<snip>I really don't know what answer you expect except no, it is not possible. You may have a low opinion of my intelligence, and that's fine!, but I do hope you don't think I would say yes, we can independently now verify Caesar's invasions?
Thank you. I think that is a perfectly reasonable answer. So, are Caesar’s invasions of 54 & 55BC ‘facts’ or not?
I read a book a few years ago which was called something like biography of chromosomes. It was all about the knowledge now available of chromosomes and brought in genes as well. I have only, and yes subjectively, to think of my three siblings and myself. Different characters from same parents. , and from what I have read and heard (New Scientist, science programmes etc) the evidence leads in the direction that the genetic make-up is very influential. Plenty still to know of course, but do you disagree?
You acknowledge there is plenty still to know, but you are happy to make the assertion, anyway? You derived this knowledge from reading a book authored by experts on the topic? There is a degree of faith at work, here.
A further issue is that, while your and your siblings genetic information can be measured/observed in an objective manner, and you can (probably) be certain as to your own levels of cheerfulness, you have no way of having the same degree of certainty as to your siblings' internal states. You could rely on observation, here, but it's an area where observation is notoriously unreliable, so you're left with self-report, which has its own suite of problems within science.
Also, many sciences rely heavily on statistics for making inferences/drawing conclusions, and although there are many areas where the data is so strong as to be overwhelming, even then, you usually can't conclude anything about an individual data point. For instance, it is an accepted fact that, in general, men are taller than women. Masses of data in support of this one. True across countries and cultures. However, it's still entirely possible to walk into a room, and find a man engaged in conversation with a woman some inches taller than him.
There are any number of reasons you might be perpetually cheerful, including, I would suggest, your perception of yourself as a cheerful individual. And of course, genetics could very well play a part. But it is not possible to be certain of something like this on an individual basis.
You and others are entitled to your beliefs, as I am to mine.
It is not that you are not entitled to your beliefs, but the bald, motherfucking arrogance and ignorance with which you proclaim them and belittle those of other people.
Can you get that through your dense as granite skull?
I'm off to get a tetanus shot from being exposed to the sheer irony of you posting on this thread.
You acknowledge there is plenty still to know, but you are happy to make the assertion, anyway? You derived this knowledge from reading a book authored by experts on the topic? There is a degree of faith at work, here.
This is the nontheist counterpart to the "God of the gaps." It's the science of the gaps. "Okay science can't do this yet, but someday it will, so you are wrong, nyah."
You acknowledge there is plenty still to know, but you are happy to make the assertion, anyway? You derived this knowledge from reading a book authored by experts on the topic? There is a degree of faith at work, here.
This is the nontheist counterpart to the "God of the gaps." It's the science of the gaps. "Okay science can't do this yet, but someday it will, so you are wrong, nyah."
But it is not exactly the same. That we might never know everything is probable, but science progresses and religious faith is pretty much in the same wagon it started the journey riding. This is not a value judgement, but they are not quite equivalent.
I didn't say science and religion are equivalent. I said one thing done by scientismists is the counterpart to something done by religionists. Not even the equivalent, the counterpart. You're really reaching.
I didn't say science and religion are equivalent. I said one thing done by scientismists is the counterpart to something done by religionists. Not even the equivalent, the counterpart. You're really reaching.
coun·ter·part
noun
a person or thing holding a position or performing a function that corresponds to that of another person or thing in another place.
"the minister held talks with his French counterpart"
synonyms: equivalent, opposite number, peer, equal, coequal, parallel, complement, analog, match, twin, mate, fellow, brother, sister; formalcompeer
well, now, let me put it this way. The principal personalities of history, who were seen, heard, touched, and. even though in the case of Caesar the romans were a very bath-conscious lot, smelt, by thousands of their contemporaries are not figments of anyone's imagination. I will go back and re-read the OP in a minute, to check my exact wording, but the fact remains that there is no objective evidence for any god, any time.
I am losing the will to live; before I succumb to total paralysis of the shriveled remains of my frontal lobe, who on this thread is actually claiming there IS "objective evidence" for any god? Why keep circling back to this point? Yes there are folks here who believe in God, have argued that such a belief is valuable to them, etc. But nobody here, not even deeply committed believers, is claiming we can count, weigh, measure, observe, or test for the material presence of God. Why waste your energies reiterating a viewpoint everybody accepts?
Do you think there ever could be a method by which God can be proved scientifically?
Again: NOBODY HERE THINKS THIS. WHY KEEP BRINGING IT UP? Scientific proof of God's existence is utterly irrelevant to the practice of believing in God. It is irrelevant if there is such proof, and irrelevant if there is no such proof. Belief, by definition, is dependent not on "objective evidence" but on an enduring expectation that one's trust will be fulfilled. There is no objective evidence that, when I cross the street to the store, I will not be run down by truck. I have a belief, amounting to conviction, that I will make it safely across the street each time I try; that conviction (plus running out of milk or bread) enables me to attempt this. While I've always made it so far, and no matter how many times I've already made it, there is zero guarantee I'll make it next time. It's just a belief. That's how belief works.
