I'm not Agnostic

[_Thama]

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?

You just tried to prove something inductively which can be proved deductively. Your example is correct, your logic is hopeless. Mathematical induction is a form of deductive reasoning, and induction is not considered mathematically rigorous.

If you were to follow this example up using sampling and induction, you might add every combination of odd numbers between 1 and 100, and report that 100% of the sums were even. You would then be able to state with a high degree of certainty (p < 0.05) that any 2 odd numbers equal an even number. Your certainty would increase as your sample size also increased (p <<< 0.05) but p cannot reach 0 until sample size reaches infinity. A very inefficient way to prove nothing (p =/= 0) unless you have a literal eternity to spend.

Induction cannot provide proof. This is one of the cornerstones of inductive reasoning and is taught in every science classroom at the middle school level upwards. What it can do is highlight areas where deduction may be used to provide proof, such as in the example above.

[_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?

You just tried to prove something inductively which can be proved deductively. Your example is correct, your logic is hopeless. Mathematical induction is a form of deductive reasoning, and induction is not considered mathematically rigorous.

If you were to follow this example up using sampling and induction, you might add every combination of odd numbers between 1 and 100, and report that 100% of the sums were even. You would then be able to state with a high degree of certainty (p < 0.05) that any 2 odd numbers equal an even number. Your certainty would increase as your sample size also increased (p <<< 0.05) but p cannot reach 0 until sample size reaches infinity. A very inefficient way to prove nothing (p =/= 0) unless you have a literal eternity to spend.

Induction cannot provide proof. This is one of the cornerstones of inductive reasoning and is taught in every science classroom at the middle school level upwards. What it can do is highlight areas where deduction may be used to provide proof, such as in the example above.

You're shifting the goalposts, brother. I just used induction. You said it. I showed it. Induction can be used to form a proof. I'm not talking about "logic". I'm talking about induction.

[_Jason Bourne]

Nonsense ..

It is not nonesense. Don't be so smug. This is why I usually avoid discussing this with non-believers. They are typically so smug.

There is no evidence that some entity - whatever you name it is responsible for the things you cite. None

I disagree. There is as much evidence that a creator is behind these things as there is that is all just a cosmic chance. For me at least that takes more faith to believe then believing God is responsible.

Anyway, this thread is about knowing there is not a God not me proving there is one. Nobody seems able to show me how they really know this.

[_Thama]

You're shifting the goalposts, brother. I just used induction. You said it. I showed it. Induction can be used to form a proof. I'm not talking about "logic". I'm talking about induction.

And I'm not talking about ice cream, I'm just talking about Breyer's Rocky Road. Induction is a form of logic. Logic is also the basis of mathematics, which is what your "proof" was about.

You can use plenty of induction. It can show things. It can support things. However, saying that your example of induction is a proof is simply anachronistic, unless you wish to alter the definition of the term in a similar fashion to the way Mormon's alter the definition of the word "know" in their testimonies.

[_antishock8]

Induction and deduction are two different approaches to a similar problem, which is to get a handle on reality. Induction is definitely not a form of deduction. Deduction is deduction. Induction is induction. Period.

You can use induction to prove something. It's not impossible. I demonstrated that.

Back to your assertion that reason or logic, I guess, isn't a reliable means to prove anything, well, Sir, I simply disagree. It's reasonable and logical, going back to my previous point of proving a negative, that absence of proof is proof of absence, until otherwise shown to be untrue. One can be correct in stating that there's no god because no one can produce the god, until he's shown otherwise. Zero, is a concept that isn't lost on most people. Zero is nothing. But we get it. We assign value to it. Absence isn't an abstract concept. And when you have ZERO gods to present to me, in a literal way, then you have NO god. God doesn't exist, and my proof is that I can't produce him. If you or a believer take exception to that then YOU have to produce the god. Not me.

Bam.

[_Thama]

Induction and deduction are two different approaches to a similar problem, which is to get a handle on reality.

Agreed.

Induction is definitely not a form of deduction. Deduction is deduction. Induction is induction. Period.

I never said otherwise. I said that induction is a form of logic, which it is. Deduction is another form of logic. Each have their uses and their limitations.

You can use induction to prove something. It's not impossible. I demonstrated that.

No, you can't, and no, you didn't. What you did was state a mathematically true statement, give a single example which would illustrate that statement, and claim that you just made a proof. That isn't a proof. It doesn't even resemble a proof. Proving a statement via induction is the alchemy of logic. The brightest philosophical minds in history have tried it for centuries and have found it to be impossible. Hume just about killed himself trying, and even Popper finally had to conclude that it wasn't valid in a strictly logical sense. You're telling me that your "1+1=2, therefore the sum of any 2 odd numbers is an even" (Holy logical fallacy, Batman!) just accomplished what they couldn't?

