-->
@3RU7AL
Ok thanks for the info
Why do you believe in God?
Posts
Total:
393
-->
@RationalMadman
Thus it will be found that God is only shown to the worthy; no matter how hard the people nitpick, sheep-herd each other or battle it out.
That's because this is all principle oriented and not because the Creator picks and chooses, this is an application not a belief. There is an objective reality that transcends the physical sense perception and contains it's own laws (principles) ..."Worthy" just means those that are willing, willing to apply things outside their perceived emotions and mental states, or paradigms. This is of course is very paramount to those who hold a limited view of creation like atheism or materialism. They, in this lifetime could be limited by their own worldviews. Everyone, every soul comes out of the heart of God as an expression, each soul has its own journey. But the dangers are relevant, or at least suppressive.
-->
@zedvictor4
Mind is data processing, consciousness enables thoughtful data processing, and though really just an elaborating descriptive, illumination could be regarded as enhanced data processing, whereby previous information is clarified or expounded. Nonetheless all is internal brain function, as are spiritual assumptions.
Word salad but I don't need one. You can't get around the fact that you are the one observing both mind and thoughts. This should be obvious, otherwise your existence would be nothing but a stream of thoughts. But you know that's not true right lol? how stupid can we get?
And if the brain does not function, then the mass will not function.
Pure speculation! And we know this is untrue, as the evidence shows consciousness can be experienced OUTSIDE the brain even after brain death, which occurs 4 to 5 mins after the heart stops. I can prove this through medical facts regarding NDE's silly. Keep thinking that though, it will only add to the surprise when you exit the material body.
Consciousness as we observe it through the brain does not operate outside the brain, yet spirituality and NDE's can show you how this works, can give you facts.
One exists for as long as systems function. It's down right stupid to suggest the opposite.
It's down right stupid to suggest the opposite of evidence dum dum. Do you have any facts that correlate with consciousness? no you don't because even the nature of consciousness is an open question in science. Yet completely articulated in religion and spirituality. Why is that? you will find out little soul.
Yes, we can observe sub-conscious or unconscious management, but this state is still wholly reliant on a level of brain function.
No sir, spiritual encounters and NDE's go beyond the normal physical sense perception, they can show you existence outside the brain. This of course has been proven over and over. Not in the materialistic propaganda, but the corresponding evidence as it lays right in front of your face.
And observation is sensory function, which is also wholly reliant on the brain, to instigate function and manage data.
No, to observe the physical body you need the component of the brain and the nervous system, but as all the evidence points to that is just a pipe dream. Sensory function is as changing as material phenomenon, yet you will always be the one observing that function. Your observation point will always prove you wrong, which is why I find it funny atheists make themselves an expert on consciousness lol. They have no foot hold on that reality, get a grip dummy.
Get a grip dude. LOL
Okay dum dum, keep pretending you are an expert at something you have no clue about lol.
-->
@3RU7AL
** Well among a great many other things, the sheer volume of web that he typically uses to swing from building to building and entangle his enemies greatly exceeds the storage capacity of those magic wrist-bands. Which makes all reports of activities contingent on this anomalous ability suspect.**
Perhaps, but I haven't, and I"m not aware of any specifc research studies on his web-generating contraptions. Not quite even sure about the "science" behind the web making thingys.
-->
@3RU7AL
** What about violating the law of conservation of energy?**
What about them?
-->
@3RU7AL
** Here's the problem.
You need to make your definition of "exist" explicit.
You also need to make your definition of "true" explicit.
You also need to make your definition of "false" explicit.
Identify and reveal your AXIOMS.
Then present your assertion in the from of a Syllogistic Statement. [LINK]
(IFF) you cannot determine if a statement is either true or false (THEN) such a statement is INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM PURE FANTASY. **
How's this:
"Exist" - to have being
"True" - in conformity (alignment) with facts or reality
"False" - not in conformity (not in alignment) with facts ore reality
Which assertion specifically do you want me to present in the form a Syllogistic Statement?
** you cannot determine if a statement is either true or false (THEN) such a statement is INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM PURE FANTASY. **
Perhaps. But again, what you also can NOT do is this:
1. You can not say definitively it's true.
2. You can not say definitively it's false.
-->
@keithprosser
I don't think I ever addressed this question
**Do you think the scribes who wrote gen 1-2 (in Babylon, 2700 years ago, probably) wanted/expected the ordinary Hebrews of the time to take it as a true story? Obviously we can't know if they did, but what do you think? I think they wanted their story to be believed."**
THere-in lies the real question. What was the author's intent (when they wrote it), and what were the Compiler's intent (those who compiled the books into the Bible) when they chose it as part of the Canon of the Bible.
So which part do you think they wanted them to believe, and why? I ask because stories of a certain style are meant to have certain elements believed as literary, others are meant to be metaphors or allegories, etc.
I fully expect some to pawn this off as a "False Equivalency" etc, but I'm simply using this to explain my point. When my folks read me the story of the Ant and the Grasshopper, did they expect me to believe it as truth? Well yea.....which part? The part about working hard NOW to prepare for later-- that's the "Truth" they wanted me to take away from the story. They had no intention of me believing an Ant and Grasshopper could talk, etc.
-->
@keithprosser
** All we need is a time machine and we can settle it once and for all! **
Preferably a DeLorean.
