Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)

[Jar]

>Are you saying there will be no more Einstein's and that all our knowledge of Physics is complete?

No. But I think it's reasonable that any new discoveries will not void a sensible understanding of causality, epistimology, etc. So I refuse to shrink from the evidence our current understanding of reality presents, which does lead to the existence of God.

At some point, if you peel things back further and further, everything is based on faith. You have to believe that your eyes are not deceiving you as you look at the computer screen right now. You could be on a lab table in a Nazi prison camp right now in 1942 and all the senses coming to your mind could be introduced by electrical impulses to your brain - including the sensation of seeing the screen and typing on the keyboard. You have no way to infallibly "prove" otherwise.

So really, we all have to have faith that reality is there and makes some sort of sense and that it's generally consistent - that it's not just a dream. Otherwise, why even discuss it? If the laws of reason, physics, biology, etc. can randomly change from moment to moment. Or if we think one moment all we know will be voided by some newly discovered "principle", which will then be voided soon after by some other discovery, then we have no basis for even beginning to pursue knowledge and truth.

So if we are to pursue truth, we have to do so "reasonably", not "conclusively". I am giving a reasonable argument for God's existence. The rebuttal is that the principles applied in the argument may be voided at any moment, so the argument is useless. I disagree with that rebuttal. It is not a reasonable rebuttal. It is a blind leap due to an unwillingness to follow the facts where they lead. "Reality" has put its finger on you and you don't like it. So you hope reality will change or that you'll discover a loophole no one has ever seen before.

If this is the method of dialog you insist on, then no communication is possible. Even math is impossible. All knowledge ceases. If you choose this path, no problem. However, you then have no grounds to disagree or agree with any ideas anyone proposes. Complete insanity is the result. I suspect you agree things are knowable, consistent, etc., or you wouldn't waste your time on these internet boards.

So, with good reason, I submit that Premise 1 has not been refuted, and that the 4 Premises/Problem remain true as stated.