You asked, "Outside of faith alone, what reason do i have to actually believe that they exist?" I answered that question.
not really. your 'boxes in a marketplace' analogy is still based on faith and what everyone else has told you. there's no fact. going back to your china analogy, it's a proven fact that china exists. but outside of faith and the bible and listening to other christians, there is no proof of heaven or hell. it's not a fact. so even if a bunch of other people who believe in it tell me it's real, i still have nothing to base my belief in it on except for faith. just because someone tells you something doesn't make it true. show me facts. that's what i was asking you for.
not really. your 'boxes in a marketplace' analogy is still based on faith and what everyone else has told you. there's no fact. going back to your china analogy, it's a proven fact that china exists. but outside of faith and the bible and listening to other christians, there is no proof of heaven or hell. it's not a fact. so even if a bunch of other people who believe in it tell me it's real, i still have nothing to base my belief in it on except for faith. just because someone tells you something doesn't make it true. show me facts. that's what i was asking you for.
calibretto
extremestan is saying that you can't be absolutely sure of anything, so nothing can ultimately be "a proven fact". (Even if you see something with your own eyes, you can't be absolutely sure you're really seeing it and that it truly exists.)
But, of course, you can be practically sure of many things. You can be practically sure that China exists, that if you drop something it will fall down, and that you'll die if you don't eat any food. He's not saying that you can be equally sure of China and Heaven/Hell. His box example is simply an analogy for the various types of faith one may encounter dealing with Christianity. (On that note, if somebody can find stan's previous fantastic thread/post about types of faith, it would be helpful to this fellow, I'm sure.)
ok, this is getting to be ridiculous. it's a proven scientific fact called gravity. i am not practically sure of this, i'm absolutely positively sure that if i drop something it will fall down. everything you listed are proven facts. china does, in fact, exist. you need nourishment to live. what i'm saying is there is no factual evidence of the existance of heaven and hell and that's why i can't have 'faith' in it's existance.
ok, this is getting to be ridiculous. it's a proven scientific fact called gravity. i am not practically sure of this, i'm absolutely positively sure that if i drop something it will fall down. everything you listed are proven facts. china does, in fact, exist. you need nourishment to live. what i'm saying is there is no factual evidence of the existance of heaven and hell and that's why i can't have 'faith' in it's existance.
First, no, you're not absolutely sure that if you drop something it will fall down. You believe it based on past experience. It just so happens that every time you've dropped an object, it's fallen to the ground. Going back to the marketplace analogy, "objects conforming to gravity" is like Joel's boxes. Every time so far, Joel has sold you a valuable box. Does that automatically mean that he will always sell you a valuable box? You assume that it will work again and again because repetitive consistency is what neural networks depend on. I know it sounds ridiculous, but that's philosophy for you. We're always in a realm of doubt and only practical certainty.
Second, you missed the "peeking" part of my marketplace analogy. That part is not based on faith in testimonial evidence... it's merely based on faith in your eyesight and faith in your mental ability to correctly process what you apparently saw. The whole point of my analogy was a culmination into the two contributory categories of evidence for God and his teachings: the letters/people (i) and the peek (ii). Your responses indicate to me that you ignored the stuff about (ii).
First of all, that was an amusingly clever metaphor.
To perhaps adress a little bit a point a bit related to what might be callibretto's dilemma, and what's certainly a common misconception; there is a difference, fundamentally, between what is real and what is physical. Matter and energy might determine the whole of the physical universe. They do not solely occupy what is real, however. They don't even exclusively dominate deductive reasoning. We use our perceptions of sight and feel to determine that objects tend to be attracted to each other. Even though we don't understand, and even now we still don't fully understand, why this happens, we can see the event as it happens and give a name to it. Similarly, we use other, less clearly defined senses to perceive that, for instance, a life built around lies makes us feel bad. The lies have no physical truth, although they are transmitted via sound, and the feelings have no physical truth, but they can have an effect upon our lives, even crossing over from the immaterial to the physical; our reaction to the spiritual effect of such behavior can influence our actions in the physical world. This particular case, where a lifestyle built around deception, even when it is undiscovered, creates feelings of hollowness and self-hate in a human being, is backed up not only inductively, but deductively; it is observed in many cultures at many times, by many individuals. Every aspect of the "soul" is not thus known; not being able to put our paws on it, we haven't spent as much time exploring the spiritual, and those who try to do so are often chided for believing in childish, "unreal"- which, again, only actually means non-physical- things, despite all the evidence we know of that belief and hope and anger and despair are real; the evidence alone that we know through communication what we mean by these terms, as we know what yellow and red and heavy and light and hot and cold mean without having any other way to define these things but themselves, should be proof enough of that.
