Why in the year 2024 and with all the knowledge humans have now do people still believe in religion?
Why in the year 2024 and with all the knowledge humans have now do people still believe in religion?
You're viewing part of a thread.
All of this continues to go past you. You want to attack the metaphysical for its belief system yet you completely miss when you make the same logical leaps for yours. How can insurance companies prove something? Why are they right? If a court makes a decision, is that the correct one? Prove it. Only you can’t use logic or anything that comes from logical systems because, based on your attacks on religion, you’re not allowed to use the faith to prove the faith.
You want to attack the metaphysical for its belief system yet you completely miss when you make the same logical leaps for yours.
I want to challenge baseless claims. My sarcasm in response to baseless claims is intended to show how completely useless "logical leaps" actually are. I'm surprised you haven't caught on.
How can insurance companies prove something?
Interviews, dash camera footage, police reports, etc. Evidence of what happened is gathered.
If a court makes a decision, is that the correct one?
If they are applying the law fairly and without prejudice, then it is often correct.
But in a court, you at least have the opportunity for both a plaintiff and defendant to present evidence of their position.
If you had someone in court say that "god told me to do it", they had better have some strong evidence supporting that, no? In those cases, that person's lawyer may try to argue that their client is insane, and rightfully so.
Only you can’t use logic or anything that comes from logical systems because, based on your attacks on religion, you’re not allowed to use the faith to prove the faith.
Faith = the belief in something without evidence. Faith itself is not evidence for anything.
If religion is going to use faith to "prove" all their claims, they will be challenged.
You haven’t shown that an insurance decision is correct. You also didn’t show that a court decision is right. You’re not seeing the forest for the trees.
Your faith is that evidence trumps all. That is a baseless claim unless you can prove it without the structures of evidence-based discourse. You are using logic to prove your statements which is logically equivalent to “god said so.” You argue your beliefs trump theirs; you are equivalent using your foundation. Your religion is logic which, as I have pointed out many times without comment from you, is just as made up as any religion and more importantly has the introspective capabilities to prove so.
This is a fairly straightforward epistemological argument; I’ve run out of ways to say it. Good luck!
You haven’t shown that an insurance decision is correct. You also didn’t show that a court decision is right.
Are you suggesting that insurance companies and courts simply roll the dice to come up with a verdict or conclusion? That none of the evidence presented means anything?
How do you make decisions if you can't believe anything? I can't imagine having a worldview where evidence counts for nothing and faith guides my every choice. It's simply nonsensical.
Your faith is that evidence trumps all.
Evidence removes faith from the equation. And the more of it you have, the better the quality of the evidence, the more people can test the conclusion, etc., the stronger your claim/belief/hypothesis is.
This is something we learned as young children: "how did you come up with that result?" requires explanation. If you can't explain it, then you have no understanding.
I’ve run out of ways to say it. Good luck!
You and me both. Best to you.
You can’t explain logic so I’m not sure you have an understanding of the arguments you’re attempting to make. I’m not seeing any justification other than “I think it’s it right.” I’ve seen no counters to the quantitative philosophical propositions and a general lack of understanding of any of the things that underpin your belief system. You still haven’t explained why your system is right.
You still haven’t explained why your system is right.
You're asking me to explain why evidence (rather than faith) is required to substantiate a claim? Are you trolling?
If it is so self-evident, you should be able to explain why your faith in evidence trumps anyone else’s faith in anything else. You don’t know why you believe what you believe and you’re completely incapable (so far, based on the evidence you’ve provided) of doing anything beyond “James Randi says it so it must be true.” You seem to blindly believe anything anyone in a position of authority states (courts, insurance always right provided they have a modicum of evidence to support their claim). You pound the “evidence trumps everything” pulpit yet can’t explain why, logically, that might make sense.
You remind me of the evangelicals I’m also not a fan of.
If it is so self-evident, you should be able to explain why your faith in evidence trumps anyone else’s faith in anything else.
Why evidence based truth is better than no evidence faith? Again, are you trolling?
What makes you believe the messages you send are being received? Faith?
You pound the “evidence trumps everything” pulpit yet can’t explain why, logically, that might make sense.
I'll assume you aren't trolling.
If I make a claim, there are pretty much three options:
-
I can either substantiate that claim, often with evidence.
-
Or, I can say that "The claim is true, and while I can't prove it, I have faith".
-
Or, I can say " I'm not sure if the claim is true or not, but I will gather enough evidence, data, test the claim, repeat it, and see if it still holds true (a distilled version of the scientific method).
Only 1 and 3 will validate the claim, while 2 doesn't even try.
From what it sounds like, you believe that option 2 is as valid as options 1 and 3 for validating a claim and finding what's true.
What makes you think that?
You keep saying that I haven't explained why options 1 and 3 are right. I'm saying they are the best options we have.
Absolutely, 100% better than option 2, which is lazy and completely disregards any truths.
Why are 1 and 3 the correct options? Why are they even correct? Why is 2 wrong? You don’t seem to realize any of the foundation you’re building on and you’ve done nothing other than say “if I provide evidence,” that’s enough.
Here’s a thought experiment. I take you into a closed room, put purple film over a window, and tell you the sky is purple. You’ve now got irrefutable proof that the sky is purple. But wait, you say! I can go outside and find different evidence, so clearly having evidence alone is not enough. We could even sidestep the problem by saying that the sky is colorless; it’s the refraction of the light that makes the color. Different frame; different counter.
So why are you right? Why is your frame correct?
Why are 1 and 3 the correct options? Why are they even correct? Why is 2 wrong?
Why aren't they correct?
And why isn't 2 wrong?
you’ve done nothing other than say “if I provide evidence,” that’s enough.
I'm saying that providing evidence is better than not providing evidence, if the objective is to verify/confirm/support a claim.
This is universally accepted and applied to just about every aspect of life. It's how you make daily decisions, too. I'm sure you've based 100 decisions on this method just in the last day.
Here’s a thought experiment. I take you into a closed room, put purple film over a window, and tell you the sky is purple. You’ve now got irrefutable proof that the sky is purple.
Sorry, but you don't have irrefutable proof that the sky is purple, but you can say that the sky appears purple from inside that room. You haven't been able to explain why it's purple, you've only made an observation.
Science has already explained why the real sky appears in colours, and it was done through more than believing the lie of a single person.
From everything you said, it would be just as right to believe (the lie) without any further investigation. Or even worse, you'd make up a story about the gods being upset with you, and they turned the sky purple.
But wait, you say! I can go outside and find different evidence, so clearly having evidence alone is not enough.
That makes no sense. Going outside to get a different perspective, realize that the sky does not appear purple, and enter a line of further inquiry and investigation is exactly how you'd get answers.
The more evidence you gather, the closer you get to the truth. And when you have enough evidence, you'll be able to prove and test your claim with mathematical precision.
We could even sidestep the problem by saying that the sky is colorless; it’s the refraction of the light that makes the color. Different frame; different counter.
With evidence to support that hypothesis, you would be as close to right as you can be.
It would surely be better than blindly believing the liar, no?
-