Here is an added, but unanswerable, question: What are the advantages of believing God exists, even if there were agreement that there is no way of proving it scientifically? Actually, I think I'll provide an answer! The idea of an invisible god, rather than just the plain, old human one, as leader and protecter of a group may well have aided erly survival.
Lastly: if you truly regard this question as unanswerable, what in heaven's name is the point of raising it? As for how belief in a god aided early survival, you're going to have to go into a little more detail about how that works. My belief in getting across the street actually exposes me to real danger (it's a busy street which is also a T-intersection with a 4-lane highway) a couple of times a week. Believing it's necessary to sacrifice the occasional virgin to appease a god would have thinned the tribe out.
I didn't say science and religion are equivalent. I said one thing done by scientismists is the counterpart to something done by religionists. Not even the equivalent, the counterpart. You're really reaching.
coun·ter·part
noun
a person or thing holding a position or performing a function that corresponds to that of another person or thing in another place.
"the minister held talks with his French counterpart"
synonyms: equivalent, opposite number, peer, equal, coequal, parallel, complement, analog, match, twin, mate, fellow, brother, sister; formalcompeer
Me and the dictionary; What are we like?
Oh God, you do know the difference between a list of so-called synonyms, and the actual definition, right? Well, apparently not.
I didn't say science and religion are equivalent. I said one thing done by scientismists is the counterpart to something done by religionists. Not even the equivalent, the counterpart. You're really reaching.
coun·ter·part
noun
a person or thing holding a position or performing a function that corresponds to that of another person or thing in another place.
"the minister held talks with his French counterpart"
synonyms: equivalent, opposite number, peer, equal, coequal, parallel, complement, analog, match, twin, mate, fellow, brother, sister; formalcompeer
Me and the dictionary; What are we like?
Oh God, you do know the difference between a list of so-called synonyms, and the actual definition, right? Well, apparently not.
No two words ever mean the same thing. You must know this. And that's just for one meaning, and most words (counterpart included) have multiple meanings. Things that are synonyms for one of the meanings might not be synonyms for others (few here would use counterpart when speaking of having lunch with their sister, even though they are on your list and therefore according to you must mean the same thing--surely it would be reaching to claim they don't). For words that are called synonyms, good dictionaries will often give what's called a synonymy, which tells you when to use which one. Here for instance is a synonymy of "equivalent" from m-w online:
same, selfsame, very, identical, equivalent, equal mean not different or not differing from one another. same may imply and selfsame always implies that the things under consideration are one thing and not two or more things. ⟨took the same route⟩ ⟨derived from the selfsame source⟩ very, like selfsame, may imply identity, or, like same may imply likeness in kind. ⟨the very point I was trying to make⟩ identical may imply selfsameness or suggest absolute agreement in all details. ⟨identical results⟩ equivalent implies amounting to the same thing in worth or significance. ⟨two houses equivalent in market value⟩ equal implies being identical in value, magnitude, or some specified quality. ⟨equal shares in the business⟩
As you can see, these words are all synonyms, but don't "mean" the same thing.
I still think you are reaching, but perhaps I am incorrect. But another thing we share strongly is the tenacious grasp of a point, even beyond were it serves a purpose. Not always and perhaps not on this occasion, but an occurrence no less.
This is the nontheist counterpart to the "God of the gaps." It's the science of the gaps. "Okay science can't do this yet, but someday it will, so you are wrong, nyah."
But it is not exactly the same. That we might never know everything is probable, but science progresses and religious faith is pretty much in the same wagon it started the journey riding. This is not a value judgement, but they are not quite equivalent.
Sure, science progresses. That's kind of its point. It's a process of enquiry, whereby theorems are adjusted, refined, redefined, and in some cases, overturned, as more science is done. That's good. It's also a good argument against nailing your colours too firmly to 'genetics' or 'dna evidence' or 'eggs are bad for you' or what have you. Science is done by humans. Religion is done by humans. And while some humans have quite an investment in telling you that their religion has not changed in the last two thousand years, it really, really, has.
<snip>I really don't know what answer you expect except no, it is not possible. You may have a low opinion of my intelligence, and that's fine!, but I do hope you don't think I would say yes, we can independently now verify Caesar's invasions?
Thank you. I think that is a perfectly reasonable answer. So, are Caesar’s invasions of 54 & 55BC ‘facts’ or not?
I have no reason to think they are not, so always with the proviso that nothing can be 100% proved, I'll say yes!
By the way, do you have some definition of the abstract noun, fact, that I might not know?!
You and others are entitled to your beliefs, as I am to mine.