The point of this is only that, while there is a tendency to treat such matters as faith and beliefs, and claims of the feeling of spiritual things as sheer imagination, we have no reason to suppose that the things we perceive with these "internal" senses are any less real than the physical things we perceive with our external senses, only of a different nature. So while this is no reason to believe on theological or philosophical stance over another, it is a reason enough to consider the debate worthy of serious pursuit and discussion. Something can be real and yet not be felt or smelt or seen or heard or detected through gamma radiation or any other means of the physical sciences.
First, no, you're not absolutely sure that if you drop something it will fall down. You believe it based on past experience. It just so happens that every time you've dropped an object, it's fallen to the ground. Going back to the marketplace analogy, "objects conforming to gravity" is like Joel's boxes. Every time so far, Joel has sold you a valuable box. Does that automatically mean that he will always sell you a valuable box? You assume that it will work again and again because repetitive consistency is what neural networks depend on. I know it sounds ridiculous, but that's philosophy for you. We're always in a realm of doubt and only practical certainty.
if isaac newton could hear you now. the more i have this conversation w/ you the more it seems to me that you base everything on "faith." you have "faith" that if you dropped something it will fall based on what has happened to you every other time you've dropped something. i know for a fact that if i drop something it will fall. not only because every other time i've dropped something it has fallen, but because isaac newton proved that gravity exists. and it's because of this that it's a fact that no matter how many times you drop something it will fall. i don't just "believe" this, i know it. unlike the argument of the existance of heaven and hell, it's been proven.
Second, you missed the "peeking" part of my marketplace analogy. That part is not based on faith in testimonial evidence... it's merely based on faith in your eyesight and faith in your mental ability to correctly process what you apparently saw. The whole point of my analogy was a culmination into the two contributory categories of evidence for God and his teachings: the letters/people (i) and the peek (ii). Your responses indicate to me that you ignored the stuff about (ii).
i actually did see the "peeking" part of your analogy. it's just that i've never had a 'peek' at heaven or god to prove to me that they exist. as far as i know, no one else has either, so i don't see how this helps your argument.
Quote from Einsteinmonkey »
Here it is. It helps illustrate the point of degrees of certainty.
(And see stan's post.)
i know what faith is. i don't need it broken down.
and is there even a need to debate why we call things what we do? such as hot, or cold, or red or yellow? hot and cold can both be defined w/o using themselves. hot = high temperature, cold = low temperature. now, it's definitely a matter of opinion at times on what's hot to one person and cold to the next. i'm not dismissing anything that any of you guys are saying. i do appreciate the time you take to type out these elaborate explanations and analogies. i just don't agree w/ them. i don't understand why you guys can't just say what i'm saying, "i see your point, i just don't agree w/ it."
Calibretto: facts are not absolutely certain. Nothing that is based on observation is absolutely certain.
Epistemologically, the only kind of "certainty" is practical reason to assume something is certain. No one ever really knowsabsolutely if something is true or not. Even if we assume it's "proven." It's still assumed. We still need intuition, which is step one. Not reason. Not senses. We still need to make assumptions about everything.
Some testimonies and experiences are more likely to be reliable than others - i.e. some of them occur so often and have become so useful that there is almost no reason to ever doubt our assumptions based on them. But that doesn't mean that, fundamentally, they're still just assumptions.
An example is science. Science is based upon something called intersubjective agreement; this is the basis of the use of all empirical evidence to verify something. But intersubjective agreement is not 100% certain and solid. However, it happens to be so pragmatic to use that we might as well pretend it's 100% certain.
What Stan is saying is that believing in God without certain proof and believing in anything without certain proof (which we must do to function) only differ in terms of degrees. And he's correct.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
if isaac newton could hear you now. the more i have this conversation w/ you the more it seems to me that you base everything on "faith." you have "faith" that if you dropped something it will fall based on what has happened to you every other time you've dropped something. i know for a fact that if i drop something it will fall. not only because every other time i've dropped something it has fallen, but because isaac newton proved that gravity exists. and it's because of this that it's a fact that no matter how many times you drop something it will fall. i don't just "believe" this, i know it. unlike the argument of the existance of heaven and hell, it's been proven.
Forget about heaven and hell for a moment; this really has nothing to do with them specifically.
Can you see that everything we know is, at the most basic level, contingent on our own perceptions? I perceive that I am sitting here at this computer typing out this response.
Quote from extremestan »
Our trust in our own senses is certainly a phantom trust, yet it's our most fundamental one. If we don't trust our senses, we can't trust anything. And since we must trust things to survive, we must trust our senses! Our ancient teacher, Mr. Natural Selection, taught us this.
