Faith and reason

[bahman]

Now you both agree and disagree with ChatGPT's explanation.

"If the existence of an unlimited being is logically necessary, it means that the very concept of such a being implies its existence."

I am not talking about the conclusion but the second premise.

But that is from the second premise.

To me logically necessary only means that it exists in all worlds.

[Atla]

I am not talking about the conclusion but the second premise.

But that is from the second premise.

To me logically necessary only means that it exists in all worlds.

w/e

[bahman]

But that is from the second premise.

To me logically necessary only means that it exists in all worlds.

w/e

What do you mean?

[Iwannaplato]

No. I am challenging Christian only.

Christians who believe the Bible is the exact words of God without flaws in the original writing or translations, who take things literally and never as poetic.

No. To me believing is a way to find the truth. We first believe on something and then try to see if it makes sense or not.

And what time period is considered reasonable for holding such a belief? Are there any other criteria that might extend the period?

I am currently studying several proofs of the existence of God. Some of the proofs are not based on assumptions. Some of them are very hard to counter.

Unless your memory of those experiences and your thinking are faulty.
[/quote]

What do you mean with those experiences?

The experiences that led to you deciding proofs are very hard to counter. The experiences that led you to believe that the proofs have no assumptions (I find that hard to believe actually: that they have no assumptions: no assumption that memory works to some degree, no assumption that reality is consistent and intelligible, no assumption that one is fairly sane, no assumption we are not brains in vats and being prodded occasionally so we think X makes sense, no assumptions about language and it's relation to reality and so on). But in any case you are assuming or were assuming when you wrote that that your memories of your experiences of your analysis were generally correct.

But it seems to make sense to assume that memory is at least to some degree reliable, so many of us, including you it seems, assume things we cannot prove.

I cannot follow you here. Could you please elaborate?
[/quote]We all make assumptions that we cannot prove. We all believe things we cannot prove.
And I think 'prove' is not the best word here. But that's a separate related issue.
There are so many things we can't prove. Even more than those we can't prove are reasonable to others.

[bahman]

No. I am challenging Christian only.

Christians who believe the Bible is the exact words of God without flaws in the original writing or translations, who take things literally and never as poetic.

Yes.

No. To me believing is a way to find the truth. We first believe on something and then try to see if it makes sense or not.

And what time period is considered reasonable for holding such a belief? Are there any other criteria that might extend the period?

Until the belief is not shown to be wrong.

What do you mean with those experiences?

The experiences that led to you deciding proofs are very hard to counter. The experiences that led you to believe that the proofs have no assumptions (I find that hard to believe actually: that they have no assumptions: no assumption that memory works to some degree, no assumption that reality is consistent and intelligible, no assumption that one is fairly sane, no assumption we are not brains in vats and being prodded occasionally so we think X makes sense, no assumptions about language and it's relation to reality and so on). But in any case you are assuming or were assuming when you wrote that that your memories of your experiences of your analysis were generally correct.

Well, some proof starts with a definition or definitions and premises that are evident, are, or seem to be true. The problem is mainly with the premises. One need to understand and anylaze them to see if they are true or not.

But it seems to make sense to assume that memory is at least to some degree reliable, so many of us, including you it seems, assume things we cannot prove.

I cannot follow you here. Could you please elaborate?

We all make assumptions that we cannot prove. We all believe things we cannot prove.
And I think 'prove' is not the best word here. But that's a separate related issue.
There are so many things we can't prove. Even more than those we can't prove are reasonable to others.

You need to be specific when I assume something I cannot prove.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You either have a reason for God or you don't. So it is binary. The same applies to faith. You either have faith in a specific God or you don't.

How can you be so ignorant of the reality in this case?

Scientific facts as the most credible and objective necessary entails reason [inductive] and faith [small degrees].
Induction is not of high quality reason as compared to say deduction.

Note Reasonable-faith
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/
but faith is this case is too high to be reasonably reasonable.

It is so prevalent within theology and philosophy where theologians had relied upon reason to prove the existence of God.
But ultimately is these cases, the faith [implicit] is too high to be reasonably reasonable.

I mean deduction when I talk about reason.

You are that narrow minded?
There is a continuum of reason that cannot be ignored.

[Iwannaplato]

Until the belief is not shown to be wrong.

Which might not happen in a lifetime.

