Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Faith is a thing distinct from knowledge and belief. Related to be sure, but the post I was originally responding to was talking about the difference between knowledge and belief.
Hardly distinct. More like synonymous.
Way beyond just "related". MOF...the very definition of "F-A-I-T-H" is "strong belief". I can substantiate that if you need it.
You need faith in the belief that the info and data that backs your purported "knowledge" has validity and merit...cuz it might not, and you can never be totally sure.
Your Godophobia and its symptoms of severe allergy to "faith" and "belief" are flaring up again.
Hardly distinct. More like synonymous.
Way beyond just "related". MOF...the very definition of "F-A-I-T-H" is "strong belief". I can substantiate that if you need it.
You need faith in the belief that the info and data that backs your purported "knowledge" has validity and merit...cuz it might not, and you can never be totally sure.
Your Godophobia and its symptoms of severe allergy to "faith" and "belief" are flaring up again.
Who cares? We were discussing the difference between knowledge and belief, and a reasonable argument had been put forth that they were different, and a mechanism was proposed for distinguishing between the two.
Mystic then got confused as to what the discussion was about, and brought faith up as if it was relevant to the difference between knowledge and belief.
Faith has slightly different connotations, and is frequently used with religious overtones. That was needlessly confusing for the subject at hand, as were the other off-topic issues Mystic brought up to cloud the discussion.
Yes, there is overlap between belief and faith. They are not entirely synonymous. The distinctions don't matter when discussing knowledge:belief, because we are not actually discussing faith. That is why I am ignoring mystic's muddle-headed digression, and I don't really care about your pedantic dictionary theatrics.
Who cares? We were discussing the difference between knowledge and belief, and a reasonable argument had been put forth that they were different, and a mechanism was proposed for distinguishing between the two.
Mystic then got confused as to what the discussion was about, and brought faith up as if it was relevant to the difference between knowledge and belief.
Faith has slightly different connotations, and is frequently used with religious overtones. That was needlessly confusing for the subject at hand, as were the other off-topic issues Mystic brought up to cloud the discussion.
Yes, there is overlap between belief and faith. They are not entirely synonymous. The distinctions don't matter when discussing knowledge:belief, because we are not actually discussing faith. That is why I am ignoring mystic's muddle-headed digression, and I don't really care about your pedantic dictionary theatrics.
You should strive to understand Mystic...he has a lot to offer.
I am hip to how y'all don't like expert provided definitions that crush your bogus arguments. You are reduced to insult and dismissal cuz there is no rebuttal.
You should strive to understand Mystic...he has a lot to offer.
Just another point we will have to disagree on. I have a pretty low opinion of mystic, as he has never been able to support a single one of his assertions. I suspect that posting my true opinion of him might be a violation of TOS.
Quote:
I am hip to how y'all don't like expert provided definitions that crush your bogus arguments. You are reduced to insult and dismissal cuz there is no rebuttal.
Missing the point again. We weren't talking about faith. As a result, it simply doesn't matter what the definition is. It wasn't the topic of conversation.
Just another point we will have to disagree on. I have a pretty low opinion of mystic, as he has never been able to support a single one of his assertions. I suspect that posting my true opinion of him might be a violation of TOS.
Missing the point again. We weren't talking about faith. As a result, it simply doesn't matter what the definition is. It wasn't the topic of conversation.
You have just informed me of your lack of good assessment skills.
The discussion was about "belief"...that is necessarily talking about "faith", as faith is strong belief.
Faith is a thing distinct from knowledge and belief. Related to be sure, but the post I was originally responding to was talking about the difference between knowledge and belief.
Faith is NOT something distinct from knowledge or belief. It is integral since it is faith that provides the personal certainty for either of them. That you don't see that is indicative of a blind bias and myopic philosophical perspective.
Quote:
Well, except for that time one hour ago in post 925 when you said exactly that.
Those who hold all-or-nothing views routinely see an "All" or "Every" aspect in any and all assertions. It is a bias NOT a reality for most of us who do NOT subscribe to an all-or-nothing viewpoint on issues.
Quote:
If you really are a PhD you should probably walk over to the history department and talk to some of your colleagues about that. Some writings cannot be attributed to a specific person. Others can.
They can be attributed with degrees of probability but NOT certainty. You give so-called historical writings far too much credit and too little credit to the writings that are erroneously discredited as religious.
Quote:
Well, we agree on one thing.
A stopped clock is right twice a day.
Quote:
But no more than one thing. Archaeology can provide evidence substantiating narrative claims. I note that you also ignored other types of evidence that I mentioned, such as linguistic and DNA.
I ignore nothing. Those are powerful tools that can aid intelligent inference but they do NOT make them anything more than inferences.