We underlyingly believe (or rather, we assume) that our perceptions of the world are true. Even though we can practically be certain of many many things (as noted in the quote, we cannot be 100% sure. We may be 99.999999999999999999999% sure, but never 100%. To use the old cliche example, how do you know you're not just a brain in a jar? From a practical point of view, there is absolutely no need to heed this, since above some point you are, for all intents and purposes, 100% certain.
I think you're taking this all from a practical point of view, which it certainly isn't meant to be.
if isaac newton could hear you now. the more i have this conversation w/ you the more it seems to me that you base everything on "faith." you have "faith" that if you dropped something it will fall based on what has happened to you every other time you've dropped something. i know for a fact that if i drop something it will fall. not only because every other time i've dropped something it has fallen, but because isaac newton proved that gravity exists. and it's because of this that it's a fact that no matter how many times you drop something it will fall. i don't just "believe" this, i know it. unlike the argument of the existance of heaven and hell, it's been proven.
I'd be double-sarnath'd if I specifically addressed this, please consult the previous two posts.
I also think it's time for a classic image from MiseTings (even though it's a bit harsh, as MT jabs tend to be):
as far as i know, no one else has either, so i don't see how this helps your argument.
I've personally experienced what I perceive to be God's intervention in my life: most notably, frequent and startling synchronicity between spiritual action (prayer, sin, discipline) and consequence (response, temporal punishment, blessing).
I've personally experienced what I perceive to be God's intervention in my life: most notably, frequent and startling synchronicity between spiritual action (prayer, sin, discipline) and consequence (response, temporal punishment, blessing).
Some people would conjecture that you perceive this selectively; you see it that way because you are biased towards such an interpretation.
However, that explanation would only go so far. There are some things that really defy explanation, even though they could be "random." I, myself, don't believe in "randomness," though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
Some people would conjecture that you perceive this selectively; you see it that way because you are biased towards such an interpretation.
However, that explanation would only go so far. There are some things that really defy explanation, even though they could be "random." I, myself, don't believe in "randomness," though.
Indeed. There's always the hitches of bias, the placebo effect, and "Littlewood's Law." However, after a while, there comes a point where a reasonable person might say, "What I have so far experienced, to the degree and frequency I have experienced it, goes beyond those explanations."
However, that explanation would only go so far. There are some things that really defy explanation, even though they could be "random." I, myself, don't believe in "randomness," though.
What do you mean by this (and why is randomness in quotation marks)?
What do you mean by this (and why is randomness in quotation marks)?
I'll come back an explain more later, but for now I can say that I think one reason is that I tend to overuse quotation marks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
Calibretto: facts are not absolutely certain. Nothing that is based on observation is absolutely certain.
oh my god, are you serious? that makes absolutely no sense at all. none whatsoever. a fact is a fact is a fact. facts can be proven. once proven, theory becomes fact. i'm not assuming anything, i know because it's fact.
Quote from Einsteinmonkey »
I don't think you're getting the point at all
no i'm not, nor do i think i want to when i have people telling me that facts are merely assumptions. and besides, why you try to break faith down into the reasons why people have faith? i understand why people have faith.
Quote from Einsteinmonkey »
Can you see that everything we know is, at the most basic level, contingent on our own perceptions? I perceive that I am sitting here at this computer typing out this response.
yes, i do see that. which is exactly why i "know" that heaven and hell do not exist. and why i know that if i drop something it will fall. because that's what i've perceived in my lifetime. i also know that something will fall if i drop it based on the proven existance of gravity on earth.
Quote from extremestan »
I'd be double-sarnath'd if I specifically addressed this, please consult the previous two posts.
I also think it's time for a classic image from MiseTings (even though it's a bit harsh, as MT jabs tend to be):
that was a little uncalled for, but almost what i'd expect. "you don't believe the way i do, therefore you are wrong." that about sums that image up in one sentence, right?
alright i read like page 5 and that was enough LOLOLOL ok here ya go im totally with cali on this one. neiter sides can prove or Deny weither there is or isnt a god. if there is im surely goin to hell. true statement. i have at one time believed that there was a god but i was like 8 and ppl embeded that into my still fragil mind. now that im older i relized there was way to many things that disproved the bible. for instance Dinos where are they? the bible dont say jack abou tthem but we have proof they where there. and that man was there before the time of adam and eve. if u can tell me why there are bone fragments dated before the said time of adam and eve lmk.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DCI Level 1 Magic Judge
UDE WoW Level 1 Judge
In Loving Memory of Rob Hudgens April 2, 2001.