Back to your assertion that reason or logic, I guess, isn't a reliable means to prove anything, well, Sir, I simply disagree.

Again, I said nothing of the kind. Logic and reason may prove things. The specific form of logic called induction may not.

It's reasonable and logical, going back to my previous point of proving a negative, that absence of proof is proof of absence, until otherwise shown to be untrue.

This stretches the meaning of the word "proof", but the idea you refer to is certainly a valuable shortcut given our present state of finite access to information. I certainly wouldn't advocate basing your decisions on the possibility that something could possibly occur which there is no current evidence for. If your standard of "proof" is that which warrants a basis for human decision making, then sure.

One can be correct in stating that there's no god because no one can produce the god, until he's shown otherwise. Zero, is a concept that isn't lost on most people. Zero is nothing. But we get it. We assign value to it. Absence isn't an abstract concept. And when you have ZERO gods to present to me, in a literal way, then you have NO god. God doesn't exist, and my proof is that I can't produce him. If you or a believer take exception to that then YOU have to produce the god. Not me.

I can't produce hard, conclusive evidence that the first cells originated through abiotic evolution, either. Nobody, as of yet, can. This doesn't mean that it didn't occur: you just can't prove it directly--you rely on Occam's razor instead, content yourself with a certain degree of uncertainty, and accept it as the cost of doing business. Besides, when you say that I have "ZERO" gods to present to you, what exactly do you mean? I might not have "White Bearded Flying Man In The Sky" God, but what about "Lives In My Heart And Is Everywhere And Nowhere" God? There are plenty of people who would attest to the presence of that sort of God. Even if you managed to invalidate that form of God through neuroanalysis, what about "The Unifying Force Of Nature And The Universe" God and "Well, There Is That Dark Energy S*** That We Still Can't Explain" God? There's really no limit to how far you can backpedal on what constitutes "God", and so declaring positively that he/she/it/we/they doesn't exist is something of a worthless exercise.

Bam.

Please don't hurt me.

[_John Larsen]

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?

"1+1=2" is true by definition. That is not really a good example since it is established by neither induction or deduction.

[_Some Schmo]

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.

These kinds of things happen to me regularly, but I'm rarely tempted to attribute their cause to some kind of god when there are plenty of other, more reasonable explanations for them.

Off the top of my head, it occurs to me that our subconscious is far more powerful than our conscious and probably more powerful than we credit it (think of the power and eloquence of our dreams sometimes, for instance). It's likely that in potentially dangerous situations, we unconsciously pick up on subliminal cues that alert us to impending harm.

I also think about animals that seem to know when danger is coming before we do. Given that all animals are related if you go back far enough, it stands to reason that some of the abilities they evolved may have originated in common ancestors, and may be in us in various degrees of evolution.

I've often thought that our conscious mind gets in the way of the brilliance of the subconscious. Some animal behaviors seem so advanced compared to how humans handle similar situations. And misattributing certain phenomena to magical ideas like god and guardian angels appears to be a manifestation of that notion.

[_TAK]

It is not nonesense. Don't be so smug. This is why I usually avoid discussing this with non-believers. They are typically so smug.

Oh yes Smug, is a rare quality over on MAD..

[_Some Schmo]

Personally I think there is more evidence that there is a entity that we call God than there is for Santa Clause. Among these I would include the creation in which we live and all parts of it, the order and function of the universe, the ability of one of the species on this world to be self aware and even ask questions about a God and the reason they exist, the plethora of ways men have attempted to find God and the innate longing to do so.

Actually, there's more evidence for Santa Claus. Everyone's seen pictures of him or seen him in the mall, we know there's a North Pole, there are numerous consistent stories about him, and presents appear in stockings and under trees every year.

The problem isn't the evidence, but the conclusions drawn from that evidence.

The universe is infinitely bigger than just this planet, and suffers from massive chaos. In the vast majority of the universe, life is unsustainable. That there happens to be this particular planet that sustains it means this planet got lucky (so to speak - might be unlucky from a planet's point of view... if you think about it, we're all planetary parasites), given the billions of other planets that didn't get life.

I'm not sure how you derive order and function from that model. And the fact that humans are self-aware enough to ask about god speaks more about the nature of our mental processes, specifically, our imagination as well as our desire to gain comfort where we can than it gives validity to the notion of a creator.