A
AlbertBall
Guest
Yeah, i agree. I was including demonstrating in publishing research and results, however i concede that thinks don’t need to be publishing in order to be demonstrated.
- Status
T
Thing
Guest
Re: the thread title.
I don’t think its necessary to prove things. Some people still would not believe even if you proved it to them.
I don’t think its necessary to prove things. Some people still would not believe even if you proved it to them.
R
R_Daneel
Guest
Exactly. They would not believe. Because they would know it. And knowledge is infinitely superior to mere belief. Once knowledge steps in the picture, the belief is no longer necessary, not is it possible.
T
Thing
Guest
Thats an interesting idea. If you, Albert, actually knew God existed, what difference would it make. As opposed to just believing He exists.
Would your relationship with God be different in both cases.
R
R_Daneel
Guest
Well, let’s cut some slack here. The verification, falsification, demonstration principles are not always applicable to past events. Sometimes they are, when those past events left observable, physical evidence behind them. An example would be a volcanic eruption, like the one which demolished Pompeii. There is physical evidence, which can be examined and the past occurrence of the eruption thus demonstrated.Yeah, i agree. I was including demonstrating in publishing research and results, however i concede that thinks don’t need to be publishing in order to be demonstrated.
But these events are a minority. Most of the time, there is nothing left behind, just stories, sometimes written down, sometimes passed on orally. What is the procedure which historians follow in these cases? They collect as many documents as they can. They compare the documents and examine how close the descriptions are. They collect other writings from the same authors, and see if their writings are corroborated by external, independent writings. The more of these happen, the more likely it is that the descriptions are correct, and the more credibility the writings carry. Such a process only raises the likelyhood of veracity of the documents, but never makes it as certain as an observable physical evidence.
These criteria are seriously missing. There are only a few, unknown writers. They have not written anything until at least 40 or more years passed after the alleged events. There is no evidence that they were actual eye-witnesses. There are no independent comments, even though the Romans were famous for their meticulous record keepings. The writers never wrote about anything else, which could establish their credibility. On top of that, most of the writings tell us scientifical nonsense. Walking on water, resurrecting the dead, rising from the dead, magically producing food, worldwide flood, and the list goes on and on.
Now, the slack ends here. This whole appeal to historical documents is just a huge cop-out. After all God is supposed to exist now, he is supposed to be active today. According to the text God was very active back then. Ordering full-scale genocides, personally killing every human and animal on the planet (except a few selected ones). Personally giving stone tablets with his commandment carved into them. He even came in a human form and got executed (as if a god could be executed). And then he went dormant. No more communication, no more appearance.
Bring up current, observable evidence, don’t rely on old, many times translated and edited texts, which were consensed into a book, after having been arbitrarily selected from among similar writings. Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
I
Image_of_God
Guest
All of those lists of things you provided do not provide evidence for anything in and of themselves. You know this very well. Whether the assumptions are valid or not, in the end, they are still assumptions.
I
Image_of_God
Guest
This is what we’ve been saying most of this thread and you continued to deny it. Anything that is excepted without proof is analogous to an article of faith. If we do not except something as self-evident, simply because we believe it to be so (with good reason) or that we trust that it is, please demonstrate otherwise.
Yes, and whatever they are, they are based on unproven ideas. So what does that truly make of them?
I know he exists and I know because I believe it would be illogical to not believe so. But that is not proof for anything. Can you prove that he exists, so that I no longer have to just assume that he does?
It is a theory. That is the problem. It is erroneous to take theories as absolute fact. It is completely fine to believe them, but always be aware of the fact that they could be wrong. As WSP has repeatedly demonstrated, a theory is not set in stone. It can be overturned. Theories, as logical as they are, are nothing more.
At the beginning of the thread, you said you were an empiricist or at least you defended the theory with the interest that you were one. Based on your appeals to rationalism, you could not be the empiricist that we had in mind.
And I have not been lecturing for many years. Degrees, etc. are hardly a measure of true knowledge. True knowledge is obtained when we admit we know nothing, to paraphrase Socrates.
I am not going to accept these “non-negotiable” terms. If I did, then I would be forced to agree with everything you have said, much of which I find faulty. There wouldn’t be much of a point in discussing anything at that point.
I
Image_of_God
Guest
I think we agree.
R
R_Daneel
Guest
Even though you asked Albert, I will give you my answer. It depends on the information about God. If I only knew that a superior being exists, and nothing else, then I would change nothing. I refuse to believe that the Bible accurately represents this supreme being. (But let’s not get into that.)
If I also knew what his requirements are on how to conduct a life to his pleasing, then my answer depends on those requirements. If his requirements are akin to the ones described in the Old Testament (killing those who “offended” him, etc.), then I would simply flip a birdie and say a few cuss-words. And then I would accept the consequences. If I found that his requirements are to be a decent, helpful person and not to hurt others, then there would be no change necessary. If it were along these lines, but to greater level, then I would do my best to follow it. In a nutshell, this would be my response.
R
R_Daneel
Guest
As you wish. Though you are mistaken. To accept them would not force you to accept anything. Those requiremets are broad enough to allow meaningful discourse, and narrow enough to avoid meaningless posts. But, as you say, you don’t accept them, so I thank you for your answer.
