(…) the issue is not who is wrong or right, but how we collectively define terms here.
I am totally convinced that, as soon as we talk about religion, beliefs, faith, gods or God, it is ALWAYS an issue of how we collectively define terms. And that’s why presenting certainties lends itself to endless discussions.
I think everybody agrees that truth and facts are not the same thing.
But IMHO, talking about “evidences” refers to facts, not to truth. So if there is confusion, it comes mainly from all this discussion about “evidences”. Which was not initiated by Possessed or me…It’s still an argument of semantics. There can be evidence of truth that is also itself not fact. To say something is not evidence because it is not fact speaks more to the credibility one has for said evidence, not whether it is actually evidence.
I disagree. In this meaning of facts (“à la” Indiana Jones), facts are obviously linked to sciences, so based on reproducible evidences. In opposition to truth, which is linked to Philosophy. That is the whole point of Indy: if you don’t need evidences, go to Dr. Tyree’s philosophy class. At least, it is how I understand this scene. But I respect that you understand it in another way.
BTW, about this argument of semantics thing: when you say that truth and facts are not the same thing, or when you say that some evidences are reproducible and some are not, or when you say that testimony is an evidence in a legal meaning, or when you say that there can be evidence of truth that is also itself not fact, it is ALSO an argument of semantics.
Actually, this whole thread is an argument of semantics. Which is fine: at the end of the day, we are all talking about how we understand a book…
I think everybody agrees that truth and facts are not the same thing.
But IMHO, talking about “evidences” refers to facts, not to truth. So if there is confusion, it comes mainly from all this discussion about “evidences”. Which was not initiated by Possessed or me…
Mrebo said:
The article you link isn’t terribly responsive. Here, we are discussing matters of faith. Certainly there are claims in the Bible that can/should be analyzed in a factual/scientific way.
Sure, please let me analyze those biblical claims in a scientific way.
Mrebo said:
Did Jesus exist?
On a scientific basis: YES.
Mrebo said:
Did the Jews flee Egypt?
On a scientific basis: YES, but maybe not the whole people at one time, and not during 40 years
Mrebo said:
Was the Earth created in 6 days?
No. Definitely no.
Mrebo said:
Was there a world flood?
On a scientific basis: probably more than just one. And certainly before the birth of Humanity.
Zig, what is clear is that your approach does more to obfuscate and impede discussion than chyron’s expression of his certainty. You now seem perhaps somewhat less confused about chyron’s statements so that is progress!
Mrebo, thank you for being so smart. I am sure that the foresight of your interventions will eventually make this thread more clever.
It is so typical, an ad hominem attack when you have no other argument.
At least, Chyron defended his thought and position without attacking his interlocutors. Which makes him quite respectable. Not you.
The rest of your post is so ridiculous that I will not answer it better than Possessed already did.
My feeling when people refer to worshiping or believing in the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” is that the fsm is a mockery of faith in God, as though relationship with God is akin to a child having an imaginary friend.
I can assure you that as far as I’m concerned, the FSM is nothing more than what I explained earlier - JEDIT: and what Catbus just explained - (and what you can find on Wikipedia): “Because of its popularity and exposure, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is often used as a contemporary version of Russell’s teapot—an argument that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon those who make unfalsifiable claims, not on those who reject them.”
Even though I am not a believer myself, I have the greatest respect for religion and for the intimacy of a relationship with God: my own godmother is a religious missionary in Africa (I swear it is true, I can only see her a few days every three years when she is back home). I’m the CEO of an IT company that publishes softwares for Catholic schools in my country. So believe me, I’ll never make fun of someone’s faith.
What I find ridiculous, however, are the people who want to take the Holy Bible literally, claim that the world was created in 6 days, and that it can be taught at school because it is as plausible as the theory of Darwinian evolution.
And that’s what bothered me in your previous posts for a couple of weeks: the words “literally”, “facts”, “truths” and “evidences” among your posts made me think that you wanted to put God, your faith and Cartesian science on the same level. As if God was a scientific theory in the same way as Darwin is…
In the meantime, I told you that I found that your words were clumsy, immature or disrespectful (not you, but your words), and you have clarified your thought in the sense of appeasement and nuance. Thank you.
Dear Chyron,
You won’t believe me but I fully agree with you.
My previous post has nothing to do with relationship with God (and none of my posts has something to do with relationship with God). I was just answering to Mrebo, because he said that religious folk conceded for a long time that debating religion as scientific facts was wrongheaded, making the Flying Spaghetti Monster pointless.
So I gave a very recent counterexample: it is precisely because some people want to treat religion and scientific facts in the same way, in April 2018 in the USA, that the FSM is relevant. And I say it again: it has nothing to do with the strength of your relationship with God, relationship that I respect as much as I admire.