It is not that you are not entitled to your beliefs, but the bald, motherfucking arrogance and ignorance with which you proclaim them and belittle those of other people.
Can you get that through your dense as granite skull?
I'm off to get a tetanus shot from being exposed to the sheer irony of you posting on this thread.
Oh dear!! Perhaps you think I should have put a dunce's cap on my head and gone to sit in the corner or something, bowing in deference to posts such as this one of yours? No chance, especially in Hell!!
well, now, let me put it this way. The principal personalities of history, who were seen, heard, touched, and. even though in the case of Caesar the romans were a very bath-conscious lot, smelt, by thousands of their contemporaries are not figments of anyone's imagination. I will go back and re-read the OP in a minute, to check my exact wording, but the fact remains that there is no objective evidence for any god, any time.
I am losing the will to live; before I succumb to total paralysis of the shriveled remains of my frontal lobe, who on this thread is actually claiming there IS "objective evidence" for any god? Why keep circling back to this point? Yes there are folks here who believe in God, have argued that such a belief is valuable to them, etc. But nobody here, not even deeply committed believers, is claiming we can count, weigh, measure, observe, or test for the material presence of God. Why waste your energies reiterating a viewpoint everybody accepts?
Do you think there ever could be a method by which God can be proved scientifically?
Again: NOBODY HERE THINKS THIS. WHY KEEP BRINGING IT UP? Scientific proof of God's existence is utterly irrelevant to the practice of believing in God. It is irrelevant if there is such proof, and irrelevant if there is no such proof. Belief, by definition, is dependent not on "objective evidence" but on an enduring expectation that one's trust will be fulfilled.
I am sorry to have brought you to such a parlous state, but I shall still respond to the post of yesterday later on. I put it on a doc and saved it! I know that no-one has 'claimed' that there is objective evidence, but I use that word hoping - obviously unsuccessfully - to ensure there is no confusion.
There is no objective evidence that, when I cross the street to the store, I will not be run down by truck. I have a belief, amounting to conviction, that I will make it safely across the street each time I try; that conviction (plus running out of milk or bread) enables me to attempt this. While I've always made it so far, and no matter how many times I've already made it, there is zero guarantee I'll make it next time. It's just a belief. That's how belief works.
I hope you agree that it is a belief based on past, actual, practical evidence which could be checked against records of the number of people who have crossed that street without being knocked down. Not on faith alone.
Are you all right? *rushes to get the smelling salts - also to guarantee you that I am not using sarcasm at all here - please do not read it as such *
Here is an added, but unanswerable, question: What are the advantages of believing God exists, even if there were agreement that there is no way of proving it scientifically? Actually, I think I'll provide an answer! The idea of an invisible god, rather than just the plain, old human one, as leader and protecter of a group may well have aided erly survival.
Lastly: if you truly regard this question as unanswerable, what in heaven's name is the point of raising it? As for how belief in a god aided early survival, you're going to have to go into a little more detail about how that works. My belief in getting across the street actually exposes me to real danger (it's a busy street which is also a T-intersection with a 4-lane highway) a couple of times a week. Believing it's necessary to sacrifice the occasional virgin to appease a god would have thinned the tribe out.
I was most certainly not thinking of that type of action which is very recent in human history, I was thinking of very early homo sapienssapiens. (I've tried going into longer explanations but I'll leave that for now.)
There is no objective evidence that, when I cross the street to the store, I will not be run down by truck. I have a belief, amounting to conviction, that I will make it safely across the street each time I try; that conviction (plus running out of milk or bread) enables me to attempt this. While I've always made it so far, and no matter how many times I've already made it, there is zero guarantee I'll make it next time. It's just a belief. That's how belief works.
I hope you agree that it is a belief based on past, actual, practical evidence which could be checked against records of the number of people who have crossed that street without being knocked down. Not on faith alone.
The first time you fly in an aeroplane, first time you walk down a particular street, first time you travel to another country, you are not basing it on any personal experience, are you?
You are in fact trusting something that someone else tells you about the risk.
There is no objective evidence that, when I cross the street to the store, I will not be run down by truck. I have a belief, amounting to conviction, that I will make it safely across the street each time I try; that conviction (plus running out of milk or bread) enables me to attempt this. While I've always made it so far, and no matter how many times I've already made it, there is zero guarantee I'll make it next time. It's just a belief. That's how belief works.
I hope you agree that it is a belief based on past, actual, practical evidence which could be checked against records of the number of people who have crossed that street without being knocked down. Not on faith alone.
The first time you fly in an aeroplane, first time you walk down a particular street, first time you travel to another country, you are not basing it on any personal experience, are you?
You are in fact trusting something that someone else tells you about the risk.
How trustworthy is testimony about God ‘tho? I’ve been to too many charismatic services and meetings to trust personal testimonies about God.
If someone gives one in Church now I think - ‘very nice and it’s fine that you attribute those coincidences to God, but I know I wouldn’t’.
