- Nov 23, 2013
- 15,069
- 5,309
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Are you suggesting that another person might measure its length differently?
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.
Your mind perceived that measurement; it becomes subjective.
Well, Kylie, I have been trying to explain my position in my own words. Then you asked if one could paraphrase it with "extraordinary" being the keyword, and I responded "No, doesn´t work for me.". I think it´s unnecessarily complicated to work my way back to my position from your way of paraphrasing it - would you agree?
I don´t think so. The sort of evidence would still be the same (e.g. "I want a video" - there´s nothing extraordinary about a video).
As I said already, I can hear the same claim ("I had cereals for breakfast"), but - depending on the circumstances - sometimes demand evidence or even conclusive evidence or not.
Say, there was a box of cereals and a bar of chocolate in our household, you tell me you ate ceareals - but the cereal box is still unopened but the chocolate is gone...
Or, what you ate for breakfast is crucial for your alibi in a murder case...
Or, you have a gluten intolerance, you tell me you ate cereal for breakfast, but you don´t have any symptoms....
To be honest, I probably wouldn´t accept it at all. I wouldn´t even ask for evidence. I would take you straight to the doctors.
But in case I would want evidence, the evidence wouldn´t anything special or extraordinary (e.g. "I want to see a video of it.").
However, the thing is: The sun is still there. You haven´t eaten it. I know that any evidence you will come up with must be fake.
So what sort of evidence would you demand from me in order to accept my claim that I have eaten the sun?
Ah, so in the meantime you have already added more to the story, and on top have made your claim unfalsifiable.
But let´s get back to your "extraordinary evidence" category: Again, what would be the extraordinary evidence I had to bring to the table in order to convince you that I have eaten the sun and replaced it by a duplicate?
This isn´t even in dispute. I am wondering how the category "extraordinary evidence" helps here, though.
It´s all a matter of "frames of reference". Everything within the universe can possibly be explained by the forces at work within the universe. However, if someone starts asking "(How) did the laws of physics come into being", it would be absurd (a category error) to try to explain that by means of the laws of physics. We would have to widen the frame of reference.
I think we have a misunderstanding here.
I haven´t been talking about tasks to accomplish, in the first place.
Secondly, I was talking about beliefs that people actually hold (not about beliefs that they are told to accept).
Two weeks ago, a friend of mine went to Ireland for vacation. She knew in advance that it would be terrible, and that everything would go wrong. It didn´t surprise me at all that this came true for her.
I'd say that reality is 'other' and it is what it is in total, whether we can measure it or not. And if there is presently some aspect of it we can't measure, it could manifest at some point in our future and bite us in the butt... such as an uncharted asteroid that we don't know about until.....WHAMMO!!!! In such a case, we can't say "reality is [only] what we can measure objectively." Conversely, reality is not [only] what we think we experience subjectively, either.
So, with my definition of reality in mind...I then turn to contemplate the processes of discerning our 'world' through science--, and in doing so, I like to diversify my sources of methodology so as to bring to myself more awareness and more understanding as to the possibilities of measurment, such as can be seen by comparing the methodologies of two atheists who differ as to their respective understandings of the relationship of 'science and religion,' particularly as it applies to our evolved universe.
So, how do I determine what is a fact? I use science for the physical world first, and secondly for my religion, I use 'hermenuetics', an approach to the world of human thought as it is reflected in what Dr. Zimmerman states below:
No, it's simply the demonstration of the willful ignorance of being born again Spiritually. Tell us HOW you can become unborn physically and I will understand HOW you can become unborn Spiritually. You were born physically into this world. Some choose to be born again Spiritually into the 3rd Heaven. Others choose eternal death for themselves. It's called Free Will. Amen?
If I may say it in my own wordsI'm sorry, I'm merely trying to establish that we both agree that the harder to believe a claim is, the more impressive the evidence required to convince us of that claim needs to be. Regardless of the words used, I think you understand the concept I am trying to communicate, and I'd rather not waste time quibbling over the specific words used. Do you agree with that concept or not?
Yes, the evidence is that the video shows that which is claimed. If A is claimed, it would be nonsensical to demand a video that shows B.But the evidence is not the video, the evidence is what the video shows.