-->
@GuitarSlinger
"Exist" - to have being
Exist = Verifiable = Quantifiable = Fact = Real = True
"True" - in conformity (alignment) with facts or reality
True = Fact = Verifiable = Quantifiable = Real = Exist
"False" - not in conformity (not in alignment) with facts ore reality
False = Not True = Not Fact = Not Verifiable = Not Quantifiable = Not Real = Not Exist
Which assertion specifically do you want me to present in the form a Syllogistic Statement?
(IFF) the supernatural events described in ancient scriptures are unverifiable (THEN) they cannot be said to be true (a.k.a. Not True) and (IFF) Not verifiable (Quantifiable) = Qualia (THEN) they can be described as OPINION.
** you cannot determine if a statement is either true or false (THEN) such a statement is INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM PURE FANTASY. **Perhaps. But again, what you also can NOT do is this:1. You can not say definitively it's true.2. You can not say definitively it's false.
To call something True, it must be verifiable.
To call something Not-True, it must (merely) not be True (unverifiable Qualia). [LINK]
For example, (IFF) You can not say definitively it's true (THEN) it is unverifiable (unfalsifiable) Qualia (OPINION).
Now I'm going to hazard a guess that you are going to assert that, "some things are true and unverifiable".
However, this would violate your definition of TRUE.
For example, I could say, "I ate a sandwich today" and you might imagine that my statement is (EITHER) true (OR) false.
HOweVEr, since you have no way of verifying if the statement is true (THEN) it is Qualitative OPINION (Not-True).
Some statements have truth value (either verifiably true or verifiably impossible) and any statement that is NOT verifiable HAS NO TRUTH VALUE.
Statements with no verifiable truth value are statements of OPINION.
-->
@GuitarSlinger
** Well among a great many other things, the sheer volume of web that he typically uses to swing from building to building and entangle his enemies greatly exceeds the storage capacity of those magic wrist-bands. Which makes all reports of activities contingent on this anomalous ability suspect.**Perhaps, but I haven't, and I"m not aware of any specifc research studies on his web-generating contraptions. Not quite even sure about the "science" behind the web making thingys.
I see, so you believe they're plausible?
Based on an appeal to ignorance? (i don't know, maybe, i can't really say)
-->
@3RU7AL
I’ll put my responses in BOLD
** To call something True, it must be verifiable. **
I disagree. The fact that you or I can't verify something as "True" doesn't make that something any less or not true. Whether something is True or not does not depend on you or I being able to call it true or not. Also, What do you mean by “verifiable” or “quantifiable”. Please expand on that. “quantifiable” implies measurable….. Are youimplying that it must be verifiable by scientific evidence?
**To call something Not-True, it must(merely) not be True (unverifiable Qualia). [LINK] **
I agree—something cannot be "True" and "NotTrue" at the same time. It’s a logical contradiction. It is impossible for a triangle to be a triangle and “not a triangle” at the same time. But, if something is unable to be verified as "True" doesn't mean you can automatically call it "Not True".
** For example, (IFF) You can not saydefinitively it's true (THEN) it is unverifiable (unfalsifiable) Qualia (OPINION). **
That all depends on what you mean by “Verifiable”. But yes, regardless of how you define it, if you can’t “verify” (prove) something as True, then you can’t say it’s true. But likewise, you can’t say it’s “not true”—you simply just do not know. Now keep in mind, it may very well be true, but you or just simply lack the ability to verify it as such.
** Now I'm going to hazard a guess that youare going to assert that, "some things are true and unverifiable".
However, this would violate your definition of TRUE.**
However, this would violate your definition of TRUE.**
Nope-- not my definition, yours. lol. This also depends on what you mean by, or how you define, “Verifiable” how you are using that term. Why is it unverifiable—it is because it simply can not be or is it because we simply lack the capacity or the ability to verify it? Just because I can’t verify something, does it make that something any less true? Something is “TRUE”independent of you or me verifying it’s true.
For example, I could say, "I ate a sandwich today" and you might imagine that my statement is (EITHER) true (OR) false.
HOweVEr, since you have no way ofverifying if the statement is true (THEN) it is Qualitative OPINION (Not-True).
Wrong. This last part about makes it sound like just because you can't verify it as TRUE you are now deeming it "Not True". I say you can't do that. Just because something is not Verifiable as “TRUE” doesn’t automatically make it “Not-True”. If I have no way of verifying you ate the sandwich, that doesn’t automatically you mean you didn’teat the sandwich. It just simply means I can’t confirm that you ate the sandwich.
Some statements have truth value (either verifiably true or verifiably impossible) and any statement that is NOT verifiable HAS NO TRUTH VALUE.
Statements with no verifiable truth value are statements of OPINION.**
The statement may be opinion but what is being assessed has a truth value that is independent of the person making the statement. A guy on a deserted island can say “Water is composed of 2 Hydrogen and 1 Oxygen atoms”. But he has no way of verifying it—is it less of a truth because he can’t verify it?
-->
@3RU7AL
** I see, so you believe they're plausible?
Based on an appeal to ignorance? (i don't know, maybe, i can't really say)**
I guess you forgot what I put in my letter "H" a few posts ago. I'm kinda being a smart-ass here, but if I lack evidence I use my judgement, experience, and/or logic to lead me to the conclusion is't no plausible.