Well, some proof starts with a definition or definitions and premises that are evident, are, or seem to be true. The problem is mainly with the premises. One need to understand and anylaze them to see if they are true or not.

And whatever process one uses will also have assumptions: about selves, about knowledge, about reality, about the effectiveness of analysis, about memory, likely about perception also, effectiveness of introspection will always be implicit. I'm sure there are other areas of assumptions. So, once one is done analyzing the premises, one must then analyze the premies in the process one used. And then in that process that analyzes the process of analysis. If it is the same kind of process, well that is justifying via assumptions. If it is a different process, then new assumptions arise. And so on.

You need to be specific when I assume something I cannot prove.

I've done that a number of times in relation to memory, for example, and again in this post about a few areas where nearly everyone makes assumptions including you. You can't prove memory is effective without relying on memory which means assuming it is effective. And that includes the memory used in the steps of analysis. Previous posts raise other issues and this one some others.

[bahman]

How can you be so ignorant of the reality in this case?

Scientific facts as the most credible and objective necessary entails reason [inductive] and faith [small degrees].
Induction is not of high quality reason as compared to say deduction.

Note Reasonable-faith
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/
but faith is this case is too high to be reasonably reasonable.

It is so prevalent within theology and philosophy where theologians had relied upon reason to prove the existence of God.
But ultimately is these cases, the faith [implicit] is too high to be reasonably reasonable.

I mean deduction when I talk about reason.

You are that narrow minded?
There is a continuum of reason that cannot be ignored.

Yes, but induction does not work in the case of God.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I mean deduction when I talk about reason.

You are that narrow minded?
There is a continuum of reason that cannot be ignored.

Yes, but induction does not work in the case of God.

Again your thinking is too shallow and narrow,
[not pejorative, but to prompt you need to read & think more]

Bayes' Theorem is a simple mathematical formula used for calculating conditional probabilities. It figures prominently in subjectivist or Bayesian approaches to epistemology, statistics, and inductive logic.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bayes-theorem/

Bayes' Theorem is a very common basis, theists argued for the existence of God.

What is Bayes's theorem, and how can it be used to assign probabilities to questions such as the existence of God? What scientific value does it have?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... heorem-an/

[bahman]

You are that narrow minded?
There is a continuum of reason that cannot be ignored.

Yes, but induction does not work in the case of God.

Again your thinking is too shallow and narrow,
[not pejorative, but to prompt you need to read & think more]

Bayes' Theorem is a simple mathematical formula used for calculating conditional probabilities. It figures prominently in subjectivist or Bayesian approaches to epistemology, statistics, and inductive logic.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bayes-theorem/

Bayes' Theorem is a very common basis, theists argued for the existence of God.

What is Bayes's theorem, and how can it be used to assign probabilities to questions such as the existence of God? What scientific value does it have?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... heorem-an/

I don't have access to the article.

[bahman]

Until the belief is not shown to be wrong.

Which might not happen in a lifetime.

Then that will be the duty of our children.

Well, some proof starts with a definition or definitions and premises that are evident, are, or seem to be true. The problem is mainly with the premises. One need to understand and anylaze them to see if they are true or not.

And whatever process one uses will also have assumptions: about selves, about knowledge, about reality, about the effectiveness of analysis, about memory, likely about perception also, effectiveness of introspection will always be implicit. I'm sure there are other areas of assumptions. So, once one is done analyzing the premises, one must then analyze the premies in the process one used. And then in that process that analyzes the process of analysis. If it is the same kind of process, well that is justifying via assumptions. If it is a different process, then new assumptions arise. And so on.

Again, you can assume a premise if you want to start a proof but in the end, you have to either prove it, or it has to be evident.

You need to be specific when I assume something I cannot prove.

I've done that a number of times in relation to memory, for example, and again in this post about a few areas where nearly everyone makes assumptions including you.

I didn't assume anything in OP. It would be nice of you if you could find and mention it to me so we can work around it.

You can't prove memory is effective without relying on memory which means assuming it is effective. And that includes the memory used in the steps of analysis. Previous posts raise other issues and this one some others.

I cannot follow you here. Could you please elaborate?

[Iwannaplato]

Then that will be the duty of our children.

