Rowan
Boxer of the Galaxy

Nope. Actually quite the opposite. I'm saying we must ultimately admit that neither is certainly valid to establishing some conclusions, since we can't prove the fundamentals they rely on. It's only valid in its own context, just like we can only have an intelligent conversation when we're speaking the same language.

But I also know it's a duck, even with other beliefs, we both know this is a duck based on senses and ideas we both trust. The primary difference is that some fundamnetal beliefs include trust in other senses, such as a sense of spirituality, or a thought that faith is as valid as evidence, which means in any argument they attempt to pose, it is. On points that only deal with senses and ideas we both trust, we'll agree, because we're playing by the same rules (most of everybody's understanding of reality falls into this category), on others we won't, because we don't agree on what qualifies as relevant evidence and good reason. For example, in an arguement about the existence of God, you and I won't accept feelings or spiritual 'evidence', because it's not a sense we trust in. However if an argument brought forth visual and physical evidence of God, we would be forced to acknowledge it, because we do trust in those. The reason we don't have an agreement, is because neither of us can prove it to the other with only evidence they believe is relevant and trustworthy.

Again, you don't have to have faith to complete each and every belief you have, just the first, which governs them all. I don't have to have faith in each and every point I've raised in this argument, just faith in my logic to make them worth anything. Similarly, once you have sufficient evidence, you accept or reject a conclusion, you don't need faith in that specific conclusion. But you do ultumately have faith invested into the belief that correspondence of evidence is enough to establish truth, without that, evidence wouldn't matter to you. Faith isn't a part of every link in the chain, just one, but that means faith is still always a part of the chain, no matter how small that part may be, because that one link must always have faith.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that. My set of beliefs leads me to believe that there is one universal truth, and one universal existence, and that with enough knowledge, intelligence, and empirical data, we will one day become completely aware of it. I lack the evidence to prove that, but that's the only thing that makes sense in my beliefs (alot of that is probably also a part of your fundamental beliefs). One could say that that is my fundamental belief. That belief shapes my others, that only universal senses and ideas should be able to establish that truth, that that truth is only reached when it's absolutely certain; and all of my other knowledge and beliefs all go back in some way to that fundamental understanding of reality, which I only have based on faith. My ability to function in that reality is entirely contingent upon my ability to accept it as the truth, which I can't do with logic and reason alone.

I don't believe that the truth is beyond knowing, just that we haven't gotten there yet, and that until we do, we shouldn't accept anything without some degree of skepticism.

Nope, doesn't make it certain, just means we agree. We both still have a degree of faith invested into the belief, it just happens to fit into both of our views.

It's not so much that reality changes for each of us, but that we see it differently. Some things in reality are percieved the same way regardless of our fundamental beliefs. For example, we both see the universe as the entity containing all existance (most of which we agree on what is), so all beliefs that are contingent ONLY on that point, we're likely to share. But if I see it as an object of divine creation (I don't), and you as a result of an explosion, we'll have disagreements about points contingent on those beliefs.

Another example that relies on simpler concepts. You and I both see something swimming on the lake. We both believe that feathered, winged, creatures with ornage-yellow bills that quack, are ducks. So if either of us says, hey look, it's a duck! We'll agree.

If however, on top of those beliefs I, and only I have another belief that all feathered animals that lay eggs are mammals, we may both agree 100% that that thing's a duck, but if I say, "Hey look, it's a mammal!" We'll disagree. Some ideas multiple fundamental beliefs share are compatible, because those beliefs can stand on either base. Other's can't, which is why we agree on some points and not others.

In some cases, we develop the same ideas even with different fundamental beliefs. Math for example is something we beleive in whether you're religious or not. Math however, since defined by man, shares any flaws in understanding and interpretting reality that man does. That makes it equally unreliable as our own senses. It's a part of our thoughts, our thoughts try to confirm it by seeing that it establishes our thoughts. Circular reasoning. Pretty much any metaphysical argument that has any form of positive claim, ends up relying on ciruclar reasoning. Logic and metaphysics, just like oil and water lol.

