Cheers! :victory:

I tagged you in another thread where I said that explanatory theories can be assumed true until falsified. A subtle difference but an important one in my humble opinion. — Agent Smith

Yep, I agree with that. Verification by falsification does not make explanations certain but makes them the most reasonable. To add my 2 cents - these principles of "novacula occami (simplicity) & beauty & elegance" are founded on the more fundamental principle of Sufficient Reason. I describe that principle in my video Part #4, if interested.

The 3rd step however doesn't prove the explanation (2) is true (re abduction aka argument to the best explanation) and so circularity is N/A. — Agent Smith

I think I could keep going, but I'm not sure it is worthwhile. How about we leave it here? Sounds like we are almost in agreement anyways haha.

Honestly, I don't agree with you, but I'm not sure it is worth discussing this any further. It's not really relevant to the original topic in the OP. Unless you really want to keep going, how about we leave it here?

Sure. So the order is: (1) make observations; (2) conceive an explanation that best fits the data; (3) Validate the explanation by making predictions and verify with further data. The third step is the verification by empirical evidence and is essential to the scientific method.

I think you've explained it pretty well. Alvin Plantinga would be proud of you. You've famed a formation argument for reformed epistemology in an accessible way. — Tom Storm

Thanks! And I'll read up on that Plantinga fella.

Are you a presuppositionalist? — Tom Storm

I don't believe so - I have never heard the term until now haha. Just looking for principles and trying to avoid circularity when possible.

Observations don't prove a scientific theory — Agent Smith

If I understand you correctly, you make a distinct between proof and support; i.e., observations do not prove theories but support the best theory that fit them? In which case, circularity remains: x cannot be used to support or defend x. Any empirical evidence cannot be used to defend the scientific method (whose claim is that empirical evidence can be used to defend a claim).

You also don't seem to understand that it works best when dealing with concrete subjects. It is less reliable when dealing with in the abstract. — ThinkOfOne

Do you have something to support this claim? Also, what is abstract about the argument in the video?

Some years ago, a friend of mine used a similar argument for reincarnation: The verifiable claims of Buddhism are true, therefore it is reasonable to believe that reincarnation is true. Are you buying? Why or why not? — ThinkOfOne

Given the condition that all claims come from the same source and were derived in a similar way (e.g., divine revelation, fortune-telling, etc.), then I am buying. For the same reasons as before: Given that all the verifiable claims are verified to be true, it is reasonable to infer that the source or method is reliable. Note that this is similar to the other discussion occurring in this thread: The scientific method is reliable because it can predict outcomes accurately.

What is your answer to your own questions? Are you saying it is more reasonable to assume all the unverifiable claims to be false?

I'll try, but I admit I am running out of ways to explain myself.
I've numbered the propositions below so it is easier to refer to them.

1. x cannot be used to support x. This is circular reasoning.
2. The scientific method is, simply put, verification by empirical evidence.
3. All success stories resulting from the scientific method are types of empirical evidence.
4. Therefore, these success stories cannot be used to support the scientific method.

To be extra clear: The scientific method is a correct method. It is not inherently circular. What is circular is to attempt to defend the scientific method by appealing to the scientific method. To use an analogy: The laws of logic are true. But we cannot use logic to support the laws of logic.

Hello.

You use the word "science" in the same way I use "science (modern meaning)" in the OP. In that sense, I agree with you that math, logic, epistemology, metaphysics and ethics do not fall under science (modern meaning) but under philosophy (modern meaning).

On the other hand, a lot of important and known sciences are missing from the list as I indicated above. — Alkis Piskas

Yes. I should have clarified that the list in the OP is not exhaustive - just examples.

Hello. I agree with you that a lot of limitation of the empirical sciences before the modern period was due to a lack of proper measuring tools.

Where’s that video btw? — Ansiktsburk

I think the link got taken off by the moderators haha. But you can search for the following video title on YouTube:
Philosophy vs Science | A Christian Philosophy - Part #2

Hello.

But then the methodologies are sort of self-verifying because of successful models. The success stories are the evidence. Otherwise the methodologies (and science) would have been thrown out. — jorndoe

To clarify my point: The scientific method works. No disagreement here. The only thing I want to point is that since x cannot be used to support x, so the scientific method cannot be used to support the scientific method. To keep it simple, the scientific method is verification by empirical evidence. Those success stories you mention are all forms of empirical evidence. Therefore those success stories cannot be used to support the scientific method.

To use an analogy: The laws of logic are true. But we cannot use logic to support the laws of logic. That would again be circular.

You're moving the goalposts. — 180 Proof

Could you show me where in my statements I am moving the goalpost?

do you agree that by works, we mean that insofar as the scientific method is at stake we can explain & predict phenomena amazingly accurately? — Agent Smith

I agree, and that's because there is empirical evidence that it works. I'll wait and see where you are going with this, but I worry we will run into circular reasoning again.

I don't believe I do. What do you have in mind?
— A Christian Philosophy

Huh? — Agent Smith

I was responding to the following post:

Danke for the explanation. Do you see any connection between 1 & 3? — Agent Smith

But I think we are passed that now :blush:. We can just focus on the other conversation.