Depends entirely on the rest of the sentence.Then it seems you prefer the term "conclusive evidence" rather than "extraordinary evidence."
Yes, and I would be the one to determine what evidence I find conclusive.If I claimed that I could turn into a squirrel, you would not believe me until I presented "conclusive evidence", is that right?
Well, I don´t even have the onus of disproving your claim.Ah, but I said I replaced the sun with an exact duplicate, so your method of disproving me falls flat. How then could you prove I didn't?
Well, technically watching you eat the sun wouldn´t be evidence that you have done it before (and on top you couldn´t even eat the sun anymore, but just a duplicate).Let me watch you do it.
Sure, but extraordinary and unfalsifiable are two entirely different criteria.Yeah, but then again, I see people around here doing that all the time, coming up with ways to make their viewpoints unfalsifiable.
I have no problem (and didn´t ask about) "extraordinary claim", I have a problem with (and asked about) "extraordinary evidence".Because "I ate the sun for breakfast" is an extraordinary claim, while "I ate cereal for breakfast" is not.
Then the issue persists: The universe cannot have come about by natural forces.What if the laws of nature we have are an emergent property of the universe?
I´m sorry - but when I say "this hasn´t been what I was talking about" I would kindly ask you to simply believe me. I´m afraid I can´t bring evidence to the table that proves that my statement was meant to be about something else.How have we not? A person working to fulfill their expectations is a task they can accomplish, yes?
Well, in your example (if I have understood it correctly), it wasn´t about a belief people held, but merely about something they were told.I don't see how that's relevant. If they hold a belief, what difference does it make why they hold it?
Exactly.Which can be explained in any number of ways.
Why do you demand that I demonstrate how a person can become physically unborn when we are not talking about physical birth or unbirth?
One can easily refuse what never was. There are no former Christians because there are no Christians; no second birth; no second life; and, no second death. There is no god about which to decide if it makes mistakes. There is no trinity.It's the same with Spiritual birth. You cannot receive eternal life and then decide to refuse it. There are NO former Christians since God is perfect and does not make mistakes. When the Trinity agrees and sends the Holy Spirit inside the new believer, he is a certain for Heaven as Jesus. Gen 1:26 Gen 5:1-2 John 14:16 Some say, Once saved, always saved. God Bless you
Usually the way things work is that some new word is applied to a new entity when a new entity of import is detected. So, maybe Gloobles do exist and we just don't know yet what entity it will be that will be assigned that label.I agree that there are things in reality that we can't currently detect, and that doesn't make those things any less real.
But we can't say then that there is a particular thing that exists if we can't detect it. We can't say that Gloobles are real, just presently undetectable.
No, not really.But isn't that assuming that the things religion says are true actually exist, despite being undetectable by science? Doesn't that make them like Gloobles?
No, not really.In any case, in the example presented in the video - namely, can you be a Christian and still accept evolution - it comes down to how rigidly the person in question holds to their RELIGIOUS belief.
Well, to actually SAY what you're saying, you'd have to have studied ALL of the various positions within the said religion before assessing and concluding that all the various positions are just more of the same ol' wishful thinking. Somehow, I don't think you've done the academic work to say that. (And I'm hoping that you did understand that in the first video, Eugenie C. Scott is an atheist, not a Christian).Do they have the belief that the Bible is 100% literally true? Or is the Bible more metaphorical? I find it very interesting and very informative that it is ALWAYS religion which is the flexible thing in these situations.
IF religion is MORE like history than it is science, then there isn't going to be much in the way of "going and seeing for yourself." Man, Kylie, you make a lot of remarks as to being "in the know" for someone I'm not confident has done the homework.It's never science. And I think that's because science is testable. If you doubt a claim made in science, then you don't need to just take someone's word, you can go and see for yourself. But how do you do that in religion? You can't. Religion RELIES on subjective interpretation, but science does not.
You can disagree, but I'm not sure you necessarily understood all that he said. Besides, a teaser trailer of a video isn't much to go on as far as giving one an understanding of how hermenuetics applies...and in Zimmerman's case, we aren't talking simply about hermeneutics as applied to the Bible, but it can include that.He says that hermeneutics is a way of establishing rules for the interpretation of written communication, or words to that effect. I feel that could be inaccurate if the original authors of that communication were not writing it according to the same rules that we would be using in the early 21st century to understand it.
