Well, then he shouldn’t have written his holy book to be almost completely contradictory to enlightened morality and science.
I’m not getting into this with you.
I was raised to be a weird sort of fair-weather literalist. As in my dad said things like “Maybe fossils are just decoration God put there, and maybe the world is only about 10,000 years old. Maybe.”
I prefer to think of it as though God created the universe such that no matter how much we learn about our planet or our universe, there’s always much much more that we then realize that we still don’t know yet. Or, as Einstein put it, “as our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.” And it’s not just that we are created in God’s image, but the universe and everything in it is. Everything you yourself create says something about the nature of who you are. And the idea that there’s always so much more to learn about the universe and that we can’t ever learn everything there is to know says the same thing about God.
And yet, at the same time, God became a man so that we could know him; we could identify with him and he with us; and the sacrifice that was paid on our behalf allows us to pursue that relationship.
God gave us the ability to be curious about our universe and the capacity to learn. To be super-literal about the nitpicky bits of one’s doctrine, if I might extend the house-built-on-rock metaphor, is like building the house itself using extremely rigid materials such that when an earthquake shakes it, it crumbles due to its own structural inflexibility (which actually has happened in real life). While it is important to have a solid foundation, it is also wise to have flexible structural supports so that (for example) increasing scientific knowledge does not create a stumbling block for one’s faith.
They are.
“Monkey” used to be a catch-all 80 years ago, which is why Curious George is called a “monkey” when he has no tail. But in modern language, monkeys have tails, and apes do not.
dahmage said:
b u tit hin kiund erst andy ourpo int.
The wise man built his house upon Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson.
presenting certainties lends itself to endless discussions.
Unless one desires to have deeper discussions that posit things as a given. If one is never certain about anything, one can never have progressively deeper, meaningful discussions about what they and their following certainties mean. Otherwise it’s just a house of cards that will fall once the foundation is touched.
See also, the parable of the wise and foolish builders:
The wise man built his house upon the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. The foolish man built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.
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.
Well, to give context, I work for a law firm. So my understanding of “evidence” and “testimony” includes the legal meaning. If I do, and someone else does not, then I imagine the issue is not who is wrong or right, but how we collectively define terms here.
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 scientific fact speaks more to the credibility one finds for said evidence, not whether it is actually evidence.
You can have further evidence that supports an opposing view. You can also have evidence that conflicts with other evidence, and you have to decide how much weight to give to either. Conflicting evidences might both be true but only in part. But although one evidence does not have scientific fact to support it, or another evidence opposes it, that still doesn’t make it not evidence.
*YouTube video I’m not going to click on*
Clip from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.
Indy, teaching class: “Archaeology is the search for fact… not truth. If it’s truth you’re interested in, Dr. Tyree’s philosophy class is right down the hall.”
It’s actually from Raiders.
😉
*YouTube video I’m not going to click on*
Clip from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.
Indy, teaching class: “Archaeology is the search for fact… not truth. If it’s truth you’re interested in, Dr. Tyree’s philosophy class is right down the hall.”
Which also suggests that relying solely on fact to debate philosophical or religious truths kind of misses the point of their being philosophical. Not all truths are verifiable through fact.
Yes, how DARE he suggest that belief in things that can’t be proven be treated as that, beliefs, and not “the truth”. That’s just crazy talk.
You seem to be confusing the word truth with the word fact. They are not synonymous.
Lol
Which also suggests that relying solely on fact to debate philosophical or religious truths kind of misses the point of their being philosophical. Not all truths are verifiable through fact.
Yes, how DARE he suggest that belief in things that can’t be proven be treated as that, beliefs, and not “the truth”. That’s just crazy talk.
You seem to be confusing the word truth with the word fact. They are not synonymous.
Yes and everybody in star wars looks normal and like a natural person you’d see who didn’t do anything to alter their own appearance!
People in Star Wars generally look normal for their contextual environment. Holdo is on a Resistance capital ship fleeing the First Order. She’s not on Canto Bight. And no other human in Star Wars canon bothers to dye their hair wild colors. Why she would dye her hair purple as well as pile her hair into that crazy hairspray-intensive hairdo, while in the circumstance she faces makes no sense.
Recoloring her hair to a normal shade would make her more believable in such a serious situation.
If she were just another commander, would we have bought Poe becoming mutinous?
That’s on Poe, not Holdo. Poe is trigger happy and has problems answering to anyone but himself. He didn’t obey Leia’s orders either to stand down from calling in the bombing run, so it’s not about Holdo. Poe complains about them not telling him the plan, but he doesn’t need to know the reasoning behind orders in order to follow them. That’s not how the military works. Plus, if you read the novelization, Leia discusses with Poe on the shuttle that they were purposefully trying to tell as few people as necessary. Poe does what he wants, including that he likely wouldn’t keep his mouth shut if he didn’t think it necessary.
That’s why he’s a good pilot but a bad commander.
Hal, what are the major changes between V5 and V4?
I have v4.2.
Please recolor Holdo’s ridiculous hair. This is Star Wars, not Hunger Games.