That doesn’t mean I don’t believe there is a God. But I don’t think s/he intervenes to help people at all, ever. I see God as creator and sustainer of the whole caboodle, the One who holds it all together - a source of comfort and peace in hard times - not a prayer answerer.
One problem is that God is seen is so many thousands of different ways. Each of us experiences or doesn’t experience God differently. It’s utterly subjective.
That can’t be said of flying on a plane. Our experience may be different but our trust is based on a kind of reality that trust in God isn’t. Spiritual ‘reality’ is amorphous, intangible, often impossible to describe.
The feeling of peace I get when someone close to me dies, along with the grief of course - simply can’t be equated to flying on a plane or crossing a road. It’s inside me and doesn’t have any real explanation. Is it also from me and nothing outside of me? Could well be, but I don’t find I can cause it whenever I want to.
But that’s why @SusanDoris needs to stop derailing threads. Asking for proof isn’t the way to go imo. It simply goes back to comparing apples and lump hammers. Maybe ask other questions without presumptions?
Well, I never make promises unless I am 100% certain I can keep them, but well, no doubt someone will pick me up pretty quickly if they think I am derailing in future!
What seems to be happening across multiple threads in Purgatory is that SusanDoris is questioning a belief in God and/or the existence of God or gods, but the Purgatory board introduction says:
Pull up a chair, get your brain in gear, and prepare for some serious time in Purgatory. This is where your ideas, views and beliefs can be refined and made fit for Heaven! Purgatory is our serious discussion space – where theological, ethical, political, social and cultural issues are discussed from a Christian perspective. All views are welcome – orthodox, unorthodox, radical or just plain bizarre – so long as you can stand being challenged. Before you jump into the fray, take a look at these guidelines for posting.
The reason so many people are posting on this thread is we signed up for discussions on these boards as they are and if we are to discuss theological, ethical, political, social and cultural issues ... from a Christian perspective it has to be assumed - axiomatic - on many threads that God exists and we are discussing him from a Christian point of view. If someone comes on to those threads and asks the questions SusanDoris asks about the existence of God/gods and the reasons for faith it is hugely disruptive. Threads exist that ask those questions about faith or the proof of God - some running currently and those are for discussing the questions SusanDoris likes.
I don't think anyone objects to the questions SusanDoris asks. Or should I say question (singular)?
It's the way she asks them (it) and introduces it into every conceivable conversation that rankles.
If I said, 'I saw a lovely stained glass window the other day ...'
I'd expect SD to respond, 'That's nice. But you do know that what it depicts is the product of someone's imagination don't you?'
Or if someone said, 'I preached on Isaiah 53 on Sunday,' then the response would come: 'That's nice but I hope you told them that the Bible is a work of human imagination and reflects how people thought thousands of years ago ...'
SusanDoris: I would be interested to know whether you can subscribe to this statement by David Boulton; "seeing that the God-idea works brilliantly for some, sustaining and supporting them in lives of great beauty and integrity, I'm happy to encourage it in you, provided you don't assert that it must be true for me." (Godless for God's sake).
SusanDoris: I would be interested to know whether you can subscribe to this statement by David Boulton; "seeing that the God-idea works brilliantly for some, sustaining and supporting them in lives of great beauty and integrity, I'm happy to encourage it in you, provided you don't assert that it must be true for me." (Godless for God's sake).
Yes, no problem, particularly as far as adults are concerned. And there was a poster elsewhere who would use that 'not true for all' aspect as it is a qualification that needs to be made I think
<snip>I really don't know what answer you expect except no, it is not possible. You may have a low opinion of my intelligence, and that's fine!, but I do hope you don't think I would say yes, we can independently now verify Caesar's invasions?
Thank you. I think that is a perfectly reasonable answer. So, are Caesar’s invasions of 54 & 55BC ‘facts’ or not?
I have no reason to think they are not, so always with the proviso that nothing can be 100% proved, I'll say yes!
By the way, do you have some definition of the abstract noun, fact, that I might not know?!
I don’t think I have a definition of fact that you don’t know. It’s just that there are some things which are generally accepted as facts which are not accessible to our senses, and which cannot be scientifically tested. Some things that we believe to be true we call facts (e.g. water freezes at 0°C, Caesar invade Britain in 54 & 55BC) other things we believe to be true we don’t call facts, we might call them beliefs or opinions (e.g. it is good to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, honesty is the best policy). Some facts can be verified by our senses of which scientific testing is simply an advanced and specialised kind, but some facts cannot.
Where a fact is contested, we might recognise that on the way we talk about (I believe it to be a fact, for example, that as he lay dying, Nelson said to the Captain of the Victory, “Kiss me, Hardy” but I know there are some who think it may have been “Kismet, Hardy”)
It is a fact, I believe, that a man known as Jesus of Nazareth lived, taught and died by crucifixion in first century Palestine. That is largely uncontroversial, and is widely accepted by historians. It is in the same class of facts as Caesar’s invasions of Britain. These things we accept as facts without them being directly accessible to our senses, or scientifically testable.