In Loving Memory of Mom Harrison Feburary 14, 2005
In Loving Memory of Richie Proffitt June 8, 2008
yes, i do see that. which is exactly why i "know" that heaven and hell do not exist. and why i know that if i drop something it will fall. because that's what i've perceived in my lifetime. i also know that something will fall if i drop it based on the proven existance of gravity on earth.
Exactly, but you are then assuming that your perceptions are correct.
This is the point. That's it. Everything you know is dependent on your perceptions, and you assume your perceptions are correct though you can never truly absolutely know that your perceptions are correct.
that was a little uncalled for, but almost what i'd expect. "you don't believe the way i do, therefore you are wrong." that about sums that image up in one sentence, right?
A better summary might be, "What you're saying is an extremely common view that one might have before seriously engaging in epistemology."
Let's go back to the gravity thing. You say that we have scientific proof that gravity has worked. I agree. But we cannot have proof that gravity will always work. Science, by definition, can only make propositions about the future based on things that have happened already. Thus, science is completely powerless to absolutely prove that if I push my cup off of my desk, it will indeed fall to the ground. Even macroscopiccausality, the foundation of science, must be assumed. We cannot know, for certain, that macroscopic causality will always hold true.
The reason that you're having such a hard time even considering what we're saying is because the human brains are composed of neural networks. The way neural networks productively work depends on faith (assumption with conviction) in macroscopic causality. That's why magic tricks bewilder and delight us, especially as small children.
I'm sure you'll think all of this through eventually, once you've opened your mind a bit. I would recommend reading works by Descartes, Immanuel Kant, and David Hume.
OMG wth Facts arent facts? o.o this is new. the Bible is a bunch of "Facts" that ppl wrote that they said that happend correct?
thats like me typing in a book that "I posted on this thread today." there is proof i did cause there are time stamps and cryptions of me doin so in the program of this website.
you all are something special im tellin you
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DCI Level 1 Magic Judge
UDE WoW Level 1 Judge
In Loving Memory of Rob Hudgens April 2, 2001.
In Loving Memory of Mom Harrison Feburary 14, 2005
In Loving Memory of Richie Proffitt June 8, 2008
now that im older i relized there was way to many things that disproved the bible. for instance Dinos where are they? the bible dont say jack abou tthem but we have proof they where there. and that man was there before the time of adam and eve. if u can tell me why there are bone fragments dated before the said time of adam and eve lmk.
I believe that the Earth is millions of years old, that physical humans probably evolved from lesser primates, and that dinosaurs lived for millions of years before humans ever existed.
This belief is in harmony with the Catholic Church. How? From the early centuries of Christianity, the degree of symbolism in first portions of Genesis has been debated among Christians, and thus there is no official doctrine regarding it. For instance, Origen, a 3rd-century Church father, wrote:
"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally" (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:1:16 [A.D. 225]).
The Bible contains many things. It contains letters, histories, parables, narratives, proverbs, songs, and apocalyptic literature. The Bible is not always a history book. Was there an actual "prodigal son?" No, Jesus was telling a story to illustrate a deeper point. The books of Judith and Job are likely fictional, by intent, stories. And the first portions of Genesis, as our friend Origen supposed, are likely "figurative descriptions of mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally."
OMG wth Facts arent facts? o.o this is new. the Bible is a bunch of "Facts" that ppl wrote that they said that happend correct?
thats like me typing in a book that "I posted on this thread today." there is proof i did cause there are time stamps and cryptions of me doin so in the program of this website.
you all are something special im tellin you
No, it's not new. It's been part of philosophical discussion for thousands of years. Something can be a "fact" without the capacity to actually be absolutely certain of it.
Seriously, think it through. Think about any "fact" that you cannot readily test. How can you be absolutely certain that it's true?
I'm 99.9999999999999999% certain that I am sitting in a chair right now. But the remote possibility exists that this is a figment of my imagination, and I'm actually a brain in a jar. Don't you agree with this?
After a certain point... for instance, 99.99999... we can be practically certain that something is true. But we can never, ever, be absolutely certain of something that depends on observation.
ok, dude, seriously... i like my summary of the picture better. thanks for the wiki link, but i'm not interested. i'm not going to give you an atheism link and invite you over to my side. i'm arguing my point and you're arguing yours which is all fine and dandy, but at some point it's gotta stop. can you not just accept that i believe differently than you, yet i'm not wrong? i accepted that long long ago. living where i do, i deal w/ close minded people everyday. i'm not close minded, i'm actually very very open minded. epsecially when it comes to religion. but when i have people telling me that facts aren't facts and cannot be proven and i'm just assuming they are true, that's when i draw the line at my being open minded. i'm not saying it makes no sense because of my human brain and i'm not going to think all of this through. ever. we can't prove each other wrong. i have respect for you belief in christianity and you have no respect for anyone who believes differently from you. end of story.
