No. With others. I specifically said "my family." One seldom refers to one's self as his family.
Upvote
0
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.
By "discussing" you mean "discussing with yourself"?
However, I was talking about our conversation: It turned out I didn´t understand what you meant when saying "love" - and due to this lack of definition of keyterms the conversation failed, although it hadn´t even reached the point of "discussing" your love.No. With others. I specifically said "my family." One seldom refers to one's self as his family.
You're very excited about this testimony in court thing, Stiggy. But the lack of reliability of human testimony is well known to attorneys, police, judges, etc. It's something of a scourge to anyone who would like to discover the truth of a series of events.
Imagine there a crime takes place in the middle of the street. There are a total of 8 witnesses. Six tell one story, two tell another. "Trust the six!" you might be tempted to say. Immediately. In ignorance of human psychology.
But what if it turns out it was actually two groups of witnesses, a group of six friends on one side of the street, a couple walking down the other side of the street. Each group agrees within itself and disagrees with the other group.
A legal professional should know at this point to be hesitant to take the word of the larger group simply because they are larger.
Suppose we learn one man in the larger group is quite the extrovert, he is extremely passionate, earnest, and engaging in his telling of the story. The crime is quite outrageous, so we know he discussed it with his friends immediately after witnessing it.
At this point we're reasonably certain we don't have the testimony of six people from that group. We've got the testimony of one guy six times.
Suppose instead it was a group of six witnesses, and two other people who saw the crime from two different angles, do not know each other, and did not communicate with one another after the event.
The group of six (including the vocal extrovert) all agree with one another. The two individuals agree with one another and disagree with the group.
At a glance it looks like six testimonies against two, and the lawyer who's client the six testimonies favor will definitely make use of that. But in reality it's more like one testimony against two.
On a related note, plenty of people have "trancendental" experiences. They always seem to interpret them as a message from the god they already believed in or from the god culture encourages them to believe in. Very rarely do they attribute them to the god of some other culture or a new god.
It's patently obvious that the testimony of a billion Christians, a billion Muslims, a few millions Jews, or a couples tens of thousands of scientologists is all worth exactly the same. We're not talking about how many people witnessed something at all. We're talking about how many people have been convinced they witnessed something.
We could assume the core experience is a god and try to extrapolate its properties from there, but an honest attempt to do so won't lead any place you like.
You're very excited about this testimony in court thing, Stiggy. But the lack of reliability of human testimony is well known to attorneys, police, judges, etc.
Imagine there's a crime takes place on the the street. There are a total of 8 witnesses. Six tell one story, two tell another. "Trust the six!" you might be tempted to say.
A legal professional should know at this point to be hesitant to take the word of the larger group simply because they are larger.
...No, if they were bad at their job, they'd take your advice. I somehow doubt that a "good lawyer" would say, "well, we already have five witnesses. Let's not overdo it by having six more testify on behalf of our client."
...
Then I guess it will remain a mystery as to why lawyers attempt to find as many witnesses as possible to bolster their case.
.
Doesn´t change anything about the fact that undefined keyterms don´t allow for a meaningful discussion.
This is an area where parts of Christianity and UFO believers have done a very bad job, they think numbers of bad witnesses are convincing.
Glad you understand that.And he'd be quite right.
Pro tip: Don't say things like that after spending 10 pages advocating the contrary.Of course, I never advocated anything to the contrary.
Which concept - when there is no definition?No one can define God.
Does that mean even the concept cannot be discussed?
Originally Posted by stiggywiggy
No, they definitely testify about unprovable experiences.
Originally Posted by stiggywiggy
originally Posted by stiggywiggyhttp://www.christianforums.com/t7608800-23/#post59216081
Wow, so it was you after all.
Are you even aware that your two sentences above in red are contradictory?
Originally Posted by stiggywiggy
Actually, I can't think of any examples to the contrary, where witnesses actually prove their testimony to be true. You want examples: OJ, Robert Blake, Casey whatshername, Michael Jackson's doctor. None of the witnesses who testified at that trial provided proof.
So you deny having made absolute statements about love, then promptly make another one.Originally Posted by stiggywiggy
No, I didn't. I said that I cannot define the love I had for my wife.
You're confused. I never made any absolute statements about love. I only spoke of the undefinability of the love I had for my wife.
Originally Posted by stiggywiggy
OK. Thanks for the belated admission.
Admission??? What are you talking about?
Please link to where I previously wrote the words "that which cannot be defined cannot be discussed".Let me put my quote up again, so that you'll realize your error:
Where did I say you did? I asked you to explain the rationale behind "that which cannot be defined cannot be discussed" (or something like that). You told me to ask Kant. Did you forget that?Obviously no admission of squat.
stiggy earlier: So now we have this: you did not forget that I asked you to explain the rationale behind "that which cannot be defined cannot be discussed." You did not forget that in answer to that, you told me to ask Kant.
