An Infinite Past?

[shunyadragon]

I know that you didn't say that seer, that is why i didn't ask you that. What i asked is that if, as you contend, life is meaningless if you are naught but a biological accident of nature, then why, what would be your reasons, for wanting to live?

In reality no one of any world view believes that life is worthless, and do not want to live unless they have severe depression and off their meds.

[Tassman]

No Shuny, this is not only about science, it is about how any of us can know universals. There is no difference between the two examples, it is just as irrational to argue from particulars to universals in example one as in example two. The problem of induction applies to all disciplines including science. This is obvious to any one without an agenda. This is also in the fact that you have not answered the most basis question - how do you/we know (with our limited experience) that the laws of nature/logic are universal and will remain so in the future.

http://www.ditext.com/russell/rus6.html

We don’t – as has been said about a million times. Science does not claim absolute truth in the philosophical sense, i.e. conclusions that must be true. What science does is develop models of nature and then multiply tests those models – retaining those that are validated, but only for as long as they are validated.

NO scientific theory can be absolutely validated – only provisionally validated. Therefore science never arrives at absolute certainty in the way you insist upon. There may always be a black swan to be discovered out there. As Stephen J. Gould said: In science, “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.” This is true of ALL well-established scientific theories from Gravity to Evolution.

Conversely, unlike science, faith-based beliefs have no way of being verified at all. None! Because they can only be based upon subjective personal experience and can only be vindicated by personal testimony – In short: Not at all.

[Tassman]

I didn't say I wouldn't want to live. Just like the house flies wants to live - but we know what we do to them.

...and we know what the random forces of nature do to us. After all, there have been five massive extinctions on this planet and every reason to expect further catastrophic events. Not to mention the starvation, disease and warfare that currently plague the majority of people on the planet. So, in terms of survival all living creatures are at risk but instinctively want to live - from flies to humans. There's no difference between them and us in this regard, apart from the escapist conceit of some humans that they will live forever.

[seer]

In reality no one of any world view believes that life is worthless, and do not want to live unless they have severe depression and off their meds.

Really? Did the Nazis think the lives of the Jews were valuable? Did the Hutu think the lives of the Tutsi were valuable? Did the Khmer Rouge think that the lives of Cambodia's intellectuals were valuable?

[seer]

No, one foolish false swan thingie means nothing in your argument, because presuppositional view.

You consider all other world views as irrational, so what?

Really Shuny? I'm not even using a presuppositional argument per se! Good grief man, I even linked the work of a famous atheist philosopher. Listen, any "rational" person can see that arguing from particulars to universal is irrational. Whether we are speaking of swans, or the laws of nature/logic. What is really going on here Shuny, is that you simply do not want to admit that you are wrong.

[seer]

I know that you didn't say that seer, that is why i didn't ask you that. What i asked is that if, as you contend, life is meaningless if you are naught but a biological accident of nature, then why, what would be your reasons, for wanting to live?

Even the house fly tries to escape when you attempt to swat it. So we have an innate desire to survive. That however does not mean we should survive or that we have inherent worth or meaning.

[shunyadragon]

Really Shuny? I'm not even using a presuppositional argument per se! Good grief man, I even linked the work of a famous atheist philosopher.

I do not care who you linked to, it remains a foolish argument. First I am not an atheist. As far as going from the particular to the universal, science does it all the time with predictions of hypothesis and theories of the unknown, and with excellent results. Black holes and the basic particles of matter unknown prior to the prediction, and guess what, science got it right, from the particular to the universal.

Listen, any "rational" person can see that arguing from particulars to universal is irrational. Whether we are speaking of swans, or the laws of nature/logic. What is really going on here Shuny, is that you simply do not want to admit that you are wrong.

