Why are you atheist?

[lovett]

How does induction work with regard to God?

edit: In other words, I never experienced God, can't do experiments to verify the existence ... how would I be able to use induction?

You misunderstand me. I mean we believe in Induction without justification but not in God without justification. There has to be a reason for this. Unless one enunciates this reason the atheistic viewpoint isn't really complete.

We think that induction is usually valid based on our experience.

This is equivalent to saying that arguments based on past events being the same as future events are valid because, as these arguments have been valid in the past, they will be valid in the future. You are using induction to justify induction.

But what exactly do you mean by 'Induction is valid'? Are you saying this is equivalent to 'inductive knowledge is inherently correct'? Because that would be demonstrably wrong. 'Inductive reasoning has its uses' or something along those lines does not imply anything like total faith in induction along religious lines. You seem to be suggesting that the average joe walks around thinking that inductive knowledge equals knowledge, rather than just relying on it without necessarily making any positive philosophical statement about it.

I mean something along the lines of 'Inductive reasoning can lead us to knowledge'. That is, I can say I know that the sun will rise tomorrow because it has reason in the past. I can use inductive reasoning to justify my knowledge. The very fact I (or the average joe) rely on this implicitly shows that I thoroughly believe in the validity of induction.

 

[warpus]

I mean something along the lines of 'Inductive reasoning can lead us to knowledge'. That is, I can say I know that the sun will rise tomorrow because it has reason in the past. I can use inductive reasoning to justify my knowledge. The very fact I (or the average joe) rely on this implicitly shows that I thoroughly believe in the validity of induction.

Wanna make a bet that the sun will rise tomorrow?

I am willing to put down $5,000.

I'm making an extraordinary claim, according to you, so this should be a no brainer. Put your money where your mouth is.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I'm making an extraordinary claim, according to you, so this should be a no brainer.

According to Lovett, that claim is on equal level with "the Sun will not rise tomorrow". So, apparently, it's 50-50.

This is equivalent to saying that arguments based on past events being the same as future events are valid because, as these arguments have been valid in the past, they will be valid in the future.

Such arguments are valid, providing there're no significant changes that alter the situation. Since I nor see nor imagine any change that would make induction completely useless, i continue to think that it's a useful instrument.

 

[lovett]

And you believe that the sun will NOT rise tomorrow?

Who's claim is more extraordinary?

Way to not respond to the rest of my post.

Wanna make a bet that the sun will rise tomorrow?

As per the rest of you post, apologies. Basically I'd say that God* and Induction are both issues of which we cannot assess the truth. If we believe in one we must give some reasonable reasons why we demand justification for the other.

I won't accept that bet because, as you deduced, I'm playing devil's advocate. I believe in Induction but not God.


*I'm referring to God in a deistic sense which does tend to involve the idea that he is distinct from the universe. This is a rather logical progression from the idea that he created the universe.

Such arguments are valid, providing there're no significant changes that alter the situation. Since I nor see nor imagine any change that would make induction completely useless, i continue to think that it's a useful instrument.

But your very idea that they're valid is based on the idea that they're valid! It's circular reasoning!

 

[Lone Wolf]

But your very idea that they're valid is based on the idea that they're valid!

Well, on the idea that they were valid before and nothing changed to make them not valid. I guess that's the time for you to replace "induction" with "logic".

 

[lovett]

Well, on the idea that they were valid before and nothing changed to make them not valid. I guess that's the time for you to replace "induction" with "logic".

The idea that they were valid before is what is in question. You're justifying this inductively. You're saying that inductive arguments have worked in the past and therefore they will work in the future. This itself is an inductive argument. It's equivalent to saying that everything in the bible is true because the bible says everything in it is true. They're both circular arguments.

 

[nzk13]

im not an atheist but i got disillusioned by religion, espically Christianity.

i didn't know that Christians are allowed to be mean and forceful to other people... hence why i turned my back on the religious part of Christianity.

If u dont follow religion, or atheism, what exactly r u?

 

[Lone Wolf]

The idea that they were valid before is what is in question. You're justifying this inductively.

Empirically, not inductively. Most of the time, my sugestions based on induction were true before.

 

[Karalysia]

If u dont follow religion, or atheism, what exactly r u?

Why are you so eager to classify people?

 

[lovett]

Empirically, not inductively. Most of the time, my sugestions based on induction were true before.

Empirical justification is inductive justification.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Empirical justification is inductive justification.

By empirical I mean "I saw induction being useful in the past with my own eyes". How is that inductive? We're talking about the past here, I'm not making any future predictions at that stage of my reasoning.

Or do you, as advocatus diaboli, state that not only thinking that induction will continue to be useful is extraordinary but that it wasn't useful in your life and didn't sometimes give acccurate predictions so far?

No one is saying that induction is always right - we're saying that sometimes, it is right. That alone separates induction from God - no one says that God sometimes exist, sometimes doesn't.

There are many cases in life in which induction can be wrong.

On the contrary, logic is often said to be always right. So you'd better switch to "faith in logic" = "faith in God" argument.

Primitive induction (it has always happened before, so it will happen in the future) is illogical, btw. That's why it is often wrong.