Does this mean that you cannot explain what you've asserted?
[/INDENT]
But you didn't.
Sorry, but merely typing website addresses is not tantamount to your explaining what you asserted above.
Yet in post #220, in response to a request for evidence that might suggest the existence of this 'something', you said you had "none" (your word), so why even bother with this analogy?Originally Posted by stiggywiggy
Bad comment. The hypothetical creature in my analogy lives under the hood and has no access to the accelerator. He definitely does NOT understand the workings of an automobile. Similarly, we have no access to any alleged transcendent realm unless something from that alleged realm reveals itself.
Does your definition describe angels as fiction or real?Originally Posted by stiggywiggyhttp://www.christianforums.com/t7608800-post59215931/#post59215931
No, definitions of words do not posit the reality of what those words define. If I tell you that the creature defined as an angel, has wings, I am hardly positing the existence of angels.
Yes, with comments asking for you to define the word for me. Can you define the word or not?Unbelievable. You've been commenting on a word for several pages now without even knowing what it means??
I asked you first.What on earth are you talking about?
By definition. Any alleged creator would have to transcend his creation, whether it be the entire cosmos or Hamlet.
Glad you understand that.
Pro tip: Don't say things like that after spending 10 pages advocating the contrary.
Witnesses don't prove their own testimony, lawyers do that.
So you deny having made absolute statements about love, then promptly make another one.
I like where you get argumentative with bits of your own posts
Please link to where I previously wrote the words "that which cannot be defined cannot be discussed".
Yet in post #220, in response to a request for evidence that might suggest the existence of this 'something', you said you had "none" (your word),
so why even bother with this analogy?
And where is your retraction of your accusation that I do not have evidence to support my understanding of how the brain works?
Does your definition describe angels as fiction or real?
Yes, with comments asking for you to define the word for me. Can you define the word or not?
I asked you first.
????? Lawyers PROVE that the testimonies of their witnesses are true?
Hmm. How do they do that? After their witnesses step down, do they always show video evidence of the scene previously described?
In a trieal there are certain standards of evidence that must be met. If I say I dreampt that someone killed my brother that will not do. But that does not mean that for example mystical experiences cannot be treated as evidence by certain people. Of course, whether accepting them, ant this standard of evidence actually leads ont to the truth is questionable. I suppose it ultimately depends on your epistemology and metaphysics, and what relation they actually bear to reality. I think that empiricism and physicalism are the safest options, because they are more conservative in their claims. But I am not sure that they are the only way, even if that means accepting I am not a philosophical know all.The point being that trials depend on evidence, not unprovable trancendental testimony, so comparing criminal trials to religious testimonies doesn't work. I'm sure that's why you can't provide any examples like I asked for.
Yes. It's called corroborative evidence
The point being that trials depend on evidence, not unprovable trancendental testimony, so comparing criminal trials to religious testimonies doesn't work.
You made an absolute statement. How does your use of the word "undefinability" leave it open to being defined in the future?No. There's obviously nothing absolute about that statement, which is probably why you didn't even attempt to explain why you were deluded into thinking it is.
Hint: I will not simply be taking your word for your declarations.
That is a 'wave', not a greeting.We've already met. One greeting is enough.
or replying to your posts.You might want to lay off the nitrous oxide.
It appears that you are wrong about what you said (you and JLo can work things out between yourselves):I can relate to your misery. For example, I like it when Jennifer Lopez visits me, but alas, that too never happens.
That is a 'wave', not a greeting. Do you have a problem with that?Yeah? Whattaya want? WE MET ALREADY!!!
Actually, you were the one who first said words to that effect back at the end of post 169.So you were not the guy saying something that stupid? My bad.
Sure, but those discussions will be of no significance.So you DO believe that although transcendent phenomena (if they exist) cannot be defined, they CAN be discussed? OK, we're together on that.
Providing empirical evidence for the existence of a non-existent realm would not be possible. By definition.Correct. Providing empirical evidence for the existence of a non-empirical realm would not be possible. By definition.
Analogies do not work without supporting evidence. They cannot stand alone and be of any significance.Because it works.
Wrong.It won't be coming, since I sure never said that you do not have evidence to support your "understanding" of how the brain works.
I specifically asked for *your* definition of angels. Do you define them as fictional or real?Webster does not take theological stances.
Again with the absolute statements, with nothing to back them up.Yep. Pretty much any word can be defined. In fact, all words have definitions available somewhere. It is certain phenomena that cannot be defined. I gave an example with the love I had for my wife.
Yes, I did ask first. See post #112.No, actually you didn't.
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?