Just to recap:
A. A can be anything (either an action the book, a superhero, a myth, gods, a God, a historical figure, you name it)
The question becomes Is "A" real? Can be posed in many different ways ("Do you believe in "A", do you believe "A" can happen, etc)
B. If there is evidence suggesting A is real, I examine it with an open mind.
C. I will also challenge the claim that it is real (ask questions, etc)
D. If there is evidence suggesting A is NOT real, I examine it with an open mind.
E. I will also challenge the claim that it is Not real (ask questions, etc)
F. If there is a preponderance of evidence supporting the claim that "Action A" is real, then I will tend to believe it's real
G. If there is a preponderance of evidence supporting the claim that "Action A" is not real, then I will tend to believe it's not real.
H. If there is NO evidence, here it becomes a gray area-- you use judgement, experience, and/or logic to lead you to draw a conclusion. Technically and philosophically speaking, if there is NO evidence, you can not definitively make a claim either way that something is real or not-- the best, technically/philosophically speaking, you can say is "I have no evidence".
-->
@3RU7AL
**(IFF) the supernatural events described in ancient scriptures are unverifiable (THEN) they cannot be said to be true (a.k.a. Not True) and (IFF) Not verifiable (Quantifiable) = Qualia (THEN) they can be described as OPINION.**
No. you are making the mistake of thinking just because something can not be verified as "true", then it's automatically "not true". Again, what do you mean by quantifiable/verifiable? Let's get back to your sandwich. If i didn't see you eat it, but if I have no way of verifying you ate it, does that mean you didn't eat it? What if one or more people saw you eat it and offer that as testimony. would you accept that as "verifiable"? Or no? Would that give one reason to perhaps believe yes, you did eat the sandwich?
This brings up a great point though. Can't you really say that about anything in human history? You or I can't go back and verify anything that happened in human history-- Jesus walking on water.....the Crimean War.....the reign of Ghengis Khan.....Honus Wagner playing baseball. Tim Duncan winning the MVP. Eric Johnson playing guitar.
So the, what do we do? We look for "clues"......witness accounts, artifacts, etc. But are these clues "definitive"-- can you prove any of these clues are "true' for whichever event pertain to? There may be eyewitness accounts of Duncan winning the MVP, but in 1000 years, all you'll have is just written records, perhaps video-- but who knows, the video could be doctored.
-->
@GuitarSlinger
** I see, so you believe they're plausible? (Spider-man's webs)Based on an appeal to ignorance? (i don't know, maybe, i can't really say)**I guess you forgot what I put my letter "H" a few posts ago. I'm kinda being a smart-ass here, but in the absence of I use my judgement, experience, and/lor logic to lead me to the conclusion is't no plausible.
This is a good example.
Do you believe, based on the descriptions of Spider-man's webs, that the web material has some substantial mass based on it's ability to reliably support Spider-man's weight and securely bind super-strong enemies?
How many yards of equivalent cord would it take to complete an average Spidey trip across town?
Let's ask Wired.com...
This means that the web would have to have a tension of at least 39,200 Newtons (to stop a falling passenger car).
Let’s use this value to make a comparison to other web-like options. The strength of a material can be describe by the ultimate tensile strength. This is the maximum tension per cross sectional area that the material can withstand before breaking and is measured in units of MPa (mega Pascals - or 106 Newtons/m2. In order to get a maximum tension, you need to know the cross sectional area of the wire since obviously thicker wires are stronger. Here comes the first wild estimate (ok, not the first). Let me approximate the web shot from Spider-Man as a cylindrical shape with a radius of 1 mm. If I replaced the web with real materials of the same size, this would be their maximum tension (based on the values from Wikipedia).
How Much Webbing Can Spider-Man Carry?
In the recent versions of Spider-Man, it seems that all the webbing “ammo” is contained in a small watch-sized wrist thing. In order to estimate the amount of webs, Spidey (he lets his close friends call him Spidey) can shoot, I need to first settle on the webs. I am going to go with carbon nanotube rope. According to Wikipedia, this could have a density of around 0.55 g/cm3 which I assume is the density for the nanotubes in the form of a cable.
How much webbing would Spider-Man need for just one shot? It seems like he primarily uses the webs for swinging. If I were Spider-Man (and I’m not saying either way), I would aim for a height of about 5 to 10 stories high. Let’s say this requires a web length of about 20 meters. Using my initial estimate of a 1 mm radius web, this would be a super skinny and long cylinder. The volume of this cylinder would be:
This would put the total web volume for one use at 6.28 x 10-5 m3. That might be a little difficult to visualize in terms of the size. How about a comparison to the volume of a standard pencil with a radius of 0.25 cm. If all of this webbing was put into a pencil, the pencil would be 3.2 m long. That’s a long pencil and remember, that’s for just one of his typical web shots.
Well, then how big of a container would he need to have a reasonable number of shots? Let’s say he wants 50 uses of the web for each hand. If I were Spider-Man, that’s what I would want. In that case, we can find the web volume estimation by a factor of 50. That gives a total volume (per hand) of 0.00314 m3.
What would this look like if it fit around a wrist? If I use my own wrist for a basis, then I find that it has a circumference of 16.5 cm. In my web container design, I will let the cartridge go back 10 cm along my arm. Now I can calculate the thickness of this container. Maybe a picture will help. Here is a look at my device looking down the arm.
Using the values from my estimates, I get a container radius of 9.6 cm or a height above the wrist of 7 cm. Here is what that would look like.
