The7thColporteur
Well-Known Member
- Jun 30, 2017
- 1,336
- 266
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
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.
You made an assumption in your statement.But this isn't exactly the truth, is it? You know just as well as I, that god didn't write the bible.
Not in contention, at all. Go back and read my statements, and then see your assumption.Fact: humans wrote the bible.
Would you please explain how so?More word salad.
Well, you are assuming that people pretend
, and you are invoking a special pleading from your own subjective understanding of what's always better.
How can you know that it's always better.
The track record of such claims.What is the rational for such absolute?
Even context of actual pretending there are plentiful scenarios in which saying "I don't know" will be pragmatically inferior than unknowingly invoking some model that actually match reality.
I'm not saying that IS the case with Christianity. I'm simply pointing out that you are operating by assumptions that are not as obvious as you think these are.
It is not my claim. It is God's claim. Let's be sure to make sure we understand who is making the claim. God is.
So we can both agree that god didn’t say anything, and you were merely being hyperbolic in your enthusiasm of your personal faith in a god.
Anything and everything we’ve ever learned about the nature of reality has been through the scientific method and observational rigor.
Again, believe what you need to in order to protect your faith, for its in the gray area you describe that it can only exist.
Quite the straw man.You said ...
I agreed with you that humans wrote Bible and put it on paper and subsequently copied it. I'm not sure how you jump to saying that we both agree that God did not communicate anything.
But then you say...
You are speaking hyperbolic religious language here which is ironic.
Science is a label we give for a systematic brain activity. There is no clear way to demarcate as to what part of that systematic brain activity is science and which part is not... apart from going about it by utilizing pragmatism ( if it had been proven useful... then it's science), and plurality of consensus (if specialists agree, then it's science).
The problem is that there is no clear demarcation as to what is science and what is not. Everything that we've learned resides in the realm our basic presupposition framework. Thus it becomes a no true scottsman game of appropriation of brain activity that we emulate based on viability of pragmatic outcome.
In science all we care about are ratios of predictable outcomes that we use to organize reality to our advantage. Science is more concerned with what is useful rather than with what you would label as "true"
Again, you have a brain activity demarcation problem here. Essentially that's what you are judging here. Our brain is a pattern detection and interpretation mechanism. As such it is not always reliable and is limited to a narrow context of reality, hence individual brains depend on other brains to provide context and feedback. In such, there's plentiful of "grey areas", especially since ALL our knowledge is based on a framework of axiomatic assumptions. Whatever we subsequently build is derived from the assumptions.
What you are doing here is triumphantly declare "science" as a triumph over "religion" when both of these are different continuum of the above-described process. There's a spectrum range from "scientific reductionism", which is very narrow and specific. Then there's less precise "science" like economics and sociology, and psychology which takes a much broader and more generalized approach. And there's broader "cultural wisdom" and religious axioms, which is much broader and principle-driven, especially in context of the culture these were defined.
Hence, your level of analysis of the overarching nature of this process is inch-deep. You admit that you rely on baseline assumption that you don't care to justify, and then you attempt draw the lines where no such lines exist.
It's difficult to have any broad-scope discussion about reality with the reductionist approach that you credit "everything and anything" to, especially when you can't even justify your baseline presuppositions.
Quite the straw man.
We all make three basal assumptions:Again, you seem to think that throwing these generalized assumption and labels like "straw man" adds validity to what you are saying without any need to first demonstrating that your baseline assumptions are justifiable.
That's not how adequate philosophical discussion works. It's not a chess game where you can bypass thought by reacting to something with a typical verbal retort and dismiss certain move being "against the rules".
You have to justify your rules first. And you are not even attempting to do that.
You committed straw man fallacy. Your characterization of my statements were not even close to accurate.Again, you seem to think that throwing these generalized assumption and labels like "straw man" adds validity to what you are saying without any need to first demonstrating that your baseline assumptions are justifiable.
"Adequate philosophical discussion works" only when both parties seek to understand the other's point of view, and don't commit logical fallacies during that process.That's not how adequate philosophical discussion works.
Yet, at every turn, you've reframed what I actually said, into something you wish I had said. Philosophical discussions requires interlocutors actually respond to what is said without deliberate misrepresentation.It's not a chess game where you can bypass thought by reacting to something with a typical verbal retort and dismiss certain move being "against the rules".
You have to justify your rules first. And you are not even attempting to do that.
We all make three basal assumptions:
1. Reality exists.
Would you agree?
You committed straw man fallacy. Your characterization of my statements were not even close to accurate.
Yet, at every turn, you've reframed what I actually said, into something you wish I had said. Philosophical discussions requires interlocutors actually respond to what is said without deliberate misrepresentation.
"Adequate philosophical discussion works" only when both parties seek to understand the other's point of view, and don't commit logical fallacies during that process.
No, thank you. Your attempts at clarification come across as word salad, so I've had to slow your roll so we can find a starting point.
Dictionary definition of knowledge. (It's not a trick question)Ok. I can see why you may be having trouble grasping the concept, but we can do it one by one. Please do me a favor and define complex terms as you go on. For example, what do you mean by knowledge, for example, in #2.
By we can skip #1. I've already said I agree.
Dictionary definition of knowledge. (It's not a trick question)
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?