Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It´s not about what you think they are or what evidence there is. It is about the intended meaning of the statement.I guess I still don't understand how and why you think claims of knowledge and statements of belief are "different". I cited a specific scientific example where I see no real (empirical) evidence that they are any different.
It´s not about what you think they are or what evidence there is. It is about the intended meaning of the statement.
Feeling that I don´t know doesn´t mean I can´t believe or disbelieve. Therefore "I don´t know" may not be sufficient to communicate what I want to communicate.
I am the only person who is an expert in the scriptures. No one can contest my knowledge. I know the Bible better than any person on this planet. So if you disagree then you are committing blasphemy in my opinion!
I am the only expert case closed!Aren't your opinions just "beliefs" in the final analysis? There are self proclaimed "experts" on inflation too, but not a single one of them can get inflation to show up in a real experiment with actual control mechanisms. Everyone's an 'expert' at something. Some things are simply more "tangible" than others. They all constitute "beliefs" that typically form a relatively sophisticated "belief system".
I am the only expert case closed!
Claims of knowledge and belief are the same category: both are based upon evidence. The difference is that "knowledge" is based upon intersubjective evidence while belief is not.Close. It was even simpler: Claims of knowledge and statements of belief are two entirely different categories. Thus "I don´t know" is not the middle ground between "I believe" and "I disbelieve" - as the poster whom I responded to suggested.
Not really. Both are based upon evidence.Yes, but "knowledge" is a completely different parameter than "belief".
Not really. Both are based upon evidence.
Now, let's go back a bit and remember what "evidence" is. ALL evidence is personal experience: what we see, hear, touch, taste, smell, or feel emotionally. If you want the reasons behind this conclusion, go back to
David Hume. He is the one who articulated this and reasoned it out. No one has validly disagreed with him since.
So, what we "know" is based upon personal experience. For instance, I "know" the taste of Brussels sprouts or the smell of Sphaghettios. However, many people "know" a taste of Brussels sprouts that is different than mine and one poster here has said that he "knows" the smell of Sphagettios is vile. Most people "know" a different smell of Sphaghettios.
What this means is that most of what we "know" is based upon personal experience that is different for some people under approximately the same circumstances. However ,there is a small set of personal experience that is the same for everyone under approximately the same circumstances. We all "know" the same thing. Examples include:
The sky is blue.
Seawater tastes salty.
Objects heavier than air, when released, fall.
Distant galaxies exhibit a red shift in their spectra of emitted light.
A solution of 0.1 M sulfuric acid reads 1.0 on a pH meter.
You can go on with the list.
"Belief" applies to personal experience that is not intersubjective or reasonably potentially intersubjective. I believe Brussels sprouts taste vile. Bitter but beyond bitter to the point that I involuntarily vomit whenever I taste them. I believe bagpipe music is tonal and pleasant. I believe there are no teapots orbiting Mars.
In the last case we have very little personal experience to go on. Yes, we have sent a few probes to Mars and they have not collided with an orbiting teapot. However, let's face it, there is a huge amount of space available there where a teapot could orbit Mars and not collide with any of the Viking spacecraft.
As it happens, nearly everyone shares that belief. However, that doesn't make it "knowledge", but simply a shared belief.
If I lack belief in leprechauns, then I believe in the opposite of leprechauns.
This makes no sense.
Simple. You believe SassyPants the Magnificent doesn't exist.Now I believe the opposite of the belief in SassyPants the Magnificent... so, what the crap do I believe, exactly?
Why not? If we are deciding on a criteria for things to exist, you can't set up a Special Pleading for the supernatural.First, the Earth is here *taps on the ground* and we know what "flat" is *holds up a ruler*. You can't quickly swap out natural things for supernatural things and then expect the analogy to work...
Claim: Coke is the best soft drink. Response: I do not believe Coke is the best soft drink. There is nothing in the proposition about Mountain Dew.Second, believing one proposition is false, does not mean I believe the opposite is true.
If I don't believe Coke is the best soft drink, I'm not forced to believe Mountain Dew is the best soft drink.
