Do you believe what you claim to believe?

[bhsmte]

It would be the fact that he actually answered my question that would be evidence that there is truth to be known about the color of his house. As of now, we still don't know anything about the true color of his house. All we know is that he has not answered the question. There is truth value in the fact that he hasn't answered the question.

Answering a question is evidence of truth?

LOL

 

[bhsmte]

You have yet to actually make a real claim about the true color of your house. All you've done is use hypothetical claims. I can't determine truth from something hypothetical. I need real answers about real things.

What's the true color of your house?

Please define; "real answer".

 

[HitchSlap]

You have yet to actually make a real claim about the true color of your house. All you've done is use hypothetical claims. I can't determine truth from something hypothetical. I need real answers about real things.

What's the true color of your house?

Right! You ask questions.

Thanks for admitting that a claim is not evidence in and of itself, but requires sufficient investigation to make a determination.

 

[Chriliman]

Answering a question is evidence of truth?

LOL

Child: What's 2+2?

Adult: 4

Is the answer evidence to the child that 2+2 is actually 4? Or does the adult need to right it down first for it be acceptable evidence to the child?

 

[bhsmte]

Child: What's 2+2?

Adult: 4

Is the answer evidence to the child that 2+2 is actually 4? Or does the adult need to right it down first for it be acceptable evidence to the child?

Muslim, jew, hindu; is jesus god? No, jesus is not god.

Is this answer evidence of truth?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't see any significance in such distinction in terms of thought process. Perhaps you can explain.

The significance in the difference is akin to the difference between something like, say, scientific thought as it may contrast with some of the mental individuality we often find evident among armchair philosophers. One process resides in community interaction, and the other tends toward solipsism. THAT is the significance.

I don't think that Christianity or any religion can exist as a singular proposition. It can only exist as a series of connected concepts, which is what a system is.

Apparently, I need to clarify my statement. I mean "proposition" in the sense that an articulated invitation to interact has been offered, as in "a proposal."

I don't think personal belief as far as the requirement matters as much when we are talking about the scope of validity of any given belief system. Generally, there are some congruence with what we claim to believe and the expression of these beliefs in reality. If there's a dissonance, then we generally assume that people don't really hold the beliefs they claim to hold. There are plentiful exceptions, but exceptions point to the general "rules of thumb" and not break them.

... the matter of having "some" congruence between one's thought and the actual affairs of the world is a fairly ambiguous state in which to be. Again, if some ideas within a 'religion' were never delivered by its gurus in a comprehensive way, then to say that we have a system, or even dissonance from "it," is also a fairly ambiguous place to be, and I don't think religious ideas should be labeled as systems if they do not in fact offer a comprehensive understanding of the processes involved within the supposed system. It would probably we better to call religion a "dynamic" rather than a system.

...but that's just me talking.

2PhiloVoid

 

[Chriliman]

Muslim, jew, hindu; is jesus god? No, jesus is not god.

Is this answer evidence of truth?

Not the same because they don't actually know that Jesus is not God, however, the adult does know that 2+2=4 and is conveying this knowledge by answering the child's question.

 

[HitchSlap]

Not the same because they don't actually know that Jesus is not God,

Sure they do. Ask them, they'll tell you.

So, have you decided if my house is yellow, or not?

 

[devolved]

Child: What's 2+2?

Adult: 4

Is the answer evidence to the child that 2+2 is actually 4? Or does the adult need to right it down first for it be acceptable evidence to the child?

I've already addressed it, but it seems like you've failed to read and understand what I'm pointing to.

A claim is generally distinct from the evidence by:

1) How we define these terms
2) The purpose of these concepts in a framework of semantic meaning of the language that we use to communicate with each other.

In your case... "My house is yellow" is a claim, but it's NOT evidence. Evidence is anything that would support or corroborate the claim that you are making. A claim can't act as both a claim and the evidence precisely because it's no different than saying "My house is yellow because I said so... therefore believe me for none other reason".

Do you understand? For example:

Claim: Lebron James is the best overall player on the planet
Evidence: Stats, Film, etc...

Claim: Earth is spherical and not flat
Evidence: Space photos of the Earth, various experimental data that supports the claim...


You are also seemingly confused about inductive and deductive reasoning and logic.

Deductive logic banks on veracity of every premise, thus if the premises are true ... then conclusion is inevitably true. Thus you can solve the problems and come up with proofs solely based on certain "undeniable truths", at times simply because we define these as such.

As I've pointed before:

1) All dogs are a part of canine family
2) Puddles is a dog
3) Puddles is a canine

#3 is predicated on #1 and #2 being true. Since both can be demonstrated, then #3 inevitably follows.

