- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,605
- 52,510
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
They might verify something in the lab, but out in the real world, they get a reality check:
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.
They might verify something in the lab, but out in the real world, they get a reality check:The difference is that the scientist can pout the truth to the test and verify it.
.. and you think they don't already know that and take it into consideration?They might verify something in the lab, but out in the real world, they get a reality check:
Some of it, anyhow.The difference is that the scientist can pout the truth to the test and verify it.
No .. anything which doesn't 'test out' is a belief, where by 'belief' there, we mean:Some of it, anyhow.
They might verify something in the lab, but out in the real world, they get a reality check:
No .. anything which doesn't 'test out' is a belief, where by 'belief' there, we mean:
'A belief is any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic'. (Both conditions must be met .. not just compliance with the rules of logic).
For example; your belief in the existence of 'first cause'.
Let the evidence for that claim, now pour forth from your fingertips ..
No .. anything which doesn't 'test out' is a belief, where by 'belief' there, we mean:
'A belief is any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic'. (Both conditions must be met .. not just compliance with the rules of logic).
For example; your belief in the existence of 'first cause'.
Let the evidence for that claim, now pour forth from your fingertips ..
Testable "at all"? no. Tested exhaustively never happens. So I remain skeptical, when something as sketchy as large-scale genetic mutation to higher forms is presented as fact.Would you care to give an example of something that is NOT testable at all and yet is still presented as a scientific fact?
Testable "at all"? no. Tested exhaustively never happens. So I remain skeptical, when something as sketchy as large-scale genetic mutation to higher forms is presented as fact.Would you care to give an example of something that is NOT testable at all and yet is still presented as a scientific fact?
Maybe one day you'll surprise us and not go running back to the same old things you think make a point that they don't actually make.
The only hocus pocus cross eyed-ness contradictions creeping in here, comes from your own attachment to the notion that things exist independently from your mind. All I have to do is to ask you to describe why you think that, and the objective evidence for the mind dependence immediately pours forth from your own fingertips .. putting lie to the claim.You seem to me to be contradicting yourself. In another post you said belief becomes real. Now you are saying belief does not follow objective tests.
Meanwhile, even your definition, which I believe falls short of comprehensive use, does not say a belief is illogical, but that it need not be logical; it does not say that an objective fact cannot be believed. It seems to me you are thinking of faith, not belief. But even then, the definition falls short.
The fact that someone believes something is irrelevant as to whether that something is true/real.
Fingertips, keyboard, etc etc; all that we see is evidence of first cause.
I will call yourThey might verify something in the lab, but out in the real world, they get a reality check:
The first living cell from chemical soup.Would you care to give an example of something that is NOT testable at all and yet is still presented as a scientific fact?
Testable "at all"? no. Tested exhaustively never happens. So I remain skeptical, when something as sketchy as large-scale genetic mutation to higher forms is presented as fact.
The first living cell from chemical soup.
Since nobody knows the structure of it, no test is possible.
But Still it’s presented as a “ fact” it happened.
So Actually it’s just a faith statement.
I've also never seen any model of: 'the first living cell from chemical soup', 'presented as a “ fact” {that} it happened' ..We may not have any records of it, but the processes which lead to the formation of the sorts of chemicals it would have required are well understood.
As I have pointed out in other threads, your concept of a mind dependent reality seems to be fundamentally flawed, because it lacks the ability to explain how conscious minds can create anything new. For example, here's a link to a random article.The only hocus pocus cross eyed-ness contradictions creeping in here, comes from your own attachment to the notion that things exist independently from your mind. All I have to do is to ask you to describe why you think that, and the objective evidence for the mind dependence immediately pours forth from your own fingertips .. putting lie to the claim.
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?