No, rational people realize science is consistent from the particular to the universal all the time relying on the Law of non-contradiction'

It is your problem that you consider all other world views 'irrational' other then your Christian worldview. In your view all scientists are 'irrational,' because they 'do science' based on the logical assumption' that the Law of non-contradiction of the physical evidence applies to the past, the future and in space beyond our present knowledge. It is not a matter of wanting to or not, it is a matter of fact that science develops new knowledge all the time going to the particular to the universal and easily assuming the Law of non-contradiction is valid, because there is no evidence that it is not.

[shunyadragon]

Really? Did the Nazis think the lives of the Jews were valuable? Did the Hutu think the lives of the Tutsi were valuable? Did the Khmer Rouge think that the lives of Cambodia's intellectuals were valuable?

Nazi card always fails, First most Nazis were Christian. Second, did the Christians realized the lives of the Jews and others that do not believe as they do were slaughtered?

[shunyadragon]

Really Shuny? I'm not even using a presuppositional argument per se! Good grief man, I even linked the work of a famous atheist philosopher. Listen, any "rational" person can see that arguing from particulars to universal is irrational. Whether we are speaking of swans, or the laws of nature/logic. What is really going on here Shuny, is that you simply do not want to admit that you are wrong.

Yes you are 'per se' and in actuality':

“ . . . apart from the Christian worldview we could not know anything…But since the Christian world is true we can actually know things”.

It is not a logical argument and rejects all other possible logical arguments, because as you believe 'apart from the Christian worldview we could not now anything"

[JimL]

Even the house fly tries to escape when you attempt to swat it. So we have an innate desire to survive. That however does not mean we should survive or that we have inherent worth or meaning.

So, why do you believe that you would still have an innate desire to survive in a Godless world?

[Tassman]

Even the house fly tries to escape when you attempt to swat it. So we have an innate desire to survive.

Yes! "Survival" is the prime imperative for all living organisms – from houseflies to humans. It’s instinctive.

That however does not mean we should survive or that we have inherent worth or meaning.

Why would anyone think that living organisms “should survive", as though it was a moral question? We try to survive because our evolved instincts compel us to. That's all. As for “inherent worth”, do you believe that the human species has more inherent worth than insects - why?

[seer]

I do not care who you linked to, it remains a foolish argument. First I am not an atheist. As far as going from the particular to the universal, science does it all the time with predictions of hypothesis and theories of the unknown, and with excellent results. Black holes and the basic particles of matter unknown prior to the prediction, and guess what, science got it right, from the particular to the universal.

Nonsense Shuny, and science has not gone from particulars to universal. Since science can not know what happens in every corner of the universe. For that to happen human beings must have complete and universal knowledge of the entire universe -absolute knowledge. You can never know if the law of non-contradiction hold everywhere.

It is your problem that you consider all other world views 'irrational' other then your Christian worldview. In your view all scientists are 'irrational,' because they 'do science' based on the logical assumption' that the Law of non-contradiction of the physical evidence applies to the past, the future and in space beyond our present knowledge. It is not a matter of wanting to or not, it is a matter of fact that science develops new knowledge all the time going to the particular to the universal and easily assuming the Law of non-contradiction is valid, because there is no evidence that it is not.

Good so you agree that you are science are only assuming that law of non-contradiction holds universally. Thanks...

[seer]

Nazi card always fails, First most Nazis were Christian. Second, did the Christians realized the lives of the Jews and others that do not believe as they do were slaughtered?

That is not what I asked Shuny. You said: In reality no one of any world view believes that life is worthless.Well obviously there are people, and groups who do believe that the lives of others are worthless.

[seer]

So, why do you believe that you would still have an innate desire to survive in a Godless world?

Well Jim, I don't live in a Godless universe. But the point is moot - even if there is an innate desire to survive that does not mean we should survive or that we have inherent worth or meaning.

[shunyadragon]

That is not what I asked Shuny. You said: In reality no one of any world view believes that life is worthless.Well obviously there are people, and groups who do believe that the lives of others are worthless.

Actually no. the value of ones own purpose and life that of their immediate family and community value in life is the issue. All people of all cultures value life.