Mathematics works via deductive reasoning. So we can say 2 + 2 = 4, and we can run through simple deductive process. We can lay 4 sticks next to each other, and say that each stick represents 1. Then we group sticks in two groups of 2, and then we count the total 1 ... 2... 3... 4... It's an internally defined framework of how we quantify numbers, and in such certain concepts are defined axioms. It's something that we have to agree on prior to engaging in mathematics. If we don't agree on "1" as an across the board fractional quantity, then mathematics would be meaningless.

Claims like "My house is yellow" is NOT in any shape or form axiomatic when we approach reality. It's a subjective claim. You can be colorblind, or you could be lying. In order for us to know with higher degree of certainty that neither is true, we need evidence EXTERNAL to your claim.

When we get to extra-ordinary claims that we simply don't observe in our everyday life, these require evidence that isn't rooted in the claim itself.

For example, I may claim that I can breathe underwater without any gear... just like fish does. Why should you believe me? Would a story describing my underwater adventures count for adequate evidence that my claim is true? I don't think so. It would just be a series of similar claims that in no way validate the original.

 

[bhsmte]

Not the same because they don't actually know that Jesus is not God, however, the adult does know that 2+2=4 and is conveying this knowledge by answering the child's question.

Math can be verified. Your claim that jesus is god or the opposite claim can not be.

Therefore, we are back to square one, answers are not evidence of truth. Being able to verify the answer objectively, is evidence of truth.

 

[devolved]

Maybe you can find what you're looking for elsewhere and reap the benefits of a church. But I don't yet understand your objective. Are you wanting to help people? Are you wanting an open, intellectual discussion? Just bashing authority isn't going to help me understand what it is you really want. All that will happen is I'll end up defending authority in the church, and neither of us will gain anything.

The purpose of the OP is to invite a productive conversation about the complex reality of belief, and dynamics of that reality when it comes to Christian denominational orthodoxy and community.

I'm not even sure how in the world do you progress from that into assumption that authority is wrong, and I'm merely bashing authority.

That's precisely point of the discussion. I'm not implying that authority is negative. Authority is a subjective and contractual issue. I may agree that someone has authority over me and align to certain belief, or I can reject that claim. But, it's only a fractional issue when it comes to the overarching issue of how a belief of individual fits into a congregational preset... and whether such set up is the best way to develop functional communities that can lead the cultural development instead of constantly trailing behind culture.

 

[Chriliman]

I've already addressed it, but it seems like you've failed to read and understand what I'm pointing to.

A claim is generally distinct from the evidence by:

1) How we define these terms
2) The purpose of these concepts in a framework of semantic meaning of the language that we use to communicate with each other.

In your case... "My house is yellow" is a claim, but it's NOT evidence. Evidence is anything that would support or corroborate the claim that you are making. A claim can't act as both a claim and the evidence precisely because it's no different than saying "My house is yellow because I said so... therefore believe me for none other reason".

Do you understand? For example:

Claim: Lebron James is the best overall player on the planet
Evidence: Stats, Film, etc...

Claim: Earth is spherical and not flat
Evidence: Space photos of the Earth, various experimental data that supports the claim...


You are also seemingly confused about inductive and deductive reasoning and logic.

Deductive logic banks on veracity of every premise, thus if the premises are true ... then conclusion is inevitably true. Thus you can solve the problems and come up with proofs solely based on certain "undeniable truths", at times simply because we define these as such.

As I've pointed before:

1) All dogs are a part of canine family
2) Puddles is a dog
3) Puddles is a canine

#3 is predicated on #1 and #2 being true. Since both can be demonstrated, then #3 inevitably follows.

Mathematics works via deductive reasoning. So we can say 2 + 2 = 4, and we can run through simple deductive process. We can lay 4 sticks next to each other, and say that each stick represents 1. Then we group sticks in two groups of 2, and then we count the total 1 ... 2... 3... 4... It's an internally defined framework of how we quantify numbers, and in such certain concepts are defined axioms. It's something that we have to agree on prior to engaging in mathematics. If we don't agree on "1" as an across the board fractional quantity, then mathematics would be meaningless.

Claims like "My house is yellow" is NOT in any shape or form axiomatic when we approach reality. It's a subjective claim. You can be colorblind, or you could be lying. In order for us to know with higher degree of certainty that neither is true, we need evidence EXTERNAL to your claim.

When we get to extra-ordinary claims that we simply don't observe in our everyday life, these require evidence that isn't rooted in the claim itself.

For example, I may claim that I can breathe underwater without any gear... just like fish does. Why should you believe me? Would a story describing my underwater adventures count for adequate evidence that my claim is true? I don't think so. It would just be a series of similar claims that in no way validate the original.

