You don't know something just because you intuit that something is on your brain

[variant]

That is an example of a magnitude.

It is a magnitude of decision making brought about by a choice.

If you really got a choice out of Evolution, you would think you could say your magnitude will be at least as comparable by a millennia or so.

Magnitude isn't the issue, you said it had no effect and it obviously has. The digital computer is a relatively new idea and it seems to be having an effect as well.

If you are saying an idea needs to be as old as Christianity to be valid, then obviously no, we've developed plenty of ideas since then.

It depends on what you are trying to do. If you are trying to learn about biological life evolutionary theory is essential.

Instead you question me as if nothing I say even came close to making sense.

You aren't.

Evolutionary theory and Christianity aren't mutually exclusive ideas so comparing their relative age after claiming that evolutionary biology hasn't had an effect is meaningless.

 

[Gottservant]

Magnitude isn't the issue, you said it had no effect and it obviously has. The digital computer is a relatively new idea and it seems to be having an effect as well.

If you are saying an idea needs to be as old as Christianity to be valid, then obviously no, we've developed plenty of ideas since then.

It depends on what you are trying to do. If you are trying to learn about biological life evolutionary theory is essential.

Magntitude for magntitude is a reasonable literal comparison, there is no need to question its meaning, unless you believe the literal truth requires work.

It was you who introduced the idea of validity, I was merely inviting cross-pollination.

You aren't.

Evolutionary theory and Christianity aren't mutually exclusive ideas so comparing their relative age after claiming that evolutionary biology hasn't had an effect is meaningless.

While I understand that you think in terms of consequences when you believe you have the upper hand, actually telling me I don't make sense is unwarranted in this case. In other cases, I would have said "fair enough, I will revise my efforts to be concise" but in this case I was merely extending your train of thought for you.

And for the record, it was you that suggested Evolution hadn't had an effect (which is telling), I merely suggested that it would have effected decisions.

Perhaps if you could limit yourself to a perspective that didn't imagine irrelevant clauses for my belief, we could have a conversation where we complement each other, instead of chiding each other to be restrained when we both know that's more or less untenable.

Thanks.

 

[variant]

Magntitude for magntitude is a reasonable literal comparison, there is no need to question its meaning, unless you believe the literal truth requires work.

A comparison of what? You said there was no evidence that evolution made a difference. I countered that point with how it obviously has and for how long and you decided to bring up how long your religion has been around.

This doesn't actually address my point at all which shows your point invalid.

While I understand that you think in terms of consequences when you believe you have the upper hand, actually telling me I don't make sense is unwarranted in this case. In other cases, I would have said "fair enough, I will revise my efforts to be concise" but in this case I was merely extending your train of thought for you.

My train of thought says yours is incorrect.

This is incorrect:

Yes, but if it was knowledge that was based on more than intuition, it would have a lasting effect on how decisions are made.

As yet, there is no evidence to suggest Evolution changes a single thing.

Using your standard we have knowledge of evolution. That means it meets both our standards.

And for the record, it was you that suggested Evolution hadn't had an effect (which is telling), I merely suggested that it would have effected decisions.

I made no such suggestion.

If you are referring to this post:

Right, God is observed and evolution merely based upon intuition.

In other news people wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people.

It is supposed to be so steeped in sarcasm that no one could possibly miss it. The second line should be a dead giveaway.

Perhaps if you could limit yourself to a perspective that didn't imagine irrelevant clauses for my belief, we could have a conversation where we complement each other, instead of chiding each other to be restrained when we both know that's more or less untenable.

Thanks.

I have not suggested any causes for your beliefs.

 

[Gottservant]

You are not discerning between practical applications and the decisions that create those practical applications.

Then you are backtracking to try and contradict me the exact same way a second time.

If I had said the word "invalid" you would have a point.

The subject is "decisions", the example is "changed lives".

Try to work with that.

Thanks.

 

[Gottservant]

you said it [Evolution] had no effect and it obviously has.

For your reference.

False.

 

[variant]

You are not discerning between practical applications and the decisions that create those practical applications.

Then you are backtracking to try and contradict me the exact same way a second time.

If I had said the word "invalid" you would have a point.

Validity and knowledge are synonyms for your information.

All knowledge is valid.

The subject is "decisions", the example is "changed lives".

Try to work with that.

Thanks.

I am, the fact that evolution is the guiding principle of biology for over a hundred years has effected plenty of decisions that have changed lives.

If this were untrue creationists wouldn't get upset about teaching it, and obviously we would not be talking about it.

So, evolutionary biology meets even your stilted definition of "knowledge"

Your religion does not meet my definition though so :shrug:

 

[variant]

For your reference.

False.

Naked assertions aren't really my concern.

 

[Gottservant]

Validity and knowledge are synonyms for your information.

All knowledge is valid.



I am, the fact that evolution is the guiding principle of biology for over a hundred years has effected plenty of decisions that have changed lives.

If this were untrue creationists wouldn't get upset about teaching it, and obviously we would not be talking about it.

So, evolutionary biology meets even your stilted definition of "knowledge"

Your religion does not meet my definition though so :shrug:

Woah! Woah! It has changed lives because it has upset people

are you kidding me?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Look for the structure of what I say, not the specific words.

