The reason the FSM is not true has nothing to do with consistency or logic. The reason it'snit true is because it makes untestible positive claims that, like every other religion, cannkt be tested, and therefore cannotbe proven to exist.
Are you going on faith?
What that means is that logic is self-evident and self-determinating. There is no need for a supernatural presence to justify their existence. Plus, logic is simply the result of quantifying perceptible observation, and thus wouldn't even exist if we did not. We invented logic to create rules for our own observation, and without observation, they simply would not have any cause to exist. They're a product of our own minds superimposing our own reasoning on reality, not the whims of a divine force.
My question isn't a "card" for knowledge requires faith, plan and simple.
This is my problem with atheism, it loves to make dogmatic assertions that it cannot justify, and then complains when other philosophies do the same. If an atheist can just assert something as true and beyond inquiry, then it cannot complain about any religion doing the same.
Logic, or any universal, cannot be merely limited to our own mind, less it lose its law like property. Does the law of non-contradiction, or the uniformity of nature only exist in our brains? If that is the case then it is merely arbitrary and destroys inquiry. Do we not have to believe (note the word) that such laws apply to the time when humanity didn't even exist?
The reason I am not an atheist is that atheism cannot explain anything and is self contradictory.
Not at all! I apologize if I gave you the wrong impression! I am enjoying this little discussion and feel free to comment on any and all of my work here.
My labeling of your approach as a "card' is simply because of the frequency I see it used, and slight frustration at having debunked it a dozen times over, but I suppose I'll word it again.
Knowledge does not require faith. Claims of absolute knowledge are indeed taken on faith, but simple knowledge of facts is based on simply testability and demonstrability. "Can I show/test/demonstrate this to be true?" If so, then it is accepted as knowledge, if not then it is not accepted until such a time as it can be.
---Dogmatic: adj. inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true
I have never known an atheist to claim to have absolute knowledge on anything, could you elaborate on your meaning here please? But on to your next claim:
“Does the law of non-contradiction, or the uniformity of nature only exist in our brains?”
Actually, yes they are. While it is true that non-contradiction is a property of reality, just as it is also true that nature is uniform, the laws explaining them are simply a consequence of superimposing our own perception and reasoning on what we observe. Would nature be uniform and objects non-contradictory without our perception? Yes they would, but logic would not.
And finally, you claim that “atheism doesn’t explain anything”. And you are absolutely correct. Atheism explains nothing, because atheism isn’t an explanation. It’s not designed to explain anything because it isn’t a religion. Atheism is the simple disbelief in theistic claims or in the existence of any version of a god or gods.
But you claim it’s also self contradictory? How so? Atheism makes no claims to contradict each other, so perhaps you could explain exactly what claims you think are contradictory.
I disagree with almost all of which you wrote, though I enjoyed hearing your thoughts. Eventually I would love to chat about the transcendant nature of beauty, which is one of the reasons I joined DA, however, let me focus on one particular issue first, less our conversation become too chaotic. If you wish to change the primary focus, please feel free to do so. Also, I have noticed that definitions are critical in this type of conversation.
I would contend that knowledge requires faith.
Faith is to intellectually believe, ascent and willfully trust in something or someone. Thus I know who my girlfriend is, I agree (or ascent) to the fact she is my girlfriend and I willfully trust that she will be faithful to me.
Therefore, how do I "know" the chemical formula for water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen? Have I very seen an H2O molecule? I have tested an H2O molecule? Have I tested all the H2O molecules that exist? Of course not. I have to believe that scientists know what they are talking about and have faith in what I have read is true. Let alone trust that my intellect and senses are valid.
Faith and knowledge are not opposites, but are fundamentally tied together.
---Faith (1): allegiance to duty or a person, fidelity to one's promises, sincerity of intentions, loyalty
---Faith (2): firm belief in something for which there is no proof
Your "faith" in your girlfriend refers to the former definition, while faith in a divine being refers to the latter. Moreover, "trust" and "faith" are not the same thing, but I will refer you to Merriam-Webster to confirm that. www.merriam-webster.com/dictio…
The reason you "know" the chemical formula of water is H2O is because water is, by definition, H2O. If it is not H2O, then it is not water. This isn't a matter of faith, it's a matter of definition.
"Have I tested an H2O molecule?"
---Actually yes, you have. You test trillions of them every day, even if you aren't aware of it. Just about every bodily system you have relies heavily on the intake of water. Your existence is a testament to the properties H2O molecules that we have observed, and operate through on a daily basis. I am no expert on the subject (my skills lend to evolutionary biology), so I will direct you to this informative web page on the subject. www.chemspider.com/Chemical-St…
And finally, your use of "believe [...] faith [...] trust" is a bit misleading. You're blurring the definitions of words together. Faith in the religious sense is not contingent on evidence, whereas trust in the capability of your own senses is based on evidence, as is belief in validity of modern science. You can observe and test your own senses, and observe the published results of scientific experiments, no faith necessary.
Faith does not need evidence to exist, while our knowledge of the universe is based upon evidence, by necessity. As I have said, any claim to absolute knowledge is indeed grounded in faith, but our understanding of reality has no need for it.
My take on this whole "is God real or not" argument is that its possible that if he was real, we most likely do not have the tools to find him. He could be in a state of existence that current technology couldn't possibly find him like flying a starship in interstellar space or having a secret home in the intergalactic void.
My example: Galileo proved to us that the Earth orbits around the Sun but only had the know-how and the technology to identify that Jupiter had only four moons. Thanks to modern methods we know there are over 60 moons orbiting this gas giant.
And yeah, Galileio probably would have gotten laughed at if he ever said there were more because he had no evidence to prove such a thought. Sound familiar?
Somehow they think this ONE text is completely infallible compared to the literally limitless number of historical volumes and published texts and volumes both before and after it. And in another part of the world you have others who think their one true text is the only infallible word. No point telling people if they willingly shut their ears to outside influence I guess.
Also it baffles me how much hate god-mode sues in modern fiction get when the very textbook example is still loved and supported by millions even when principles about it are so blatantly contradictory to itself...double standard anyone?
I do agree with you, I've come to learn that standardised tests are at their best an estimation, not something that is to be relied upon without question. I received an F in A-level physics and chemistry, does that mean I know jack about those subjects? Definitely not. When I took a more assessment and coursework-based science course for the next two years I excelled at those subjects.
it is funny how a being that is "incapable of evil" can undergo phases like periods of wrath or vengeance, both of which are considered evils by the very doctrine it is the symbolic figure to.
They're willing to turn a blind eye to any recorded atrocities all out of that hope for continued life.