Comment Re:Hopefully (Score 1) 796
Your whole argument hinges on the claim that I (or someone else) believes in the scientific method while I consider it to be a tool (for lack of a better word).
No. My argument hinges on a statement that I called A, and on your acceptance that A is true. That's why I said, 'Statement A could be "the scientific method is the best method we know of so far"...or it could be something else entirely.' Suppose for a moment that A is the statement, "Slashdot is news for nerds. Stuff that matters." That would be something else entirely than belief in the scientific method. However, my argument still works with that statement because my argument didn't depend on belief in the scientific method at any point. My argument depended only upon there being a statement that you accepted as being true. At this point we can stop supposing that statement A is "Slashdot is news for nerds. Stuff that matters." I make precisely two claims about A. First, it's a statement, and second, you accept it as being true. Now, by the law of generalization (and assuming my argument is valid and my premisses are true) then at least one of my four conclusions must be true. If my argument is invalid then I invite you to show me where I've made my mistake.
Again, your argument falls apart because using a methodology is not making a statement. My statement in that case was that I do not know of any better methology to gather knowledge. That statement does not lead to any of your four conclusions:
1) You believe in something that's unprovable. 2) You believe circular reasoning is valid. 3) You believe at least one statement that is inexpressible because it's infinitely long. 4) You state things are true when you actually don't believe they are.
Ergo, your argument fails.
If my premisses aren't true, then I invite you to tell me why you keep making statements.
Because statements in themselves do not lead to any of your four conclusions.
My question is simple: Why do you believe in your religion (be it hindusm or christianity) and not in the others?
That may be your question now, but it certainly wasn't what I responded to. What I responded to was your quotation of Stephen F. Roberts, which I repeat here.
Stephen F. Roberts: "...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
My claim amounted to saying that Roberts' quotation was worthless insofar as rejecting the existence of any one particular god, analogously to it's worth in rejecting the number 2 as the only even prime.
The intent of that quote is not to make you reject your god(s), but to make you think why you reject others. This is the core sentence in that quote: "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods". The quote does in no way invalidate the existance of a god or gods, nor does it in itself offer any argument why you should dismiss your god(s). Those arguments are provided by yourself once you awnser why you reject other gods.
I still haven't seen you provide anything to change my mind regarding that.
It's plain English. If you do not grasp it that is not my shortcoming.
Let me summarise by saying that I am making two claims. Firstly, you (probably) believe in something without proof. And secondly, Mr. Robert's insight doesn't permit one to reject the existence any particular god.
~Loyal
You are mistaking in the first one and you do not grasp the core idea behind the second.