[QUOTE=kladner;315563]One of a series of two.[/QUOTE]
I was hoping the second would be a continuation of the first :razz:
[QUOTE=kladner;315564]:razz:[/QUOTE]
The last loop seems kinda fishy to me... but it is essentially this argument that led me to a similar conclusion: God, [U]if[/U] he/she/it exists, at the very best doesn't care.

I'm inclined to think that {either God doesn't care or there is no God}, as opposed to {God is evil}, because while there is much bad in our world, there is also much good, so that the world is "pretty ok". A truly malevolent God wouldn't let the world be as good as it is, but a truly benevolent God wouldn't let the world be as bad as it is.

(The one flaw I've seen in these arguments is the oft-repeated "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all", for which I've found no refutation.)

[QUOTE=Dubslow;315565]I was hoping the second would be a continuation of the first :razz:

The last loop seems kinda fishy to me... but it is essentially this argument that led me to a similar conclusion: God, [U]if[/U] he/she/it exists, at the very best doesn't care.[/QUOTE]

You mean the bottom most green "Yes" loop? Or another? Just curious. This one struck me as just plain funny. Some of it may not quite follow. I leave that to others to dissect.

The first seems a bit more serious, though it has some odd "denominations".

[QUOTE=kladner;315566]You mean the bottom most green "Yes" loop?[/QUOTE]
"Yes". :smile:

I think something about the about the "yes" arrow pointing back to "Why didn't he?" without sufficient answer to that question is bugging me... but who knows.

[QUOTE].....the "yes" arrow pointing back to "Why didn't he?" without sufficient answer to that question.....[/QUOTE]

I agree that [I]that[/I] chart is rather loosey-goosey.

This thread could turn into a kind of Black Hole, so before it
evaporates, I'd like to place some questions on its event horizon.

Can one believe in a contradicton?
Can one believe something that has not been proven true,
so long as it has not been proven false?
Is belief in a possibility proof that those who don't are wrong?

Isn't half the work knowing what questions to have asked?

[QUOTE=davar55;315913]Can one believe something that has not been proven true, so long as it has not been proven false?[/QUOTE]I believed in the Fermat conjecture long before it was proved by Wiles. I believe in the truth of the Goldbach conjecture.

I believe that there is life elsewhere in the Universe --- in our galaxy even --- though no-one has yet proved its existence.

Consider this an existence proof.

[QUOTE=davar55;315913]Can one believe in a contradicton?[/quote]Find a person with a consistent belief system and you've found someone who doesn't believe anything.

[quote]Can one believe something that has not been proven true,
so long as it has not been proven false?[/quote]Doesn't the very [i]act[/i] of proving presuppose faith in the system of rules you are proving it within?

[SUP][SUP][SUP][SUP][SUP][SUP][SUP][COLOR="White"].[/COLOR][/SUP][/SUP][/SUP][/SUP][/SUP][/SUP][/SUP][quote=David Morin]Consider, when seeking gestalts,
The theories that science exalts.
It's not that they're known
To be written in stone.
It's just that we can't say they're false.[/quote]

"Can one believe something that has not been proven true,
so long as it has not been proven false?"

[QUOTE=xilman;315930]I believed in the Fermat conjecture long before it was proved by Wiles. I believe in the truth of the Goldbach conjecture.

I believe that there is life elsewhere in the Universe --- in our galaxy even --- though no-one has yet proved its existence.

Consider this an existence proof.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. And I think you would not accept your three examples
if "believe/believed" was replaced by "know/knew" (not yet).
If one were to label your three positions, I don't think it would
be right to use the label "agnostic" on these issues, since you're
taking a stand and not saying simply IDK or "it can't ever be known"
(my interpretation of agnosticism on an issue).

Goldbach may be unproven, but doesn't belief in its truth imply
the belief that it can (someday) be mathematically proven true?
And as to life elsewhere, doesn't the "has yet" imply a belief in
its possible eventual proof?

If you're a mathematician on Mondays, and a scientist on Tuesdays,
(just to paraphrase) why aren't you sure on Sundays?

"Can one believe something that has not been proven true,
so long as it has not been proven false?"

[quote]Doesn't the very [I]act[/I] of proving presuppose faith in the system of rules you are proving it within?[/quote]No. Logic is not based on faith. Its principles and rules are understood
and validated from the base up, and are based on reason, not the
arbitrariness of faith.

[QUOTE=davar55;315976]Its principles and rules are understood
and validated [U]from the base up[/U], and are [U]based on reason[/U][/QUOTE]

So then you hold it in faith that the base, that reason itself, is "correct"? That is to say, one must have faith in reason in order to derive anything from it.

More generally, any chain of logical implications must have a start somewhere; how do you that start is correct? And don't say that you can prove the starting assumption, because then you must have used [i]other[/i] starting assumptions to prove your initial assumption. Then you either get
a) a circular chain of conclusions (infinitely long "chain" but bounded) which is generally regarded as illogical/inconclusive,

b) an infinite chain of propositions (boundless and infinite) which cannot be created by humans because we have a decidedly finite amount of time with which to construct such a chain,
or finally,
c) a bounded and finite chain, which means that some assumption (the "initial hypothesis") is taken on faith.

Edit: b) is not quite a complete argument...