ok, dude, seriously... i like my summary of the picture better. thanks for the wiki link, but i'm not interested. i'm not going to give you an atheism link and invite you over to my side. i'm arguing my point and you're arguing yours which is all fine and dandy, but at some point it's gotta stop. can you not just accept that i believe differently than you, yet i'm not wrong? i accepted that long long ago. living where i do, i deal w/ close minded people everyday. i'm not close minded, i'm actually very very open minded. epsecially when it comes to religion. but when i have people telling me that facts aren't facts and cannot be proven and i'm just assuming they are true, that's when i draw the line at my being open minded. i'm not saying it makes no sense because of my human brain and i'm not going to think all of this through. ever. we can't prove each other wrong. i have respect for you belief in christianity and you have no respect for anyone who believes differently from you. end of story.
Calibretto, I'm not even talking about Christianity right now. I'm not even talking about theism. This is basic, secular philosophy. That wasn't a Christian or theistic link at all. How can you ever hope to gain an understanding of these things if you simply refuse to read about them, hiding under the baby-blanket of "let's just agree to disagree"? That's no way to improve yourself, that's just a way of being intellectually lazy.
No, it's not new. It's been part of philosophical discussion for thousands of years. Something can be a "fact" without the capacity to actually be absolutely certain of it.
Seriously, think it through. Think about any "fact" that you cannot readily test. How can you be absolutely certain that it's true?
I'm 99.9999999999999999% certain that I am sitting in a chair right now. But the remote possibility exists that this is a figment of my imagination, and I'm actually a brain in a jar. Don't you agree with this?
After a certain point... for instance, 99.99999... we can be practically certain that something is true. But we can never, ever, be absolutely certain of something that depends on observation.
o.o im currently sittin in the floor at my house typin this. how do i kno its fact? cause im doin it there are ppl here that see me and i could do something to document that i was doin this. is it proven? yes it is. i exist and i am sittin here. so i have a fragment of my imagination that im a brain in a jar? no wtf if u think this u have some issues imo.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DCI Level 1 Magic Judge
UDE WoW Level 1 Judge
In Loving Memory of Rob Hudgens April 2, 2001.
In Loving Memory of Mom Harrison Feburary 14, 2005
In Loving Memory of Richie Proffitt June 8, 2008
Calibretto, I'm not even talking about Christianity right now. I'm not even talking about theism. This is basic, secular philosophy. That wasn't a Christian or theistic link at all. How can you ever hope to gain an understanding of these things if you simply refuse to read about them, hiding under the guise of "let's just agree to disagree"? That's no way to improve yourself, that's just a way of being intellectually lazy.
why read about them if its not fact? if everything is fictional then theres no point in reading what others have to say.
and being intellectually lazy? how is this so when you have to want to learn something to do so. if we dont want to learn it we arent going to. ppl dont seem to understand that they have thier vision and we have ours. is my vision the same as cali's? no its not, do i think that he should believe the same way i do? no i dont. i dont refuse to learn these things i just dont want to.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DCI Level 1 Magic Judge
UDE WoW Level 1 Judge
In Loving Memory of Rob Hudgens April 2, 2001.
In Loving Memory of Mom Harrison Feburary 14, 2005
In Loving Memory of Richie Proffitt June 8, 2008
why read about them if its not fact? if everything is fictional then theres no point in reading what others have to say.
That's not true. Think about this:
My work, in the past, has paid me on the 15th of every month. But I'm not absolutely certain that they will pay me next Wednesday. There's a tiny chance that they will simply decide not to pay me. So do I stop working? No, I continue working on the assumption that they will pay me.
So even though I'm not absolutely certain that it's true, I can still live and act as if I was certain. That's what "practical certainty" is.
o.o im currently sittin in the floor at my house typin this. how do i kno its fact? cause im doin it there are ppl here that see me and i could do something to document that i was doin this. is it proven? yes it is. i exist and i am sittin here. so i have a fragment of my imagination that im a brain in a jar? no wtf if u think this u have some issues imo.
I agree, if I actually subscribed to that idea, I would have some issues. But don't you agree that it's possible that it's true? I don't believe it, but the only reason I don't believe it is because I'm making a teeny tiny leap of faith.
