What do you believe and why?

[TillICollapse]

How would I verify such information?

I'm not getting the logistics of your conversation:

Are you asking how one would verify information that cannot be verified lol ? Or are you asking how one would verify "Divine Revelation" ?

 

[Davian]

I'm not getting the logistics of your conversation:

Are you asking how one would verify information that cannot be verified lol ? Or are you asking how one would verify "Divine Revelation" ?

Yes. How do those question differ?

 

[TillICollapse]

Yes. How do those question differ?

Okay, I didn't get that you were equating the two.

Verifying information that cannot be verified would arguably be impossible, since "cannot be verified" is the type of information being dealt with lol.

Going off this quick wiki definition of "Revelation": "In religion and theology, revelation is the revealing or disclosing of some form of truth or knowledge through communication with a deity or other supernatural entity or entities."

To verify a revelation, it would depend on the context and components of the revelation. If a person claims to receive a revelation that such and such event will take place at a given point in time, that information can be verified once the event takes place or doesn't take place. If the revelation is vague and open to interpretation, then that's a different argument as to whether or not it can be "verified".

As to whether or not it's "divine", this would involve defining what "divine" means. Even if the source of the revelation could be shown and known and even claims to be "divine", it could arguably still lead to semantic issues since there is no collective point of reference for what "divine" may actually apply to.

To verify whether or not information has a supernatural source, that term in and of itself is a semantics and definition rabbit hole as well.

All in all, though, I don't see how the INFORMATION within a claimed "revelation" couldn't be verified. Whether that means one could verify that it came via a deity or supernatural entity is another matter. Also, arguably there is also the idea that revelations cannot be verified to anyone who didn't receive the revelation. Individuals apart from the one claiming the revelation would either believe the verification or they wouldn't. Not sure where "verify" falls in there for those individuals.

 

[hankroberts]

Why would you think Divine Revelation would be a trusted source "only for information that cannot be verified"? Other Revelation certainly is not.

How would I verify such information?

Why, you would justify the trust in that source exactly the same way you would justify trust in any source of revelation.

 

[hankroberts]

That's why I gestured toward them, so that you can become aware of it.



Why? Will it enhance our understanding of cosmology in any way?



I may have missed the answer. Where is it?

Once again, why must our intuitions about causality apply to the universe as a whole or even in the absence of a universe?



Which is why I alerted you to it. For someone who has apparently considered the matter carefully you seem to be unaware of it.

Not that I know of.
"That's why I gestured toward them, so that you can become aware of it."

Why, stop gesturing son, and trot them out if you think they are worthy. Let's take a look at them. I've no desire to wander again through the plethora of notions trying to find the one you like.

Already asked and answered.
I may have missed the answer. Where is it? Once again, why must our intuitions about causality apply to the universe as a whole

The last time was in #142, I believe.
"What makes you think that our understanding of things within the universe must be apply to the universe itself?"

Probably the same thing that leads most scientists to that conclusion. Those rules, laws, principles, etc. that apply to everything within the universe are reasonably applicable to the universe as a whole. I see no evidence that those things which apply within the universe do not apply to the universe as a whole. Why: is there something that would lead someone to a different conclusion?

 

[hankroberts]

Yes, we do trust teachers, but not infallibly so. We also trust doctors, but we don't consider them infallible either. We trust them to be proficient in their areas of expertise because they have gone through a (hopefully) rigorous learning process to earn their credentials. We recognise that by our trust. It is earned.

"Yes, we do trust teachers, but not infallibly so." Indeed, and rightly so. Nonetheless we often put far more faith in the things teachers tell us that is appropriate (which is a departure from our topic).


"We trust them to be proficient in their areas of expertise because they have gone through a (hopefully) rigorous learning process to earn their credentials."

Well, actually we trust those people because we presume they've done the work. But the fact is that is a presumption only warranted by particular credential: how often have you ever checked to verify your doctor's training? Or your teacher's sources. It was quite an enlightenment to me to have a professor actually challenge us to do that. So ultimately, that trust is (usually) on the basis of reputation, not direct knowledge.

"We recognise that by our trust. It is earned."

Indeed. Precisely so. We trust the source of revelation because of our presumption that they are trustworthy based on reputation; or we trust the source because our direct experience. That is correct. And biblically, this is exactly why men believed God.

 

[hankroberts]

"Faith is not a pathway to truth. Faith is gullibility."

Realizing this may be totally off topic, I have to ask where you got your definition of "Faith" and what that definition is: it is certainly not biblical, or Christian, so I wonder where exactly it comes from?

