creatrix wrote:
There is certainly more evidence that fire will burn today as it did yesterday than there is that it will not. We have only our experience to draw on when we attempt to define reality.
No, there is only evidence (not that you can account for understanding of it), that fire HAS burned, not that it WILL burn. How do you know about the future?
creatrix wrote:
As for revelations from God, I reassert that there is no proof that such an entity exists, and before we discuss revelations, you must prove that it does.
No, I simply submit my claim as to how it is possible for me to know anything, you submit yours, and we compare them.
creatrix wrote:
The idea that blind faith in an entity with no quantifiable evidence to support it is somehow on a level playing field with our perception of reality is, quite simply, ludicrous and I believe you are well aware of this.
This is ‘question begging.’ If God exists, then every one of your thoughts and experiences is evidence for His existence. The laws of logic, for example, are universal, abstract, and invariant, all characteristics which can be accounted for in the nature of God. In order to make sense out of your perceptions, intelligibility is required. How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic? You see, when you use these laws without justification, it is you who proceeds on blind faith.
creatrix wrote:
Have revelations from God enabled you to see how to defeat a disease? How to build a car? How to irrigate land? It is observation of the physical world and that allows us to innovate.
Revelation from God is the only way to account for intelligibility, science, and knowledge, all of which are necessary for any achievement. God grants us the ability to make achievements, I have never denied this, I simply ask how you account for them.
creatrix wrote:
You say I cannot predict with certainty? here we go: The sun WILL rise tomorrow (meaning the earth will continue to revolve around the sun, giving us the illusion of sun rise). I say it with certainty. If I am wrong, I will admit that my method is not sound, but all available data suggests I am right.
You are stating a ‘belief’ not a certainty. Certain knowledge must be true, beliefs can be false. You may doubt this, but if you do, kindly provide an example of certain knowledge which is false.
creatrix wrote:
And while philosophically, I may have no basis for making the prediction, the fact that it proves to be accurate day after day after day gives it an air of reliability that you method lacks.
Problem is, the very assumption that the future will be like the past, borrows from MY worldview. Saying ‘the future will be like the past (or even probably be like the past), because the future has always been like the past in the past, is visciously circular.
creatrix wrote:
BTW, arcaico's lens scenario was not bizarre at all: it was a perfect example of how our understanding of the universe changes as we learn more.
I do not deny this, my point is that his worldview cannot account for ‘understanding’ to begin with.
Cheers,
Sye