I will say it's more justiifcation to accept our fundamental belief, but no more absolute proof, or logical support (meaning my unnescessarily complex logic that goes back to the fundamentals with every single point I make; with logic contingent on our fundamental belief it does lend more logical support to the idea that there's No God, which is why we believe that), because it still ultimately relies on the same fallacious circular reasoning all beliefs do.

Cheers

In a sense. To dumb down the argument for the sake of saving myself from typing... If our senses are wrong, no data we can obtain is reliable, because we can't interpret it correctly. If our thoughts are wrong, even if we see clearly, our logic is faulty, and we misinterpret reality. Why do we trust our thoughts and senses? Without using our thoughts and senses whose trustworthiness is in question, we have no way to answer this. To get past the first, and most fundamental uncertainty, we can't use our reason, we just have to pick our answer, and hope we're right. After we've done that, and established that we do trust these things (illogically), we can move on, and build our understanding of the rest of reality around it.

Correct. We have to trust that our own perceptions are accurate, our own minds understand and translate them correctly, and our own logic is reliable, if we don't accept these as facts, we can't really know (or at least accept) anything else. Everything you and I think we know could be absolutely wrong, but as long as our wrong perceptions, opinions, and calculations agree with each other, they appear perfectly logical and correct. They form the basis of the world we know. But, we can't really know, only believe that these concepts that support our entire understanding of reality are correct. Withouth doing so, everything we claim to know becomes moot. This may however not always be the case, if and when we discover the origin of the unvierse as an absolute, only then can the big questions be answered with certainty. Though I don't have any real basis for doing so, I do believe we may reach that level some day.

The only answer is faith. I put faith into a fundamental belief that is incompatible with religion. As for why this is, I can't say. Perhaps we never really had a choice, and it was determined simply by the gene sequences that guided the development of the brain. In any case, my mind naturally only sees sense in logic, the alogical and illogical just don't click for me, never have.

It's asinine to you, because your system of beliefs doesn't allow for that kind of thought pattern, mine doesn't either, which is why I'm not religious. However the only reason it isn't allowed in our minds, is because they accept a different fundamental belief than others. In the minds of the religous, not only is that acceptable, but it makes sense. They most likely find our disbelief as asinine as you find their belief. Pragmatism isn't always universal, for you and I, logic and observable data is what works, for others, beliefs that guide them through life work.

We may see the religous as intellectually lacking, which is a bad hing in our world, they can say we're spriitually lacking, which is bad in theirs. Neither of us really care, because our beliefs don't depend on the concepts of the other side's. We see religion as detrimental to scientific advancement, new knowledge, and other things we value as people with our fundamental belief, but on the other side, they see the things we value as detrimental to the things they do.

Sorry to ask but is that you in your avatar?

I don't entirely agree with that. I don't see faith as a descision with no evidence at all, just one made without certainty. Just because a bet is reasonably safe doesn't mean you're not still gambling. Though that's mostly irrelevant in the context of my argument, as there can't really be any evidence for the fundamental beliefs that shape our perception of reality. Anything we find that we could call evidence, would be contingent on those beliefs, which means we'd be using circular reasoning. Once we take the first, huge leap of faith to form or fundamental beliefs, in science we don't have to take many more, at least not big ones, as we generally don't accept a conclusion until we're as close to certain as is possible. The same is true of religion however. It does have accuracy and consistency in its own context. The holy book doesn't change it's mind every so often, no matter how many times you read it, you get the same answer. For one whose belief is that everything in the book is true, reading the book is a test. Doesn't nescessarily have to make sense with our beliefs, as long as it does to those who have them.

Sure way to go add something while I'm responding lol. That part of that particular point was based on the hypothetical understanding that it being a nescessity to our communication was our only evidence. We have alot better reason to believe in internet than just that, but that was the only premise I mentioned.