BTW, I am quite intrigued : why are you answering when I talk to Mrebo, and why is Mrebo answering when I talk to you? It’s a bit like he’s your lawyer, and you’re his.
Ok, so you are 100% relevant, I am just sarcastic and I prove nothing.
That was an interesting discussion, thank you 😃
As for debating religion as if it were scientific fact, I think it is conceded early and often by religious folk that that is wrongheaded. So at the end of the day, the fsm proves nothing.
Obviously, you are right, there is no risk :
Thank you for your foresight on that matter (THAT is sarcasm).
chyron8472 said:
And ZigZig is right that relying on hard evidence is the wrong way to go about it.
Thank you Chyron8472, that is my only point in this whole discussion.
Then there is a post like Zig with his spaghetti monster sarcasm.
It is everything but a sarcasm (and the Flying Spaghetti Monster is everything but mine):
"Because of its popularity and exposure, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is often used as a contemporary version of Russell’s teapot—an argument that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon those who make unfalsifiable claims, not on those who reject them. "
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster)
This movement tries to illustrate the nonsense of treating religious beliefs and rational facts on the same level. That is why it seemed relevant to me in this particular discussion.
And your answer shows how much the Flying Spaghetti Monster is an appropriate parable in the present case…
To some degree, I can not answer some of those follow-up questions in a meaningful way, because
(…)
2) certain answers that readily come to me assume certain truths that people call into question. And I can not convince people of those truths.
(…)True. Though, some people do present themselves as though their opinion is the correct one.
…and that probably also includes me.When you use words like “truths” to describe your beliefs, is it difficult not to think that you present your opinion as the correct one.
It’d be a pretty odd belief if that wasn’t the case tho. I mean believing things are true is sort of why we believe in them 😉
Saying “I believe it is true” is not the same as “I know it is true, I’m 100% sure of that, it is a fact and there are evidences”.
But there are evidences. They just aren’t reproducible in a controlled environment. The fact that you dispute the credibility of those evidences doesn’t make them not evidences.
BTW, I never disputed the credibility of your evidences, I simply asked you to give them. What you have not done yet …
The conversation though was about that there is no evidence to support that God exists or that He cares. >
Well, the whole conversation about “evidence” comes from the fact that you, and only you, have used the word “evidence”. You, and only you, assert here that God’s existence is certain because of evidences.
So the conversation was NOT about that there is NO evidence to support God’s existence (as you wrote in your latest post), but about that there IS evidence to support God’s existence. Just because that is YOUR assertion. And everybody wants to know what are those evidences.
My point is that invoking evidences about God’s existence is the worst angle of discussion. This whole thread is an evidence of my point…
ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/
noun
noun: evidence
- the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Testimony, for one things, is evidence. But we’ve already had that discussion.
He didn’t ask you three times what the fucking definition of the word evidence was, he asked you three times what evidence you have.
And your style of argument and presenting yourself is what makes all of us people who believe in God look ignorant, so thanks for that.
I agree 100% with you.
By the way, believing in God is certainly not a question of evidence, but a question of faith. These are not my words, it is Jesus who tells it to Thomas (John 20: 24-29).
And that is precisely the beauty of the whole mystery of faith: believing without having seen.
As I understand the Gospels (John 20: 24-29), invoking the existence of evidences to justify his faith is totally contrary to the spirit of what Jesus teaches …
“Testimony” is not a word in your definition. It is not a fact neither an information indicating a belief is true.
And you still don’t answer to my question:
if there was really any evidence, there would be 7 billion Christians … Could you name one of these “non-reproducible evidence”
Sorry Chyron, your faith is strong but your words are disrespectful and immature.
I’m disrespectful and immature?
Talking about Flying Spaghetti Monsters, et al., is not disrespectful and immature?
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is an official and recognized religion. Please respect my religion.
To some degree, I can not answer some of those follow-up questions in a meaningful way, because
(…)
2) certain answers that readily come to me assume certain truths that people call into question. And I can not convince people of those truths.
(…)True. Though, some people do present themselves as though their opinion is the correct one.
…and that probably also includes me.When you use words like “truths” to describe your beliefs, is it difficult not to think that you present your opinion as the correct one.
It’d be a pretty odd belief if that wasn’t the case tho. I mean believing things are true is sort of why we believe in them 😉
Saying “I believe it is true” is not the same as “I know it is true, I’m 100% sure of that, it is a fact and there are evidences”.