Of course, when we move into the question of the empty tomb of Jesus and his resurrection, we are moving into much more contested territory. I still believe them to be facts, and the historical evidence for them is as strong and clear as the evidence for Caesar's invasions of Britain in 54 & 55 BC. I can't prove those things to be facts (any more than I could prove Julius Caesar's invasions of Britain). They are not (either of them) accessible to my senses nor susceptible to scientific testing. I am as convinced, however, that the Jesus thing is true as I am that the Caesar stuff is true - I believe them both to be facts. I believe that the historical evidence for both is compelling, although I recognise that the nature of historical evidence is different from the compelling power of mathematical proof or of repeatable scientific experimentation.
SusanDoris: I would be interested to know whether you can subscribe to this statement by David Boulton; "seeing that the God-idea works brilliantly for some, sustaining and supporting them in lives of great beauty and integrity, I'm happy to encourage it in you, provided you don't assert that it must be true for me." (Godless for God's sake).
Yes, no problem, particularly as far as adults are concerned. And there was a poster elsewhere who would use that 'not true for all' aspect as it is a qualification that needs to be made I think
I don’t think I have a definition of fact that you don’t know. It’s just that there are some things which are generally accepted as facts which are not accessible to our senses, and which cannot be scientifically tested. Some things that we believe to be true we call facts (e.g. water freezes at 0°C, Caesar invade Britain in 54 & 55BC)
The freezing point of water being at 0°C is only true for normal atmospheric pressure and pure water. Salt water freezes at a lower temperature. If the pressure decreases, the freezing point increases, and vice versa. And there are similar effects on boiling point. So those facts we all know that water boiling point is 100°C and freezing point is 0°C are generalisation based on assumptions of normal atmospheric pressure and pure water.
I don’t think I have a definition of fact that you don’t know. It’s just that there are some things which are generally accepted as facts which are not accessible to our senses, and which cannot be scientifically tested. Some things that we believe to be true we call facts (e.g. water freezes at 0°C, Caesar invade Britain in 54 & 55BC)
The freezing point of water being at 0°C is only true for normal atmospheric pressure and pure water. Salt water freezes at a lower temperature. If the pressure decreases, the freezing point increases, and vice versa. And there are similar effects on boiling point. So those facts we all know that water boiling point is 100°C and freezing point is 0°C are generalisation based on assumptions of normal atmospheric pressure and pure water.
This is a strange way of using the word "generalisation".
I could set up any temperature scale I like, it just so happens that a generally useful scale is calculated using the freezing and boiling temperature of water at standard atmospheric air pressure.
Any water, given the standard conditions specified in the scale, will always hit those two points. That's not a generalisation, that is the definition of the scale.
But it's only accurate for pure water and normal atmospheric pressure. If those two requirements are not in place, your scale is inaccurate.
But what I was really trying to do was point out that facts we think are facts often have additional caveats, because they are only true in specific situations.
I don’t think I have a definition of fact that you don’t know. It’s just that there are some things which are generally accepted as facts which are not accessible to our senses, and which cannot be scientifically tested. Some things that we believe to be true we call facts (e.g. water freezes at 0°C, Caesar invade Britain in 54 & 55BC)
The freezing point of water being at 0°C is only true for normal atmospheric pressure and pure water. Salt water freezes at a lower temperature. If the pressure decreases, the freezing point increases, and vice versa. And there are similar effects on boiling point. So those facts we all know that water boiling point is 100°C and freezing point is 0°C are generalisation based on assumptions of normal atmospheric pressure and pure water.
STP - standard temperature and pressure - is assumed unless specified otherwise. BroJames' statement is perfectly correct.
I know that no-one has 'claimed' that there is objective evidence, but I use that word hoping - obviously unsuccessfully - to ensure there is no confusion.
SusanDoris, my complaint had nothing to do with the word “claim.” My complaint is that you keep arguing for there being no material evidence that God exists as though people here were opposing that viewpoint. No one does. This gambit of yours shuts discussion down rather than promoting it. To move discussion forward when parties agree, it’s necessary to make a new point. Do you have one?
I hope you agree that it is a belief based on past, actual, practical evidence which could be checked against records of the number of people who have crossed that street without being knocked down. Not on faith alone.