Let’s use this value to make a comparison to other web-like options. The strength of a material can be describe by the ultimate tensile strength. This is the maximum tension per cross sectional area that the material can withstand before breaking and is measured in units of MPa (mega Pascals - or 106 Newtons/m2. In order to get a maximum tension, you need to know the cross sectional area of the wire since obviously thicker wires are stronger. Here comes the first wild estimate (ok, not the first). Let me approximate the web shot from Spider-Man as a cylindrical shape with a radius of 1 mm. If I replaced the web with real materials of the same size, this would be their maximum tension (based on the values from Wikipedia).
- Steel cable: 6,503 Newtons
- Nylon rope: 235 Newtons
- Spider silk: 3,142 Newtons
- Carbon nanotube rope: 1.98 x 105 Newtons
How Much Webbing Can Spider-Man Carry?
In the recent versions of Spider-Man, it seems that all the webbing “ammo” is contained in a small watch-sized wrist thing. In order to estimate the amount of webs, Spidey (he lets his close friends call him Spidey) can shoot, I need to first settle on the webs. I am going to go with carbon nanotube rope. According to Wikipedia, this could have a density of around 0.55 g/cm3 which I assume is the density for the nanotubes in the form of a cable.
How much webbing would Spider-Man need for just one shot? It seems like he primarily uses the webs for swinging. If I were Spider-Man (and I’m not saying either way), I would aim for a height of about 5 to 10 stories high. Let’s say this requires a web length of about 20 meters. Using my initial estimate of a 1 mm radius web, this would be a super skinny and long cylinder. The volume of this cylinder would be:
Well, then how big of a container would he need to have a reasonable number of shots? Let’s say he wants 50 uses of the web for each hand. If I were Spider-Man, that’s what I would want. In that case, we can find the web volume estimation by a factor of 50. That gives a total volume (per hand) of 0.00314 m3.
WHERE DID I GET SUCH AN AWESOME SPIDER-MAN ARM? THIS IS MY ARM, I ADDED THE SPIDER-MAN SUIT MYSELF.
Yes. That looks a little awkward. But just imagine how large this thing would be the webs were something like nylon or steel cable instead of nanotube rope. [LINK]
-->
@3RU7AL
Ahh, so someone has done some research on Spidey's gear. I like it. (keep in mind I tend to be sarcastic and a smart-ass at times and often play Devil's Advocate)
So I would say, now that there is research, and dare I say, evidence, I would say I'm no longer in "H", but now back in "E". Base on this I would say not "plausible" (actually the same conclusion I had when I was in the "H" realm....i used my experience, judgement and logic to deem it not plausible).
Of course, 50 years ago I would have said it would be implausible (impossible?) to take the same computing power that fills a couple of rooms and put that same computing power in a couple of hand-held devices. And yet, here we are-- saying what was implausible back then is indeed plausible now.
By the way, if you are trying to convince that Spiderman is not real, you don't have to work that hard-- I don't believe him to be real.
-->
@GuitarSlinger
Of course, 50 years ago I would have said it would be implausible (impossible?) to take the same computing power that fills a couple of rooms and put that same computing power in a couple of hand-held devices. And yet, here we are-- saying what was implausible back then is indeed plausible now.
Of course, 54 years ago I would have said it would be plausible that Moore's law (More Slaw!) predicts exactly that.
What we're dealing with here are Standards of Evidence and the definition of Truth.
If you believe that the miracles of the Jesus are plausible, then what about the Epic of Gilgamesh? Or the myth of Mithras? [LINK]
What Standards of Evidence and definition of Truth make one plausible and the others implausible?
-->
@GuitarSlinger
** Now I'm going to hazard a guess that youare going to assert that, "some things are true and unverifiable".
However, this would violate your definition of TRUE.**Nope-- not my definition, yours. lol.
Verbatim Quote from [POST#336]:
"True" - in conformity (alignment) with facts or reality
Is the statement, "I ate a sandwich yesterday" in conformity (alignment) with facts or reality?
-->
@GuitarSlinger
**(IFF) the supernatural events described in ancient scriptures are unverifiable (THEN) they cannot be said to be true (a.k.a. Not True) and (IFF) Not verifiable (Quantifiable) = Qualia (THEN) they can be described as OPINION.**No. you are making the mistake of thinking just because something can not be verified as "true", then it's automatically "not true".
It's either True (verified) or Not-True (unverified).
Again, what do you mean by quantifiable/verifiable?
(EITHER) independently verifiable by scientific experiment (OR) logically necessary.
Let's get back to your sandwich. If i didn't see you eat it, but if I have no way of verifying you ate it, does that mean you didn't eat it?
I might even be a sophisticated AI.
What if one or more people saw you eat it and offer that as testimony. would you accept that as "verifiable"? Or no? Would that give one reason to perhaps believe yes, you did eat the sandwich?
Do you know these hypothetical witnesses? Are they capable of being misled? How close are they to the situation? How emotionally invested?
This brings up a great point though. Can't you really say that about anything in human history? You or I can't go back and verify anything that happened in human history-- Jesus walking on water.....the Crimean War.....the reign of Ghengis Khan.....Honus Wagner playing baseball. Tim Duncan winning the MVP. Eric Johnson playing guitar.
Now you're starting to get it.