Not really. You have personal experience your car starts. Christians have personal experience of God.Atheism is not a faith.
Christians have faith that there is a god (and all the other stuff that goes with it) for very different reasons that I have faith that my car will start.
So? The smell of Sphaghettios exists only in your mind. That "putrid smell" does not exist on the store shelf. Nor does it exist in the minds of the millions of people who have eaten Sphagettios and found the smell "not putrid".SpaghettiO's exist on the store shelves. Gods do not.
Really? How? Walk us thru the similarity, please.I think it is, "wrong for people to like SpaghettiOs", in the same way that I think it is "wrong for large women to wear too-tight clothing."
Yes. But "sophisticated" behavior does not have to arise from "awareness". A chess playing computer program displays some pretty sophisticated behavior, but it is not "aware", is it?IMO it's actually a more "basic" question about the source of awareness, and how awareness manifests itself in even supposedly "simple" lifeforms.
Even single-celled organisms feed themselves in 'smart' manner
The researchers then subjected the amoebae to various choices of nutrients, each time comprising a protein-rich and a sugar-rich source in varying proportions (without offering them their "optimal" diet). The results demonstrated that the amoebae are capable of reconstituting the ideal diet required for their growth from these two sources. In fact, they move until they cover the nutrient sources so as to absorb twice as much protein as sugar. Their nutrient intake thus remains constant and unchanging, whatever the choice proposed. In a final experiment, eleven different food sources, once again containing variable quantities of protein and sugar, were offered to the amoebae. Most of the amoebae succeeded in selecting the food source containing twice as much protein as sugar.
That is pretty sophisticated dietary behavior for a single celled organism don't you think?
Because that is how everyone uses it in everyday language. I gave 2 examples. Did you not notice them or did you not agree?Who is "we"? You might, but why are you projecting that onto everyone else?
Sorry, but atheism believes things in the absence of objective, intersubjective evidence. That is faith.It doesn't matter how important it is to whoever whether it is or isn't, atheism isn't a faith.
So it would be fair to say that you don't believe Leeds will be promoted, and you also don't believe they won't be promoted?
Astronomers have observations supporting the existence of "dark energy", "dark matter", and the theory of inflation.Could you elaborate a bit? For instance, mainstream astronomers "believe" that they have "knowledge" about "dark energy", "dark matter", "inflation" and the starting date of something called a "big bang". They write about such things every single day. In that instance, how would knowledge and "belief" be completely different?
No. If you "lack belief" in the existence of leprechauns (which is what we mean when we say "I believe in leprechauns"), then you are saying "I believe leprechauns do not exist."
Astronomers have observations supporting the existence of "dark energy", "dark matter", and the theory of inflation.
The "situation" is that nobody can empirically demonstrate that space ever expands or that objects move faster than the speed of light. Since that's never been done, there's no real link between the redshift we observe and the ASSUMPTIONS you've made about that phenomenon being related to movement. It could just as easily be related to tired light processes, in which case, no "faster than light speed" expansion is required.You seem to be phrasing the situation the way you want, but this phrasing does not accurately describe the situatation.
Like I said earlier, I see no difference between what you're calling "knowledge" and I would I call 'belief". I have no 'knowledge' that space expands. I have no evidence that space expands. Therefore pointing at the sky and claiming that "space expands" is really just another "leap of faith" IMO. It's an "agreed upon belief", but it's still just a very subjective interpretation of the data, and therefore it's a very subjective "belief", one I simply don't share with the mainstream.The observations are intersubjective, so they are "knowledge".
Astronomers have observations supporting the existence of "dark energy", "dark matter", and the theory of inflation.
Within Judeo-Christianity, God's intervention is an observation. Your proposed mechanism is not adequate to explain the intervention. The EM field can't do the things Judeo-Christians have observed God to do.However, for purposes of this particular thread and physics theory, God's intervention is simply a "given", or at least the "possibility" of such intervention is a given. I've even proposed the physical mechanism that is responsible for that intervention process, specifically the EM field.