You hope wrong. Just as nobody can step into the same river twice, nobody can use last week’s successful street-crossing (or any number of previous successful street-crossings by any number of pedestrians) as “evidence” for next week’s street-crossing becoming equally successful. The events may have some similarities in a single case – same pedestrian, same street -- but also significant differences – different vehicles, different drivers, different weather conditions, different time of day, and on and on, few of which can be “controlled for.” Trusting that Event A’s outcome will be replicated in a new, different Event B is not scientific. It’s not scientific in much the same way that believing in a god is not scientific. That same utterly unscientific trust undergirds a whopping percentage of daily human existence; it also leads, every day, to occasional painful, sometimes even fatal, results. So I submit that your claims about living “rationally” -- especially as such claims seem, in your case, to be based on some profound misconceptions about science itself – are themselves irrational.
You and others are entitled to your beliefs, as I am to mine.
It is not that you are not entitled to your beliefs, but the bald, motherfucking arrogance and ignorance with which you proclaim them and belittle those of other people.
Can you get that through your dense as granite skull?
I'm off to get a tetanus shot from being exposed to the sheer irony of you posting on this thread.
Thank you for pointing out my failings in such a kind and courteous manner. Must do better.
I know that no-one has 'claimed' that there is objective evidence, but I use that word hoping - obviously unsuccessfully - to ensure there is no confusion.
SusanDoris, my complaint had nothing to do with the word “claim.” My complaint is that you keep arguing for there being no material evidence that God exists as though people here were opposing that viewpoint. No one does. This gambit of yours shuts discussion down rather than promoting it. To move discussion forward when parties agree, it’s necessary to make a new point. Do you have one?
I hope you agree that it is a belief based on past, actual, practical evidence which could be checked against records of the number of people who have crossed that street without being knocked down. Not on faith alone.
You hope wrong. Just as nobody can step into the same river twice, nobody can use last week’s successful street-crossing (or any number of previous successful street-crossings by any number of pedestrians) as “evidence” for next week’s street-crossing becoming equally successful. The events may have some similarities in a single case – same pedestrian, same street -- but also significant differences – different vehicles, different drivers, different weather conditions, different time of day, and on and on, few of which can be “controlled for.” Trusting that Event A’s outcome will be replicated in a new, different Event B is not scientific. It’s not scientific in much the same way that believing in a god is not scientific. That same utterly unscientific trust undergirds a whopping percentage of daily human existence; it also leads, every day, to occasional painful, sometimes even fatal, results. So I submit that your claims about living “rationally” -- especially as such claims seem, in your case, to be based on some profound misconceptions about science itself – are themselves irrational.
Thank you, I will read again later, but cannot think of anything to add just at the moment.
Thank you for pointing out my failings in such a kind and courteous manner. Must do better.
I actually have in the past, as have others. But as it hasn’t managed to sink even past the outer electrons of your cranium, what is the point of maintaining politeness.
And remember sunshine, this is Hell. While rude isn’t required down here, whinging when it occurs is rather ridiculous.
And it takes a massive level of self-importance to think one deserves politeness for one’s rude, off-hand dismissal of other people’s beliefs.
Especially when one’s own are no more substantive.
Science is done by humans. Religion is done by humans. And while some humans have quite an investment in telling you that their religion has not changed in the last two thousand years, it really, really, has.
I suppose it depends on how one looks at either. What has changed about science over the millennia is the rigour with which it practised, but it was always about exploration and learning. What has changed about religion is, IMO, more about societal pressure than religion itself. In other words, society progresses and drags religion kicking and screaming along for the ride.
And while some humans have quite an investment in telling you that their religion has not changed in the last two thousand years, it really, really, has.
Looking for this-thread relevance in this. Not finding it.
Well, I never make promises unless I am 100% certain I can keep them, but well, no doubt someone will pick me up pretty quickly if they think I am derailing in future!
We do. Repeatedly. And you go on doing it. Ho hum. After a while, why should we bother? What's the definition of insanity?
Also, if you think you can have 100% certainty that you can keep a promise, you are deluding yourself. Many factors could arise to prevent you carrying through.
Well I'm usually accused of taking things literally but I interpreted "about 99-1" in the context of SD's post as "pretty damned unlikely" rather than a calculated assessment of probability.
But that's the thing. She didn't say "about 99-1." She said "it can only be a 1-99." I wasn't taking literally something stated as an approximation. I was simply taking her to mean what she typed.
You know, one of the annoying things about SOF is the tendency to take things literally that are just the way people speak. Often despite the context and poster's history. I know, the written word has less context. But that goes both ways. In SD's case, her posting history doesn't make it easy to find nuance, no. Without clarification, though, it pretty much seems to be interpreted through the filter with which one views her.
I guess that's bound to happen. In a word-based forum place like this, after all, we tend to focus on what we can see, which is the literal word on the screen, rather than try to run it through a number of filters to see if it 'sounds' different. I guess we're all guilty of it. I suppose we either need to more clearly flag up how it should 'sound', when we post; or choose our words with extreme care.
Also, if you think you can have 100% certainty that you can keep a promise, you are deluding yourself. Many factors could arise to prevent you carrying through.
Comments
You and Pyx_e would make such a beautiful couple.