I've met many Christians who do not think Christ was identical to God. — Tom Storm

That one in particular seems odd to me. "Christian" has the word "Christ" in it haha. The others you have listed may indeed be disputed. That's fine; I think what I have listed originally is at the core of all Christian branches. If philosophy validates these claims, Christianity is off to a good start.

"Verification" applies to propositions (i.e. claims) As I've pointed out, "the scientific method" is a an archive of procedural practices of unparalleled fecundity and not a proposition. — 180 Proof

I don't believe this distinction works. Propositions refer to things; things such as the scientific method. In other words, "the scientific method is a valid method" is a proposition that can be verified.

To say the scientific method works simply means it has produced many (scientific) theories that do a good job of a) explaining phenomena and b) predicting phenomena, whatever these phenomena are. — Agent Smith

I understand that. But the original point was that a method cannot be used to defend itself. As an example, imagine someone who rejects the validity of the scientific method on the premise that observations are not valid evidence (e.g. they are false perceptions). You could not defend the scientific method by pointing to phenomena or other observations, since he does not believe that observations are valid evidence.

I don't believe I do. What do you have in mind?

I don't see the point of your searching for a black cat you have already found. — Banno

If we demonstrate that the black cat is real, then we should believe it is real. What does it matter that we have "already found it" beforehand?

Sure it can be defended – it works. — 180 Proof

To clarify, I am not questioning the validity of the scientific method - it's a correct method. But my point is that the scientific method (which validates by empirical verification) cannot be validated by empirical verification, because it is circular. X cannot be used to prove x. And to claim that "it works" is to say that the scientific method has been verified empirically to work.

I don't understand what you're saying. :blush: Can you elaborate...please? — Agent Smith

I'll try. Topics may be one of the following three: (1) rationally verifiable (using reason alone), (2) empirically verifiable (observable or detectable), or (3) not verifiable at all.

Example of (1): "Nothing is true" is a self-contradiction, therefore "Some things are true" is necessarily true. This is verified without the need for empirical evidence.
Example of (2): "Whether there is methane on Mars". Best to go and collect empirical evidence.
Example of (3): "Whether there exist beings which we cannot detect or interact with in any ways". This seems unverifiable either rationally or empirically, and thus it is superfluous.

Scientism believes in (2) and correctly rejects (3), but omits (1).

Hello.

Some philosopher's would already say that Christianity has been found inadequate: case closed. — Tom Storm

Well that depends on their arguments.

What would it mean to say Christianity is true? Is this a philosophical question or a historical/scientific one? Which version of Christianity would you want tested in this way? — Tom Storm

The christian claims: e.g. that God exists; that Christ is God; that man has a soul; that good and evil are objective; etc.

so you think you can deduce transubstantiation from the cogito? — Banno

No - I believe this topic is purely theological, that is, it can only be derived based on divine revelations. That said, the philosopher may be able to uncover other christian claims (e.g. the golden rule of ethics) and eventually conclude that the bible is a trustworthy source. I explain this in my video #3. If interested, you can search for the following title in YouTube (the forum moderators don't like me posting my video links):

Philosophy vs Theology | A Christian Philosophy - Part #3

But a faithful Christian starts of with the truth. So the philosophy must be disingenuous. — Banno

The two are not incompatible. You may act as a christian, and one the side, search for truth starting from scratch. In fact, the christian is encouraged to search for truth. "Seek and you shall find".

By the way, that was a good joke.

Thanks for sharing. All I can respond is keep searching for truth. I'll do the same. If one of the religions is true and can be found, then philosophy, being the search for truth, will sooner or later find it.

Actually it isn't reasonable. X, Y and Z each stand or fall on their own accord. Since they are unverified, at best all that anyone can reasonably say about any one of them, is that it might possibly be true. Neither the number of verified claims, nor the number of unverified claims is relevant. — ThinkOfOne

It is simple induction (or sometimes called abduction): inference to the most reasonable or probable explanation. E.g. We do not know with certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow, yet it is very reasonable given our experience of the world up to now.

Let's say a given source only makes two claims. One verifiable. The other unverifiable. The verifiable claim is verified to be true. According to your argument, if the verifiable claim is verified to be true, then it is reasonable to infer that the unverifiable claim is also true. — ThinkOfOne

Keep in mind you could always remain agnostic. But let's say we had to choose. Then we should assume that the unverifiable claim is true, because the fact that there is a precedence for truth and not falsehood is a sufficient reason to tip the scale.

But also, the argument gets stronger with more verifiable claims; which better represents the case for the Christian claims.

It's justification lies in the fact that its rejection would be problematic in terms of claims that are unverifiable which simply means propositions whose truth value can't be ascertained at all. — Agent Smith

Just because some topics are not empirically verifiable, does not mean they are not verifiable or defendable by reason alone. E.g. the scientific method cannot be defended empirically (that would be circular) but it is defended by epistemology, which is a rational science.

Hello.
Indeed, philosophy is inherently critical of everything: christianity, atheism, and everything else.
That said, even if someone is biased (e.g. they subscribe to a particular religion), they can still arrive at truth, because valid arguments are valid regardless of intents.

