Gratefulheart01:

No one get information for existence of God in a book. If there is the book and no evidence of God in life, on one will believe. Before the books were written, people have always being serving the God. In places where they don't have the books, when the books get there, they believe because they have already seen evidences that there is a God, the book only introduces them to that God. The books or religions don't tell us there is God, they only tell us about who he is and how to worship him but before the book, we ourselves would have have the conviction that there is a god which will make us believe when we see the books.

Bacteriologist:


Of course. Except Allah is a false God and doesn't exist. So a Muslim is someone who believes in "a non existent deity" nothing more nothing less.

danvon:
All forms of violence attributed to it shouldn't come from the ideology itself but rather it's crazy people

Bacteriologist:



This posts makes zero sense. An atheist is someone who totally lacks belief in the existence of any deity or God. Nothing more nothing less.

vaxx:
This continue to work all time, so long science exist, trial and test will continue regardless of existing conclusion. And whatever it is the current result of yesterday will only be base on existing belief or faith tomorrow. Science is rested on faith to formulate and come into conclusion. Newton was making lot of sense before Albert Einesten came to modify it.

felaismyhero:
stop associating faith with science! doing that,you insult science! do u know that despite their popularity in psychology circles,temperament tests are not accepted in the science world? the moment the basis for your belief is sentimental,a religious book,your feelings,science doubts it already.

vaxx:
you are not making any progress.
Faith in science works with confidence And this confidence is based on assumption that can not be empirically verified.
Science also don't answer why either. why question belong to philosophy class.
Even if you are going to read opposing veiw online. Ensure you understand it.

felaismyhero:
im not making any progress,i hear u.i doubt if you even understand what 'science' and 'faith' mean.i should scrutinize your arguments that have no basis! im not a philosophy student,so i do not use its terminologies,but that does not mean i cant reason.you talk of 'faith in science',thats impossible.give me a scientific law or theory based on faith? and you say 'why' question is in philosophy alone.thats a blinkard view,science was birthed by philosophy,so they are answering the same questions.you would surely be the one going online to get information,not me.if i was,i wud have had so much illustrations to give you.have i shown you any link since? no i havent.

vaxx:
Then let's politely end it by disagreeing peacefully as we are not making any progress.

The question you just ask there confirm it.

I only expose you to links to position my argument that what am saying is not my own limited veiw. .but scholarly veiw.


Physical science separated from main philosophy long time.if you must treat physical science as philosophy today, be ready to work with ""if hypithesis"".

Anyway have a good day.

Seun:
You mentioned Stalin who was a communist dictator. I also mistakenly thought Neitsche was one of them.


There is no “source” of anyone's morality. Rather, there are a multitude of factors which influence your moral judgments as a person. Asking for the “source” of someone's morality is like asking someone “what is the ingredient in your soup?” or “what is the food that you eat?”

vaxx:

budaatum, I tender my apology in the hope that it will be accepted... , I am sorry ......

Seun:
You mentioned Stalin who was a communist dictator.
I also mistakenly thought Neitsche was one of them.

There is no “source” of anyone's morality.
Rather, there are a multitude of factors which influence your moral judgments as a person.
Asking for the “source” of someone's morality is like asking someone “what is the ingredient in your soup?” or “what is the food that you eat?”

SarcasticGenius:
I'm sorry, but that's a rather rudderless equation. M
Most top chefs are asked all the time what the key or special ingredient in their dishes are.
So why can't a person be queried as to what the central ideology in his belief system is?

vaxx:

However, for us to do science at all we are forced to assume uniformity, which is just that an assumption. So far it has paid off. Most likely tomorrow it will pay off, but tomorrow has not yet come. Then we say it is faith based .

Read everything you can on The Problem of Induction, especially ""David Hume"" it very impressive .

budaatum:
It is amusing how you can claim "science is faith based" and mention the "problem of induction" in the same post. I guess if you're still stuck way back with Hume, it's understandable, though, being it's you, you probable don't understand Hume at all.

Try Popper's falsifiability for an update.

vaxx:

..... even popper falsifability theory was put into test and could not hold water.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

budaatum:

Your single track mind must see in black and white. Shades of grey elude you.

The failure of proving exactly any truth as expressed by the Münchhausen trilemma does not have to lead to dismissal of objectivity, as with relativism. One example of an alternative is the fallibilism of Karl Popper and Hans Albert, accepting that certainty is impossible, but that it is best to get as close as possible to truth, [b]while remebring our uncertainty

In Albert's view, the impossibility to prove any certain truth is not in itself a certain truth. [color=#000000]After all, one needs to assume some basic rules of logical inference to derive his result, and in doing so must either abandon the pursuit of "certain" justification. as above, or attempt to justify these rules, etc. He suggests that it has to be taken as true as long as nobody has come forward with a truth which is scrupulously justified as a certain truth. Several philosophers defied Albert's challenge; his responses to such criticisms can be found in his long addendum to his Treatise on Critical Reason and later articles.[/color]