SBF,
Good point that's something to think about
Kate xx
Why I'm not agnostic
by Coded Logic 84 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Coded Logic
The definition of "knowledge" is justified true belief.
We've gone over at least a dozen times before, truth is the label we apply to claims that match reality. In order to see if a claim matches reality - we LOOK AT REALITY! e.g. - evidence.
That's not circular reasoning. It's modus ponens. And without that assessment a belief can't be justified.
I genuinely don't know why you have such difficulty getting your head around this. The validity of any tool is how well it performs its intended function. It's not circular reasoning to asses a hammer by how well it drive nails. The same is true of reason and evidence. Their validity is assessed by their explanatory and predictive abilities.
-
Coded Logic
I assesd the probability of an intelligent being guiding evolution by my study of chemistry.
What in your study of chemistry led you to the conclusion that an intelligent being was guiding evolution?
-
Landy
Kate - regardless of beliefs you've made the fundamental mistake of ascribing things you don't understand to a god.
People in times past used to do that as well when they didn't understand tides, or the earth's orbit etc.
edit - when I say 'you' I mean 'we'
-
slimboyfat
We've gone over at least a dozen times before, truth is the label we apply to claims that match reality.
According to who? The most convincing theory of truth I've read about is coherence by Quine and it looks nothing like that. But then I am persuaded by Rorty that the notion of a theory of truth is itself problematic.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_theory_of_truth
A claim does not match reality. A claim is a claim and reality is reality. They are two different kinds of things. If you want to make such a bold claim as that at least provide a basis for it.
-
KateWild
Codedlogic,
The study of homochirality in nature and racemic mixtures in the lab drew me to the conclusion it's more probable that a creator guided this process than it proceeding with no guidance.
But I have already said this in the thread on my first post Codedlogic.
Do you really want to know how I draw my conclusions?
Have you read the paper Cofty posted?
Kate xx
-
KateWild
Landy,
I don't ascribe things I don't understand to God at all.
If you read carefully all of Cofty's and my exchanges you will see I am ascribing my knowledge to the probability evolution must have been guided at the point of amino acids.
Why are you convinced the formation of amino acids was an unguided process?
Kate xx
-
cofty
The study of homochirality in nature and racemic mixtures in the lab drew me to the conclusion it's more probable that a creator guided this process than it proceeding with no guidance
Why when there are so many independent studies demonstrating how it happened naturally?
-
Coded Logic
Yes, a claim can "match" reality. It can be an accurate descriptor of that which exists. I'm quite shocked you're trying to play hide the ball with the definition of truth. When people use the word "truth" this is what they mean. It's what I mean. It's the definition you'll find in the dictionary.
Under Coherence Theory the Harry Potter novels would be "true" since they're internally consistent. That's not what I'm talking about when I'm addressing God claims. Many God concepts are coherent. That doesn't make them real.
noun, plural truths [trooth z, trooths]1.2.conformity with fact or reality; verity:the truth of a statement.3.a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like:mathematical truths.4.5.actuality or actual existence. -
Coded Logic
KateWild,
Let me make sure I'm understanding your position correctly as we're talking about what is more likely. On one hand you have the odds of racemic mixtures proceeding with no guidance. On the other hand you have the odds of an intelligent being guiding the process.
Is that correct?