Yes and everybody in star wars looks normal and like a natural person you’d see who didn’t do anything to alter their own appearance!
People in Star Wars generally look normal for their contextual environment. Holdo is on a Resistance capital ship fleeing the First Order. She’s not on Canto Bight. And no other human in Star Wars canon bothers to dye their hair wild colors. Why she would dye her hair purple as well as pile her hair into that crazy hairspray-intensive hairdo, while in the circumstance she faces, makes no sense.
Recoloring her hair to a normal shade would make her more believable in such a serious situation.
Finally finished Star Wars: Bloodline. I really enjoyed it. I find that I like Claudia Gray as an author and thus added Leia, Princess of Alderaan, her next book, to my wishlist.
I have a friend from high school who was diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome.
Actually, I have two friends who are, but the girl I know from college is just… quirky. My high school friend is very… I don’t know. He’s slightly lower on the spectrum I guess. I can only hang out with him for so long before my emotional tank is on E and I have to take a break. I also understand that nuance is often lost on him, and so I feel it necessary to be more direct, but I also don’t want to be rude.
Everyone is different
I have a friend from high school who was diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome.
Actually, I have two friends who are, but the girl I know from college is just… quirky. My high school friend is very… I don’t know. He’s slightly lower on the spectrum I guess. I can only hang out with him for so long before my emotional tank is on E and I have to take a break. I also understand that nuance is often lost on him, and so I feel it necessary to be more direct, but I also don’t want to be rude. Meanwhile, he’s direct to the point of rudeness but I don’t think he knows he’s being rude. I’m not sure if he doesn’t know or if he can’t know, but to tell him he’s being rude would then be me being rude.
I’m not venting, I’m just saying as a friend of someone with high-functioning austism it’s very… confusing and awkward for me on occasion. I’m no master of social nuance myself and so I don’t really know how to deal with it when it happens.
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.
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. And therefore the fsm is a ridiculous farcical creation to point and laugh at the absudity of faith in God. Maybe that’s because I don’t know the origins of FSM or whatever, and so my feelings are uninformed, but I imagine many people who haven’t researched FSM gather, from the implication of the name itself, a similar feeling to mine. Perhaps that includes mrebo.
BTW, I am quite intrigued : why are you answering when I talk to Mrebo, and why is Mrebo answering when I talk to you?
I imagine that it’s because of the idea that this is an open discussion, like a room in real life in which many people are privy to the conversation. Some people will jump in and out as the conversation progresses, not necessarily talking one-on-one to the same person the whole time, but to whomever is listening.
Obviously, you are right, there is no risk :
Thank you for your foresight on that matter (THAT is sarcasm).
What does right-wing politics have to do with the idea, that basing one’s relationship with or belief in God primarily on scientific fact, is wrongheaded?
I do not believe that the universe was created in seven (or rather six) 24-hour time periods. I believe that the people to whom the creation story was told would not have understood Big Bang Theory, or gravitational waves, or the movement of the Laniakea Supercluster. Nor do I think it relevant to them at the time. I understand that Jesus himself taught truths in the form of parables, in a way that would be easier for people of his day to comprehend.
One does not need one’s relationship with God to have a foundation in scientific research in order to still respect science as a method of learning about God. Science does not have to contradict faith. But relationship with or belief in God does not have to be founded on science.
I keep going through my audiobook covers and updating them. I’ve already said I’m picky about how they look, and I recently redid my cover for Star Wars: Lost Stars.
The official cover is just a pillarboxed version of the book cover.
So I redid it (again). I wasn’t really entirely satisfied with my previous attempt.
Chyron hasn’t even GAVE his reasons. That’s what most are curious about.
Is any reason for his certainty going to satisfy anyone?
It will not. It has already been established that it will not by the words and attitudes of others here and at length.
I can be 100% certain of my position if I so choose. You guys can call that ridiculous, but you’re going to anyway whether I explain why or not.
Besides, any evidence I give will, by definition, be anecdotal evidence given that I’m saying it, or hearsay because I’m repeating to you guys what someone else said to me. So either you guys can say I likely have no evidence because I do not give it, or you guys can say my evidence is not “fact”, or that my evidence is [insert fallacy]. Or whatever else. Either way, I lose the argument.
I don’t need to be picked apart like that. And I don’t see why you guys insist on me elaborating when the reality is you’ll take it with an enormous grain of salt, and it won’t change your mind anyway. And ZigZig is right that relying on hard evidence is the wrong way to go about it.
So I do not want to explain myself because 1) it is very personal; 2) I will clearly not be taken seriously; and 3) it won’t matter because it’s still not verifiable fact. I hold to my belief as truth, but that is my choice.
The conversation though was about that there is no evidence to support that God exists or that He cares. My point was that there is, but such evidence is not accepted or found credible here.
My personal relationship with God is not founded on the need for evidence, as apparently was with Thomas.
ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/
noun
noun: evidence
Testimony, for one things, is evidence. But we’ve already had that discussion.