Quote:
Another red herring. Of course it doesn't, nor did I claim that it did. This is a false equivalency. There are quantitative and qualitative differences between something metaphorical that is presented as a myth, and something factual that can be verified in dozens of ways, such as the Roman invasion and conquest of Gaul.
It is not a red herring and certainly not an attempt to establish any equivalency. It is simply an attempt to increase your awareness of and sensitivity to the many problematic issues in evaluating ancient writings as historical. You seem to think there are no such issues and that everything is just straightforward, scientifically rigorous, and unambiguous.
So for you, your personal experience of something is what makes it knowledge and NOT belief? Is there some deeper philosophical distinction that we can use? I experienced in deep meditation a consciousness that is the basis of our entire reality so when I say I KNOW that a conscious reality exists and I consider it God is that enough?
I don't see any need for deeper philosophy to distinguish between the two words. "Know" means to a reasonable certainty. Use the court term. Beyond reasonable doubt. I bought the bag of coffee in the coffee aisle. The bag was marked coffee. The UPC code scanned as coffee and charged the the price appropriate for coffee. When I opened it, it looked and smelled like coffee. When I brewed it, it tasted like coffee. That's good enough for me to "know" I had coffee, and that is the kind of certainty that would stand up in court. "Beyond reasonable doubt" doesn't mean 100% certainty as as been implied by a couple of others here.
303Guy says he had beer, and he was clearly certain about that. He could probably taste the floral or citrus characteristics of the hops used in the brew, and the slightly sweet taste of the malted barley, and experienced the carbonation (which indicated that yeast had been used), so, even though he probably didn't go to the brewery to make sure the brewer was adhering to Reinheitsgebot (Beer purity laws), he's as certain he had a beer yesterday evening as I am that I had coffee yesterday morning. That is "KNOWING," not "BELIEVING."
I don't know anything about deep meditation. However, I do know that a person who has been hypnotized cannot testify in court, so, if deep meditation is anything like self-hypnosis, many reasonable people would consider what you claim as "knowledge" as "belief." That doesn't make it any less real to you. It simply means that it is not subject to objective analysis like the beer and coffee are. You can testify in court about your deep meditation experience. The jury will be given clear instructions about the definition of reasonable doubt before they begin deliberations.
Christians and other religious people sometimes refer to themselves as "believers." Sometimes, our Atheist members refer to themselves as "non-believers." That makes perfectly good sense to me. None of them can provide any objective, testable evidence to defend either position. The only position that comes from "knowledge" is agnosticism, which states that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproved.
There you have it; a description of the difference between "KNOW" and "BELIEVE."
I don't see any need for deeper philosophy to distinguish between the two words. "Know" means to a reasonable certainty. Use the court term. Beyond reasonable doubt. I bought the bag of coffee in the coffee aisle. The bag was marked coffee. The UPC code scanned as coffee and charged the the price appropriate for coffee. When I opened it, it looked and smelled like coffee. When I brewed it, it tasted like coffee. That's good enough for me to "know" I had coffee, and that is the kind of certainty that would stand up in court. "Beyond reasonable doubt" doesn't mean 100% certainty as as been implied by a couple of others here.
303Guy says he had beer, and he was clearly certain about that. He could probably taste the floral or citrus characteristics of the hops used in the brew, and the slightly sweet taste of the malted barley, and experienced the carbonation (which indicated that yeast had been used), so, even though he probably didn't go to the brewery to make sure the brewer was adhering to Reinheitsgebot (Beer purity laws), he's as certain he had a beer yesterday evening as I am that I had coffee yesterday morning. That is "KNOWING," not "BELIEVING."
I don't know anything about deep meditation. However, I do know that a person who has been hypnotized cannot testify in court, so, if deep meditation is anything like self-hypnosis, many reasonable people would consider what you claim as "knowledge" as "belief." That doesn't make it any less real to you. It simply means that it is not subject to objective analysis like the beer and coffee are. You can testify in court about your deep meditation experience. The jury will be given clear instructions about the definition of reasonable doubt before they begin deliberations.
Christians and other religious people sometimes refer to themselves as "believers." Sometimes, our Atheist members refer to themselves as "non-believers." That makes perfectly good sense to me. None of them can provide any objective, testable evidence to defend either position. The only position that comes from "knowledge" is agnosticism, which states that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproved.
There you have it; a description of the difference between "KNOW" and "BELIEVE."
I am finally understanding Mystic a bit more. I can understand why someone who believes that faith provides certainty can believe that a God would provide him answers to the universe in deep meditation. Of course, using faith, anyone can believe anything. For example, flat-earthers see a flat horizon when looking out over the plains. I suppose, using that evidence and faith, they can reasonably conclude that the Earth is flat.