But there are evidences. They just aren’t reproducible in a controlled environment. The fact that you dispute the credibility of those evidences doesn’t make them not evidences.
if there was really any evidence, there would be 7 billion Christians … Could you name one of these “non-reproducible evidence”
To some degree, I can not answer some of those follow-up questions in a meaningful way, because
(…)
2) certain answers that readily come to me assume certain truths that people call into question. And I can not convince people of those truths.
(…)True. Though, some people do present themselves as though their opinion is the correct one.
…and that probably also includes me.When you use words like “truths” to describe your beliefs, is it difficult not to think that you present your opinion as the correct one.
It’d be a pretty odd belief if that wasn’t the case tho. I mean believing things are true is sort of why we believe in them 😉
Saying “I believe it is true” is not the same as “I know it is true, I’m 100% sure of that, it is a fact and there are evidences”.
But there are evidences. They just aren’t reproducible in a controlled environment. The fact that you dispute the credibility of those evidences doesn’t make them not evidences.
if there was really any evidence, there would be 7 billion Christians … Could you name one of these “non-reproducible evidence”
Sorry Chyron, your faith is strong but your words are disrespectful and immature.
To some degree, I can not answer some of those follow-up questions in a meaningful way, because
(…)
2) certain answers that readily come to me assume certain truths that people call into question. And I can not convince people of those truths.
(…)True. Though, some people do present themselves as though their opinion is the correct one.
…and that probably also includes me.When you use words like “truths” to describe your beliefs, is it difficult not to think that you present your opinion as the correct one.
It’d be a pretty odd belief if that wasn’t the case tho. I mean believing things are true is sort of why we believe in them 😉
Saying “I believe it is true” is not the same as “I know it is true, I’m 100% sure of that, it is a fact and there are evidences”.
I think you are confusing “fact” with “truth.” When I believe something is true, it is a truth in which I believe. Yes, there are truths that I believe strongly enough in as to treat them as fact. But I can not prove them to be fact in the way that facts are proven.
Ok, so I am the one who is confusing fact and truth…
To some degree, I can not answer some of those follow-up questions in a meaningful way, because
(…)
2) certain answers that readily come to me assume certain truths that people call into question. And I can not convince people of those truths.
(…)True. Though, some people do present themselves as though their opinion is the correct one.
…and that probably also includes me.When you use words like “truths” to describe your beliefs, is it difficult not to think that you present your opinion as the correct one.
It’d be a pretty odd belief if that wasn’t the case tho. I mean believing things are true is sort of why we believe in them 😉
Saying “I believe it is true” is not the same as “I know it is true, I’m 100% sure of that, it is a fact and there are evidences”.
To some degree, I can not answer some of those follow-up questions in a meaningful way, because
(…)
2) certain answers that readily come to me assume certain truths that people call into question. And I can not convince people of those truths.
(…)True. Though, some people do present themselves as though their opinion is the correct one.
…and that probably also includes me.When you use words like “truths” to describe your beliefs, is it difficult not to think that you present your opinion as the correct one.
It’d be a pretty odd belief if that wasn’t the case tho. I mean believing things are true is sort of why we believe in them 😉
Saying “I believe it is true” is not the same as “I know it is true, I’m 100% sure of that, it is a fact and there are evidences”.
I don’t know I’ve got some pretty strong feelings about spaghetti and lately I’ve been starting to feel like they need to be respected
I agree.
I’m not even sure you can prove that noodles exist.
As a Pastafarian, I deserve more respect when Frink talks about spaghetti.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster IS the real God. That is the truth, I have plenty of evidences. I won’t say it is a fact, but I am 100% sure and other opinions are obviously weaker than my 100% sure truth full of evidences.
I’m not trying to convince you, I’m just saying that you are wrong.
So please, in the name of all adepts of Pastafarianism, stop mocking my Religion.
Fine. I “respectfully hold the opinion” that presenting your beliefs and opinions as absolute truth and fact is problematic. Feel better?
Zig’s post is also on that vein.
Is it?
http://www.philosophersmag.com/essays/26-the-fact-opinion-distinction
To some degree, I can not answer some of those follow-up questions in a meaningful way, because
(…)
2) certain answers that readily come to me assume certain truths that people call into question. And I can not convince people of those truths.
(…)True. Though, some people do present themselves as though their opinion is the correct one.
…and that probably also includes me.
When you use words like “truths” to describe your beliefs, is it difficult not to think that you present your opinion as the correct one.
“I have trouble expressing what I’m thinking.”
^
see also:
Nuance is difficult for me in a text-only setting.
FTFY
Yes.
“Ce qui se conçoit bien s’énonce clairement” (Nicolas Boileau)
or, in English : “What is clearly thought out is clearly expressed”.
So maybe this whole idea of “I’m 100% sure that God exists but I cannot explain clearly why” is not as clearly thought as you say it is…