When you're dead there's a good chance you will know. Or, this a good chance you won't. I understand there many who have died and passed on, and can't even believe the fact that they have died.
You understand this based on.....???
Nyarlathotep
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2003
- Messages
- 7,503
And you know this, how? Are you dead? If so, you're uncharacteristicly talkative for a dead guy.
This looks like a job for Shrodinger's human!
Hope he's a vitalist - otherwise it looks like you're in for another slow, boring ride down the rabbit hole as he speculates about the mutli-dimensional nature of human consciousness and different dimensions "interacting".
No, he's saying that all untestable statements that were and are made on the same basis as those statements that were untestable at the time they were made, but which later turned out to be false, can be infered to be untrue as well.
Because we have evidence that this method of understanding the world - religious inspiration - is inaccurate.
The evidence given for god is the testimony of those who say that god has communicated with them. We have reason to believe that this testimony is false as applies to all the predictions it made that we have been able to test.
This suggests that the methodology of religious inspiration is not useful.
Note he doesn't claim that this proves God or Christianity wrong. It just suggests that we should reject it provisionally - until new evidence comes to light. The same point applies to psychics.
Okay, I can see your point. I think it depends on her outlook (which only Mercutio could tell us about).
If she bases her life on the bible because she thinks it's the word of god, then I do think that those facts are very important. Willful ignorance of them is inexcusable, if you are assuming that the bible is the word of god, and that is the reason that you accept what it says.
On the other hand, if you just think that it's a good book that offers insight into the human condition and some good advice about life in general, then there is no reason to care about it's origins.
So you quibble on "completely". In that case, I must agree with you (and should have earlier--thanks, roboramma). I do think that her belief was misplaced, and wildly out of proportion to her understanding, but "completely" was hyperbole. I cede the point, and apologize for my overstatement.
Optimist.
ruach1
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2005
- Messages
- 561
I think what we have here is a case of crossed paradigms.
The scientific paradigm asserts that without evidence a thing is, as you put it, inacurate, untrue, and false. Anyone who can see the "evidence" can clearly make this assumption.
The Christian paradigm asserts that God has revealed God's Self to humanity sufficiently and adequately to ellicit salvation and personal relationship with God. Anyone who has had an authentic experience of God in and/or through Jesus Christ can clearly make this assumption as well as experience (admittedly untestably[?]) its truth.
In your paradigm, the above statement is patently false and easily dissected and disposed.
In the Christian paradigm, science has no such ability, and to assume so is patently false, easily dissected and disposed.
Where we stand on this "paradigm" issue determines how and what we see.
Last edited:
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Based on his frequent philosophical stances that are based on "The Matrix", you can tell that Iacchus's beliefs are strongly influenced by the movies he sees. I'm guessing "The Sixth Sense" was a movie he saw.
Either it was true, or Bruce Willis is an abject liar.
Without commenting on anything else...this statement is false. Without evidence, there is no way of knowing if something is true or false. There is no reason to believe it; no reason to disbelieve it...but of course the burden of proof is theirs. There is no reason to posit the existence of something without evidence; the claimant must provide evidence for it.
ImaginalDisc
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2005
- Messages
- 10,219
That is the same assertion again. I repeat: Provide evidence.
Rubbish.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Wow! How can anyone argue with the careful construction and unassailable logical in that refutation of Dr. Kitten's post. You're just Daniel Webster reincarnated, Iacchus.
Yeah, well I would venture to say that the same thing that existed before the Big Bang, currently still exists. This is how we can speak of a before and an after, as well as the notion that the Big Bang was an act of a Creator.
Barely a hairline away from death, as is everyone else.
Oh, really? Technically I only saw The Matrix once. As for The Sixth Sense? No, I haven't seen it.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
I'm quite sure you would venture to say that. You wouldn't perhaps venture to support it, would you? I didn't think so.
Uh huh. You use imaginary notions to justify more imaginary notions. What a simple world you live in.
We also have a deeply embedded instinct that has co-evolved with our intelligence that enables us to tap into intangible aspects of nature. The problem has been, and still is, reconciling that with the natural world - if such a thing is even possible. A lot of stuff that evidence is called out for here has fallen under the definition of myth, folklore, or whatnot for centuries; people in those times had little practical use for nonsense and were required to use critical thinking skills on a daily basis. They also had to directly deal with the elements, uncertainties, and an unforgiving mother nature - so it's important to differentiate between the context of possibility and the context of someone making a dubious public claim.