Not that I can see. Those are 2 separate activities. Sustaining the chemical reaction of hydrogen and oxygen to get water has nothing to do with Parting the Red Sea so the Hebrews can escape from Pharoah's army, does it? God can do the sustaining but never intervene in human history.Wouldn't the fact that the universe requires that sustaining influence preclude anyone from claiming God doesn't physically intervene in human affairs?
What we consider "personality" is a product of our brain. And, within the brain, it is a product of the firing of neurons in specific sequences. My gastrocnemius muscle, for instance, doesn't have a personality. A bacterium doesn't have a personality. It's not funny, or moody, or brave, or considerate, etc. So being alive and having a personality are 2 separate things.Well, if God is the physical universe and alive, then the universe has a "personality", just as the chemicals in our body ultimately have a combined 'personality'. Individually no single atom may possess that "personality" but when the whole being is considered, it does have personality.
First, I said quite clearly, "if pantheism is true". Panentheism pretty well forbids the universe being alive.If you meant "panentheism is true",then you're right it doesn't require the universe to be alive, or to have a personality. It's more akin to an 'intelligent design" that allows the creator to interact with it's creation, more like an internet than a living organism. We'll just call any such scenario an example of an 'intelligently designed" universe.
Those alledged electronic circuits are incapable of manufacturing anything. The best you can hope for is some type of non-intelligent communication along the circuits.In the sense that those uncounted trillions of electronic circuits in space *could* represent life *or* intelligent design, it still has to be one or the other.
First, you have not established that there are any "electronic circuits in space". Second, I dispute that what you have described is "sophisticated". By "sophisticated" in terms of living organisms or manufactured by humans, there is specificity. In an electronic circuit, current is restricted in where it can go. IOW, in a transistor radio, the current can only flow from one transistor to another, for from the on/off switch to one transistor. But the Birkenhead circuits are not specific. If you are referring to "plasma circuits", then stars put out plasma in every direction. No specificity. Such non-specific circuits in living organisms or in human artifacts don't do anything. In fact, when current leaves the restricted path, we call it a "short-circuit" and it stops the functionality.There are no other examples of such sophisticated circuitry on Earth that isn't either a part of a living organism, or was created by a living organism.
From what we know of personality, it's not even a possibility. We know the circumstances in which personality happens. In pantheism, those circumstances are not present. At best, the idea of personality in pantheism is an unsupported speculation that relies on personality arising in circumstances totally different from those in which personality is seen.I agree that it can't be "assumed", but it's certainly a possibility.
Actually, we don't experience the President the same way. For one thing, we don't all see the President at the same time. many of us may see the President at particular speeches -- such as the State of the Union -- but some of us have met him personally as he is on the campaign trail in New Hampshire or Iowa. What is more, our "experience" in this case is colored by our expectations. Those that like his politics are prone to see positive personality traits. Those that dislike his politics are prone to highlight their experience of negative personality traits.We all pretty much experience the President the same way don't we? We certainly don't all agree on every aspect of his "personality".
It's you who is assuming a "standard" force that we are familiar with enough to have a system to measure it! I am not assuming that, which is why I doubt the ability to measure the force and focus on the effect.Are you simply "assuming" that it's not a "standard" force, one we're already familiar with?
I said "singular" instances. Apparently I should also have said "spatially and temporally limited intances". You have a withdrawal of sustenance all over the universe. However, what happens if God withdraws the ionic attraction in the granite overlying the magma pocket under Thera in 1500 BC or so? The result is the dissolution of the granite, a catastrophic upwared welling of the magma, and a massive volcanic eruption. The results of that eruption are many of the "plagues" in Egypt.I dunno, perhaps the power goes off and the suns all go dark?
Notice I said:Perhaps God's intervention at the Resurrection was or was not "measurable", but Thomas certainly touched Jesus after he came back to life didn't he? ... Didn't Thomas actually "measure" and feel his physical body in that way? What do you mean exactly by measuring? How can you be sure you couldn't have "measured" it had you been standing there with exactly the right equipment?