I am glad we cleared it up at the beginning and not after a plethora of futile posts.
Just out of curiousity, which ones do you find unacceptable? All of them? Some of them? But don’t reply if you don’t want to.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
false. all axioms, postulates, and principles are, at their core articles of faith. please give an example of such a thing that doesnt rely on faith in its truth at somepoint in its logical build up
false, there is no reason to suspect that the current body of scientific knowledge is any more stable than it has been at any point in the past. in fact the entire march of history shows this to be a false notion. scientists in 200 years from now may feel the same way we do about the body of scientific knowledge that we currently have, as we do about the body of scientific knowledge that scientists had 200 years ago.
this is simply an historically false position to take. why would you even want to do that?
if you deny that you are talking about the current body of scientific knowledge, then what does the term 'current worldview" mean? whose current worldview?
what are you calling the ‘exact sciences’
verification/falsification schemes are self refuting and therefore false.
as you have already admitted this, why bring it up again?
logical thinking is great. thats exactly what ive been doing to you. though what do you mean by rational? what you think is rational? what i think is rational? they are quite different.
why do you always try to set terms that leave you in the best situation? you are always trying to stack the deck, you have had this temple of science crumble down around you for hundreds of posts.
your position has already been shown false. why then should it be adopted?
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
im not british.
27% of us have 4 year degrees. it is not a big deal at all.
oh, you mean ‘just me’, actually, from what you have given as your education, im much more educated than you. i simply dont feel the need to brag or to act as though people are less educated then me because they dont agree with me.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
id love to hear your expostion of this logical chain, please feel free to enlighten us
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
we dont believe in magic, just processes that we dont yet understand. the tribesman may believe in magic. do you see the difference?
unless you believe in magic, the word has no place in the conversation.
why? i dont believe in magic, i believe in clarkes 3rd law.
what you call ‘magic’ is simply a process that has yet to be explained. you keep acting like any process you dont currently understand must be magic. thats ludicrous is that an example of what they teaach in ‘honors’ courses?
A
AlbertBall
Guest
You may well be, but you clearly are NOT more educated than me in science, for you have shown time and time again that you don’t even have the most basic understanding of science.
Again i was not bragging i was pointing you that your argument is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. You do not understand science, you are ignorant of science, and due to your lack of scientific education you think you are correct.
A
AlbertBall
Guest
Again this has been clearly explained to you, just because there are processes we do not understand DOES NOT MEAN every wacky claim is just a process we do not understand. DUH!we dont believe in magic, just processes that we dont yet understand. the tribesman may believe in magic. do you see the difference?
unless you believe in magic, the word has no place in the conversation.
why? i dont believe in magic, i believe in clarkes 3rd law.
what you call ‘magic’ is simply a process that has yet to be explained. you keep acting like any process you dont currently understand must be magic. thats ludicrous is that an example of what they teaach in ‘honors’ courses?
A
AlbertBall
Guest
Again WSP, which you keep dodging…
We KNOW the bible is full of nonsense, talking snakes, world wide floods, cosmos created in 7 days. So we know the bible is NOT a credible source. So given the bible is full of fictional stories give me reason why i should believe the virgin birth is not also a fictional story?
We KNOW the bible is full of nonsense, talking snakes, world wide floods, cosmos created in 7 days. So we know the bible is NOT a credible source. So given the bible is full of fictional stories give me reason why i should believe the virgin birth is not also a fictional story?
T
Thing
Guest
I think this is one of the great proofs of Christianity; even though it is no proof at all either.Even though you asked Albert, I will give you my answer. It depends on the information about God. If I only knew that a superior being exists, and nothing else, then I would change nothing. I refuse to believe that the Bible accurately represents this supreme being. (But let’s not get into that.)
If I also knew what his requirements are on how to conduct a life to his pleasing, then my answer depends on those requirements. If his requirements are akin to the ones described in the Old Testament (killing those who “offended” him, etc.), then I would simply flip a birdie and say a few cuss-words. And then I would accept the consequences. If I found that his requirements are to be a decent, helpful person and not to hurt others, then there would be no change necessary. If it were along these lines, but to greater level, then I would do my best to follow it. In a nutshell, this would be my response.
How could such a message cause such trouble and reaction; of course, thats the other great proof of Christianity, though its no proof either; Taoism, with its own sort of Yin-Yang, did’nt attract violent reactions.
T
Thing
Guest
If there was a Creator of the universe then nothing would be impossible.
Now, you cannot prove there is not a Creator. Whereas we can show you that there is a Creation. You are sitting on it.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
what ‘scientific’ document proves that the provenance? what would science even have to do wit it?
yes they were. can you provide evidence they were not?
no there isnt. please provide evidence of this.
why not? because you dotn understand the processes by which some event occured?
they do! havent you ever seen doctor doolittle?
funny, but thats a story across a great many cultures.
there is no such thing as ‘time’. as demonstrated by the theoretical physicist Julian Barbour.
youtube.com/watch_popup?v=WKsNraFxPwk#t=19
we dont know that, at all. they are simply processes that we dont yet understand.
and i demonstrated how that is entirely possible by our current understanding of science.
what track record?
actually, considering that all these arguments have already been crushed, your simply demonstrating that you dotnt care what the truth is, but rather that your world view not be disturbed.
- Status