In terms of specifics, I'll just note that that observing yourself and your three siblings in order to draw conclusions is problematic due to the following:
small sample size https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination#Introduction
confounding factors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding#Examples
A further issue is that, while your and your siblings genetic information can be measured/observed in an objective manner, and you can (probably) be certain as to your own levels of cheerfulness, you have no way of having the same degree of certainty as to your siblings' internal states. You could rely on observation, here, but it's an area where observation is notoriously unreliable, so you're left with self-report, which has its own suite of problems within science.
Also, many sciences rely heavily on statistics for making inferences/drawing conclusions, and although there are many areas where the data is so strong as to be overwhelming, even then, you usually can't conclude anything about an individual data point. For instance, it is an accepted fact that, in general, men are taller than women. Masses of data in support of this one. True across countries and cultures. However, it's still entirely possible to walk into a room, and find a man engaged in conversation with a woman some inches taller than him.
There are any number of reasons you might be perpetually cheerful, including, I would suggest, your perception of yourself as a cheerful individual. And of course, genetics could very well play a part. But it is not possible to be certain of something like this on an individual basis.
Well, arguably that would be a more scientific approach. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Can you get that through your dense as granite skull?
I'm off to get a tetanus shot from being exposed to the sheer irony of you posting on this thread.
noun
a person or thing holding a position or performing a function that corresponds to that of another person or thing in another place.
"the minister held talks with his French counterpart"
synonyms: equivalent, opposite number, peer, equal, coequal, parallel, complement, analog, match, twin, mate, fellow, brother, sister; formalcompeer
Me and the dictionary; What are we like?
I am losing the will to live; before I succumb to total paralysis of the shriveled remains of my frontal lobe, who on this thread is actually claiming there IS "objective evidence" for any god? Why keep circling back to this point? Yes there are folks here who believe in God, have argued that such a belief is valuable to them, etc. But nobody here, not even deeply committed believers, is claiming we can count, weigh, measure, observe, or test for the material presence of God. Why waste your energies reiterating a viewpoint everybody accepts?
Again: NOBODY HERE THINKS THIS. WHY KEEP BRINGING IT UP? Scientific proof of God's existence is utterly irrelevant to the practice of believing in God. It is irrelevant if there is such proof, and irrelevant if there is no such proof. Belief, by definition, is dependent not on "objective evidence" but on an enduring expectation that one's trust will be fulfilled. There is no objective evidence that, when I cross the street to the store, I will not be run down by truck. I have a belief, amounting to conviction, that I will make it safely across the street each time I try; that conviction (plus running out of milk or bread) enables me to attempt this. While I've always made it so far, and no matter how many times I've already made it, there is zero guarantee I'll make it next time. It's just a belief. That's how belief works.
Lastly: if you truly regard this question as unanswerable, what in heaven's name is the point of raising it? As for how belief in a god aided early survival, you're going to have to go into a little more detail about how that works. My belief in getting across the street actually exposes me to real danger (it's a busy street which is also a T-intersection with a 4-lane highway) a couple of times a week. Believing it's necessary to sacrifice the occasional virgin to appease a god would have thinned the tribe out.
Oh God, you do know the difference between a list of so-called synonyms, and the actual definition, right? Well, apparently not.
Sure, science progresses. That's kind of its point. It's a process of enquiry, whereby theorems are adjusted, refined, redefined, and in some cases, overturned, as more science is done. That's good. It's also a good argument against nailing your colours too firmly to 'genetics' or 'dna evidence' or 'eggs are bad for you' or what have you. Science is done by humans. Religion is done by humans. And while some humans have quite an investment in telling you that their religion has not changed in the last two thousand years, it really, really, has.
By the way, do you have some definition of the abstract noun, fact, that I might not know?!
Are you all right? *rushes to get the smelling salts - also to guarantee you that I am not using sarcasm at all here - please do not read it as such * I was most certainly not thinking of that type of action which is very recent in human history, I was thinking of very early homo sapienssapiens. (I've tried going into longer explanations but I'll leave that for now.)
It isn't all about you.
Ignore the bit about replying to another post on a doc - it was another post. Sorry!
The first time you fly in an aeroplane, first time you walk down a particular street, first time you travel to another country, you are not basing it on any personal experience, are you?
You are in fact trusting something that someone else tells you about the risk.
How trustworthy is testimony about God ‘tho? I’ve been to too many charismatic services and meetings to trust personal testimonies about God.
If someone gives one in Church now I think - ‘very nice and it’s fine that you attribute those coincidences to God, but I know I wouldn’t’.
That doesn’t mean I don’t believe there is a God. But I don’t think s/he intervenes to help people at all, ever. I see God as creator and sustainer of the whole caboodle, the One who holds it all together - a source of comfort and peace in hard times - not a prayer answerer.
Other nonsensical ideas exist.