 

[Davian]

Okay, I didn't get that you were equating the two.

Verifying information that cannot be verified would arguably be impossible, since "cannot be verified" is the type of information being dealt with lol.

That was the point of my question, to illuminate that conundrum.

Going off this quick wiki definition of "Revelation": "In religion and theology, revelation is the revealing or disclosing of some form of truth or knowledge through communication with a deity or other supernatural entity or entities."

To verify a revelation, it would depend on the context and components of the revelation. If a person claims to receive a revelation that such and such event will take place at a given point in time, that information can be verified once the event takes place or doesn't take place. If the revelation is vague and open to interpretation, then that's a different argument as to whether or not it can be "verified".

I had in mind statements from ChristCameBackFromTheDead such as "He would reveal Himself to His creation".

As to whether or not it's "divine", this would involve defining what "divine" means. Even if the source of the revelation could be shown and known and even claims to be "divine", it could arguably still lead to semantic issues since there is no collective point of reference for what "divine" may actually apply to.

The parsimonious explanation would be that it is simply a product of the imagination.

To verify whether or not information has a supernatural source, that term in and of itself is a semantics and definition rabbit hole as well.

Indeed. I have seen many go down that rabbit hole, but they never come back with anything of significance.

All in all, though, I don't see how the INFORMATION within a claimed "revelation" couldn't be verified. Whether that means one could verify that it came via a deity or supernatural entity is another matter. Also, arguably there is also the idea that revelations cannot be verified to anyone who didn't receive the revelation. Individuals apart from the one claiming the revelation would either believe the verification or they wouldn't. Not sure where "verify" falls in there for those individuals.

That method of 'verification' would be circular in nature - you believe the revelations to be true because you believe that them to be true. As a method of exploring reality, it would be lacking.

 

[Davian]

Why would you think Divine Revelation would be a trusted source "only for information that cannot be verified"? Other Revelation certainly is not.



Why, you would justify the trust in that source exactly the same way you would justify trust in any source of revelation.

"Divine Revelation", by all external measures, would appear to be one's imagination. Why would I justify trust in that, given that our memory, experiences, and senses are demonstrably unreliable?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UelJZG_bF98

 

[hankroberts]

"Divine Revelation", by all external measures, would appear to be one's imagination. Why would I justify trust in that, given that our memory, experiences, and senses are demonstrably unreliable?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UelJZG_bF98

"Divine Revelation", by all external measures, would appear to be one's imagination."

Well, they might appear that way to some: that does not mean they are merely imagination.

"Why would I justify trust in that, given that our memory, experiences, and senses are demonstrably unreliable?"

Do you realize you just falsified Science and all formal research? If our memory, experiences and sense experience are untrustworthy, the Scientific Method is invalid. You might want to think that one through...

 

[bhsmte]

"Divine Revelation", by all external measures, would appear to be one's imagination."

Well, they might appear that way to some: that does not mean they are merely imagination.

"Why would I justify trust in that, given that our memory, experiences, and senses are demonstrably unreliable?"

Do you realize you just falsified Science and all formal research? If our memory, experiences and sense experience are untrustworthy, the Scientific Method is invalid. You might want to think that one through...

Not really.

This is where objective evidence becomes the great equalizer.

 

[hankroberts]

"Why would I justify trust in that, given that our memory, experiences, and senses are demonstrably unreliable?"

Do you realize you just falsified Science and all formal research? If our memory, experiences and sense experience are untrustworthy, the Scientific Method is invalid. You might want to think that one through...

Not really.

This is where objective evidence becomes the great equalizer.

Heh. But if your senses, your memory and your sense experience are untrustworthy, then there is no objective evidence to consider: how exactly would you determine either that the evidence is objective, or even that it exists without using your senses, your memory and your sense experience?

For that matter, if your senses, your memory and your sense experience are not to be trusted, how would you know that? Your argument is self-refuting: it commits suicide.

 

[TillICollapse]

That was the point of my question, to illuminate that conundrum.

Gotcha

I had in mind statements from ChristCameBackFromTheDead such as "He would reveal Himself to His creation".

Gotcha*2

Indeed. I have seen many go down that rabbit hole, but they never come back with anything of significance.

Yes, which is why I left it at the rabbit hole entrance. So we're probably on the same page there.

That method of 'verification' would be circular in nature - you believe the revelations to be true because you believe that them to be true. As a method of exploring reality, it would be lacking.

