About a week ago, I had a thread in the ED talking about the futility of religion, when this one guy came in claiming that humans can know the existence of gods through inductive reasoning. One key message was, and I quote:
Quote:
Yes, just as I also would say that we dont need objectivity inorder to act and know things to be so. We have the capacity for induction, which is just as legitimate as deduction, and is as permissible a principle for the foundation of knowledge as objectivity. I in fact go so far to say that deduction is the least likely and worst principle to base what one claims to know, given not its weakness, but its incredible rarity and near impossible levels to be accomplished not just in faiths, but in all studies. If this be the founding principle, deduction, then man can know next to nothing. This is why we use induction all the time for the foundation of what we know and hence, the possibility for people to know what god or deity is proper.
What the discussion then properly rests upon is how strong is one's inductive proof, not whether we can know or not know at all.
What the discussion then properly rests upon is how strong is one's inductive proof, not whether we can know or not know at all.
This is like Pascal's Wager on crystal meth. How does this prove anything?!?