I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity

Wiki on Epistemology

quote:

---

In common speech, a "statement of belief" is typically an expression of faith and/or trust in a person, power or other entity a paradigmatic example of such a statement of belief would be a declaration or affirmation of religious faith (as in, e.g., the Nicene Creed). While it addresses belief of this kind, epistemology is also concerned with belief in a very much broader sense of the word. In this broader sense "belief" simply means the acceptance as true of any cognitive content. To believe is to accept as true.

---

Given the statement "I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity" it seems obvious to me that the term "believe" is being used in the second sense.

If you say so....If we want to test the veracity of a theistic claim using these non-empirical methods you allude to how do we do that?Can you give an example of such a theistic claim and the non-empirical method(s) by which you assess it's veracity?AZPaul has provided a baseline example if that helps.

Well of course you do. Because any assessment of theistic positions which involves determining their veracity causes them to unravel or retreat into ambiguity.Hence the whole "I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity" thing that is the subject here.

Once again, you simply misrepresent my position and quote mine; as usual it seems.There are things which can be tested using the scientific method and things only a fool, charlatan or con-man would test using the scientific method.I have repeatedly said one should use appropriate methods and even provided you with examples.

What's the alternative? That whether or not the claim can be assessed is independent of the claim, itself?Are you just defining theological claims into being unable to be assessed empirically? Is the all just one big tautology?Well here's one claim:God flooded the planet 4500 years ago. We can test that empirically and it turns out to be wrong.Here's another one:Following Jesus' teachings throughout your life will make it fulfilling. We can't really test that empirically. But you can come to a likelihood of that being true or not. Define the claim. Determine an output. Measure it. Analyze it against what was defined. Figure out if the claim was right.How do I follow Jesus' teachings? How do I know if my life is fulfilling? Did following the teachings have an impact on my fulfillment? Was the claim likely to be true or not?

Given the rest of your post, that's quite an ironic question.Subjective notions of whether one feels fulfilled (whether fulfilment be attributed to reading the bible, eating a chocolate bar, praying to Zeus, buying a fast car or anything else one can cite as leading to fulfilment) obviously aren't going tyo be subjected to any assessment of veracity beyond what one has already internally decided in one's own mind.However the statement "I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity" isn't talking about things which exist only as one's internal state of mind are they?If these non-empirical methods you speak of are limited to internal states of mind then what relevance do they have to either God or gravity?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

If you want me to link to previous arguments of yours where you state belief in a concept you call GOD but which is completely devoid of definition or attribute (a conceptless concept if you will) - Then I can.Of all the theists I have ever come across you take ambiguity to levels I never previoulsy thought even possible. Ah yes - The ask a Rabbi methodology.

Feel free to continue mak9ing a fool of yourself. I have no problem with that. As totally irrelevant as that is, please do so if it makes you happy. I've explained that to you before but have no problem explaining yet again.As I said the the very post you are replying to, "There are things which can be tested using the scientific method and things only a fool, charlatan or con-man would test using the scientific method."Only a fool, a charlatan or con-man would think the scientific method would be of any value or worth in examining the Super Natural.

So is that when we would deploy your 'ask a Rabbi' methodology?Or did you have a different method in mind?

See Studying the supernaturalI think it's a bit harsh to descibe Mod as a fool a charlatan or a con-man...

Again, asked and answered over and over and over.I know of no possible way you could test a real GOD.

You are welcome to that belief.

How so? Well no. A devout Christian could life their life according to Jesus' teachings and then figure out: "Well this isn't fulfilling at all. That theological claim was wrong. And since I want to believe things that are likely to be true, I no longer believe that following Jesus' teaching will make my life fulfilling. I suppose I'll rethink this whole Christian thing."They tested the claim against what they experienced and determined the likelihood of the claim being true. I don't see how that has anything to do with this. FWIW, my belief in God isn't anything like my belief in gravity. I know that gravity exists. I think there is a God. I don't think they're limited to internal states of mind.

Then whether one feels fulfilled or not is hardly the best example is it?Try again.

Um, OK then....