There you are ToN. We can at least suppose that Omegius conceded the validity of the evidence for evolution - after life got started (Eusebius and I debated over pages the fossil evidence from the fossil cells in earlierst strata to the validity of hominid evolution) and he ever harped on 'prove to me how life started" and it's the same old broken record..
And the same old broken response.
Quote:
The question of how life started is irrelevant.
Only to those who have no explanation, scientific or otherwise.
Quote:
If evolution is true, then Genesis is false, no matter whether a god started life off or not.
The only statement in Genesis that can be verified is "after their kind." This is proved thousand of times every day.l That alone refutes evolution.
Quote:
Just as the other chunk of the Evilooshun debate - a designed universe - is a different argument from Cosmic origins. Debunking a designed universe and especially a planned an intended human as the result, debunks the whole Goddunnit argument, even if a god did start the stuff of the cosmos off - we were not planned or intended, which debunks the whole point of the Evilooshun debate.
Not until you have some verifiable evidence, which you don't.
Quote:
It so happens that there are plausible explanations for the origins of life and at lest some possible alternative toi in intelligent being starting off the stuff that made the Big bang Event -thingy.
Then present them. Talk is cheap.
[quote]There is no reason why we should concede that a god HAD to have dunnit, so the Creationist argument fails. Eusebius here demanding that we prove everything is just cheating, just as all the creationist arguments are cheats.
Th usual response from those who also accept by faith alone what ever the evangelist for Darwin say. You evos like to say we are demanding something, but asking is not demanding. Try to be more accurate is what you say.
Quote:
It is all Cheat, lies, fiddlement and rhetoric, the point being to win the argument any way they can, not to arrive at the explanation that best suits the evidence. Hang the evidence, it's all based on Faith.
Another typical evo response when they are embarrassed by not having any evidence, let alone scientific evidence. for what they accept by faith alone. When you can't back up what you say, try insulting the other person. Insults only prove you cant support your speculations. Thanks.
Quote:
That, old chum is what Omegius here is all about, not transitional fossils, or the validity of Lucy or the statistical probability of DNA.
You have no transitional fossils and 2 of your experts, Gould and Mayr agree there are none. In fact if evolution was true there would be far more transitional fossils than any others.
If you think Lucy supports evolution TRANSPONDERIUS is not even in the ballpark of evidence.
DNA is not about probability. It draws a distinct line of separation between species, plant and animals, and the lines NEVER cross.
Simply rehearsing the same old fallacy 'if you can't prove it -must be Goddunnit'. And Eusebius - I know it's you - you don't even trouble to be different - the mechanisms have been presented before, but that means nothing to you unless Fossil evidence can be presented.
And the museums are full of transitional forms, the bodies of living animals shows transitional forms and Mayr (1) was shown to be misrepresented by Creationists. This has all been done before and you still present the same old rubbish. I don't think it's about convincing others, let alone us, or even yourself. You must know your arguments are invalid. It isn't even about God, simply about your own ego - never admitting you are wrong, because "God' is simply your own ego, inflated to cosmic size.
No doubt you will jeer that I haven't explained anything. I'm happy to present the mechanisms, debunks, and transitionals. But I refuse to do it yet again for someone who refuses to look anyway - as you did with the evidence of macro -evolution in the Cetan sequence. I need only say - Whale skeleton. Anyone who denies 'Macro' evolution after that is simply..in denial.
(1) I can recall Gould off -hand, but I'll call on you to substantiate your claims here. Not even a lot of work - just post the quote that shows Gould and Mayr saying there are no transitionals. I'll take it from there.
Thus, Gould made it plain from the outset that he was discussing something that he does not see as a difficulty in either the theory of evolution or the evidence for it. Immediately after this opening comes the section the quote is mined from:
More Gould misrepresentations above. I don't know which one you had in mind,
Mayr is just arguing about the correct model for what is observed - evolution through gradual change
Let's look at some of the implications of Mayr's analysis.
At first blush, (4) Gradualism seems like it might conflict with Gould & Eldredge's "punctuated equilibrium" theory; but on closer examination, not so.
It just seems that you have lifted opportunist (based on debates that always go on in science) quotemining from ICR.
If your form and methods old mate are the same, you don't even read the arguments, let alone the refutations. You just sling a Gish -gallop of fallacy, misrepresentation and denial at us.
I could go on to explain the rationale of long periods of no need for rapid adaptation, but god forbid another evolution debate, and evolution is irrelevant to the case for God, though it is a solid debunk of a literal Genesis, and none of this is evidence for Jesus. So we are way off topic. Presumably because it's the only thing you have have that even looks like a case.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-19-2017 at 07:11 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
