In the original sense or the unoriginal sense? Certainly if it's in the unoriginal sense then we can't expect Science to prove this now can we? However, if it's in the original sense, am I to take this to be your own opinion then? If so, then why should I believe you? You certainly don't have the evidence to back it up then do you? If you base everything on the empirical method, then you have no leg to stand on.RabbiSatan said:
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" ~ Matthew 7:3
Maledict
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2003
- Messages
- 535
Iacchus said:
More mindless drivel.
There's plenty - all of the threads you've participated in, where you refuse to address the issues and constantly babble nonsense in an effort to throw off people.
I'm convinced beyond doubt now that you truely are insane.
Z
Variable Constant
I'm beginning to think that derailment is a last-ditch effort of the ignorant, when their ignorance has been illuminated to others.
Why call me stupid?RabbiSatan said:
Kitty Chan
Muse
- Joined
- May 14, 2004
- Messages
- 826
zaayrdragon said:
Going back to original question
I for one love to try to find out facts, I do not feel as you say that fact takes away my beliefs. Usually it strengthens them at least makes me think about why I believe.
What you said about not having to believe in a fact for it to be true is correct.
Maybe people need to think more about the difference between fact and belief
Now having said that some facts can change which makes that hard, take smoking it was never bad for you. Freon was ok then they introduce a new one then its not good then another thats good and each time they want us to believe them that the newest is ok and we say thats what you said last time
The point is each time they say its fact then time proves that fact wrong so it is difficult.
Z
Variable Constant
It goes to prove that knowledge of a fact might be limited or wrong, but the fact remains.
This is where science is superior - it's always adjusting its claims based on new evidence. Every axiom, theory, or hypothesis remains as such until it can be irrefutably proven - then it's called a law. If, later, something defies said law, the law returns to theorem status until it can be adjusted accordingly.
This is where science is superior - it's always adjusting its claims based on new evidence. Every axiom, theory, or hypothesis remains as such until it can be irrefutably proven - then it's called a law. If, later, something defies said law, the law returns to theorem status until it can be adjusted accordingly.
Z
Variable Constant
What ARE you talking about, Rad?
Oh, wait, never mind - probably mis-reading your Bible again.
Iacchus, fact is immune to belief or dis-belief. I can know a fact is true, without a need to believe it to be true. That which is true no longer requires belief or disbelief. Only when I am uncertain of a fact can I mention belief or disbelief.
For example, I could claim that I believe Radrook has a mental illness, though I do not know if the fact would support that belief. But there is a fact involved - either he is mentally ill, or he is not; and that fact will NOT change, whether I believe it or not.
The world is round, Iacchus - get over it.
Oh, wait, never mind - probably mis-reading your Bible again.
Iacchus, fact is immune to belief or dis-belief. I can know a fact is true, without a need to believe it to be true. That which is true no longer requires belief or disbelief. Only when I am uncertain of a fact can I mention belief or disbelief.
For example, I could claim that I believe Radrook has a mental illness, though I do not know if the fact would support that belief. But there is a fact involved - either he is mentally ill, or he is not; and that fact will NOT change, whether I believe it or not.
The world is round, Iacchus - get over it.
The fact is just more immediate, because it's closest to the membrane, but it still requires you to believe it's there. Just like the fact of the apple which is staring me in the face will disappear if I look away. In other words how will I know I was just looking at it if I didn't believe I just did?
Balderdash, brainlacchus,Iacchus said:
this kind of pap is so mindnumbingly stupid. You have never been surprised by anything, brainlacchus? Never hit from behind by a snowball you didn't know existed until the moment it struck? Never stumbled over a rock you didn't see? How you nitwits talk yourselves into this crap should be the subject of an abnormal psychology study.
Brainwashing isn't the problem with you types. The problem is that high dryer setting causing all the shrinkage.
It has everything to do with the evidence. This is the drivel you wrote:Iacchus said:
I responded to your points, a courtesy you never display here. Your drivel claim is this: The existence of things requires belief. I pointed out to you that you have tripped over holes and rocks in the past. That you suddenlly found snowballs flung at you. That you have been surprised by things in the past, clearly refuting this nonsense that you must believe in them before they exist.
Z
Variable Constant
Off-topic - what's all this percent thing in people's sigs about, anyway?
On-topic - There is a phase in child development in which a child cannot understand that when he no longer sees an object that the object still exists. If Mommy walks out of the room, she has vanished entirely. Luckily for most of us, we outgrow this phase before we start talking.
Sadly for a few, they re-enter that phase when the get exposed to philosophy.
The alleged apple in front of you continues to exist, irrelevant of your belief of said apple. If you walk away, assuming no other intervention, the apple will slowly rot, attract a variety of insects, and start smelling bad. These are things you may detect later; yet if you didn't believe in the reality of the apple, you would still detect their effects. Your belief in said apple is utterly irrelevant.
Likewise, how many people believed for how long that the earth was flat? That the stars were tiny lights hung in the sky? That the sun circled the earth? That witches could fly on brooms and devils made people ill?
Their belief didn't alter reality one whit; this is what makes reality so obviously real. Your solipsist commentary just goes to show how truly juvenile you are.
It's another observation I'm starting to notice: stubbornly faithful yet ignorant Christians also tend to be solipsist. Perhaps, if they can cast enough doubt on the nature of reality, then their own warped views of reality might seem less ridiculous to others?
I suspect there is something to this...
On-topic - There is a phase in child development in which a child cannot understand that when he no longer sees an object that the object still exists. If Mommy walks out of the room, she has vanished entirely. Luckily for most of us, we outgrow this phase before we start talking.
Sadly for a few, they re-enter that phase when the get exposed to philosophy.
The alleged apple in front of you continues to exist, irrelevant of your belief of said apple. If you walk away, assuming no other intervention, the apple will slowly rot, attract a variety of insects, and start smelling bad. These are things you may detect later; yet if you didn't believe in the reality of the apple, you would still detect their effects. Your belief in said apple is utterly irrelevant.
Likewise, how many people believed for how long that the earth was flat? That the stars were tiny lights hung in the sky? That the sun circled the earth? That witches could fly on brooms and devils made people ill?
Their belief didn't alter reality one whit; this is what makes reality so obviously real. Your solipsist commentary just goes to show how truly juvenile you are.
It's another observation I'm starting to notice: stubbornly faithful yet ignorant Christians also tend to be solipsist. Perhaps, if they can cast enough doubt on the nature of reality, then their own warped views of reality might seem less ridiculous to others?
I suspect there is something to this...
I couldn't care less. The thing I want to know, is how do you know that the apple is there? In other words it can't be proven, based upon our senses that is. It's just like lifegazer says, the apple exists (for us anyway) only inside of our awareness of the apple. So whether it exists or not is besides the point.zaayrdragon said:
By the way, I'm reasonably certain the apple does exist (due to my interacting with it), however, I could be entirely wrong. So, if you're going to call me the fool for saying so, you could stand to take a look in the mirror yourself.
So how is it that we can be so damn sure of ourselves, and come to find out later we're wrong? What does that suggest to you? That it's all a matter of belief perhaps?
Exactly!