Okay I'll focus on this point though ... because I may be envisioning something different from what you're meaning.

I want to focus on the information aspect of a "revelation". Not whether or not one can verify the source of the information, but whether or not the information itself is trustworthy.

I don't see an issue with verifying the information itself. It either plays out or it doesn't. It's either factual and useful or it's not. Someone could claim they got a revelation from Elvis in their bedroom mirror ... verifying the information is one thing, verifying if it's actually Elvis and was an entity in a mirror is another.

When I said "Also, arguably there is also the idea that revelations cannot be verified to anyone who didn't receive the revelation. Individuals apart from the one claiming the revelation would either believe the verification or they wouldn't. Not sure where "verify" falls in there for those individuals." I can see how the way I phrased that would appear circular logic was being used. I think I phrased it poorly. I meant it in the context of a personal revelation. Some people use the term "revelation" in the context of that, if a revelation were actually given to someone ... no one else is required to accept the revelation if it wasn't given to them. It's essentially hearsay, and "If God showed you but not me, it doesn't apply to me it only applies to you and I don't have to believe it," etc. For example. So, I was looking at the word "verify" as to how it would apply for anyone who didn't receive the revelation personally. You could verify the information perhaps, but only the one who received the revelation may have a personal verification of the source for themself in some manner. Others may take the stance they are not required to accept what they/themselves did not see or experience concerning the *source*, even though they may accept the information has being valid. To do so would be based on a matter of belief. So I was questioning the use of the term "verify" in such an instance. The way I originally phrased it did make it seem circular, I can see that. Hopefully I'm describing what I meant better now and more clearly, although really it's a side point.

 

[Davian]

"Divine Revelation", by all external measures, would appear to be one's imagination."

Well, they might appear that way to some: that does not mean they are merely imagination.

In what manner do they differ?

"Why would I justify trust in that, given that our memory, experiences, and senses are demonstrably unreliable?"

Do you realize you just falsified Science and all formal research? If our memory, experiences and sense experience are untrustworthy, the Scientific Method is invalid. You might want to think that one through...

You have simply misrepresented scientific methodology and the concept of falsification. Those things were developed as an acknowledgement that our memory, experiences, and senses are demonstrably unreliable. As wiki says, "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning."

 

[Davian]

"Why would I justify trust in that, given that our memory, experiences, and senses are demonstrably unreliable?"

Do you realize you just falsified Science and all formal research? If our memory, experiences and sense experience are untrustworthy, the Scientific Method is invalid. You might want to think that one through...



Heh. But if your senses, your memory and your sense experience are untrustworthy, then there is no objective evidence to consider: how exactly would you determine either that the evidence is objective, or even that it exists without using your senses, your memory and your sense experience?

For that matter, if your senses, your memory and your sense experience are not to be trusted, how would you know that? Your argument is self-refuting: it commits suicide.

That would be misrepresenting my position. That our sense experience is demonstrably unreliable does not mean to say that we cannot successfully explore reality, particularly with the application of empirical or measurable evidence and the concept of falsification.

How is that computer working for you?

 

[Davian]

Gotcha

Gotcha*2

Yes, which is why I left it at the rabbit hole entrance. So we're probably on the same page there.

Okay I'll focus on this point though ... because I may be envisioning something different from what you're meaning.

I want to focus on the information aspect of a "revelation". Not whether or not one can verify the source of the information, but whether or not the information itself is trustworthy.

I don't see an issue with verifying the information itself. It either plays out or it doesn't. It's either factual and useful or it's not. Someone could claim they got a revelation from Elvis in their bedroom mirror ... verifying the information is one thing, verifying if it's actually Elvis and was an entity in a mirror is another.

It is my understanding that there is a psychic that successfully predicted to the year the death of Michael Jackson. This information is verified. Does this establish them as a trusted source?

Do we not take into account the other 250 or so people that were also predicted to die in that time period by the same psychic, but didn't?

Confirmation bias does seem to weigh in heavily in these matters.

When I said "Also, arguably there is also the idea that revelations cannot be verified to anyone who didn't receive the revelation. Individuals apart from the one claiming the revelation would either believe the verification or they wouldn't. Not sure where "verify" falls in there for those individuals." I can see how the way I phrased that would appear circular logic was being used. I think I phrased it poorly. I meant it in the context of a personal revelation. Some people use the term "revelation" in the context of that, if a revelation were actually given to someone ... no one else is required to accept the revelation if it wasn't given to them. It's essentially hearsay, and "If God showed you but not me, it doesn't apply to me it only applies to you and I don't have to believe it," etc. For example. So, I was looking at the word "verify" as to how it would apply for anyone who didn't receive the revelation personally.

