance against theists who fly planes into twin buildings killing 3,000+ innocents merely believing in the existence of a God that is illusory.

This is where the "Show Me" state is critical, i.e. 'show me' where is your God who sent down a message in a holy book laden with evil elements to a prophet that inspire believers - as a divine duty - to kill innocent people.

"Show me" where is the real God who command all female believers must dress like this?



"Show me" the real God who sanction husbands to beat their wives.

[Spectrum]

Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Why believe in gravity when...
Why believe in anything?
Science never 'proves' anything!
Philosophy never 'proves' anything!
'Proof' (an emotional plea) is whatever it takes to convince you.
For some, a flower is 'proof' of God!
And you cannot argue that.
You can make your acceptable 'proof' so impossible that you never have to deal with it. A big wall.
'Proof' and 'facts' and 'beliefs' are the same thing!

You question tells me that you have no clue what 'beliefs' are.
One is not rationally, logically, talked into, or out of, 'beliefs'.
They are caught and spread like the infection of 'thought/ego' that they are!
Criminy, just look around you for the evidence.
'Beliefs' are insanity!
No one ever deliberately harms another unless they host a 'belief' infection!

I should be the one to wonder whether you understand what is "belief" in the philosophical sense.

Note, there are a range of meaning to the term 'belief'.

What is critical here is to differentiate between ordinary beliefs and justified true beliefs.

• Prove:
  to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument:

Yes, Philosophy do not prove anything but Science does.
Science prove its conclusions based on its Framework and System relying on evidence and argument. This is justified true beliefs that are testable, repeatable, reproducible and falsifiable.

There are no justified true beliefs for God since the idea of God emerged onto human consciousness.

I have demonstrated ... 'God is an Impossibility.'

A legend in your own mind, no doubt, but logically, rationally, you have 'demonstrated' no such thing!
The 'impossibility' is for the vain ego to attempt to 'prove/demonstrate' that anything, ever, 'doesn't exist'!
Existence is ALL inclusive!
Again, your claim is shallow, self-serving and ignorant!

Show me how the proof of God is a possibility?

Despite the above, why do theists continue to believe in a God even to the extent of killing non-theists when they perceive threats against theism?

Because 'beliefs' are an infection of the EGO! Who we 'think' ourselves to be!
We identify with our thoughts/ego/beliefs!
As mentioned, it is emotional.
A perceived threat to a belief is acted upon symptomatically!
A threat to the 'belief' is a threat to the 'self', and must be defended at all costs!
A contrary Perspective of a simple logical, rational thought, is not perceived as a threat, but a differing opinion. Perhaps one worthy of discussing, rather than burning them at the stake?

Get the difference?

Yes, emotions are involved but the psychological basis is this case is very complex and deep within the human psyche.

Why the OP question?
As I had stated above, there are very evil consequences arising from theism where some % of theists who are naturally evil prone are inspired by evil laden holy verses from God to commit evils and violence as divine duty.
What is worst is such evils inspired by a God which is in fact illusory and an impossibility.

[SimpleGuy]

This is clear since aristotles book topos, where true dialectic discussion is truly based on :

- either, commonly believed facts
- proven, and scientific asserted facts
- statements to refute , due to the fact that those statements are generally false

This was for aristotle already the ansatz for a general discussion.