I guess the best answer I have is that I can't anymore, and even if I could, it has been years since belief has given me anything resembling comfort and peace of mind.

For me it was a gradual process, and it was not the arguments of atheists which did it. I worked this out mostly on my own. I feel better now.

Technically speaking, generalization from observation requires inductive inference, not logical inference/deduction. Inductive inference is not properly speaking a part of logic, so, no, it doesn't close the loop.

(Now whether inductive inference is reliable and under what conditions is another matter entirely.)

(July 16, 2012 at 12:07 pm)apophenia Wrote:


Technically speaking, generalization from observation requires inductive inference, not logical inference/deduction. Inductive inference is not properly speaking a part of logic, so, no, it doesn't close the loop.

(Now whether inductive inference is reliable and under what conditions is another matter entirely.)

Do you know a lot about this? I am no philosopher, but it seems lot me that any inference requires logic, inductive or otherwise. As far as I can tell, induction only gives you data, and to arrive at any conclusions from the data you need logic.

Induction is a form of logical process, as is deduction. Ugh.

(July 16, 2012 at 11:05 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote: Can anyone offer me non-circular evidence for the reality of the past?

Can you offer me non-circular evidence for the reality of god?

(July 16, 2012 at 3:21 pm)Epimethean Wrote: Induction is a form of logical process, as is deduction. Ugh.

Mathematical induction is. Inductive reasoning, however, includes things like inferring a general principle from particular examples. Its inferences are not always certain, unlike with mathematical induction.

---

(July 16, 2012 at 3:59 pm)KnockEmOuttt Wrote:

(July 16, 2012 at 11:05 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote: Can anyone offer me non-circular evidence for the reality of the past?

Can you offer me non-circular evidence for the reality of god?

Do you reject both?

Evidence of the past: We have memory of the past that is reliable.

(July 16, 2012 at 4:40 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Evidence of the past: We have memory of the past that is reliable.

So the fact that you believe that the past is reliable...is evidence that the past is reliable?

How do you know that your memory that the past is reliable...is reliable? You're just assuming that it is. Which is circular, and thus disqualifies your argument.

(July 16, 2012 at 4:49 pm)CliveStaples Wrote:

(July 16, 2012 at 4:40 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Evidence of the past: We have memory of the past that is reliable.

So the fact that you believe that the past is reliable...is evidence that the past is reliable?

How do you know that your memory that the past is reliable...is reliable? You're just assuming that it is. Which is circular, and thus disqualifies your argument.

No, the memory is reliable, and the proof of it lies in the memory (properly basic).