The movie "The Matrix" was supposed to introduce folks like yourself to epistemology and the implications of solipsism. I suppose it failed.
not really. your 'boxes in a marketplace' analogy is still based on faith and what everyone else has told you. there's no fact. going back to your china analogy, it's a proven fact that china exists. but outside of faith and the bible and listening to other christians, there is no proof of heaven or hell. it's not a fact. so even if a bunch of other people who believe in it tell me it's real, i still have nothing to base my belief in it on except for faith. just because someone tells you something doesn't make it true. show me facts. that's what i was asking you for.
calibretto
MTGS Average Peasant Cube 2023 Edition
Follow me. I tweet.
extremestan is saying that you can't be absolutely sure of anything, so nothing can ultimately be "a proven fact". (Even if you see something with your own eyes, you can't be absolutely sure you're really seeing it and that it truly exists.)
But, of course, you can be practically sure of many things. You can be practically sure that China exists, that if you drop something it will fall down, and that you'll die if you don't eat any food. He's not saying that you can be equally sure of China and Heaven/Hell. His box example is simply an analogy for the various types of faith one may encounter dealing with Christianity. (On that note, if somebody can find stan's previous fantastic thread/post about types of faith, it would be helpful to this fellow, I'm sure.)
calibretto
MTGS Average Peasant Cube 2023 Edition
Follow me. I tweet.
First, no, you're not absolutely sure that if you drop something it will fall down. You believe it based on past experience. It just so happens that every time you've dropped an object, it's fallen to the ground. Going back to the marketplace analogy, "objects conforming to gravity" is like Joel's boxes. Every time so far, Joel has sold you a valuable box. Does that automatically mean that he will always sell you a valuable box? You assume that it will work again and again because repetitive consistency is what neural networks depend on. I know it sounds ridiculous, but that's philosophy for you. We're always in a realm of doubt and only practical certainty.
Second, you missed the "peeking" part of my marketplace analogy. That part is not based on faith in testimonial evidence... it's merely based on faith in your eyesight and faith in your mental ability to correctly process what you apparently saw. The whole point of my analogy was a culmination into the two contributory categories of evidence for God and his teachings: the letters/people (i) and the peek (ii). Your responses indicate to me that you ignored the stuff about (ii).
(And see stan's post.)
To perhaps adress a little bit a point a bit related to what might be callibretto's dilemma, and what's certainly a common misconception; there is a difference, fundamentally, between what is real and what is physical. Matter and energy might determine the whole of the physical universe. They do not solely occupy what is real, however. They don't even exclusively dominate deductive reasoning. We use our perceptions of sight and feel to determine that objects tend to be attracted to each other. Even though we don't understand, and even now we still don't fully understand, why this happens, we can see the event as it happens and give a name to it. Similarly, we use other, less clearly defined senses to perceive that, for instance, a life built around lies makes us feel bad. The lies have no physical truth, although they are transmitted via sound, and the feelings have no physical truth, but they can have an effect upon our lives, even crossing over from the immaterial to the physical; our reaction to the spiritual effect of such behavior can influence our actions in the physical world. This particular case, where a lifestyle built around deception, even when it is undiscovered, creates feelings of hollowness and self-hate in a human being, is backed up not only inductively, but deductively; it is observed in many cultures at many times, by many individuals. Every aspect of the "soul" is not thus known; not being able to put our paws on it, we haven't spent as much time exploring the spiritual, and those who try to do so are often chided for believing in childish, "unreal"- which, again, only actually means non-physical- things, despite all the evidence we know of that belief and hope and anger and despair are real; the evidence alone that we know through communication what we mean by these terms, as we know what yellow and red and heavy and light and hot and cold mean without having any other way to define these things but themselves, should be proof enough of that.
The point of this is only that, while there is a tendency to treat such matters as faith and beliefs, and claims of the feeling of spiritual things as sheer imagination, we have no reason to suppose that the things we perceive with these "internal" senses are any less real than the physical things we perceive with our external senses, only of a different nature. So while this is no reason to believe on theological or philosophical stance over another, it is a reason enough to consider the debate worthy of serious pursuit and discussion. Something can be real and yet not be felt or smelt or seen or heard or detected through gamma radiation or any other means of the physical sciences.
if isaac newton could hear you now. the more i have this conversation w/ you the more it seems to me that you base everything on "faith." you have "faith" that if you dropped something it will fall based on what has happened to you every other time you've dropped something. i know for a fact that if i drop something it will fall. not only because every other time i've dropped something it has fallen, but because isaac newton proved that gravity exists. and it's because of this that it's a fact that no matter how many times you drop something it will fall. i don't just "believe" this, i know it. unlike the argument of the existance of heaven and hell, it's been proven.
i actually did see the "peeking" part of your analogy. it's just that i've never had a 'peek' at heaven or god to prove to me that they exist. as far as i know, no one else has either, so i don't see how this helps your argument.
i know what faith is. i don't need it broken down.
and is there even a need to debate why we call things what we do? such as hot, or cold, or red or yellow? hot and cold can both be defined w/o using themselves. hot = high temperature, cold = low temperature. now, it's definitely a matter of opinion at times on what's hot to one person and cold to the next. i'm not dismissing anything that any of you guys are saying. i do appreciate the time you take to type out these elaborate explanations and analogies. i just don't agree w/ them. i don't understand why you guys can't just say what i'm saying, "i see your point, i just don't agree w/ it."
calibretto
MTGS Average Peasant Cube 2023 Edition
Follow me. I tweet.
