How do you decide if something is factual?

[Kylie]

That doesn't forbid corrective lenses, it forbids people with various flaws, including the vague "blemishes in the eyes" from even being near offerings about to be burned for Yahweh, as well as forbidding them from making such offers.

Since you agree that the term is vague, why can't it refer to a defect in the eye that prevents said eye from functioning properly? And if someone needs glasses, it's safe to say that their eyes aren't functioning properly.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Since you agree that the term is vague, why can't it refer to a defect in the eye that prevents said eye from functioning properly? And if someone needs glasses, it's safe to say that their eyes aren't functioning properly.

Sure, but those verses don't forbid the people with those conditions from seeking medical treatment or other solutions for those problems. It only forbids them from having anything to do with burnt offerings for Yahweh.

 

[Kylie]

Sure, but those verses don't forbid the people with those conditions from seeking medical treatment or other solutions for those problems. It only forbids them from having anything to do with burnt offerings for Yahweh.

I doubt they kicked out all the spectacle wearers before this...

 

[PsychoSarah]

I doubt they kicked out all the spectacle wearers before this...

People that need corrective lenses don't necessarily have outwardly visible blemishes on their eyes, so they might have gotten a pass, who knows?

 

[ananda]

Technically, no, but I think it's safe to assume that reality is what we can measure objectively. After all, all of reality (including you) could just be an elaborate simulation being fed to me, and I am just a brain in a jar somewhere.

Why do you believe it is "safe to assume that reality is what we can measure objectively", when in fact we measure it subjectively?

 

[Kylie]

People that need corrective lenses don't necessarily have outwardly visible blemishes on their eyes, so they might have gotten a pass, who knows?

God can still see the blemish in their eyes...

 

[Kylie]

Why do you believe it is "safe to assume that reality is what we can measure objectively", when in fact we measure it subjectively?

Are you saying it is impossible to make any objective measurements of the real world? We can objectively measure the distance between the Earth and the moon, yes? We can objectively measure the amount of rainfall that fell in a particular time period at a particular location, yes?

 

[ananda]

Are you saying it is impossible to make any objective measurements of the real world? We can objectively measure the distance between the Earth and the moon, yes? We can objectively measure the amount of rainfall that fell in a particular time period at a particular location, yes?

I will suggest that it is impossible, because - in truth - everything is ultimately measured subjectively.

 

[Aman777]

Aman777 said: ↑
God doesn't send His Spirit into a person and make an error, especially since it takes the AGREEMENT of the Trinity to "create" a New Creature in Christ. Gen 1:26 Gen 5:1-2 and John 14:16

I know quite a few Christians who would disagree with you.

Show us the Scripture which instructs us to listen to "former" Christians. Such thinking shows that you don't consider God to be perfect, thus incapable of error.

 

[Aman777]

Sounds to me like you saw the inconsistencies and then just decided to believe anyway, because you wanted to believe.

Eph 2:8 For by grace (unmerited reward) are ye saved through faith; and that (faith) not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. Eph 2:10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

What inconsistency do you see?

 

[quatona]

But wouldn't you agree that for common, every day claims, you would only require common, everyday evidence? And for bigger claims that were harder to believe (like my ability to turn into a squirrel), you would need bigger evidence that was harder to explain away?

I really don´t want to be complicated - but I feel I can not simply answer this yes. Maybe it´s just due to the wording (I might not get exactly what you want to say), or maybe because you and I go differently about it. I cannot really tell at this point.
I don´t think that asking to see something happening constitutes the request for "extraordinary" or big "evidence". Rather, I guess, for certain everyday claims (particulary when I don´t even care) I abstain from asking for "normal" evidence. Like, if you told me that you had cereals fro breakfast, I wouldn´t even ask for any evidence at all.

And which of those categories, real life or metaphysical, does the way the universe works fall into?

For me, it falls into the metaphysical category.

True, but we can test for that, can't we?

No, actually I don´t see how we possibly can. To - reluctantly - borrow a Christian metaphore, I tend to believe that faith can move mountains. And so can doubts.

 

[Kylie]

I will suggest that it is impossible, because - in truth - everything is ultimately measured subjectively.

If I pick up the pen on my desk and measure its length, please tell me how that is a subjective measurement.

 

[Kylie]

Show us the Scripture which instructs us to listen to "former" Christians. Such thinking shows that you don't consider God to be perfect, thus incapable of error.

Wow.

So you think you can ignore the statements of people who are no longer Christians, just because they left Christianity? Are you suggesting that people's opinions are worthless if they have left Christianity? Is this the attitude, "They disagree with me, therefore I can ignore them completely, because their views are worthless," attitude?

Wow, that's really horrible.

 

[Kylie]

Eph 2:8 For by grace (unmerited reward) are ye saved through faith; and that (faith) not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. Eph 2:10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

What inconsistency do you see?

Did you actually put any thought into understanding what I wrote or not? Because it looks like you didn't.