But here is a better way to look at all this:
Philosophy is the search for truth; thus if Christianity is in fact true, then philosophy will find Christianity. And if Christianity is not true, then philosophy will find that too.

Sorry, which part?

Hello.

Just because A, B, C are true, it does not reasonably follow that X, Y and Z are necessarily true. — ThinkOfOne

It does not necessarily follow, but it it reasonable. I explain this argument in the video Part #4 haha.
But I'll give you the summary here.

If all A's we can observe are B, then it is reasonable to infer that "all A's are B", because the other possible explanation, "some A's are B and some are not", fails Occam's Razor. And if all A's are B, then the A's we cannot observe are also B.
E.g. If all swans we have observed so far are white, it is reasonable to infer that all swans are white, and we expect the next swan to be white.

Here is a closer example to the argument in the video: Suppose a fortuneteller claims he can predict what will happen to you tomorrow. He claims A (something that is not reasonably foreseeable) will happen, and indeed, A does happen the next day. Then he does it again, and again for 100 days in a row. Is it not reasonable to believe his next prediction?

Sounds like a good approach to me. If you already accept a being that is the First Cause, then here is a simple argument to tie it to the God of the bible:

Due to the Principle of Sufficient Reason, since nothing comes from nothing, then the First Cause must have necessary existence. In other words, its identity is existence.
Exodus 3:14: God's name is "I AM". I = my identity; AM = being or existence.

I'd never observed a single "christian" who'd come close to living as Jesus had lived. — 180 Proof

We should make a distinction between Christianity and the christians. No doubt, some christians are bad christians; but this does not suggest that Christianity is false; inasmuch as bad mathematicians don't make mathematics a false science.

at bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross. — 180 Proof

Being a Christian is easy in theory: It is all derived from the two great commandments (Matthew 22:36-40).
1. Love God: Admittedly this one is hard without the instructions of theologians, but generally means go to church, pray, some sacraments, etc.
2. Love your neighbour as yourself: follow the Golden Rule of ethics. Note that many people - not just christians - do this one; which means that many people are at least 50% christian.

Indeed, ideally, seeking truth should be for the sake of the good; i.e., we should only care about topics that will affect our lives. I think some philosophical topics fit that, but I agree that some don't.

Thanks for the feedback. I thought I did, at time 1:32, but I can try to emphasize it more going forward.

Maybe I'm still too hopeful and naive, but I'd say we could find the true religion in the same way we find any truths, and debunk false religions in the same way we debunk any errors:

False religions will have contradictions or will be unreasonable, e.g., fail Occam's Razor.
The true religion will have no contradictions and will be reasonable, i.e., arguments may not give certainty but at least reasonableness.

This is how religion works. I like how you described that New Testament or Quran are their "starting point of reasoning." — javi2541997

What you describe here is Theology: the search for conclusions under the starting point of some divine revelations.

A christian philosophy would be the search for truth under the starting point of reason and observations of the natural world (like any other philosophy), and then attempt to uncover the same conclusions as the christian theology. This is explained in my video Part #3 (I will not put the link because I think the moderators of the forum don't like this).

When philosophy asks "What exists" or "What's real", that encompasses all that could be asked of philosophy. [...] If objective, it [morality] exists independent of how we view it, we just need to discover it. — L'éléphant

Agreed. Since values drive our behaviours, then any values that exist objectively will dictate how we should behave.

Understood. So in your view, a philosophy would be the early stage of a science, like a fetus becoming a newborn.

In a nutshell, I think philosophy is “universal phenomenological ontology” and is distinguished from general thinking by its questions— the question of all questions grounded in “What is being?” — Xtrix

Ontology - the science of being - is definitely part of philosophy. But other sciences traditionally fit under philosophy as well, such as Ethics - the science of (truly) right conduct.

The initial conception of truth was a kind of uncovering, de-concealing, or disclosure in the early Greek period — not the correspondence type view we see today of a subject accurately describing an external object. — Xtrix

The correspondence theory is often traced back to Aristotle’s well-known definition of truth (Metaphysics 1011b25): “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true”—but virtually identical formulations can be found in Plato (Cratylus 385b2, Sophist 263b). — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Hello.

Philosophy is positing what exists and/or what is real. If we get this right, then nothing else should be confusing. — L'éléphant

Yep. Truth means correspondance to reality. Thus your definition is very similar.

On another note, I confirm that since your name corresponds to your profile pic, you are in fact positing what is real. :up:

Hello, and thank you for the feedback. Yeah - I agree that a lot of people believe in a religion because of emotions and not reason. That said, I also think the right religion can be found by reason.

The latter. The fact that scientific results are obviously true (e.g. we all take planes) shows that the scientific methods are correct, and thus so are their foundations. If a tower stands, it means its foundation is well built.

Admittedly, it is not certain because everything I ever observe could be a dream, but it is very reasonable. At the end of the day, we all behave as though what we observe is real.

Hello. I agree that questioning definitions would be a rational and not empirical science, because we cannot test what we cannot yet define. However, I'd say philosophy is more than that. E.g. ethics seeks correct behaviour, and not merely definitions.