What I meant was that at any given moment, we don't know if our assumptions are ones to move forward with or at some point in the future, we will realize we need to replace/eliminate them. So, we do the best we can with our assumptions and beliefs. Carrying them forward until they seem necessary to replace or they continue to seem to work, be right. this holds for secular and religious people, everyong. All of us making assumptions that seem to work (and some likely do work) and moving forward until they no longer seem to to us. We have many ways of avoiding noticing if they are working or not, of course. And that's my quasi pragmatist view of what's going on.

But exhorting everyone to prove their beliefs is true as if it would be irrational to have a belief or assumption without being able to prove it is not reasonable. None of us can prove all our assumptions. There is an ad hoc aspect to getting by.

Again, you can assume a premise if you want to start a proof but in the end, you have to either prove it, or it has to be evident.

One person's sense of what is evident is another person's sense of what is false. And we will always use assumptions in our analysis of our assumptions.

I didn't assume anything in OP. It would be nice of you if you could find and mention it to me so we can work around it.

You seem to think assumptions are only in the direct meaning of the words. There are implicit assumptions in the semantics of the words, in your sense that you have done correct deductive work, in your sense that language relates to reality and how it does that, in your assumption/sense that reality is intelligible, in your sense that the past directly relates to the present (iow you can make general rules about what must be through time), in your sense that you interpreted the Bible correctly and that one can do this, in your own memory of the steps you took when working this out. I am sure there are more.

We all assume things about ourselves, the universe, memory, the relationship between language and reality, our processes of reasoning, and so on. And if we use those same assumptions in the process of analyzying our assumptions, it begs the question of whether the assumptions are correct since the analyzing tools and assumptions are based on the very assumptions the process is trying to analyze.

I don't mean, at all, this disproves your process. My point is that we all assume things we cannot prove. That is what it is to be alive and in situ and not somehow omniscient.

[bahman]

Then that will be the duty of our children.

What I meant was that at any given moment, we don't know if our assumptions are ones to move forward with or at some point in the future, we will realize we need to replace/eliminate them. So, we do the best we can with our assumptions and beliefs. Carrying them forward until they seem necessary to replace or they continue to seem to work, be right. this holds for secular and religious people, everyong. All of us making assumptions that seem to work (and some likely do work) and moving forward until they no longer seem to to us. We have many ways of avoiding noticing if they are working or not, of course. And that's my quasi pragmatist view of what's going on.

Yes, that is how we proceed.

But exhorting everyone to prove their beliefs is true as if it would be irrational to have a belief or assumption without being able to prove it is not reasonable. None of us can prove all our assumptions. There is an ad hoc aspect to getting by.

If reality is intelligible and coherent then everything can be proven otherwise we are going to have problems with the assumptions we make.

Again, you can assume a premise if you want to start a proof but in the end, you have to either prove it, or it has to be evident.

One person's sense of what is evident is another person's sense of what is false. And we will always use assumptions in our analysis of our assumptions.

Can you deny that you exist? Can you deny that change exists?

I didn't assume anything in OP. It would be nice of you if you could find and mention it to me so we can work around it.

You seem to think assumptions are only in the direct meaning of the words. There are implicit assumptions in the semantics of the words,

What do you mean?

in your sense that you have done correct deductive work,

Unless otherwise is shown I have done correct deductive work.

in your sense that language relates to reality and how it does that,

Language seems functional when it comes to explaining things. If reality is intelligible and coherent then the language can explain it as well.

in your assumption/sense that reality is intelligible,

It seems so. We cannot know for sure until we find the truth or formulation that describes reality well.

in your sense that the past directly relates to the present (iow you can make general rules about what must be through time),

What do you mean?

in your sense that you interpreted the Bible correctly and that one can do this,

Yes, I interpret the Bible literally.

in your own memory of the steps you took when working this out.

It seems that my memory works well, otherwise we could not communicate.

[Age]

We have a small, finite brain size, so our imagination is limited.

Well this is obviously, irrefutably, False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

And, let us not forget that this one is probably imagining some other False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect assumption here.

No, it is obviously true, correct.

So, to this one, you human beings have a limited imagination.

I wonder what this one absolute belief here is based upon, exactly?

It this belief solely based upon the size of the human brain, alone?

You are obviously wrong, you have no argument.

I do not need an argument for this here.

As what the Truth is, exactly, is speaking for Itself here.

[Age]

I am not talking about the conclusion but the second premise.

But that is from the second premise.

To me logically necessary only means that it exists in all worlds.

To you how many 'worlds' are there?