There's no "assumption" here. I simply said that it is possible for God to intervene and not be detectable. I didn't say any and all influence was "necessarily undetectable". As it happens, it may be that all influence is undetectable, but that is different than such influence is "necessarily" undetectable.Do we have to "assume" the influence is *necessarily* 'undetectable" to us?
The same way scientists define it: An entity is alive if it has all 4 of the following characteristics:I'm not sure how you're personally defining "life". Are you able to create entire single celled organisms over some period of time, or just some RNA building block type processes that you're calling 'life', that you believe will evolve into single celled organisms over some period of time?
Now why did you assume that?Nothing actually. I would assume that awareness is an integral part of nature, a function of nature/God.
What, besides living organisms, can you demonstrate as having "awareness"?It manifests itself inside of living organisms if the chemistry is just right. I'd assume that there are ways to 'tap into' that awareness, both physically and through chemistry specifically.
But do all examples of "current" or chemistry produce awareness? That seems to be a hidden assumption of yours: if there is "current" then there is awareness. Is that assumption justified? Are there not examples where there is current or chemical processing but no awareness? Is your computer "aware"?"Awareness" seems to involve "current" or at least 'chemical processing'.
Are you seriously thinking that God being aware of a drop of water is the same as the water drop being aware?I'm not sure an individualized atom, or drop of water is necessarily "aware". In the sense that the universe itself may be/is aware (in pantheism), then it's "awareness' if simply a function of God's awareness. Do you believe that there is drop of rain that God is not "aware" of?
A timeline is an expression of the continuity between past, present, and future. Thus, in saying that cosmologists make such a timeline, you have refuted your own claim that they suspend such a continuity! IOW, you just refuted yourself.What these big bangers have tried to do,and it is pure insanity,is force themselves to suspend the normal experience of the continuity between past,present and future and insert the idea that the 'past' can be seen directly by way of a Universal evolutionary timeline.
This is not just wrong,it is dangerous and to compel the imagination to absorb something it cannot is intellectual suicide.
I don't follow this. What are Christians supposed to "know better" about? Are we supposed to know that the Big Bang never happened? Why?Trying to mesh the physical past of a human lifetime in the same existence of an alternative physical 'past that can be seen directly is not a disgrace on empiricists who will and can believe anything and everything but on Christians who should know better but are too lazy to figure out how we arrive at a catastrophe in the first place.
How is Big Bang an ideology? It looks like you are using the Argument from Personal Incredulity. It appears that you find it difficult to imagine that there is no "center" to the universe. That's a personal difficulty, not a difficulty with Big Bang. Look, I strongly suggesst this article:Despite appearances,there is a straightforward line of reasoning which leads to these no center/no circumference ideologies of 'big bang'
A timeline is an expression of the continuity between past, present, and future. Thus, in saying that cosmologists make such a timeline, you have refuted your own claim that they suspend such a continuity! IOW, you just refuted yourself.
Interesting. Can you give me a full citation for this quote? No, you can't. Because it is in a letter Galileo wrote and he didn't give a full citation.The quote in your signature is interesting but is many magnitudes weaker than Galileo's use of it through the version of St Augustine -
"If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation, not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there." St Augustine
This holds for Christians as much as those who lead uninspiring lives through their own weaknesses for the greater the Christian love the more the works found in the Bible and outside of it will make sense for sometimes the heart instructs the head.
I'm having difficulty relating this to what I wrote Of the many religions extant in the Roman Empire when Constantine issued this, nearly all except Christianity no longer have any worshippers. Since you are saying force was not used to eliminate these religions, we are left with the question of why the adherents of those religions decided that the version of deity was false and stopped worshipping.Constantine.
The Edict of Milan, issued by Constantine and Licinius, "... we should let both the Christians and all others follow whatever religion they wanted to, so that whatever God there is in heaven may be happy and pleased with us and with all our subjects."
Not really about religion, but, as with everything, politics, money and power.
Whatever god helped him win the battles.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?