Check this out,
I’m really tired of this guy. He pops up everywhere trying to push all kinds of sensationalist conspiracy theory crap about the ancient world, from the bogus Jesus tomb, and the semi-bogus James Ossuary (the key portion of which most experts now agree was forged), and the stupid Jonah Ossuary claim, to discovering Atantis, proving the Exodus, and yes, even claiming archaeologists have found the actual crucifixion nails used on Jesus. All defended in his pretty, high production documentaries featuring “experts.” My opinion? He’s a total crank. I don’t think he himself has actually forged or planted anything (claims around which he successfully sued for defamation), though I do often doubt his honesty. Or his sanity. Take your pick. But either way, as soon as he shows up in any documentary you might happen to be watching, you can be fairly certain bullshit is soon to follow. The very mention of his name warrants rolled eyes. [LINK]
They go on about how to tell if a documentary is trustworthy or not, but I'm not sure their logic holds water.
So the, what do we do? We look for "clues"......witness accounts, artifacts, etc. But are these clues "definitive"-- can you prove any of these clues are "true' for whichever event pertain to? There may be eyewitness accounts of Duncan winning the MVP, but in 1000 years, all you'll have is just written records, perhaps video-- but who knows, the video could be doctored.
You clearly establish your EPISTEMOLOGICAL LIMITS and avoid CONFLATING FACT AND OPINION. [LINK]
-->
@3RU7AL
Not to mince words or make this be an English lesson, but words and definitions are very important. THAT is not a verbatim quote lol.
Verbatim means "in exactly the same words as were used originally."
My definition of True is "in conformity (alignment) with facts or reality"
You said I would assert that "some things are true and unverifiable" and this would violate my definition of True.
I said, nope, not my definition, yours. In other words, it wouldn't violate my definition of true, but rather your. In other words, it all depends on how you define "True". You will notice, I did not put "verifiable" in the definition of true. YOu were the one that started adding it in (hence, why I said "Nope, not my definition. Yours."
** Is the statement, "I ate a sandwich yesterday" in conformity (alignment) with facts or reality? **
That all depends on whether or not you ate a sandwich yesterday, doesn't it?
If you did indeed eat a sandwich yesterday, then I would say "Yes, that statement is in conformity (alignment) with facts or reality, and is thus TRUE".
If you did not eat a sandwich yesterday, then I would say "No, that statement is not in conformity (alignment) with facts or reality and it thus NOT TRUE."
I will go one further and say if one doesn't know if you ate a sandwich yesterday, then one can't make a claim either way. It may very well be true, but without knowing one can't say.
-->
@3RU7AL
** It's either True (verified) or Not-True (unverified). **
Nope. You are making several leaps and bounds in your reasoning. Maybe you're confusing the making of statements with the objective reality? In other words, you are confusing the SAYING "something is true" with whether or not it is indeed true. Here's an example. Suppose there is blue ball in an opaque box that can't be seen through.
1. The statement "The ball is blue" can not be verified. One can't see the ball to verify if it is blue or not. So, technically speaking, one can't say if that statement itself is True or False.
2. But the objective reality is that the ball is blue.
The statement can not be verified-- does that make the ball less blue....or put another way, does it make the statement "The Ball is blue" false? Absolutely not. So you can't say just because it can't be verified it is thus not true.
** I might even be a sophisticated AI.**
Al who? Al Capone? Al Michaels (do you believe in Miracles?!?) Al Kaholik? (Moe picks up the phone "Moe's Tavern......lemme check....*asks bar patrons*....I'm looking for a Kaholic, there is a call for an Al Kaholic. Is there an Al Kaholic here".) Regardless, what does AI have to do with anything. The question on the table is not whether or not your AI (Al Capone, Al Michaels or Artificial Intelligence), the question is whether or not you ate the sandwich. Who or what you are is irrelevant.
** Do you know these hypothetical witnesses? Are they capable of being misled? How close are they to the situation? How emotionally invested?**
Exactly. So now you start to investigate. Ask question to these witnesses or of these witness. That's how one arrives at Truth.
** He’s a total crank.**
But how and why do you come to the conclusion that he's a total crank? Surely there's some reasoning, or it simply because the stories seem outlandish to you? Did you investigate his stories, his background, his arguments? Or are you simply pawning him off as a "crank" you simply can't or don't want to believe his stories?
-->
@GuitarSlinger
My definition of True is "in conformity (alignment) with facts or reality"You said I would assert that "some things are true and unverifiable" and this would violate my definition of True.I said, nope, not my definition, yours. In other words, it wouldn't violate my definition of true, but rather your.
Ok, your usage of True seems a bit squishy to me, so, for clarity I'm going to start using the more precise term "Real-True-Facts".
Real-True-Facts are "in conformity (alignment) with facts [and] reality", it actually appears tautological.
Do you believe the statement, "I ate a sandwich yesterday" is a Real-True-Fact? I'm going to say no.
You might say, "not at the moment".
Do you believe it can ever be a Real-True-Fact? I'm going to say no.
You might say, "perhaps, if the stakes were high enough, but most likely it's not worth the effort".
In other words, it all depends on how you define "True". You will notice, I did not put "verifiable" in the definition of true. YOu were the one that started adding it in (hence, why I said "Nope, not my definition. Yours."
Do you accept something as FACT if you can't verify it? I'm going to guess you believe FACTS are indisputable.
Is the statement, "I ate a sandwich yesterday" indisputable?
Do you accept something as REAL if you can't verify it? I'm going to guess you believe REALITY is undeniable.
Is the statement, "I ate a sandwich yesterday" undeniable?
** Is the statement, "I ate a sandwich yesterday" in conformity (alignment) with facts or reality? **That all depends on whether or not you ate a sandwich yesterday, doesn't it?
Is that a FACT? Or should I say, "is that statement a Real-True-Fact?"
