I'm not quite sure what's up with the level of indignation in your posts, Peachy, I don't think I posted with any hostility, nevertheless,
Really now, that's kind of sad. That's just like asking "how do we know if the natural is really natural?" Supernatural can be a subjective term, but it is obviously used for things that cannot be explained beyond a shadow of a doubt with facts ( even if only for a certain period of time), thus being "supernatural". Boom. There just goes your whole first paragraph.
How do we know the natural is natural? Because we CAN observe it at all! Whatever we can observe, is natural. "Supernatural" is not subjective at all, it's either possible to observe something in principle, or it isn't.
Again, "reliable" is subjective, a Fortune Teller may have made someone win the lottery, and yet that same one made another person get hit by a truck. That just shows that what is reliable to some is not always reliable to others.
You actually haven't answered my question in this response. We can put a number on reliability and also argue it on logical grounds. That's what science is, it's to show that patterns and laws exist in nature beyond what you'd expect just by random chance. We can measure how reliable a theory is OBJECTIVELY. If you apply that to "fortune tellers" you will find that they are full of crap, and any "reliablity" was just cognitive or selection bias.
That's where you're wrong. You said it yourself, what can be questionable? Errors. Where do errors come from? Logic. Simple as that. And thank you for reiterating the second sentence when it has been stated plenty of times, but sadly hardly anyone can call
that an argument. It's stating the obvious, even
after being stated several times.
No, errors do not come from logic, they come from people. If you agree that faith has nothing to do with empirical evidence, then what else is there?
Ummmmmm...no. Everything came from somewhere, do they not? These arguments of yours are starting to get abyssal....
My objection was to your claim that there is evidence to be found in "faith," when your own defintion precludes us from ever getting empirical evidence of the supernatural. That is a contradiction.
Only a fool wouldn't agree to the first statement. The Supernatural is demonstrated alone. It is demonstrated through proving the "natural" first and the "unnatural" is singled out by other means. Your "definition technicality" arguments aren't quite effective as you thought.
I don't understand how the "unnatural" is singled out by other means. How can we observe it if it isn't natural?
"Consistent" and "sound" logic is also subjective. Yes, this argument works very well to dispell your refutes.
No, they are not subjective, they are mathematical concepts. Consistency and soundness are very well-defined terms. Consistency meaning that no two theorems contradict one another, and soundness meaning that we never arrive at a false conclusion from a true premise.
Again, logic and assumptions produce errors ,which you said, is just as questionable as faith. That just shows how "trusting" these empirical observations, assumptions, and consistent logic really is. Not so much, or to be more accurate, not as much as it's cracked up to be
They do NOT produce errors, only people making mistakes produce errors.
Didn't we already go over how futile your "definition technicality" arguments are? I hope you'll realize that people can talk about two different things at the same time. In fact, most people do that in everyday life.
Yes, and that is called equivocation, which is a logical fallacy! Pick your definition and stick to it. It's disingenuous to switch between definitions at will.
Faith (and for your sake, I'll tell you the meaning of the word in context. It means "the basic premise" definition.
) To motivate faith, one must have a spark of interest in one. Through learning and comprehending, a person will be able to decide which one he or she believes in. Really now, you're acting like you've never heard of obtaining faith before. And that, in all honesty, is really sad.
Okay, but don't you agree that some of those religions are mutually contradictory? My point is that if an argument form can EVER lead to two DIFFERENT contradictory conclusions, it fails at consistency and you MUST abandon it as a valid argument. This is precisely what I am arguing is wrong with faith, as an argument form. From what I can tell though, I'm not sad but rather quite happy that I've never "obtained faith."
Again, a simple, petty argument that I believe has been used by the other person I've been debating with before you in some way/shape/ form. There will obviously be obstacles in supporting their faith for everyone to overcome. Whether that is physical or psychological, that does not matter. Those with unshakable will not falter. For the first option, that's subjective, but more importantly, being unshakable does not mean a person is not open-minded. The second option is just another reiteration. Why do you think it's faith? It's when you "see when you believe" and not "believe when you see". Again, that just knocked your whole paragraph.
I don't mean to say a person with faith is not open-minded, but they are certainly NOT open-minded about the things that follow from their faith. You say so yourself that "those with unshakable faith will not falter." Doesn't that mean that you are supposed to believe in whatever you have faith in at all costs? That isn't open minded, that is precisely the opposite. Why the heck would you want to believe something regardless of the facts? What else CAN you use besides facts and logic?
Who said there
was something wrong? Again, what you are saying is just a halfhearted argument. All I've stated was that the unexplained is an area where one can see what he or she has faith in. And I have never denied that many religions as a whole were started to compensate for the unexplained. The one thing I will deny is the "fear of the unknown" garbage of your argument. Religions aren't necessarily started out of fear. Simple as that.
What I am saying is that it is intellectually dishonest to say anything other than "I don't know" regarding "the unexplained." For example, we don't know what composes dark matter. Like any other person, I have my own preferences about what "sounds believable," but surely it would be a mistake to force myself to ONE particular theory simply because I "have faith" that it will be vindicated. If you ask me, "what is dark matter?" I will say, "I don't know, but here are some theories and the evidence and problems with each of them." If you ask me, "does God exist?" I will say, "I don't know, but there is no scientific evidence to support his existence (of course that all depends on how you actually define God and blah blah)." That is the only intellectually honest answer.
I also never argued that religions are started out of fear, I said that your statement would seem to reinforce that belief, don't put words in my mouth. Anyway there's no point in arguing that, I think we both agree that's a different topic.
Wow..... this was basically just a repeat of the other guy. Your irrelevant arguments, "dictionary technicality arguments" and your "facts" that are in reality subjective just cost you this argument. Good try though!
Facts are not subjective, that's precisely the opposite of what it means to be a fact. Logic is not subjective either. I don't understand what you mean by a "dictionary technicality argument." My m.o. is to try to get you to define the terms that you are using so I can show you what follows from them. When you accuse me of a "dictionary technicality argument" it seems like you're saying "oh that's not what I meant," or something. If that's the case, then what DID you mean? You can't weasel your way out of a debate by brushing off every argument you don't like as a "technicality" or as "being subjective."