 

[lovett]

By empirical I mean "I saw induction being useful in the past with my own eyes". How is that inductive? We're talking about the past here, I'm not making any future predictions at that stage of my reasoning.

Or do you, as advocatus diaboli, state that not only thinking that induction will continue to be useful is extraordinary but that it wasn't useful in your life and didn't give acccurate predictions so far?

But this statement doesn't justify induction. It's not in the form of an argument; it's just a premise. To move from this to 'induction is valid' involves an inductive step. The argument we must form is:

1)Induction has been useful in the past.
2)Things that have been useful in the past are (or tend to be) useful in the future/present.
Therefore:
3)Induction will be useful in the future/present.

We can substitute useful' for 'valid' without loss of meaning.

Number 2 paraphrases the inductive premise. It is what we mean by 'induction'. When we take this into account our argument proceeds thus:

1)Induction has been useful in the past.
2)Induction is useful.
Therefore:
3)Induction will be useful in the future/present.

The second premise is synonymous with the conclusion. This is a circular argument; something we tend not to accept. To whit, it's of the same form as:

1) Everything in the bible is true.
2) It says 'everything in the bible is true' in the bible.
Therefore:
3) Everything in the bible is true.

We are stating the conclusion in the premises.

 

[Lone Wolf]

We can substitute useful' for 'valid' without loss of meaning.

Number 2 paraphrases the inductive premise. It is what we mean by 'induction'. When we take this into account our argument proceeds thus:

1)Induction has been useful in the past.
2)Induction is useful.
Therefore:
3)Induction will be useful in the future/present.

The second premise is synonymous with the conclusion. This is a circular argument; something we tend not to accept. To whit, it's of the same form as:

1) Everything in the bible is true.
2) It says 'everything in the bible is true' in the bible.
Therefore:
3) Everything in the bible is true.

We are stating the conclusion in the premises.

My reasoning goes with the additional second step of nothing happening that would change the induction.

If the Sun explodes tomorrow, then the inductive argument "the sun raised yesterday, therefore, it will raise tomorrow" will be obviously invalid.

Induction becoming totally unusable will result in a megaabsurdistic world where every property of every object rapidly changes - something being stable and the same yesterday, today and tomorrow means that induction will be somewhat useful in regards to that "something"! Since I see no logical cause that would cause the world to behave in such an illogical impossible way, I think that induction will be useful in the future.

Of course, it's possible to make an error in the inductive reasoning and claim that there's no reason that something will cause induction to break, while being unaware of such reason existing (maybe Ctulthlu will arise tomorrow and break all induction). That's why induction is logically unsound, not because it's circular logic.

 

[lovett]

My reasoning goes with the additional second step of nothing happening that would change the induction.

This is implicit in the idea of induction.

2) "Things that have been useful in the past are (or tend to be) useful in the future/present."

The 'are' implies that nothing happens to change the validity of induction. We couldn't really use the concept of induction without this.

Regardless, it seems we agree induction is logically unjustified. Yet we all use inductive reasoning. We do not demand justification for induction. Why do we demand justification for God?

 

[Lone Wolf]

2) "Things that have been useful in the past are (or tend to be) useful in the future/present."

The 'are' implies that nothing happens to change the validity of induction.

"Are" is obviously incorrect. "Tend to be" implies that something may change the validity, asknowledging the logical flaws of induction.

Yet we all use inductive reasoning. We do not demand justification for induction. Why do we demand justification for God?

Reasonable people usually asknowledge the irrationality of induction. In fact, if some scientist used pure induction in his experiments: "each time I did my experiment of rolling the dice, I got 5, therefore all further dice rolls on Earth will be only 5's!" he'd be met with angry cries to provide a justification.

I guess people see the debate on God's existance as a scientific one - and science has (or is supposed to have, at least) high standards of justification by logic.

 

[lovett]

"Are" is obviously incorrect. "Tend to be" implies that something may change the validity, acknowledging the logical flaws of induction.

I edited my post:

Regardless, it seems we agree induction is logically unjustified. Yet we all use inductive reasoning. We do not demand justification for induction. Why do we demand justification for God?

EDIT: As you have seen!

I guess people see the debate on God's existence as a scientific one - and science has (or is supposed to have, at least) high standards of justification by logic.

But I don't think this a workable answer.

Science does not involve justification by logic. It involves observing things about the world and then drawing conclusions based one ones observations. These conclusions are inductive; we could not draw them unless we believed that the world tomorrow will be the same as the world today. That it will follow the same laws.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Science does not involve justification by logic.

Depending on the science in question. Maths is pure logic. Since most sciences use maths to some degree, some logic is present in all sciences.

There is indeed inductive element is most sciences. That's why scientific theories are subject to change with discovery of facts that contradict the inductive reasoning.

But since it's impossible to use induction to ponder the existence of an unobservable God, we can only resort to logic.

 

[warpus]

Bringing induction into this thread is like bringing tomatoes to an orgy. While potentially useful, it really detracts from the subject at hand.

 

[Gilder]

If u dont follow religion, or atheism, what exactly r u?

A human being, I should think.

 

[Ecofarm]

That the sun will rise is DEDUCTIVE reasoning, not inductive.

It's freaking astro-physics.