Can we expect the politicians that wish to base their actions in government on their alleged 'revelations' to agree with that?

You could verify the information perhaps, but only the one who received the revelation may have a personal verification of the source for themself in some manner. Others may take the stance they are not required to accept what they/themselves did not see or experience concerning the *source*, even though they may accept the information has being valid. To do so would be based on a matter of belief. So I was questioning the use of the term "verify" in such an instance. The way I originally phrased it did make it seem circular, I can see that. Hopefully I'm describing what I meant better now and more clearly, although really it's a side point.

I could put the concern about the source to the side for the moment, if the results/information rose above imagination, confirmation bias and random selection (they may not be wrong every time), but that is not what is observed.

 

[hankroberts]

That would be misrepresenting my position. That our sense experience is demonstrably unreliable does not mean to say that we cannot successfully explore reality, particularly with the application of empirical or measurable evidence and the concept of falsification.

How is that computer working for you?

Actually, no, it would be representing your position, or at least your statement. Unless of course you said something you didn't mean.
What you said was that our memory, our senses and our sense experience are unreliable ("demonstrably unreliable").

"That our sense experience is demonstrably unreliable does not mean to say that we cannot successfully explore reality"

Actually that is exactly what it means. If you cannot trust your memory, your senses and your experiences, how can you possibly "successfully explore reality"; and how would you know if you did? Self-refuting.

If you think not, then explain how you would "successfully explore reality" without using your memory, your senses or your sense experience. For that matter, explain how you would know that your senses, your memory and your sense experience are unreliable, without falsifying your own statement.

 

[Davian]

Actually, no, it would be representing your position, or at least your statement. Unless of course you said something you didn't mean.
What you said was that our memory, our senses and our sense experience are unreliable ("demonstrably unreliable").

"That our sense experience is demonstrably unreliable does not mean to say that we cannot successfully explore reality"

Actually that is exactly what it means. If you cannot trust your memory, your senses and your experiences, how can you possibly "successfully explore reality"; and how would you know if you did? Self-refuting.

If you think not, then explain how you would "successfully explore reality" without using your memory, your senses or your sense experience. For that matter, explain how you would know that your senses, your memory and your sense experience are unreliable, without falsifying your own statement.

"Demonstrably" is distinctly different from "completely". It means that we can demonstrate how our senses can be tricked, not that they are of no use.

Are you claiming that your senses and experiences are infallible?

 

[Ken-1122]

What do you believe to be the source of the universe and why? If you respond that you do not know, please provide an intelligent reason as to why you do not know.

Thank you.

I suspect the Universe has always existed; thus it has no source.

Ken

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why, stop gesturing son, and trot them out if you think they are worthy. Let's take a look at them. I've no desire to wander again through the plethora of notions trying to find the one you like.

It's not about the model I like. It's about you acknowledging the existence of more than two possible explanations. In addition to the two you have offered, we have the multiverse, the oscillating universe, and colliding branes, just to name a few. You haven't exhausted the full range of possible theological explanations either, since you only proposed a creator rather than creators, and you never specified whether these creators were supernatural beings or not, whether they created ex nihilo or ex materia, etc.

The last time was in #142, I believe.
"What makes you think that our understanding of things within the universe must be apply to the universe itself?"

Probably the same thing that leads most scientists to that conclusion. Those rules, laws, principles, etc. that apply to everything within the universe are reasonably applicable to the universe as a whole. I see no evidence that those things which apply within the universe do not apply to the universe as a whole. Why: is there something that would lead someone to a different conclusion?

I already responded to this:

Yes, there is good reason to question that assumption. How does causality (a rule or principle operant within the universe) work in the absence of matter, energy and spacetime? It's intuitive to say that something caused the vase to fall to the floor when there is a vase, a floor, and physical forces acting on both. We are most familiar with that kind of usage of 'cause'. We are totally unfamiliar with how causality works (if it works at all) in the absence of the matter, energy and spacetime.

I don't think scientists assume what you're suggesting they do. The Large Hadron Collider was constructed, in large part, to recreate the conditions of the very early universe so that we may glimpse how matter and energy behave in those conditions, and thereby gain a better understanding of the universe's origins. It isn't merely assumed that our intuitions about causality scale down to the level of particles interacting in the highly dense state of the early universe. The matter is investigated to examine whether that assumption is justified.