That can’t be said of flying on a plane. Our experience may be different but our trust is based on a kind of reality that trust in God isn’t. Spiritual ‘reality’ is amorphous, intangible, often impossible to describe.
The feeling of peace I get when someone close to me dies, along with the grief of course - simply can’t be equated to flying on a plane or crossing a road. It’s inside me and doesn’t have any real explanation. Is it also from me and nothing outside of me? Could well be, but I don’t find I can cause it whenever I want to.
But that’s why @SusanDoris needs to stop derailing threads. Asking for proof isn’t the way to go imo. It simply goes back to comparing apples and lump hammers. Maybe ask other questions without presumptions?
Well, I never make promises unless I am 100% certain I can keep them, but well, no doubt someone will pick me up pretty quickly if they think I am derailing in future!
The reason so many people are posting on this thread is we signed up for discussions on these boards as they are and if we are to discuss theological, ethical, political, social and cultural issues ... from a Christian perspective it has to be assumed - axiomatic - on many threads that God exists and we are discussing him from a Christian point of view. If someone comes on to those threads and asks the questions SusanDoris asks about the existence of God/gods and the reasons for faith it is hugely disruptive. Threads exist that ask those questions about faith or the proof of God - some running currently and those are for discussing the questions SusanDoris likes.
It's the way she asks them (it) and introduces it into every conceivable conversation that rankles.
If I said, 'I saw a lovely stained glass window the other day ...'
I'd expect SD to respond, 'That's nice. But you do know that what it depicts is the product of someone's imagination don't you?'
Or if someone said, 'I preached on Isaiah 53 on Sunday,' then the response would come: 'That's nice but I hope you told them that the Bible is a work of human imagination and reflects how people thought thousands of years ago ...'
And so on. Round and round and round again.
Where a fact is contested, we might recognise that on the way we talk about (I believe it to be a fact, for example, that as he lay dying, Nelson said to the Captain of the Victory, “Kiss me, Hardy” but I know there are some who think it may have been “Kismet, Hardy”)
It is a fact, I believe, that a man known as Jesus of Nazareth lived, taught and died by crucifixion in first century Palestine. That is largely uncontroversial, and is widely accepted by historians. It is in the same class of facts as Caesar’s invasions of Britain. These things we accept as facts without them being directly accessible to our senses, or scientifically testable.
Of course, when we move into the question of the empty tomb of Jesus and his resurrection, we are moving into much more contested territory. I still believe them to be facts, and the historical evidence for them is as strong and clear as the evidence for Caesar's invasions of Britain in 54 & 55 BC. I can't prove those things to be facts (any more than I could prove Julius Caesar's invasions of Britain). They are not (either of them) accessible to my senses nor susceptible to scientific testing. I am as convinced, however, that the Jesus thing is true as I am that the Caesar stuff is true - I believe them both to be facts. I believe that the historical evidence for both is compelling, although I recognise that the nature of historical evidence is different from the compelling power of mathematical proof or of repeatable scientific experimentation.
Thank you.
This is a strange way of using the word "generalisation".
I could set up any temperature scale I like, it just so happens that a generally useful scale is calculated using the freezing and boiling temperature of water at standard atmospheric air pressure.
Any water, given the standard conditions specified in the scale, will always hit those two points. That's not a generalisation, that is the definition of the scale.
But what I was really trying to do was point out that facts we think are facts often have additional caveats, because they are only true in specific situations.
STP - standard temperature and pressure - is assumed unless specified otherwise. BroJames' statement is perfectly correct.
You hope wrong. Just as nobody can step into the same river twice, nobody can use last week’s successful street-crossing (or any number of previous successful street-crossings by any number of pedestrians) as “evidence” for next week’s street-crossing becoming equally successful. The events may have some similarities in a single case – same pedestrian, same street -- but also significant differences – different vehicles, different drivers, different weather conditions, different time of day, and on and on, few of which can be “controlled for.” Trusting that Event A’s outcome will be replicated in a new, different Event B is not scientific. It’s not scientific in much the same way that believing in a god is not scientific. That same utterly unscientific trust undergirds a whopping percentage of daily human existence; it also leads, every day, to occasional painful, sometimes even fatal, results. So I submit that your claims about living “rationally” -- especially as such claims seem, in your case, to be based on some profound misconceptions about science itself – are themselves irrational.
Thank you for pointing out my failings in such a kind and courteous manner. Must do better.
And remember sunshine, this is Hell. While rude isn’t required down here, whinging when it occurs is rather ridiculous.
Especially when one’s own are no more substantive.
I guess that's bound to happen. In a word-based forum place like this, after all, we tend to focus on what we can see, which is the literal word on the screen, rather than try to run it through a number of filters to see if it 'sounds' different. I guess we're all guilty of it. I suppose we either need to more clearly flag up how it should 'sound', when we post; or choose our words with extreme care.
It's just as well I didn't hold my breath.