Again, are your statements suppose to show me something? If so, then how are they not evidence of anything? If you can answer this question, then we might be able to move on.

 

[HitchSlap]

Again, are your statements suppose to show me something? If so, then how are they not evidence of anything? If you can answer this question, then we might be able to move on.

Oh, good lord. Are you putting us on, or are you this dense?

We've all answered this "question" many times over. At this point, we can only assume you're intentionally trolling us, or are mentally deficient.

 

[Resha Caner]

I may agree that someone has authority over me and align to certain belief, or I can reject that claim.

Well, you can certainly reject authority (the whole civil disobedience thing), but that may not gain you much. I've run into this attitude quite often that democracy makes obedience a choice, but that is not true. If you look at some foundational thinkers like John Locke they deal with the issue of choosing to obey and reject such a notion.

People seem to think that voting for a leader means they are choosing authority, but that is not the case. It is why we often speak of separating the person from the office. The executive branch of government always has police authority over you. What you are choosing is the person who will execute that authority.

It's sometimes easier to think in terms of physical law. I can't simply choose not to obey the laws of physics.

When it comes to belief, people are playing with Pascal's Wager (as much as they may deny it). If God exists, choosing to ignore him isn't going to help. It doesn't negate his authority. The church, on the other hand, is admittedly a better bet. The current western structure allows you to ignore church authority with little to no consequence.

The purpose of the OP is to invite a productive conversation about the complex reality of belief, and dynamics of that reality when it comes to Christian denominational orthodoxy and community.

That's what I'm trying to do, and I think authority plays a role. I get the impression you think otherwise. So what would a "church" look like where no one has decision-making power? Or, for what tasks would you grant decision-making power?

 

[Chriliman]

Oh, good lord. Are you putting us on, or are you this dense?

We've all answered this "question" many times over.

He has not answered the question.

 

[HitchSlap]

He has not answered the question.

Nor you, mine.

Is the claim: "My house is yellow," true, or untrue?

 

[devolved]

Again, are your statements suppose to show me something? If so, then how are they not evidence of anything? If you can answer this question, then we might be able to move on.

You are confusing the language model with reality that such model describes.

In short, the word apple isn't the same as the object that we call apple. When you write "apple" on a piece of paper... you can't eat it. It merely forms a mental picture for communicating the concept.

Thus, when you say "I have an apple"... it's still an imaginary concept for other people, unless you show them that you actually do have an apple. By saying that "I have an apple" you are not actually showing them that you do. The mental model that you paint using your words may vastly different from reality it supposed to match, and a lot of times it does. That's why we don't generally trust certain claims unless these are supported by external evidence.

When I'm making claims or arguments in this thread, I'm appealing to some commonly known ideas and concepts that you may already be aware of, because these tend to exist as a form of our shared education and experience. Thus, my words don't directly validate or show anything. These are merely referencing the line of evidence that does support what I'm communicating.

Blurring the line between imaginary concepts existing in one's mind, the word-labels use to describe these concepts, and reality... is what religions tend to do very well and largely depend on.

 

[devolved]

Well, you can certainly reject authority (the whole civil disobedience thing), but that may not gain you much. I've run into this attitude quite often that democracy makes obedience a choice, but that is not true. If you look at some foundational thinkers like John Locke they deal with the issue of choosing to obey and reject such a notion.

People seem to think that voting for a leader means they are choosing authority, but that is not the case. It is why we often speak of separating the person from the office. The executive branch of government always has police authority over you. What you are choosing is the person who will execute that authority.

Here's where I'd accuse you of not thinking though this subject conceptually.

Authority isn't a thing, just like freedom, country, love, government, etc... are not things.

In this case, authority is a claim of one party having a power to give orders to other. And here's where we really run into some very troublesome moral implications of such ideology.

If you strip away all of the current "societal presets" and evaluate what we have... we have a collection of individuals that occupy space on this planet. They do vary in their abilities, but NONE would have inherent "authority" to give orders to other. It would be absurd. There are no inherent reason for a person X order around person Y.

That's why societal dynamics isn't build on authority, but rather on engaging in contractual agreement and cooperative co-existence. Contracting with government actually means that one is contracting with every single member of society to play by certain rules. It's not "government" that's the authority over everyone. Government isn't anymore of an "authority" than a referee is authority in a basketball game. Government is merely a facilitator and arbiter of disagreements, and it's a contractual enforcer of societal rules.

But, "Government" isn't some omnious entity. It's comprised of people to whom we delegate certain responsibilities... so that we wouldn't have to do these individually. These people have "authority" simply because as people we contract and delegate certain responsibilities.