I also disagree with much of the other stuff he has to say. I don't think that everything is subjective. There is an objective truth out there, and while our interpretations of that truth may be subjective, there are ways which we can minimize those biases.
If I may say it in my own words: The harder to believe a claim is to me (and this depends on a lot of circumstancial factors, not only on the nature of the claim), the more inclined I am to ask for evidence.
Yes, the evidence is that the video shows that which is claimed. If A is claimed, it would be nonsensical to demand a video that shows B.
Depends entirely on the rest of the sentence.
Yes, and I would be the one to determine what evidence I find conclusive.
Well, I don´t even have the onus of disproving your claim.
Well, technically watching you eat the sun wouldn´t be evidence that you have done it before (and on top you couldn´t even eat the sun anymore, but just a duplicate).
But apart from that, we seem to agree that "I want to see it" is the typical question for evidence, no matter what the claim.
Sure, but extraordinary and unfalsifiable are two entirely different criteria.
Yet another problem would be the ad hoc and post hoc "explanations" that people come up with in order to keep up an untenable claim (like "embedded age" or "hypostatic union").You know, the stuff that makes them sound like your typical compulsive liar that - once a lie is exposed - comes up with an even wilder story, and so forth.
To be honest, there is a point where I wouldn´t even start asking for evidence.
I have no problem (and didn´t ask about) "extraordinary claim", I have a problem with (and asked about) "extraordinary evidence".
Then the issue persists: The universe cannot have come about by natural forces.
Thus, for considering these questions, we have to use a bigger frame of reference - or else we are a priori excluding a lot of options.
I´m sorry - but when I say "this hasn´t been what I was talking about" I would kindly ask you to simply believe me. I´m afraid I can´t bring evidence to the table that proves that my statement was meant to be about something else.
Well, in your example (if I have understood it correctly), it wasn´t about a belief people held, but merely about something they were told.
Exactly.
You, however, asserted that the cause could be conclusively tested - and that was what I responded to.
It's the same with Spiritual birth. You cannot receive eternal life and then decide to refuse it. There are NO former Christians since God is perfect and does not make mistakes. When the Trinity agrees and sends the Holy Spirit inside the new believer, he is a certain for Heaven as Jesus. Gen 1:26 Gen 5:1-2 John 14:16 Some say, Once saved, always saved. God Bless you
I suppose what I'm suggesting is that even that is subjective - your mind observes someone else measuring length.
Usually the way things work is that some new word is applied to a new entity when a new entity of import is detected. So, maybe Gloobles do exist and we just don't know yet what entity it will be that will be assigned that label.
No, not really.
No, not really.
Well, to actually SAY what you're saying, you'd have to have studied ALL of the various positions within the said religion before assessing and concluding that all the various positions are just more of the same ol' wishful thinking. Somehow, I don't think you've done the academic work to say that. (And I'm hoping that you did understand that in the first video, Eugenie C. Scott is an atheist, not a Christian).
IF religion is MORE like history than it is science, then there isn't going to be much in the way of "going and seeing for yourself." Man, Kylie, you make a lot of remarks as to being "in the know" for someone I'm not confident has done the homework.
You can disagree, but I'm not sure you necessarily understood all that he said. Besides, a teaser trailer of a video isn't much to go on as far as giving one an understanding of how hermenuetics applies...and in Zimmerman's case, we aren't talking simply about hermeneutics as applied to the Bible, but it can include that.
Are you a solipsist?Then we might as well say that my mind is just observing what appears to be another person measuring the length, and maybe I'm the only person who actually exists, and you're just a figment of my imagination.
I'll be honest with you; I've never met another solipsist before...
Are you a solipsist?
Whether or not others "really exist" independently, I can only say I am only sure of my own phenomenological perceptions.
Phenomenology. I don't think our experiences can be broken down any further.No, I'm not really a solipsist, I was making a joke.
But solipsism is the logical conclusion of what you said, so where do you draw the line?
Phenomenology. I don't think our experiences can be broken down any further.
Our issues with existence are best addressed on the phenomenological level, IMO.
