Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
I'm sure everybody who happens to be on a collapsing bridge absolutely knew that it was safe (except for the tacoma narrows bridge). Right? I mean, 58 out of all major bridges in the world have collapsed, so what are the odds of both a bridge collapsing, and that a specific person, out of the billions on this planet, would happen to be on it? They've got to be astronomical. I'm starting to convince myself it never happened- how could it, the odds are against it?
|
You're confusing statistical improbability with impossibility. No one prepares for an impossibility at all, but when one decides to prepare for an improbability one must consider the reasonability of said preparation. It's statistically improbable that I'll be killed by a deer, therefor I don't prepare for it. It's much more likely I'll get in a car accident, so I buckle up and I drive a car wit airbags. I prioritize my preparedness based on estimated probability of danger. That, of course, doesn't mean that the improbable things won't happen, but to chastise someone for being a statistic makes no sense.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Likewise? I'm sorry, i'm not sure what you're getting at here.
|
Assuming you're right and my extensive experiences in being a theist doesn't give me enough to make statements about the faithful, the same can be said of you, no? So when you post here, you're not posting for all theists.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
It's not vague, its impossible. We know nothing of nonexistence, how can we prove that we exist when we can't even prove that there is a single specific thing that doesn't exist?
|
Your question isn't impossible, it's vague. I can answer what I am guessing you're asking, but there's a chance I'm not guessing the correct interpretation of the question. Prove I exist? I can see my body, and I trust my eyes because I understand how they work. There. Boom. Answered.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Reason dictates? Why? Why would reason dictate anything? You're putting the cart before the horse here; you're reasoning that it is unreasonable for something to exist for which there is no evidence. What sort of evidence can you possibly have to make such a bold claim? What kinds of assumptions are you making about the nature of existence and what sort of rigorous justification can you offer in their defense?
|
This is getting really boring. If you're going to go that far back, then the conversation is too disconnected from reality to work. "How can you trust reason and your senses? it's clearly faith!"
Faith: belief that is not based on proof.
Proof: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
Evidence is only verifiable based on deductive reasoning and precedence based on perceptions. If you can't assume perceptions are correct, then how can we have a basis of anything? You've gone way past "faith". Faith is something that happens outside of or in spite of evidence. Evidence is something based on perception, therefore it's still completely different. I don't know how to make this more clear.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
I don't know that i can always trusts my senses. I know people who've gone crazy- they're pretty fucking convinced about some pretty, well, crazy, shit.
|
Without the basis of trusting the perception, there is no understanding. But that's completely different than belief without evidence. Evidence comes after accepting perception. Conclusions come after accepting evidence. Faith is separate from all of that because it works 'outside' of the system. It says "Yeah, that perception, evidence, proof stuff is great, and trust it... except when it comes to this old book".