Originally Posted by
Cunninglinguist
Assuming "God" is sensible in some way, by what criteria are we able to tell illusion from non-illusion?
Knowledge! Mind! . inner eyes! can write a lot coz indeed its a very good question. so will write another free time .
You've also implicated that sensation is not a proof of existence. It appears you've committed yourself to a fairly hard skepticism ... which, to avoid, brings us back to the question of criteria.
You are not getting in which context I wrote this argument. Look again. I said “If we can’t see a thing this is not the proof that thing doesn’t exist” I gave the example of air. We can just feel it. I gave the example of anti protons etc. I said bacteria and got the reply that he has seen it through a sophisticated machine. Which enhance his sense of watching. As a whole I said if we cant see God with our body’s eyes then its not the proof that there is no God. There is not a little skepticism rather a hard one my dear in my statement. if You enhance your senses than you can also b witness for sure that there is a God
Contradiction is, to a large degree, a matter of interpretation. Moreover, there are two forms of contradiction; formal/ostensible/logical (Hilbertian, I call it) and material (Fregian). The first is simply an assessment of the immediate logical form, while the second requires an analysis of the objects in question, in order to make sure that they don't imply a tacit contradiction. This is where interpretation comes into play. Though, in any case, if something is formally immaculate it won't be by necessity true. An argument in which every inference is valid would not necessarily be sound, nor give true conclusions, if the premises themselves are untrue. In a similar vein, unsound arguments with false premises can render true conclusions through invalid inference.
i think you should read ist then comments on Quran. its not the discussion of contradiction's defenitions not interpretation. in reply which i stated below there is an example. ?
I think it depends on standards of proof. But the best (and probably first) test of validity and truth we have -- the principle of sufficient reason -- is one of utility. In short, the reason we think the big bang happened is because the assumptions that lead us to believe it happened are very useful to us. That said, in these fields we don't and cannot have 100% confidence in a strictly theoretical setting -- there never can be when it comes to induction --; for a science will and must change its assumptions in the light of new and good evidence, where religion may not. That science shouldn't/doesn't pretend absolute certainty is perhaps one of the more important defining characteristics that sets it apart from a vast majority of religion today.
Assumptions of big bang have been converted into a solid law for now after lot of experiences and mathematical laws. In round about 1635 it was believed that earth is static and sun is evolving around it. By the invention of Mr. Galileo the law changed and and thinking process move ahead and cosmologists said No, sun is static and earth is evolving around it after observations. By Eien Stien E=mc(square) when cosmologist found to measure the distances through light it is found that the distances is increasing. Logic is maintained that if everything is expanding then there must be a start when everything was one. After big bang this one huge particle converted into highly unimaginable particles in which our earth is one. Science started it journey and ends up what Lord has said in quran already. I have quoted so many verses like this you can read those in my other posts.
On the contrary, if we had no way of accepting the absurdity, everything itself would appear absurd and purposeless. To this extent, my God is of every form of "use" possible.