If you did indeed eat a sandwich yesterday, then I would say "Yes, that statement is in conformity (alignment) with facts or reality, and is thus TRUE".If you did not eat a sandwich yesterday, then I would say "No, that statement is not in conformity (alignment) with facts or reality and it thus NOT TRUE."
If you and I had lunch yesterday and WE AGREED it was a FACT, then it would be a Real-True-Fact. [LINK]
I will go one further and say if one doesn't know if you ate a sandwich yesterday, then one can't make a claim either way. It may very well be true, but without knowing one can't say.
When you say, "it may very well be true" do you perhaps mean, "it may very well be plausible"?
If you can't verify it, then it has no truth-value. If a statement is not a Real-True-Fact, then it falls into the realm of OPINION.
-->
@3RU7AL
First rule in discussion, don't answer for the other person. Don't ask a question and then answer it for me. Let me answer it.
Which statement is tautological-- yours or mine? Personally, I think yours (Real-True-Facts) is tautological. Mine (True is pretty straightforward with no redundancy). I thought I offered a very simple, concise and solid definition of "TRUE".
But it seems it's not to your liking (too squishy, I think is what you said?).
Since you've introduced a new concept (Real-True-Facts), how about you go ahead and define what that is. I want to make sure I know exactly what you mean when you say "Real-True-Fact". I'll start you off:
The definition of "Real-True-Fact" is _______________________________. Just fill in the blank.
I'm reluctant to answer the questions until you first define "Real-True-Fact". But I will do so anyway, however I do reserve the right to come back and change my answers based on how you define it above.
** Do you believe the statement, "I ate a sandwich yesterday" is a Real-True-Fact? I'm going to say no. **
You may so no, but I wouldn't it. I believe you can't say yes or no. I thought I answered this already? It all depends on whether or not you ate the sandwich or not, doesn't it?
1. If you indeed did eat the sandwich yesterday, then I would say "yes", that statement is a Real-True-Fact.
2. If you did not eat the sandwich yesterday, then I would say "no", that statement is not a Real-True-Fact.
3. If it is unknown if yo uate the sandwich or not, then i would say "Can't answer.....one doesn't know therefore one can't say either way if it's a Real-True-Fact or not".
** Do you accept something as FACT if you can't verify it? I'm going to guess you believe FACTS are indisputable."
Whether I accept something as FACT, and whether or not that something is a FACT are two entirely different questions. But again, go back to my thought process. If there is no evidence, or it can't be verified then I can't claim either way it's a FACT or it's not a FACT. I use "H".
A. A can be anything (either an action the book, a superhero, a myth, gods, a God, a historical figure, you name it)
The question becomes Is "A" a REAL-TRUE-FACT Can be posed in many different ways ("Do you believe in "A", do you believe "A" can happen, etc)
B. If there is evidence suggesting A is real, I examine it with an open mind.
C. I will also challenge the claim that it is real (ask questions, etc)
D. If there is evidence suggesting A is NOT real, I examine it with an open mind.
E. I will also challenge the claim that it is Not real (ask questions, etc)
F. If there is a preponderance of evidence supporting the claim that "Action A" is real, then I will tend to believe it's real
G. If there is a preponderance of evidence supporting the claim that "Action A" is not real, then I will tend to believe it's not real.
H. If there is NO evidence, here it becomes a gray area-- you use judgement, experience, and/or logic to lead you to draw a conclusion. Technically and philosophically speaking, if there is NO evidence, you can not definitively make a claim either way that something is real or not-- the best, technically/philosophically speaking, you can say is "I have no evidence".
** Is the statement, "I ate a sandwich yesterday" indisputable? **
"Indisputable" means "unable to be challenged or denied." No it's not indisputable. It can be challenged or denied. I can challenge/dispute any claim on earth. The question is, does the challenge or denial hold up-- can it (the challenge) be upheld? I can dispute your claim "I ate a sandwich yesterday" by countering "No, no you did not." The question now becomes-- who's right and who's wrong? Two contradicting statements can not both be true, one is false. How do you prove which is which?
** Do you accept something as REAL if you can't verify it? I'm going to guess you believe REALITY is undeniable.
Is the statement, "I ate a sandwich yesterday" undeniable? **
ok. Now who's being "tautological"? You're just reframing the same question with different words. "Undeniable" means "unable to be denied or disputed". No it's not undeniable. It can be challenged/denied/disputed. I can challenge/dispute/deny any claim on earth. The question is, does the challenge or denial hold up-- can it (the challenge) be upheld? I can deny your claim "I ate a sandwich yesterday" by countering "No, no you did not." The question now becomes-- who's right and who's wrong? Two contradicting statements can not both be true, one is false. How do you prove which is which?
-->
@GuitarSlinger
Since you've introduced a new concept (Real-True-Facts), how about you go ahead and define what that is. I want to make sure I know exactly what you mean when you say "Real-True-Fact". I'll start you off:
The definition of "Real-True-Fact" is ___________"in conformity (alignment) with facts and or reality"____________________. Just fill in the blank.
I simply added your definition to the term itself. True + Facts + Reality = Real-True-Fact.
And when I mention the word "tautological" I'm speaking specifically of a logical-tautology, which is something that is "necessarily true by definition".
-->
@GuitarSlinger
Whether I accept something as FACT, and whether or not that something is a FACT are two entirely different questions. But again, go back to my thought process. If there is no evidence, or it can't be verified then I can't claim either way it's a FACT or it's not a FACT.
