Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[HitchSlap]

So you do not believe in personal knowledge?

I believe my personal knowledge should be demonstrable.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I believe my personal knowledge should be demonstrable.

So do you know that you love someone? If you do, how do you demonstrate that to any one else?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Maybe I missing something here, but let me try again.

You claim to have knowledge that the God you believe in exists, and you know this to be true. Is that correct?

The person who believes in another God (different than you) also claims to have knowledge their God exists and they know it to be true. Your position would be, the other person's knowledge is incorrect?

First I will say that there are levels of knowing. There are different way of knowing what we know. There are things we know intuitively and things we must learn to know. There are different descriptions of knowing. For a Muslim, knowing Allah is not a sense experience. To a Muslim to know Allah one must know the Q'uran. They know Allah from the Q'uran and obeying Allah's will. They know Allah's will from the Q'uran. So to a Muslim that says he/she knows Allah means that He has studied the Q'uran, he obeys Allah's will discovered through the Q'uran. His entire "knowing" of Allah is through the Q'uran. So he/she knows Allah exists through the Q'uran. It is an indirect knowing that is not sensing Allah's existence personally. So do they know Allah? They probably would say that is their goal and they do know Allah exists, but that knowledge comes from the Q'uran.

So when a Muslim says he/she knows Allah exists it is based on something that is outside of themselves or learning what they know. A secondhand type of knowing. A knowing of culture and obedience.

For a Christian, they may not know the Bible or any religious aspects of Christianity and still know God personally. They experience the existence of God. They experience the relationship. It is a deep down sense of knowing who God is.

So it is the level of knowing and how we come to know that separates Islam and Allah and Christianity and God.

 

[bhsmte]

First I will say that there are levels of knowing. There are different way of knowing what we know. There are things we know intuitively and things we must learn to know. There are different descriptions of knowing. For a Muslim, knowing Allah is not a sense experience. To a Muslim to know Allah one must know the Q'uran. They know Allah from the Q'uran and obeying Allah's will. They know Allah's will from the Q'uran. So to a Muslim that says he/she knows Allah means that He has studied the Q'uran, he obeys Allah's will discovered through the Q'uran. His entire "knowing" of Allah is through the Q'uran. So he/she knows Allah exists through the Q'uran. It is an indirect knowing that is not sensing Allah's existence personally. So do they know Allah? They probably would say that is their goal and they do know Allah exists, but that knowledge comes from the Q'uran.

So when a Muslim says he/she knows Allah exists it is based on something that is outside of themselves or learning what they know. A secondhand type of knowing. A knowing of culture and obedience.

For a Christian, they may not know the Bible or any religious aspects of Christianity and still know God personally. They experience the existence of God. They experience the relationship. It is a deep down sense of knowing who God is.

So it is the level of knowing and how we come to know that separates Islam and Allah and Christianity and God.

Different levels of knowing? Sounds quite subjective and personal feelings and experiences usually are.

You are saying then, that those of another religion, have different levels of knowing vs a Christian?

What about Hindu's? Don't they claim to know they are right personally about their beliefs, just as some Christians claim to "just know" they are right about their beliefs?

And you never answered my question. Do you agree with those from other religions; Islam, Hindu's when they claim they know they are right about their beliefs, or do you think they are mistaken?

Lastly, can people who claim to have personal knowledge, turn out to be wrong about their personal knowledge?

 

[bhsmte]

So do you know that you love someone? If you do, how do you demonstrate that to any one else?

Love is an emotion once and is a great example of unique feelings that only the person can relate to.

Knowledge of the existence of something outside of themselves (a God), is different, because one is claiming something else exists, that is supposedly not generated within their own mind, like love is.

 

[PsychoSarah]

IF knowledge is just an understanding of reality it does not have to be demonstrable.

We can't share that knowledge but we can know.

That just produces the illusion of understanding reality; one which can hinder real understanding

 

[HitchSlap]

So do you know that you love someone? If you do, how do you demonstrate that to any one else?

Non sequitur.

I asked you to demonstrate your god/s exist based on your claim that you know it does.

Still waiting.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Different levels of knowing? Sounds quite subjective and personal feelings and experiences usually are.

