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.
As stated, it is not incumbent upon me to provide evidence of God. It is incumbent upon God. God already has so done.That's merely what you believe / claim.
Your statement, is not evidence of itself.
I consider knowledge to be demonstrable, i.e. all objects fall toward earth at 9.81 m/s/s.There is no single dictionary definition of knowledge. "Knowledge" has a different semantic meaning whether you are speaking to a philosopher, scientist, educator, or a theologian. It's not a simple term to unpack:
Knowledge - Wikipedia
As a generic understanding of that term, do you mean that we can see some patterns of reality, remember these, and recognize these later?
In that case, I can certainly agree. If you mean something more than that, then you'd have to tell me how you define knowledge first.
You've made 'that' assumption again.I've already shown you to be wrong on this. Claiming god wrote the bible doesn't make it so.
This is your assumption. Where did I mention anything about authorship of any writings in my statement about incumbency? You are continually assuming this into what I stated. Correct your error.Unless you can produce a document signed by god himself...
Either men wrote the bible and claimed god told them what to say, or god his'self wrote it. If you fail to see the tautology in your reasoning, then I'm afraid we're at an impasse.This is your assumption. Where did I mention anything about authorship of any writings in my statement about incumbency? You are continually assuming this into what I stated. Correct your error.
Why do you keep mentioning the authorship of the bible, when I never mentioned this in the matter of incumbency?Either men wrote the bible and claimed god told them what to say, or god his'self wrote it. If you fail to see the tautology in your reasoning, then I'm afraid we're at an impasse.
Have a nice day.
... I make no claim this deity exists. It's incumbent on you to demonstrate this. ...
sigh.... where/when did god say "I AM"?Why do you keep mentioning the authorship of the bible, when I never mentioned this in the matter of incumbency?
My statement was clear in response to yours. Read it again:
No. It isn't. It is incumbent upon God [who said, "I AM"]. And God already has.
I consider knowledge to be demonstrable, i.e. all objects fall toward earth at 9.81 m/s/s.
and #3 [Generally, but not always], independently verifiable, falsifiable models with predictive capabilities, work [better] in describing [processes or entities of] reality.
When they make faith based claims and then call that "knowledge" - that is pretending, yes.
..............
I'm operating on evidence and an extreme track record of empirical succes and faith-based failure.
.
If you are ignorant on a subject, then the amount of potential models you could come up with are practically infinite, only really limited by your imagination.
Again not a trick question. To your point, we know how to calculate gravity with respect to two bodies of mass.Well, no. That claim is not true in a way that it's formulated. You may not thought through example, or you assumed that I'll fill in the blanks in your intended meaning, but:
I never said "all." That was your erroneous assumption.1) All objects don't fall towards Earth, especially if they are outside of reach of Earth gravity. I certainly suspect that you've meant to say "in reach of Earth's gravity", but I'm pointing this out to show you that knowledge is a contextual concept.
That's the benefit of models having predictive capabilities, measuring the gravitational pull of all objects is unnecessary. A sound plane built in Russia will travel to the U.S., and vice versa.2) You can't really demonstrate that ALL objects fall to Earth at that rate. We don't have access to all objects in the Universe to test that claim. Even if we did, it would take quite a bit of time to go through all of them.
Incorrect, as 9.81m/s/s is independently verified and found so sound, that at this point in time, it is no longer considered scientific theory, but a "law."All you can do in this case is test a few and make a generalized pragmatic assumption.
Knowledge is always demonstrable, otherwise we refer to it as an unfounded claim. Either I have knowledge of purple pixies farting universes into existence, or I don't.Thus, knowledge can't always be demonstrable apart from our presuppositions and identity labels we can point to.
Whenever you're ready.Nevertheless, let's move on to the next one, because it's more dense of an assumption.
Adding "quite a few books-on-epistemology-seized[sic] gaps in there," doesn't make our basal fundamental assumptions any less prescient.First of all, I'm not sure how you jump from "we can know something" all the way to scientific models and fallibility principle. You are missing quite a few books-on-epistemology-seized gaps in there.
Great link. I like Sean Carol a lot.Secondly, such assumption was not in play until Popper came along in 1900s. Such idea was not an inherent assumption of scientific or philosophical thought. In fact, plenty of scientists to this day don't make such assumption, and instead argue that it should be retired as as a methodological presupposition. Take Sean Carol, for example.
Edge.org
Which scenario better describes reality, in your opinion:But, before we even get to scientific methodology...
1) I hate to be a stickler for precision, but "describing reality"? Reality is an abstract concept for everything that exists... even something that we may not be aware of as of yet. We can't "describe reality", just like you can't "describe freedom". It's an abstract concept. You can use it as a shortcut to say "everything that exists", but what we end up describing are isolated objects or processes that we assume are real. Reality is too broad to describe. Again, I suspect I understand what you likely mean by "describing reality".
Other than theoretical physics, please describe a situation in which a model making unpredictable predictions is preferred.2) Let's grant that you meant just that . Just like Carol, I would disagree with such presupposition without prefacing it with "Generally, but not always". It's a generally good concept, but it can't possibly be applied to all fields of research.
Like Jesus Christ rising from the dead? All we can do is provide likely explanations, those that comport with reality. In the case of a dead man resurrecting, well, as they say, extraordinary claims require...Much of our interpretation of history is neither independently verifiable, not it is falsifiable.
You fail to understand what having "predictive value" means. For instance, when an ancient text claims that millions of Hebrews were lost in a ten square mile of desert for forty years, yet zero archaeological evidence exists to support such a claim, the claim can be considered as having zero predictive capabilities.Likewise, many historical models are viewed in hind-sight, so demanding prediction is somewhat futile.
Which is why science is better than religion for predicting reality, as it doesn't depend on one person alone. This is what "independently objectively verifiable" means.In most cases we are limited to subjective accounts of events, but we have no means to independently corroborating those apart from the authors who record these.
Which is why Hume's Maxim and the like are necessary, lest we get carried away and suggest Thor throws lightning bolts from the heavens.The same goes for a wide variety of sciences that rely on complex data to formulate hypotheses and theories... psychology, sociology, linguistics, etc.
I agree that it's a good principle to follow. I disagree that it's absolute to the point of the necessity to canonize it as axiom, especially when it comes to broader scope of research and claims that would be difficult to examine.
I never said "all." That was your erroneous assumption.
In several times/locations.sigh.... where/when did god say "I AM"?
He’s free to use any sufficient method it chooses.In several times/locations.
Did you need it to be presented in a written down format to be considered a factual account, or would you also accept oral?
For instance, since you seem to continually refer to the Bible [and its authorship], in Exodus 3:14 KJB, it is recorded as written testimony, that Moses personally witnessed God say this, but this was done before any such written account existed.
Therefore, I am simply asking you, are you limiting the evidence you accept to only that which is written, and only to the Bible's account?
Since it is incumbent upon God, to make God known, in what ways would you expect for God to make God known? Would you accept something which is outside of what you would expect?
Ok.He’s free to use any sufficient method it chooses.
An omniscient god would know what it would take to convince me of it’s existence.Ok.
What did you mean by 'sufficient', as it sounds exclusive; and refers to only that which you will accept and expect, and nothing outside of such. Hence my question, about accepting that which is outside of your expectation.
Truly.An omniscient [G]od would know what it would take to convince me of [God's] existence.
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?