There are plenty of inconsistencies in the Bible. And yet, it seems to me that you said to yourself, "Gee, there are inconsistencies, but I want to believe the Bible. So I'm just going to assume that there's some explanation that I don't know and don't understand, and then I can reassure myself that it all works out, even if I don't know how."

 

[Kylie]

I really don´t want to be complicated - but I feel I can not simply answer this yes. Maybe it´s just due to the wording (I might not get exactly what you want to say), or maybe because you and I go differently about it. I cannot really tell at this point.

Feel free to change the wording so it suits your position better.

I

don´t think that asking to see something happening constitutes the request for "extraordinary" or big "evidence".

But if the thing you ask to see as evidence is itself an extraordinary event, then wouldn't it count as extraordinary evidence? (Please feel free to substitute a word for "extraordinary" if you would prefer a different one)

Rather, I guess, for certain everyday claims (particulary when I don´t even care) I abstain from asking for "normal" evidence. Like, if you told me that you had cereals fro breakfast, I wouldn´t even ask for any evidence at all.

Of course. But why is that? I would suggest there are two reasons why you could accept such a claim with zero evidence. Firstly, eating cereal for breakfast is extremely common. Lots of people do it. eating cereal for breakfast is a very plausible claim. Secondly, it doesn't challenge your worldview.

However, if I claimed I ate the sun for breakfast, would you accept it so easily? I doubt it. First of all, it's not plausible. No one has ever eaten the sun before, and the idea of a person eating the sun violates many laws of nature. There's no way for me to get to the sun, and even if I could, the temperature would fry me to a crisp before I got anywhere close. And even if I could survive that, the sun is simply way to massive for a single person to eat it.

Secondly, it would require a change in your worldview. It would require you to be convinced that I had destroyed the sun and replaced it with an exact duplicate.

So, there is a lot more telling you that my claim is wrong if I claim I ate the sun for breakfast. There is little to nothing telling you my claim is wrong if I said I had cereal instead.

For me, it falls into the metaphysical category.

Could you explain why?

No, actually I don´t see how we possibly can. To - reluctantly - borrow a Christian metaphore, I tend to believe that faith can move mountains. And so can doubts.

Wouldn't it be easy to test for self fulfilling prophecies? Just give someone a prophecy that they can take action to accomplish. Then see if that group of people accomplishes those prophecies more than a control group who has prophecies made about them, but they AREN'T told.

 

[ananda]

If I pick up the pen on my desk and measure its length, please tell me how that is a subjective measurement.

Your mind perceived that measurement; it becomes subjective.

 

[quatona]

Feel free to change the wording so it suits your position better.

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

But if the thing you ask to see as evidence is itself an extraordinary event, then wouldn't it count as extraordinary evidence? (Please feel free to substitute a word for "extraordinary" if you would prefer a different one)

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).
I would want the same sort of evidence no matter what - it´s just that I am sometimes more inclined to ask about getting evidence, and sometimes I am more generous (or indifferent).

Of course. But why is that? I would suggest there are two reasons why you could accept such a claim with zero evidence. Firstly, eating cereal for breakfast is extremely common. Lots of people do it. eating cereal for breakfast is a very plausible claim. Secondly, it doesn't challenge your worldview.

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....

However, if I claimed I ate the sun for breakfast, would you accept it so easily? I doubt it.

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.

First of all, it's not plausible. No one has ever eaten the sun before, and the idea of a person eating the sun violates many laws of nature. There's no way for me to get to the sun, and even if I could, the temperature would fry me to a crisp before I got anywhere close. And even if I could survive that, the sun is simply way to massive for a single person to eat it.

So what sort of evidence would you demand from me in order to accept my claim that I have eaten the sun?

Secondly, it would require a change in your worldview. It would require you to be convinced that I had destroyed the sun and replaced it with an exact duplicate.

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?

So, there is a lot more telling you that my claim is wrong if I claim I ate the sun for breakfast. There is little to nothing telling you my claim is wrong if I said I had cereal instead.

This isn´t even in dispute. I am wondering how the category "extraordinary evidence" helps here, though.

Could you explain why?

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.

Wouldn't it be easy to test for self fulfilling prophecies? Just give someone a prophecy that they can take action to accomplish. Then see if that group of people accomplishes those prophecies more than a control group who has prophecies made about them, but they AREN'T told.

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.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Technically, no, but I think it's safe to assume that reality is what we can measure objectively. After all, all of reality (including you) could just be an elaborate simulation being fed to me, and I am just a brain in a jar somewhere.

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:

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Aman777]

Wow.

So you think you can ignore the statements of people who are no longer Christians, just because they left Christianity? Are you suggesting that people's opinions are worthless if they have left Christianity? Is this the attitude, "They disagree with me, therefore I can ignore them completely, because their views are worthless," attitude?

Wow, that's really horrible.

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?

 

[quatona]

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.

It´s not about becoming unborn, it´s about choosing to be born a third time.