Hell

[Matthew]

My claim was that it were powerful inductive reasons for beliveing this is the case, so I should formally add the word 'probably'. I specifically stated that it is not deductive.

I find it difficult to see how one could formulate a good inductive argument for your strong claim about the scientific method.

Premise: Application of the scientific method has led to great technological advances.
Premise: ? <Fill in the blank>
...
Conclusion: The scientific method is (probably) the best and only reliable method for evaluating truth claims.

How would you fill in the blank here to make it a good argument?

It makes a difference to a formal philosophical structure to an argument, but not to the way we practically run our lives. As we only have a limited time on this earth we kind of have to make up our minds on what we are actually going to believe. I imagine (but do not know) that you operate your life as if that statement I made was also true.

If you mean what I think you mean, then no, I don't. We do not have any control over the content of our beliefs - we cannot "make up our minds" and decide to stop believing or start believing something. What we do have control over is whether we actively take up our intellectual responsibility to reflect on them and test their rationality.

Would you argue that Jesus really can solely be relied upon to heal you or you loved ones in a real medical emergency? Or that praying for your lamps to come on will be the best way to light up your house at night? The truth claims evalauated by science have led to the advances we see. There are no truth claims (that I'm aware of) made by theism that are not highly dubious. So lets 'walk the talk' here

I agree with you that the scientific method is a reliable method for evaluating some truth claims (those within the domain of science). What I do not accept is that the scientific method is the best and only reliable method for evaluating all truth claims. I can see why you would think that theological truth claims are dubious if you think that the scientific method has such universal applicability. The problem is that it doesn't - there are many, many fields of study in which the scientific method would simply be inappropriate. (One of those fields is epistemology, into which you entered with your claim about the scientific method.) I don't make the theological claim that we should rely on God to do everything for us - on the Christian understanding, God has made us responsible for ourselves and our environment.

---

I wouldn't say we are 'obligated' to be rational, plenty of people aren't rational and we all have our irrational moments.

The point is that we should be rational, not that everyone is. The same as how everyone should be moral, but not everyone is. How is it possible to make claims about rationality if there is no universal normative standard of rationality? If you think theists (for example) are irrational for believing as they do, then on what basis (i.e. based on what standard) do you say that they are irrational?

Maybe intellectual honesty is a better way to put it, that we should strive to be as unbiased as possible, and be open to all the available evidence. Reasoning 'from' God, assuming that God is a given, immediately changes your interpretation of everything else, and you become less open to explanations that exclude God.

In order to reason, you must reason from something. You cannot have a premise-less argument, and there is no neutral ground from which we can assess rationality. In order to argue that it is irrational to believe X, we must base that argument on Y. But then what about Y? Is Y rational? And so it continues (this is called the problem of "regress"). The question is which beliefs we should reason from (if it is possible to reason at all).

[qutoe]The laws of logic may not be visible or tangible, but I would say that they are indeed measurable. [/quote]How exactly do you go about measuring a law of logic?

But even if they weren't, that doesn't mean that something else that is apparently 'self-evident' (ie. God) automatically exists. And obviously not everyone finds God to be self-evident; the existence of laws of logic can just as easily be accommodated in an atheistic world view.

I wasn't arguing such. All I am doing is challenging your view that no belief about invisible, unmeasurable, intangible entities is rational.

I would be interested to hear your account of what exactly laws of logic and why they have the properties they do according to your worldview.

---

Since when is it a principle of foundationalism that basic beliefs can not be "scrutinized"?

I'm not saying that they can't be. I'm saying that since you take such beliefs such as belief in God to be "basic" that demonstrates that you haven't scrutinized them enough.

...and how does it demonstrate that?

---

I understand the belief that the cosmos needs a creator but then who created him? If God has always existed, thus not needing a creator, why does the cosmos need a creator? The cosmos could very well be cyclical, destroying and creating itself over and over, creating what we percieve as space and time. Just like a circle it has no begining or end. But then who created the circle? When answering that with God, it is assumed that the circle must need a creator but God doesn't. Why is that? I am considerably stumped at understanding why God doesn't necessitate a cause but the cosmos does.

I'm not quite sure what your questions have to do with my post. I wasn't arguing that the universe requires a Creator (though I believe it does); I was explaining why I come to the conclusion as a Christian that everything ultimately depends on Him in some way.

What do you mean by Christian metaphysic?

The Christian view of what exists and the nature of existent objects.