That is a common fallacy that confuses two very different things. A belief in No God is athiesm. No belief in God is agnosticism. Agnosticism is the most logical approach, as it willingly admits that the only logical conclusion in the total abscence of evidence, is to withold judgement indefinitely.

To say I do not accept your argument because it fails to prove your conclusion is logical. To say your claim is not true because your argument fails to prove it is not. The latter is in itself a positive claim. The moment you say there is No God, you are now making the positive claim, as that immediately demands another beginning to the universe. The burden of proof is on an athiest as much as a thiest. The only person who can never bear the burden of proof is the one who never makes a claim. In a court of law for example, the failure of the prosecution to prove guilt does NOT under any circumstance prove innocence, the law simply demands that a person can't be judged guilty in that case. That's why the verdict rendered is "Not guilty" rather than "Innocent", though they seem to mean the same thing, there actually is a slight difference. To claim innocence is another positive claim, which would place the logical burden of proof on the defense (even if not the legal burden of proof remains on the prosecution).

Is it not an extrordinary claim that a universe could spontaneously come into existence without the aid of an outside force? Is it not an extraordinary claim that a universe could be so perfectly ordered that all things were testable repeatable without some force maintaining that order? What claims are extraordinary depends entirely on what one considers ordinary to begin with, which again leads back only to our untestable, unprovable fundamental beliefs. One of which, ironically enough, is that the truth leaves evidence of itself in reality, or that we can percieve reality in the first place. Without faith in those beliefs, we can't possibly come to know anything.

What I see diffferently here is where the faith comes in to play. Right now for example, you speak as though this tremendous question of whether or not there is a God is the last question we're asking, the final conclusion to top off our system of beliefs. Therfore you see faith as accepting this final conclusion in spite of reality. I see it as the beginning, the very first, the most basic understanding of existence. Therefore I see faith as the nescessary belief in the first conclusion, one beyond proof, which defines our reality, and makes drawing any other logical conclusion possible. Most people attempt to place this conclusion at the top of their system of beliefs, not even realizing that this belief is already the base, that's why you can always catch them in the act of circular reasoning, because the belief always ultimately relies on itself. I leave my fundamental understanding of existance at the base, where it belongs, and accept that all I know is contingent upon it, and therefore useless in attempting to prove it. So ultimately, I don't know. I have faith in science, empirical data, logic, and reason, but to accept these things as the truth would be contradictory to my own beliefs.

That evidence only exists in your own beliefs. You can only confirm that what you believe to be America is present in what you believe to be reality. You can only confirm you have internet in the context of your world that demands its existence for our communication right now. You cannot however, prove that that universe exists as you understand it. You can only prove that your own observations agree with themselves, and a source can't really confirm itself. You haven't proven that the internet exists, you've proven that If our communication right now requires internet, and we are now communicating, there would have to be an internet. If one of those premises is wrong, your conclusion is no longer guarenteed. Similarly those two premises are only proven by other premises, which are also proven by premises, and so on. The base of the belief is not certain, every belief we have that relies on them is only proven If that fundamental belief is correct.

A test within the confines of this universe means nothing in the context of atempting to prove the existence of something above and beyond it. In their understanding, this universe as they see it demands the existence of a higher power. In essence, their very existence is their evidence. In our view, this proves nothing, because our view does not demand that a higher power set things into motion. But If it did, then our existence would prove God exists. It's every bit as logical, it just stands on a different fundamental belief than our beliefs do. I think This is what you were really asking for, but the only answer you'd get would be another premise ultimately relying on a fundamental belief you and I don't share with the religious. So no answer a religious person could offer you would ever carry any weight.

Their evidence doesn't work in our beliefs, ours does't work in theirs. Both sides can only prove anything If their fundamental belief is correct. Neither of us know our fundamental belief is correct. Our very attempt at understanding existance is a leap of faith.