Epistemologically, the only kind of "certainty" is practical reason to assume something is certain. No one ever really knows absolutely if something is true or not. Even if we assume it's "proven." It's still assumed. We still need intuition, which is step one. Not reason. Not senses. We still need to make assumptions about everything.
Some testimonies and experiences are more likely to be reliable than others - i.e. some of them occur so often and have become so useful that there is almost no reason to ever doubt our assumptions based on them. But that doesn't mean that, fundamentally, they're still just assumptions.
An example is science. Science is based upon something called intersubjective agreement; this is the basis of the use of all empirical evidence to verify something. But intersubjective agreement is not 100% certain and solid. However, it happens to be so pragmatic to use that we might as well pretend it's 100% certain.
What Stan is saying is that believing in God without certain proof and believing in anything without certain proof (which we must do to function) only differ in terms of degrees. And he's correct.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
I don't think you're getting the point at all
Forget about heaven and hell for a moment; this really has nothing to do with them specifically.
Can you see that everything we know is, at the most basic level, contingent on our own perceptions? I perceive that I am sitting here at this computer typing out this response.
We underlyingly believe (or rather, we assume) that our perceptions of the world are true. Even though we can practically be certain of many many things (as noted in the quote, we cannot be 100% sure. We may be 99.999999999999999999999% sure, but never 100%. To use the old cliche example, how do you know you're not just a brain in a jar? From a practical point of view, there is absolutely no need to heed this, since above some point you are, for all intents and purposes, 100% certain.
I think you're taking this all from a practical point of view, which it certainly isn't meant to be.
edit: badly sarnath'd...
I'd be double-sarnath'd if I specifically addressed this, please consult the previous two posts.
I also think it's time for a classic image from MiseTings (even though it's a bit harsh, as MT jabs tend to be):
http://internet.oit.edu/~pattonst/bridge.gif
That's fair. Perhaps one day you will.
I've personally experienced what I perceive to be God's intervention in my life: most notably, frequent and startling synchronicity between spiritual action (prayer, sin, discipline) and consequence (response, temporal punishment, blessing).
Some people would conjecture that you perceive this selectively; you see it that way because you are biased towards such an interpretation.
However, that explanation would only go so far. There are some things that really defy explanation, even though they could be "random." I, myself, don't believe in "randomness," though.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
Indeed. There's always the hitches of bias, the placebo effect, and "Littlewood's Law." However, after a while, there comes a point where a reasonable person might say, "What I have so far experienced, to the degree and frequency I have experienced it, goes beyond those explanations."
What do you mean by this (and why is randomness in quotation marks)?
I'll come back an explain more later, but for now I can say that I think one reason is that I tend to overuse quotation marks.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
oh my god, are you serious? that makes absolutely no sense at all. none whatsoever. a fact is a fact is a fact. facts can be proven. once proven, theory becomes fact. i'm not assuming anything, i know because it's fact.
no i'm not, nor do i think i want to when i have people telling me that facts are merely assumptions. and besides, why you try to break faith down into the reasons why people have faith? i understand why people have faith.
yes, i do see that. which is exactly why i "know" that heaven and hell do not exist. and why i know that if i drop something it will fall. because that's what i've perceived in my lifetime. i also know that something will fall if i drop it based on the proven existance of gravity on earth.
that was a little uncalled for, but almost what i'd expect. "you don't believe the way i do, therefore you are wrong." that about sums that image up in one sentence, right?
calibretto
MTGS Average Peasant Cube 2023 Edition
Follow me. I tweet.
UDE WoW Level 1 Judge
In Loving Memory of Rob Hudgens April 2, 2001.
In Loving Memory of Mom Harrison Feburary 14, 2005
In Loving Memory of Richie Proffitt June 8, 2008
Exactly, but you are then assuming that your perceptions are correct.
This is the point. That's it. Everything you know is dependent on your perceptions, and you assume your perceptions are correct though you can never truly absolutely know that your perceptions are correct.
A better summary might be, "What you're saying is an extremely common view that one might have before seriously engaging in epistemology."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodological_skepticism
Let's go back to the gravity thing. You say that we have scientific proof that gravity has worked. I agree. But we cannot have proof that gravity will always work. Science, by definition, can only make propositions about the future based on things that have happened already. Thus, science is completely powerless to absolutely prove that if I push my cup off of my desk, it will indeed fall to the ground. Even macroscopic causality, the foundation of science, must be assumed. We cannot know, for certain, that macroscopic causality will always hold true.