Everything is filtered through our subjective outlook even knowledge. Do you doubt that there are different levels of knowing?
We can know something that acts automatically like driving a manual car. We had to learn to drive the car..receiving instruction and acting on that knowledge in a manner we need not "think" about but the knowledge is there. There are skills that must be learned but come without thinking but the knowledge is there. There is other knowledge that is shared. This knowledge we have to think about, we have to sift it and be convinced that what we are being presented is to us convincing enough to be something we think we know. We know it indirectly. This can include beliefs we don't know directly but which consist of us being convinced of them either by our family groups, community or authority. We have another indirect way and that is by studying scientifically. We don't do the scientific experiments ourselves but those who are educated in the fields of study do and others test them and then they are presented to others as substantiated through scientific methodology. Then we have direct knowledge, that what we learn from directly do the experiments, or experiencing the thing we know through our own senses.

I hope this exemplifies the different ways of knowing and how we have to determine in what ways we know what we know.

You are saying then, that those of another religion, have different levels of knowing vs a Christian?

Most certainly. Many religions are culture based. The adherents know the religion, the features of the religion and believe it to be true. Their knowing is based on others in their culture. Hinduism is one such religion. They have no direct personal interaction with any of their gods.

What about Hindu's? Don't they claim to know they are right personally about their beliefs, just as some Christians claim to "just know" they are right about their beliefs?

They belief they are right about their beliefs. There is a difference between "beliefs" and knowing they are right due to their culture and knowing God personally without any cultural underpinning.

And you never answered my question. Do you agree with those from other religions; Islam, Hindu's when they claim they know they are right about their beliefs, or do you think they are mistaken?

There reasons for knowing are at a level that is not based on direct knowledge and so they hold beliefs that they think are correct and so they know they are right. They don't claim that they know the gods directly, they know they are right about their beliefs because they are their beliefs.

I hold to beliefs that I feel are correct but I don't know. I know that I don't know them but I still believe them to be true.

They do not know their gods. They have not had any personal direct experiences with their gods. They do not claim to.

So yes, I feel they are mistaken on their beliefs yet, I don't see their knowing to be on the same level or making the same claims that does a Christian.

Lastly, can people who claim to have personal knowledge, turn out to be wrong about their personal knowledge?

Yes. No human knowledge is absolute. I could be wrong. I could be wrong due to some other entity pretending to be God who has power over the universe.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Non sequitur.

I asked you to demonstrate your god/s exist based on your claim that you know it does.

Still waiting.

Don't hold your breath. I never claimed that I could demonstrate that God exists.

 

[HitchSlap]

Don't hold your breath. I never claimed that I could demonstrate that God exists.

Right. Because you believe it does, you don't know it does.

That's why they call it faith.

 

[Davian]

Everything is filtered through our subjective outlook even knowledge. Do you doubt that there are different levels of knowing?
We can know something that acts automatically like driving a manual car. We had to learn to drive the car..receiving instruction and acting on that knowledge in a manner we need not "think" about but the knowledge is there. There are skills that must be learned but come without thinking but the knowledge is there. There is other knowledge that is shared. This knowledge we have to think about, we have to sift it and be convinced that what we are being presented is to us convincing enough to be something we think we know. We know it indirectly. This can include beliefs we don't know directly but which consist of us being convinced of them either by our family groups, community or authority. We have another indirect way and that is by studying scientifically. We don't do the scientific experiments ourselves but those who are educated in the fields of study do and others test them and then they are presented to others as substantiated through scientific methodology. Then we have direct knowledge, that what we learn from directly do the experiments, or experiencing the thing we know through our own senses.

I hope this exemplifies the different ways of knowing and how we have to determine in what ways we know what we know.




Most certainly. Many religions are culture based. The adherents know the religion, the features of the religion and believe it to be true. Their knowing is based on others in their culture. Hinduism is one such religion. They have no direct personal interaction with any of their gods.


They belief they are right about their beliefs. There is a difference between "beliefs" and knowing they are right due to their culture and knowing God personally without any cultural underpinning.



There reasons for knowing are at a level that is not based on direct knowledge and so they hold beliefs that they think are correct and so they know they are right. They don't claim that they know the gods directly, they know they are right about their beliefs because they are their beliefs.

I hold to beliefs that I feel are correct but I don't know. I know that I don't know them but I still believe them to be true.

They do not know their gods. They have not had any personal direct experiences with their gods. They do not claim to.

So yes, I feel they are mistaken on their beliefs yet, I don't see their knowing to be on the same level or making the same claims that does a Christian.


Yes. No human knowledge is absolute. I could be wrong. I could be wrong due to some other entity pretending to be God who has power over the universe.