I think it answers the original question ... the only thing we can truly know as "factual" is our own experience.But there's no definite way to approach the field, is there? It is nowhere near objective, so it can never be used to determine any objectivity with any accuracy.
I think it answers the original question ... the only thing we can truly know as "factual" is our own experience.
What kind of evidence I need depends on the circumstances, the situation and the importance of the claim in this given situation. I´m sorry, but that´s the way I would word it.But if I say I had cereal for breakfast and you ask for evidence, I think you would be satisfied by my daughter saying, "I was there, and my mum did have cereal."
Yes, there are undisputedly different degrees of evidence.But if I told you I could turn into a squirrel and you asked for evidence, would you be satisfied if my daughter said, "I was there, and my mum did turn into a squirrel." I doubt it. So, once again, we get to the QUALITY of the evidence.
Of course - not sure whom or what you are arguing against here.So then we are agreed, the video is NOT the evidence. You need to watch it and make sure that the footage contained on the video supports the claim made. The fact that there is a video is not evidence in itself.
Otherwise you could demand evidence, I could drop a VHS tape on your desk and say, here's a video, and you should accept it without watching the video. This, obviously, is a dumb way to get evidence.
Apparently not. Look: You ask how I go about it; I answer the question; you aren´t satisfied with what I said and want me to use (and/or agree with) a different wording. So apparently, the way it is worded is very important to you (and understandably so). You do not simply agree with the way I worded it, so the difference between the way I say it and the way you say it makes an important difference (or else you would simply agree with me, instead of insisting that my wording should be replaced with yours. What we seem to be doing here is: finding out what difference it makes.Can we stop quibbling over words?
Yes, sometimes I don´t demand any evidence, sometimes hearsay is sufficient, sometimes I would demand a video, sometimes I would even check if the video is edited, sometimes I want to see it happening in real life - and all sorts of stuff in between.And the more unbelievable the claim was, the higher the standard you would require from that evidence before you would accept it, yes?
Depends on what they want. One thing is clear to me, though: It´s not me who has to disprove them.So the person making an unfalsifiable claim is the one who needs to prove that their claim is true?
And I didn´t say you said it. However, I was asking about the first, and in your response you replaced it by the latter.I don't recall saying they were the same...
(Most) important part of my first response and the follow up responses is to communicate that I don´t seem to have a clearly cut system that can be comprised into a set of rules or criteria.And what point would that be?
You eating the sun would be extraordinary. The quality of the evidence (which we seemed to agree makes the difference) is: A video that displays what is claimed. That´s not an extraordinary quality of evidence, but a pretty ordinary one.Watching me eat the sun (or a replica of it) would not count as "extraordinary" to you?
Well, if the laws of nature are an emanation of the universe, they cannot have brought about the universe. That´s simple logic.Why not?
No, the bigger frame of reference doesn´t exclude any option. It allows for all logical possibilities.But aren't you excluding the options that DON'T consider a bigger frame of reference?
Yes.In a discussion like this, clear communication is vital.
Sure, exactly my point. The important part is that they actually hold it. It doens´t matter how they got to hold it.And if people have a belief because they were told about it repeatedly as children, then isn't that also a belief that they hold?
Yes, exactly, that´s one of the options how self-fulfilling prophecies work.We can conclusively test whether it is true as a general principle by studying how many different people react. Get a group of people to go through an event, like your friend's holiday. Condition some of them to expect the event to be miserable, condition some of them to expect the event to be very enjoyable, and give the remainder no conditioning. If such conditioning really does create a self fulfilling prophecy, then we would expect to see that the group told it would be miserable had a generally bad time, the group told it would be enjoyable had a generally good time, and the group told nothing had a variety of different experiences. This would indicate a general principle - people's expectations of an event lead to biased opinions of how the event actually goes. And then we can say, "Well, people's expectations can lead them to have a biased opinion about a future event, leading them to interpret that event in a way that matches their preconceived notions. Thus, if your friend was absolutely convinced she would have a horrible holiday, she may have focused on the negative aspects, inflating their importance, while giving the positive aspects a much lower weight, making them seem less important in the overall experience. Thus, she most likely said she had a horrible time because she was expecting to have a horrible time."
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?