I will try to be more plain.

It is a cross I already have to bear, please pray for me.

We all have our issues to deal with.

 

[variant]

Woah! Woah! It has changed lives because it has upset people

are you kidding me?

Well that and being the unifying principle of biology for 100+ years.

No I am not kidding. You said there is no evidence and there is evidence that you obviously can not reject.

 

[Gottservant]

Well that and being the unifying principle of biology for 100+ years.

No I am not kidding. You said there is no evidence and there is evidence that you obviously can not reject.

Yes, but attending a biology class run by someone who may or may not believe anything, is not a changed life.

If you were talking about a changed life, you would have used the concept of a contrast between past and present states by now.

So contrary to your belief that I cannot reject this evidence, I have rejected it.

 

[True Scotsman]

Ok, I will take that as a comment since it is not the point of this thread (but it is sort of the problem).

The point of this thread is believing you know something simply because you have for a moment intuited it.

That is precisely what theists do. They never provide any objective evidence. There is mountains and mountains collected over 150 years to support the theory of evolution. There has never even been a valid argument made for the existence of any god. Never. In order to accept any of the numerous arguments that have been presented you have to overlook and ignore glaring logical fallacies. It's theists who have to rely on intuition.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That is precisely what theists do. They never provide any objective evidence. There is mountains and mountains collected over 150 years to support the theory of evolution. There has never even been a valid argument made for the existence of any god. Never. In order to accept any of the numerous arguments that have been presented you have to overlook and ignore glaring logical fallacies. It's theists who have to rely on intuition.

-_- you should not expect such evidence in the philosophy subforum. You have to go to the science subforums for that

 

[variant]

Yes, but attending a biology class run by someone who may or may not believe anything, is not a changed life.

If you were talking about a changed life, you would have used the concept of a contrast between past and present states by now.

So contrary to your belief that I cannot reject this evidence, I have rejected it.

You're also saying that nothing is different about the world (changes in peoples lives) because of the advances in biology over the past 100+ years due to evolutionary theory.

You're basically saying biology can't assess knowledge because it isn't a religion (the only example you have given of something that "changes lives".)

I reject your standard of knowledge as utter nonsense.

 

[Gottservant]

You're also saying that nothing is different about the world (changes in peoples lives) because of the advances in biology over the past 100+ years due to evolutionary theory.

You're basically saying biology can't assess knowledge because it isn't a religion (the only example you have given of something that "changes lives".)

I reject your standard of knowledge as utter nonsense.

It's just a fact you have provided no instance of a contrast whatsoever.

I can make sweeping statements about the advance of Christian inspired study too, but that would serve no one.

The point is, provide the contrast.

If you don't have the contrast, you don't have the truth.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It's just a fact you have provided no instance of a contrast whatsoever.

I can make sweeping statements about the advance of Christian inspired study too, but that would serve no one.

The point is, provide the contrast.

If you don't have the contrast, you don't have the truth.

Fine, contrast biblical medicine with modern medicine then. No, advancements by scientists who just happen to be Christian don't count, it has to be provably inspired or directly taken from the bible or Christian traditions.

 

[Gottservant]

Fine, contrast biblical medicine with modern medicine then. No, advancements by scientists who just happen to be Christian don't count, it has to be provably inspired or directly taken from the bible or Christian traditions.

It's much simpler than that.

Anyone who believes in Christ, turns from sin.

That is the contrast.

It is a decision of the will, to be an inspired person.

You know for a fact that any such person is capable of science or any other field, look it up on the internet if you really want to.

The issue being discussed here is the intuition of knowledge, not the creation of fact.

Fact determines (merely) timescale (in other words if it is a fact it is true in such and such a context for such and such a length of time), knowledge determines power (in other words whether you believe it, what for, in what way and for what truth).

 

[PsychoSarah]

It's much simpler than that.

Anyone who believes in Christ, turns from sin.

That is the contrast.

It is a decision of the will, to be an inspired person.

You know for a fact that any such person is capable of science or any other field, look it up on the internet if you really want to.

The issue being discussed here is the intuition of knowledge, not the creation of fact.

Fact determines (merely) timescale (in other words if it is a fact it is true in such and such a context for such and such a length of time), knowledge determines power (in other words whether you believe it, what for, in what way and for what truth).

I could not make myself just believe in deities that easily. How about you try to make yourself believe the sky is green without avoiding looking up and see how that goes, because the brain just doesn't work that way.

 

[variant]

It's just a fact you have provided no instance of a contrast whatsoever.

I can make sweeping statements about the advance of Christian inspired study too, but that would serve no one.

I don't have to contrast, as there is no "either or" here. The claim that evolutionary theory has had no effect on the modern world is so laughable that I don't feel the need to rebut it in front of serious people.

Further to say that any idea that "changes lives" counts as knowledge is also laughable as this would mean that flatly contradictory religions would count as knowledge.

As you see utter nonsense.

The point is, provide the contrast.

If you don't have the contrast, you don't have the truth.

I contrast my ability to have a sensible standard of knowledge that reasonable people can understand with your utter nonsense that has the singular purpose of upholding your specific beliefs.

 

[variant]

The issue being discussed here is the intuition of knowledge, not the creation of fact.

Knowledge isn't intuited, it is observed.