How do you decide if something is factual?

[Kylie]

No, not really. I´ve always had problems with that phrase because I can´t make sense of the term "extraordinary evidence". If anything, I would need more (ordinary) evidence for an extraordinary claim.

Feel free to substitute any other word you'd like.

But the essence of what I am saying is this:

If I told you I had a sandwich for lunch yesterday, then that claim I make would probably be enough to convince you, because sandwiches are a common lunch food, and it's very plausible that I would have had one.

But if I told you I could turn into a squirrel, then the claim is NOT going to be enough to convince you. I could provide you with lots of "ordinary" evidence: I claim I can do it, my husband claims I can do it, my daughter claims I can do it, I can explain to you how I concentrate real hard and I transform, I can point out the trees I've climbed while in squirrel form, I can tell you what's inside the hollow tree that humans can't get into because the opening is too small... All these things are "ordinary evidence", but even if I supplied you with all of these, I doubt it will convince you. Ordinary evidence is easily faked. But if I was to provide extraordinary evidence of my claim - actually transforming in front of you - then that would most likely convince you.

Then again, when it comes to metaphysical/philosophical/religious/spiritual... ideas I think this is a realm of and for our creativity (since these ideas are mostly unverifiable or unfalsifiable, anyway). Thus, when it comes to these things, I tend to be looking for beauty rather than "truth" or evidence.

Do you think truth or beauty is more important?

 

[Kylie]

Oh, that's one I haven't heard, what bible verse forbids corrective lenses? Also, I would answer no to this.

Leviticus 21:20. "Blemish in the eye..."

 

[Ana the Ist]

You don't seem to understand my question.

What form would that evidence need to take in order for it to be convincing to you? Would you be satisfied with a lack of criminal record? Or would you settle for nothing less than following me around for every second of my life starting from birth, or would you require some sort of Vulcan mind-meld to examine my memories, or what?

You're the one who says you start with a claim and try to prove it wrong...if I remember the OP correctly.

How would you falsify that claim?

 

[ananda]

Ah, interesting point. There's a difference between what you really experience and what actually describes reality.

Do we really know what is "actually reality", apart from our own experience?

 

[quatona]

Feel free to substitute any other word you'd like.

But the essence of what I am saying is this:

If I told you I had a sandwich for lunch yesterday, then that claim I make would probably be enough to convince you, because sandwiches are a common lunch food, and it's very plausible that I would have had one.

But if I told you I could turn into a squirrel, then the claim is NOT going to be enough to convince you. I could provide you with lots of "ordinary" evidence: I claim I can do it, my husband claims I can do it, my daughter claims I can do it, I can explain to you how I concentrate real hard and I transform, I can point out the trees I've climbed while in squirrel form, I can tell you what's inside the hollow tree that humans can't get into because the opening is too small... All these things are "ordinary evidence", but even if I supplied you with all of these, I doubt it will convince you. Ordinary evidence is easily faked. But if I was to provide extraordinary evidence of my claim - actually transforming in front of you - then that would most likely convince you.

Personally, I wouldn´t call "I have to see it to believe it" asking for extraordinary evidence - but, sure: sometimes I have to see it to believe it, sometimes not. That would be just one of the criteria that I use flexibly without being able draw clear lines, though. There are others.

Do you think truth or beauty is more important?

I guess my rule of thumb would be something like this: In instances where being mistaken would kick me in the butt (i.e. real life consequences) this isn´t even a question: "truth" will force itself upon me.
In other instances (metaphysical questions), "truth" is pretty much irrelevant (and often even declared to be unattainable), and I tend to go with beauty.

On another note, I think that certain beliefs tend to be self-fulfilling prophecies (and the real life consequences of believing something aren´t due to the outside world, but due to our beliefs).

So, to summarize, I think it´s a pretty complex matter.

 

[Aman777]

So, you try to avoid eating shellfish?

No, since I have placed my trust in Jesus to bring me home. If it were left up to me, I would split hell wide open. I can't keep all of those Laws and neither can any person who is still in the FLESH. That is WHY Jesus had to die. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

So you don't wear mixed fabrics? Kill sorcerers outright? Don't shave your beard? Don't eat rasisins? Make a rape victim marry her rapist? Just asking, since this is law according to the bible.

Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

See? After that saving faith has happened, Christians are no longer under the Law, but under Grace, which is reward without merit. It's a Gift of our Father, not of works, lest any man boast. Eph 2:8 Jesus is Lord.

 

[Aman777]

Amen?
Nope.

You BELIEVE that.
I don't.

I don't believe because neither you nor any of 'true believer' has ever provided any real rationale TO believe it.

How bout this one?

Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

In order to enter Heaven, you must be perfect, even as your Father is perfect.