How do you, personally, distinguish between an "accepted fact" and an "actual fact"?
There's always "some evidence" otherwise asking the question itself would be impossible.
For example, there is a very common ontological argument for the existence of god(s) which simply states that because you are able to ponder the concept of god(s), that pondering, in-and-of-itself is incontrovertible proof that god(s) exists.
The "problem" is Standards-of-Evidence.
-->
@GuitarSlinger
You seem to be suggesting that if a statement is not "provably true" (Real-True-Fact) or "provably false" (contrary to Real-True-Fact) then it can be declared either "believable/true" or "unbelievable/false" by an individual (you use judgement, experience, and/or logic to lead you to draw a conclusion, leaning heavily on an appeal to ignorance).
I call this individual declaration "OPINION".
Do you believe it is important to distinguish between True (as in provably true Real-True-Fact) and True (as in declared believable-true by an individual based on their personal gut instinct, personal judgement, personal experience, and or personal private logic, leaning heavily on an appeal to ignorance)? For example, [LINK]
There are only two categories.
Quanta = Provably-True and or Provably-False Indisputable-Real-True-Facts
and
Qualia = Personal, Private, Experiential, Qualitative, OPINION.
-->
@3RU7AL
Hey, things have been pretty hectic the past two days (son starting college, "fighting fires" at work, etc), so please pardon my delay in responding. I might be responding out of order too, so please accept my apologies.
** You seem to be suggesting that if a statement is not "provably true" (Real-True-Fact) or "provably false" (contrary to Real-True-Fact) then it can be declared either "believable/true" or "unbelievable/false" by an individual (you use judgement, experience, and/or logic to lead you to draw a conclusion, leaning heavily on an appeal to ignorance). **
Actually, that is not what I"m suggesting or saying at all. In fact, I've been saying the opposite all along:
1. If you can not prove/verify/show/demonstrate that something is TRUE (substitute whatever word you want for "TRUE", such as "real", "facts", etc), then you can not make the assertion "It is true.". On the flip-side though you also can NOT assert that it's "not TRUE" either. You simply do not know.
I guess one can just simply utter the words, but doing so doesn't make it "true."
** Do you believe it is important to distinguish between True (as in provably true Real-True-Fact) and True (as in declared believable-true by an individual based on their personal gut instinct, personal judgement, personal experience, and or personal private logic, leaning heavily on an appeal to ignorance)? For example, [LINK] **
Well yes. Your basically saying is there a difference between a statement that is "TRUE" (as in provably true, Real, etc) and a statement that is TRUE (as in declared true based on instinct, personal judgement, etc). Yes. Of course. They are two separate things. I think it's best to view them as they are, without assigning any clarifier such as "opinion, etc".
Here's what I mean. Suppose there is an blue ball on the other side of the world. You and I have no way of seeing this ball, etc. We honestly truely have never seen the ball, heard about the ball, etc. All we were told is that this ball exists over there.
The objective fact (truth, reality) is that the ball is blue.
You make the statement, let's call it statement A: "the ball is blue."
You also make the statement, let's call it statement B: "My statement A is truth."
I make the statement, let's call it statement C: "the ball is orange."
I also make the statement, let's call it statement D: "My statement D is truth."
You then make the statement, let's call it statement E: "Your statement C is false, and is your statement D."
I then make the statement, let's call it statement F: "Your statement A is false, as is your statement B."
First and foremost, the objective fact of the ball being blue is independent of what you or I say, think, observe about it. Hell, you and I can cease to exist and that objective fact (the ball is blue) will remain.
Your statement A is simply that. A statement. One can assign any other clarifier (opinion, belief, whatever), but it's simply a statement. You can not call that Statement A a "fact" or a "truth" (i.e you can't really make statement B) because you simply don't know.
Likewise my Statement C is simply that-- a statement. I can not call my statement C a "truth" or a "fact" (i.e. I can't really make statement D) because I simply don't know.
Likewise neither one of us can say the other person's statements are false (statements E or F) because we simply do not know.
-->
@GuitarSlinger
Ok, it looks like we've completed step one, "stake-out common ground".Your statement A is simply that. A statement. One can assign any other clarifier (opinion, belief, whatever), but it's simply a statement. You can not call that Statement A a "fact" or a "truth" (i.e you can't really make statement B) because you simply don't know.
Let's move to claim that Orion walked on water.
Do you believe this claim is provably-false (or merely opinion-false)?
-->
@3RU7AL
** Let's move to claim that Orion walked on water.
Do you believe this claim is provably-false (or merely opinion-false) **
I know what you are trying to get to with this, so I'll first answer it from a "technical" or "logical" perspective:
So first, let's just remove the name "Orion", and just substitute X. Let's rephrase the question then as "Do you believe the claim that 'X walked on water' is provably-false (or merely opinion-false)?"
1. When you say "provably-false", I"m assuming you mean that it can be proven to be false.
2. Technically, logically, philosophically speaking, I think it's rather difficult to prove a claim from the past as being "false"..
- Perhaps one could say "there is no evidence of X walking on water."....My response to that, playing Devil's Advocate, is "That is not proof that X didn't walk on water. You simply just don't have evidence."
- Perhaps one could say "there are no witnesses of X walking on water". My response to that, playing Devil's Advocate, is "That is not proof that X didn't walk on water. You simply are saying you don't know of anyone who saw X walk on water. "
3. So with that being said, here is what I would say about that claim "X walked on water." I can't say that claim is false-- I do not have "evidence" or "proof" to definitively say that claim has been "proven to be false."