And that's where I see you really are confused about the contractual nature of any modern society.

It's sometimes easier to think in terms of physical law. I can't simply choose not to obey the laws of physics.

Again, laws of physics is a construct of human mind. There are no written things out there that every atom must "obey". What we refer to as "laws of physics" are simply certain consistency of nature that we observe and record as a "law". These are not prescriptive. These are descriptive, and these are always contextual. You don't "obey" physical laws, and it's certainly not a choice . You live in the universe where we have some constants when it comes to behavior of matter.

When it comes to belief, people are playing with Pascal's Wager (as much as they may deny it). If God exists, choosing to ignore him isn't going to help. It doesn't negate his authority. The church, on the other hand, is admittedly a better bet. The current western structure allows you to ignore church authority with little to no consequence.

Don't you see that it's very much like the "Emperor's new clothes" type of argument. The clothes are invisible to stupid people, and the makers of the elaborate gown have the authority to tell you all about it.

But the Emperor is naked as to how we get to observe the reality. Thus any talk about "authority" in this context is absurd. Hence, it was a useful political tool in the past, but we have better information and understanding. I wouldn't fall for the "you can't see because you are stupid" type of argument. The king is simply naked, and pretending that there are clothes makes it very awkward.

That's what I'm trying to do, and I think authority plays a role. I get the impression you think otherwise. So what would a "church" look like where no one has decision-making power? Or, for what tasks would you grant decision-making power?

You understand that a church is a voluntary function, right? Authority in the church thus should be a function, and not a hierarchical power to give orders. Most of the problems we have with runaway politics in scope of our society comes with this idea of inherent "kingly" type of power that comes with some office. It's problematic in the scope of how all of this works... through us contracting with each other to co-opt some structure with delegating responsibilities, and specializing in our strengths.

Church community shouldn't be much different, since it's a microcosm of a nation. A family shouldn't be different, because it's a microcosm of the community.

Approaching these issue with ideas of almost dictatorial authoritarianism is where most of our problems come from. People think they have some sort of "divine right" to order other people around as opposed to understanding that it's more of a responsibility to the people who grant them certain delegated responsibilities and not the other way around.

 

[Noxot]

Question #1: Do you see such approach as viable means of approaching the subject of belief... i.e. with partisan adherence? Wouldn't it make more sense to talk about religious belief as individual concept instead of as collective one?

that alone is not enough.

individualism and collectivism are two sides of the same coin. both can help you and both can hurt you. what do you mean "not allowed to pick what you believe"? what, do they not have a soul or something? what kind of person blindly submits to everything they are told? anything that trys to do away with freedom, the soul/person, and love is evil because to do that is to attempt to obliterate humanity. God expects us to be free because there is no love without freedom.

individualism and collectivism are just parts of reality that we function in and I would not try to reduce spiritual life into such limited categories. real spiritual experience is in a "category" all its own. it can be described as being both universal and unique at the same time or deeply personal and yet all encompassing. God just surmounts everything due to him existing at the core of all reality since he is the deepest part of reality. that is why true unity comes by being near to God rather than by secondary factors such as the individual or groups. thus it is said that God gives us "life everlasting" or that "he gives us the fullness of life" and as many saints have said "drawing nearer to God means to draw nearer to your own self as well"

so basically the criteria for God is God since nothing else will do since only God is worthy of God.

Question #2: If you do claim to hold a set of certain beliefs reflective of a broader scope of religion, then how do you justify acting inconsistently with the broader scope of these beliefs?

If I've asked you "How can I know that you believe what you believe and not merely adhering to a cultural pattern due to 10% overlap in your personal belief and 90% peer pressure"... what would your answer be?

that there is a reality deeper than outer appearances and it utilizes whatever we happen to be to draw and increase us towards its likeness as much as we are willing and able. absorption in God makes all things obsolete in one sense and ordered properly in another sense. so like a fire God burns away at us and some things perish while other things are perfected. darkness and light all point to God but some things are eternal such as goodness while other things are useful in their destruction or rejection such as evil. all souls have a certain capacity since they are finite on the surface but they increase by partaking of the reality that they have always been part of - the infinite. but the joining of the finite and the infinite only shows another form of infinity. thus the deeper parts of God are 'potentiality' or 'power' and the lesser part of reality is 'being' or 'manifest reality'.... which is a kind of yin yang.

thus the 3rd song in the album 'iowa' called 'disasterpiece' by slipknot said "I am infinite, I am the infant finite. come a little closer and ill show you why (no one is safe)"

 

[KCfromNC]

Not the same because they don't actually know that Jesus is not God

Sure they do and you should too after they make the claim. That claims is evidence, or so I've heard.