Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
All that i'm saying is that accepting perception implicitly requires belief without evidence.
|
We are about 2 posts from a Matrix discussion and that would be bad.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Nope. I'm saying that faith is a implicit in everybody's life. Whether you choose to have faith in a higher power is just another form of that.
Why would you assume that the bridge is safe because it hasn't failed before? Do you assume that everything that hasn't failed is safe?
|
I'm assuming the contractors did their job properly.
I'm assuming the inspectors did theirs.
I'm assuming no one has sabotaged the bridge.
I'm assuming there won't be a natural disaster while I'm crossing it like an earthquake.
I have 'faith' in none of these things though. I am assuming that the penalties for not doing a proper job such as legal action and even jail time is motivation enough to do the proper job. The only faith I have is in probability. Its far more probable that everything was up to spec due to the safeguards put in the system than that the bridge will collapse do to shoddy work. Its quite possible it was sabotaged and will collapse but again not probable. Its possible again that an earthquake or even a meteor may hit the bridge as I'm crossing but again not probable. The faith there is the faith in low numbers.
I see the probability of god lower than the probability of the universe without a god, therefore again my faith is in the numbers. Even Dawkins rates himself as almost but not quite an absolute atheist. He and I may well be wrong but its a low probability.