So you are open to two possibilities: God or "deceiving god". What of the option that you are simply imagining it all? That would certainly explain why you cannot demonstrate that your god - or that tricky god - exists.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Don't hold your breath. I never claimed that I could demonstrate that God exists.

Then go to the philosophy subforum rather than this scientific debate forum

 

[Oncedeceived]

That just produces the illusion of understanding reality; one which can hinder real understanding

Originally Posted by HitchSlap

Stating you know something exists before you're able to demonstrate something exists, is well, foolish.

Knowledge is simply an understanding of reality, and exists regardless of belief. Which is why theists need "faith" to believe in god/s, because it's the very thing they can't demonstrate.
​

IF knowledge is just an understanding of reality it does not have to be demonstrable.

We can't share that knowledge but we can know. __________________

This statement needed to be in context to understand what I was saying. We have knowledge for instance of a common ancestry or commonality of life forms and from this there is a belief that there was a common ancestor that all life shares. This common ancestor does not exist, has no fossil evidence of its existence but people believe they know that it existed. They can't demonstrate directly that common ancestor. Does that mean it never existed? Or does than mean it was an illusion? Rather they have evidence that supports it. We can't provide evidence of God. We don't have evidence of Him personally nor can there be fossil evidence for Him but there is evidence of support of His existence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So you are open to two possibilities: God or "deceiving god". What of the option that you are simply imagining it all? That would certainly explain why you cannot demonstrate that your god - or that tricky god - exists.

Due to the fact that realty reflects what it should for it to be truth rather than imagination.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Originally Posted by HitchSlap

Stating you know something exists before you're able to demonstrate something exists, is well, foolish.

Knowledge is simply an understanding of reality, and exists regardless of belief. Which is why theists need "faith" to believe in god/s, because it's the very thing they can't demonstrate.
​

IF knowledge is just an understanding of reality it does not have to be demonstrable.

We can't share that knowledge but we can know. __________________

This statement needed to be in context to understand what I was saying. We have knowledge for instance of a common ancestry or commonality of life forms and from this there is a belief that there was a common ancestor that all life shares. This common ancestor does not exist, has no fossil evidence of its existence but people believe they know that it existed. They can't demonstrate directly that common ancestor. Does that mean it never existed? Or does than mean it was an illusion? Rather they have evidence that supports it. We can't provide evidence of God. We don't have evidence of Him personally nor can there be fossil evidence for Him but there is evidence of support of His existence.

A SCIENTIFIC understanding of relaity does require evidence; you don't want to have to provide actual evidence, then go to the philosophy subforum. The nature of science requires claims to be substantiated with actual evidence, but philosophy, which inevitably is more thinking deeply than anything else, doesn't have such a requirement.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then go to the philosophy subforum rather than this scientific debate forum

I was discussing scientific matters and Loudmouth said something in regard to my position being biased and I agreed that my discussion did come from a starting point of knowing God exists and that it does determine the direction of my comments. As usual it got derailed with that comment:

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

In one way you are correct, I know that God exists and so that is the shooting off point in all my discussions. That is the one absolute known element in my debates.
...
​

Why should I take this statement, that you "know God", any more seriously than you would take my claim that I "know Santa".

So it took that direction. I didn't claim that I could prove that God exists nor that I could demonstrate God existence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

A SCIENTIFIC understanding of relaity does require evidence; you don't want to have to provide actual evidence, then go to the philosophy subforum. The nature of science requires claims to be substantiated with actual evidence, but philosophy, which inevitably is more thinking deeply than anything else, doesn't have such a requirement.

This began as such, evidence that supports my position.

 

[Davian]

So you are open to two possibilities: God or "deceiving god". What of the option that you are simply imagining it all? That would certainly explain why you cannot demonstrate that your god - or that tricky god - exists.

Due to the fact that realty reflects what it should for it to be truth rather than imagination.

Are you referring to your perception of reality as a fact?

 

[PsychoSarah]

This began as such, evidence that supports my position.

Your personal perception of the world is not evidence. Anyone thinking the universe looks designed is not in and of itself evidence for it. You have not presented any scientific evidence for your position thus far

 

[bhsmte]

Right. Because you believe it does, you don't know it does.

That's why they call it faith.

You claim to 'just know' that the God you believe in exists. But since you can't demonstrate this is objectively correct, it sounds as if you are admitting you just knowing is personally subjective and I would agree with that.