4. Therefore, it follows that that claim "X walked on water" is merely a statement.
- if you don't know or can't prove (what that "proof" is for you) that it's false, then you can't really say it's a false claim
- likewise, if you don't know or can't prove (whatever that proof is for you) that it's true, then you can really say it's a true claim.
- You simply do not know. Therefore, we in "H" of my thought process.
Now as I said, if one doesn't have enough "evidence" or "proof", one can't make a definitive statement either way. However, one can indeed use experience, logic judgement, etc to lead one to a conclusion about that claim.....
But I think what you are really wanting to get to is this:
(a) I believe Orion did not walk on water
(b) but I do believe Jesus walked on water.
I can almost anticipate your next questions ;-)
-->
@GuitarSlinger
However, one can indeed use experience, logic judgement, etc to lead one to a conclusion about that claim.....
There you go again. Do you think it would be fair to say, "However, one can indeed use personal experience, private logic judgement, etc to lead one to an OPINION about that claim...."?
But I think what you are really wanting to get to is this:(a) I believe Orion did not walk on water(b) but I do believe Jesus walked on water.
That's an interesting proposal.
What Standards-of-Evidence can you apply to BOTH of these ancient claims?
Here's one better, what if I told you that I walked on water yesterday, and a newspaper published a full report on the event, and there were over a hundred eye witnesses.
Would you consider my claim a Real-True-Fact?
Or would you conclude that it's significantly more likely to be some sort of staged magic trick? [LINK]
-->
@3RU7AL
**Do you think it would be fair to say, "However, one can indeed use personal experience, private logic judgement, etc to lead one to an OPINION about that claim....**
Sure, if by "opinion" you mean "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." Let me give you an example, the statement "X did not walk on water" might not be "provable/verifiable", so the assertion "X did not walk on water" is essentially an opinion in that sense.
**What Standards-of-Evidence can you apply to BOTH of these ancient claims? **
Well. For starters, I would look at some "who's":
- Who's the claim about? Are they credible? What else do we know about them and their life?
- Who's making the claim? Are they credible? What else do we know about them and their life?
- Who are the witnesses (if any)? Are they credible? What else do we know about them and their life?
Then, dig a little deeper:
- THe person making the claim, would they have a reason to lie? What would happen to them if this were false? What would happen to the happen if this were true?
- Same question about who the claim is about, and about the witnesses, etc
What are the circumstances surrounding the claim, the environment, etc
In my opinion, one has to really dig deep-- you can't just take what you hear and then make a decision without first analyzing it. We actually do this everyday, but for some instances/events, it's an almost instantaneous assessment (for example, if my mother tells me something, I don't need to dig deep into her life and assess her life to determine "It's unlikely she would lie to me.").
But to make snap judgment without doing this assessment (not matter how "quick" the assessment is) wouldn't be prudent.
** Here's one better, what if I told you that I walked on water yesterday, and a newspaper published a full report on the event, and there were over a hundred eye witnesses.
Would you consider my claim a Real-True-Fact?
Or would you conclude that it's significantly more likely to be some sort of staged magic trick?**
Initially, I would say "No". Why not? Again, revisit my "H". I don't know or haven't seen any evidence indicating "yes" or indicating "no"-- I simply do not know for certain if it happened or not. So, technically I can not say "your claim is a real-true-fact"....nor can I say "your claim is NOT a real-true-fact." The are many explanations to explain this claim-- perhaps the event didn't even happen at all and it was just a story put out by you, the paper and the witnesses......perhaps it was just a fanciful story by the newspaper writer, and none of the people in the story even exist (you, the witnesses)....perhaps the people are real, but perhaps the author and the witnesses saw a mirage, and saw you from a distance it just "looked like" you walked on water......perhaps it wasn't a mirage, and you were indeed walking on something that they thought was water....perhaps it was indeed a staged magic trick....perhaps you did walk on water unassisted......There are a myriad of things and details that could be surrounding that claim. Hell, the first starting point is figuring out "Is this 3RU7AL guy a person that even existed"...that's the first starting point.....are there records indicating this person existed, etc.
But remember, since there are a lot of unknowns surrounding the claim about you, I am in "H". So now I can use my experience, judgement and logic to help form a judgement about this (perhaps you'd rather I use the word "opinion" in lieu of judgement):
a) My experience tells me that the chances are high that you are just a regular, normal human being. Honestly, I've not seen anything to indicate otherwise. In fact, usually when I meet people or here accounts of people, my first inclination is "THis person is a regular human being like you and me". Along with that comes certain limitations, such as not be able to breathe underwater unassisted, fly in the air unassisted, walk on water
unassisted. Based on this one claim alone I'm inclined to think you probably did not walk on water unassisted
Do I know enough of the circumstances to say it was a staged magic trick? Nah. Do I know enough of the circumstances to say it was just a falsified stories with made-up people? Nah. Do I know enough to say the people were real, but the witnesses were just mistaken? Nah.
Perhaps if there were other accounts like this, it might lead to think "Hmmmm, maybe there is something to this 3BRU7AL guy walking on water".....Maybe if there some data that would lead to believe "Hmmmm, it makes no sense that the author would fabricate this story".....
THere are some other things I wouldn't do or surmise though, such as automatically assume it's a myth, etc.