I'm not Agnostic

[_harmony]

You may be right, but it doesn't follow that there is a God. It is equally probably that the world is populated with magic invisible elves that do all of the stuff we can't explain.

Under a different world view, those elves would be called guardian angels.

Just because miracles occur (if indeed they occur) it simply does not require a parental God figure to explain them.

Doesn't mean he doesn't, either.

Just sayin'.

[_JAK]

There are many mysteries in this world that just can't be explained. Go to any hospital and ask the Dr's there if they have witnessed what they believe to be miracles. My guess it that almost all of them will say yes.

Now, does the fact that a Dr thinks he saw a miracle prove there is some higher power intervening in the lives of humans? Probably not. But, the possibility must be left open that there IS a God and, for whatever reason, it chooses to intervene in some peoples lives.

How many of you have had strange premonitions that kept you out of danger? I know that I have had thoughts enter my head that kept me from dying twice. I honestly have no explanation for these thoughts. It is possible that it was just chance that these thoughts popped into my head at precisely the exact moment I needed them and I altered my actions to save my life. But I can't rule out the possibility that a higher power somehow prompted me.

Therefore, although I certainly don't believe in the Mormon or Christian God, I don't know if there is a higher power of some kind out there.

You may be right, but it doesn't follow that there is a God. It is equally probably that the world is populated with magic invisible elves that do all of the stuff we can't explain.

Just because miracles occur (if indeed they occur) it simply does not require a parental God figure to explain them.

Exactly so. There may be other explanations which have yet to be known. And we have on the other side disasters which happen to people in a given time and place. Hurricanes destroy and kill. The bridge collapse in Minneapolis killed a very small percent of the people who had traveled over that bridge over many years or had traveled over it many times. Millions, tens of millions had traveled the bridge and were not there when the bridge collapsed. Few if any have suggested that the collapse was a product of supernatural intervention. It was a terrible event. However, when the event is a spectacularly good event, a narrow escape of death, some people are quick to claim supernatural intervention.

Of course, everyone dies. But no one traveling on that bridge who died or even who was seriously injured expected that to be the case that day on that bridge in Minneapolis.

[_Scottie]

You may be right, but it doesn't follow that there is a God. It is equally probably that the world is populated with magic invisible elves that do all of the stuff we can't explain.

Just because miracles occur (if indeed they occur) it simply does not require a parental God figure to explain them.

You are exactly right. However, we can't absolutely discount that there is a God either. I can't say for certain that magical elves aren't responsible. Or the flying spaghetti monster. I don't KNOW. Now, just to be clear, I strongly BELIEVE that none of these are real and that most likely it is just random chance. I just can't say that I KNOW.

.

.

.

[_Mister Scratch]

Why would a nihilist commit suicide? If life is utterly without meaning, ending it would have no more or less value than living it. And since ending takes effort, the act wouldn't be justified.

However, there are no such things nihilists. Now there are plenty of religious people who think that other peoples lives are utterly without meaning.

Geez, I guess no one around here is a Dostoyevsky fan.

I know of at least one person whose apostasy came about as a direct result of reading The Brothers Karamazov. Does this mean, then, that Dostoyevsky constitutes "anti-Mormon literature"? If so, I can't wait to see him get "The Treatment" in the next installment of FARMS Review.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I know of at least one person whose apostasy came about as a direct result of reading The Brothers Karamazov. Does this mean, then, that Dostoyevsky constitutes "anti-Mormon literature"? If so, I can't wait to see him get "The Treatment" in the next installment of FARMS Review.

What an obsessive loon you are.

[_antishock8]

I can't understand why people don't consider the use of inductive reasoning as a means of proving a negative. If one can't use induction for proving something, then everything is true.

[_Scottie]

I can't understand why people don't consider the use of inductive reasoning as a means of proving a negative. If one can't use induction for proving something, then everything is true.

There is a difference between assuming everything is true and not assuming everything is false.

If something can't be proven one way or the other, simple logic dictates that the possibility exists that it MIGHT be true.

This is much different than saying I can't use reasoning skills to determine which things I will believe in. Just because something might be true doesn't mean I have to believe that it is true. I just can't say that I KNOW it is or is not true.

[_antishock8]

I can't understand why people don't consider the use of inductive reasoning as a means of proving a negative. If one can't use induction for proving something, then everything is true.

There is a difference between assuming everything is true and not assuming everything is false.

If something can't be proven one way or the other, simple logic dictates that the possibility exists that it MIGHT be true.

This is much different than saying I can't use reasoning skills to determine which things I will believe in. Just because something might be true doesn't mean I have to believe that it is true. I just can't say that I KNOW it is or is not true.

You just proved my point, brother. Using your logic then it's up to the individual to decide whether or not whatever point, proved through induction, is worth accepting as fact. OR, because the conclusion is disheartening it can be disregarded because there's no way to prove it infallibly.

[_Thama]

You just proved my point, brother. Using your logic then it's up to the individual to decide whether or not whatever point, proved through induction, is worth accepting as fact. OR, because the conclusion is disheartening it can be disregarded because there's no way to prove it infallibly.

You can't prove anything via induction. That's the entire point. All you can really do is establish levels of probability.

If you don't believe me, go read the latest copy of Nature or Science and let me know how many times scientists use the word "prove" (or equivalent language) to describe the results of their research. Science depends almost exclusively on induction, but good scientists understand the limits of this form of reasoning (and, hopefully, have read their Popper).

Induction must assume that there is no "weirdness" present in the universe; or that natural laws are responsible for making everything behave similarly. There are numerous real-world examples, however, that illustrate that this is not the case. As a simple case, take the lottery: a sample of hundreds or even thousands of individuals who have played the lottery would very likely reveal no jackpot winner. This sample could be repeated many times and almost certainly reveal the same result. What would be a valid conclusion?

A. Those who play the lottery are extremely unlikely to win the jackpot. (And its corollary: It is unwise to play the lottery at all from a financial standpoint.)
B. Nobody wins the lottery.

A is valid. B is invalid. (Some A --> Every A is a basic logical fallacy in predicate calculus) Lottery winners exist, but they are a data point which sampling is unlikely to be able to measure, therefore they fall outside the ability of induction to analyze completely. At the same time, we cannot say that induction provides no relevant analysis: it is perfectly valid to base one's decision-making off of A, and one need not resort to the unwarranted certainty of B's declaration to do so.

[_antishock8]

Thama. Really? Really??

1+1 = 2

Using inductive reasoning I say that when you add an odd whole number with another odd whole number you always come up with an even whole number.

How did I not just prove something?