The reason that you're having such a hard time even considering what we're saying is because the human brains are composed of neural networks. The way neural networks productively work depends on faith (assumption with conviction) in macroscopic causality. That's why magic tricks bewilder and delight us, especially as small children.
I'm sure you'll think all of this through eventually, once you've opened your mind a bit. I would recommend reading works by Descartes, Immanuel Kant, and David Hume.
thats like me typing in a book that "I posted on this thread today." there is proof i did cause there are time stamps and cryptions of me doin so in the program of this website.
you all are something special im tellin you
UDE WoW Level 1 Judge
In Loving Memory of Rob Hudgens April 2, 2001.
In Loving Memory of Mom Harrison Feburary 14, 2005
In Loving Memory of Richie Proffitt June 8, 2008
I believe that the Earth is millions of years old, that physical humans probably evolved from lesser primates, and that dinosaurs lived for millions of years before humans ever existed.
This belief is in harmony with the Catholic Church. How? From the early centuries of Christianity, the degree of symbolism in first portions of Genesis has been debated among Christians, and thus there is no official doctrine regarding it. For instance, Origen, a 3rd-century Church father, wrote:
"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally" (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:1:16 [A.D. 225]).
The Bible contains many things. It contains letters, histories, parables, narratives, proverbs, songs, and apocalyptic literature. The Bible is not always a history book. Was there an actual "prodigal son?" No, Jesus was telling a story to illustrate a deeper point. The books of Judith and Job are likely fictional, by intent, stories. And the first portions of Genesis, as our friend Origen supposed, are likely "figurative descriptions of mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally."
No, it's not new. It's been part of philosophical discussion for thousands of years. Something can be a "fact" without the capacity to actually be absolutely certain of it.
Seriously, think it through. Think about any "fact" that you cannot readily test. How can you be absolutely certain that it's true?
I'm 99.9999999999999999% certain that I am sitting in a chair right now. But the remote possibility exists that this is a figment of my imagination, and I'm actually a brain in a jar. Don't you agree with this?
After a certain point... for instance, 99.99999... we can be practically certain that something is true. But we can never, ever, be absolutely certain of something that depends on observation.
calibretto
MTGS Average Peasant Cube 2023 Edition
Follow me. I tweet.
Calibretto, I'm not even talking about Christianity right now. I'm not even talking about theism. This is basic, secular philosophy. That wasn't a Christian or theistic link at all. How can you ever hope to gain an understanding of these things if you simply refuse to read about them, hiding under the baby-blanket of "let's just agree to disagree"? That's no way to improve yourself, that's just a way of being intellectually lazy.
o.o im currently sittin in the floor at my house typin this. how do i kno its fact? cause im doin it there are ppl here that see me and i could do something to document that i was doin this. is it proven? yes it is. i exist and i am sittin here. so i have a fragment of my imagination that im a brain in a jar? no wtf if u think this u have some issues imo.
UDE WoW Level 1 Judge
In Loving Memory of Rob Hudgens April 2, 2001.
In Loving Memory of Mom Harrison Feburary 14, 2005
In Loving Memory of Richie Proffitt June 8, 2008
why read about them if its not fact? if everything is fictional then theres no point in reading what others have to say.
and being intellectually lazy? how is this so when you have to want to learn something to do so. if we dont want to learn it we arent going to. ppl dont seem to understand that they have thier vision and we have ours. is my vision the same as cali's? no its not, do i think that he should believe the same way i do? no i dont. i dont refuse to learn these things i just dont want to.
UDE WoW Level 1 Judge
In Loving Memory of Rob Hudgens April 2, 2001.
In Loving Memory of Mom Harrison Feburary 14, 2005
In Loving Memory of Richie Proffitt June 8, 2008
That's not true. Think about this:
My work, in the past, has paid me on the 15th of every month. But I'm not absolutely certain that they will pay me next Wednesday. There's a tiny chance that they will simply decide not to pay me. So do I stop working? No, I continue working on the assumption that they will pay me.
So even though I'm not absolutely certain that it's true, I can still live and act as if I was certain. That's what "practical certainty" is.
I agree, if I actually subscribed to that idea, I would have some issues. But don't you agree that it's possible that it's true? I don't believe it, but the only reason I don't believe it is because I'm making a teeny tiny leap of faith.
The movie "The Matrix" was supposed to introduce folks like yourself to epistemology and the implications of solipsism. I suppose it failed.