Jesus:>>Mat 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

IF you cannot keep the Law perfectly, you are in need of a Savior. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

I already explained to you why scientists cannot investigate claims of the supernatural. Now who’s being willfully ignorant?

The scientists are being willfully ignorant since it took them more than 3,000 years to discover what God told us in Genesis chapter one. I wouldn't brag about their haste. Would you?

 

[Aman777]

How does anyone investigate the supernatural? What predictive model can you produce that would demonstrate the presence of something supernatural?

God's prophetic writing of events of the last days, in Genesis chapter one, which would not be discovered by Science, until the last days before Jesus returns. It''s testable empirical evidence of the literal God and NO atheist, agnostic nor phony can refute His Truth which AGREES in every way with EVERY discovery of mankind. Want to try?

 

[Aman777]

lol, you saying that once you're a Christian there's no getting out of it? You're a Christian forever?

I know quite a few atheists that would disagree.

God doesn't send His Spirit into a person and make an error, especially since it takes the AGREEMENT of the Trinity to "create" a New Creature in Christ. Gen 1:26 Gen 5:1-2 and John 14:16

 

[Aman777]

Do you wear glasses? Do you eat pork, ham, or bacon? Do you have any clothes that are a cotton-polyester blend? Do you have any tattoos? Have you ever read your horoscope? Have you ever had calamari or lobster? Have you ever shaved your beard? Have you ever worked on Sunday?

If so, I've got some bad news for you...

I know and that is WHY I asked God the Father for the Faith to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead according to the Scriptures. Why don't you?

 

[Herman Hedning]

Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

See? After that saving faith has happened, Christians are no longer under the Law, but under Grace, which is reward without merit. It's a Gift of our Father, not of works, lest any man boast. Eph 2:8 Jesus is Lord.

Let me see if I understand this correctly - non-christians are obliged to follow the christian law, but christians themselves are not. How does that work exactly?

 

[Aman777]

Let me see if I understand this correctly - non-christians are obliged to follow the christian law, but christians themselves are not. How does that work exactly?

ALL mankind (Heb-Adam) MUST follow the Law and be sinlessly perfect before they can enter Heaven. The Judgment is to see if they have obeyed the Law perfectly. Notice also that after they are judged, they are cast into the Lake of fire. Rev 20:15 Only those who have been born again Spiritually survive according to:

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Leviticus 21:20. "Blemish in the eye..."

That doesn't forbid corrective lenses, it forbids people with various flaws, including the vague "blemishes in the eyes" from even being near offerings about to be burned for Yahweh, as well as forbidding them from making such offers.

 

[Kylie]

You're the one who says you start with a claim and try to prove it wrong...if I remember the OP correctly.

How would you falsify that claim?

Actually, the one who is trying to find something out tries to disprove the claim.

So if you are trying to find out if I am a murderer, you could start by trying to disprove that. And you would do that by discovering the lack of criminal charges against me, for a start.

 

[Kylie]

Do we really know what is "actually reality", apart from our own experience?

Technically, no, but I think it's safe to assume that reality is what we can measure objectively. After all, all of reality (including you) could just be an elaborate simulation being fed to me, and I am just a brain in a jar somewhere.

 

[Kylie]

Personally, I wouldn´t call "I have to see it to believe it" asking for extraordinary evidence - but, sure: sometimes I have to see it to believe it, sometimes not. That would be just one of the criteria that I use flexibly without being able draw clear lines, though. There are others.

But wouldn't you agree that for common, every day claims, you would only require common, everyday evidence? And for bigger claims that were harder to believe (like my ability to turn into a squirrel), you would need bigger evidence that was harder to explain away?

I guess my rule of thumb would be something like this: In instances where being mistaken would kick me in the butt (i.e. real life consequences) this isn´t even a question: "truth" will force itself upon me.
In other instances (metaphysical questions), "truth" is pretty much irrelevant (and often even declared to be unattainable), and I tend to go with beauty.

And which of those categories, real life or metaphysical, does the way the universe works fall into?

On another note, I think that certain beliefs tend to be self-fulfilling prophecies (and the real life consequences of believing something aren´t due to the outside world, but due to our beliefs).

True, but we can test for that, can't we?

 

[Kylie]

God doesn't send His Spirit into a person and make an error, especially since it takes the AGREEMENT of the Trinity to "create" a New Creature in Christ. Gen 1:26 Gen 5:1-2 and John 14:16

I know quite a few Christians who would disagree with you.

 

[Kylie]

I know and that is WHY I asked God the Father for the Faith to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead according to the Scriptures. Why don't you?

Sounds to me like you saw the inconsistencies and then just decided to believe anyway, because you wanted to believe.