Here you go...

[lightgigantic]

I couldn't agree with you more.

yet for some reason you don't accept that any claim of knowledge has pending issues of qualification.

Nope. Evidence of cancer is evidence. Anyone (with qualifications) disagrees, they would have to demonstrate otherwise. Your assertions are still failing.

My point is that the disagreement amongst professionals might be about what to do about it or what caused it. Or even, alternatively, a misreading of it, so it goes under the radar.

If you add unqualified individuals to the proxy, then you might also get flat denials of it.

[I most certainly found fairy tale descriptions in scriptures, does that count?

err ... do you know what a normative (or prescriptive) description is, or are you more comfortable repeating atheistic sound bites at this point in time?

 

[(Q)]

yet for some reason you don't accept that any claim of knowledge has pending issues of qualification.

You put words in my mouth, sir.

My point is that the disagreement amongst professionals might be about what to do about it or what caused it. Or even, alternatively, a misreading of it, so it goes under the radar.

Again, anyone with the proper qualifications will agree the evidence for cancer is indeed cancer, regardless of what caused it or what to do about it.

err ... do you know what a normative (or prescriptive) description is, or are you more comfortable repeating atheistic sound bites at this point in time?

Uh yeah, I get it.

 

[jpappl]

LG,

Successful application of theistic principles grants god the status of being real and tangible, and neglect of such principles grants the opposite.

So then you can prove god exists. Go ahead.

And suppose that one person finds information that supports a given and another finds information against it at the hypothesis stage, how do you propose that one determines who's claims are capable of contextualizing the other?

If the evidence against is valid, confirmed then the first person has a lost cause. Unlike religion, the contradicitons aren't thrown out.

As for discrepancies within the field of religion, there are means to resolve them, much like there are means to resolve discrepancies in any field of knowledge (for instance, how many differing ideas in science are there about the origin of the universe or quantum physics? Or even how many different health practices are there, from acupuncture to surgery? Does this render such disciplines fallacious?)

No, but here we eventually upon gaining more knowledge reject those claims that are proven to be invalid, and support the claims that have not be dis-proved.

The means to resolve discrepancies in religion is just to deny the contradictions or rationalize them. The problem is that those never truly get resolved. In fact, the more information and knowledge we have, the more of them are in need of resolving.

Since the texts are supposed to be the words of god, you can't really alter them can you ?

hehe

once again, you have to unpack your usage of the word reality. Then perhaps we could see what you are alluding to as the contradictory factors.

Everything that we know today to exist and to be proven to exist. We can dance around this and get into the whole "how do we really know" idea again, but that is just a means to avoid the contradictions in the religious texts. IOW, name your book and then lets take a look.

I am claiming that within the texts are frameworks that establish the issue (aka terminology and constituent relationships between them) and the means to apply it. IOW you get "what" and "how", much like any other text.

I understand that, just that we have already established that it's not a requirement to believe in god. So, you can further strengthen your belief by reading that which strengthens your belief. But not convince someone of it with the texts, because they have no way of testing and validating.

You don't think that acquiring knowledge of particle physics increases the belief of its validity?

IOW we embark in the pursuit of knowledge from a point of faith ("something we think might be true"), and upon achieving that knowledge, the faith is increased (or alternatively, in the frustration of such an attempt, one's faith stands to diminish)

No, it's not about faith. If you don't know or understand the subject, you are putting faith in others who claim to know. But if you understand the subject and the details and it is testable without being proven false, then you have something real, again and again.

How do we test the texts for evidence of god ?

“ Which brings us back to finding only what supports the belief and not considering anything that questions it.

That has nothing to do with the scientific method. ”

Once again, you have two parties - pro and against - how do you propose the conflict gets resolved?



This is all great if you believe. Then yes, I would think you would feel obligated to study them.

The way it gets resolved is who's hypothesis stands the test without being dis-proved by conflicting information. If there is conflicting information either the whole thing is wrong or it has to be modified to include whatever the confliciting information. The difference it can move with the truth. Whatever that turns out to be.

There is no need to believe in it, just accept it's truth and or accept the evidence that dis-proves it. Whatever that is.

You misunderstand. The validity of any text is that it provides a means to approach the subject. There always exists the means of approaching a subject without a text, but given our brief lifespan and the culminative knowledge available in texts, it rarely works out as more productive to take the solo path.

Sure

However mere reading alone doesn't grant knowledge since there are issues of application and comprehension within the greater sphere of literacy. If it was otherwise, any student who merely reads a book would be in a position to automatically to pass with flying colours.

If a student doesn't even believe there is any validity to the discipline, they probably won't even begin the process.

This is true, but it doesn't change the quality of the information. They can choose to be ignorant of anything. But the information is there, testable and repeatable. Which is different than studying religious text which deals with the idea or belief in god.

That is to say, you could say the same thing about any unproveable idea and simply say you aren't looking hard enough.

"I believe in bigfoot, if only you would study it you would realize it's real"

The simple problem is you can't prove or dis-prove god. So your studying an idea.

The question is, with your idea are you accepting information that contradicts or challenges the idea or not. If so, give me an example of information that you have accepted as contradictory and how you rationalize the differences.

 

[SnakeLord]

My point is that at no time does the patient offer a few tips about brain surgery.

Which, if you don't mind me saying, is a bit of a pointless and worthless statement given that you've just been asked to provide evidence for your claim to the existence of god [cancer]. The patient isn't offering tips, he's asking for evidence.

Anyway, now can you provide the evidence for your claim?

Already done, numerous times before.

Ok, for the moment we'll pretend that this is the case. I don't think, (given your eagerness to use words like 'ignorant'), that it's really pertinent for the teacher, which is you, to blame the students for their ignorance but to blame the teacher, which is you, for their inability to teach.

The problem is that persons such as yourself balk at the stage of application while simultaneously granting yourself the authority to determine credibility.

Kindly clarify and support this statement. You are seemingly suggesting that I need to... be religious for you to provide evidence for the existence of your god.

For now, kindly provide what you - the 'doctor', (or teacher), consider to be valid evidence for the existence of whatever god it is you choose. Just one example will do.

 

[lightgigantic]

Jpappl

“
Successful application of theistic principles grants god the status of being real and tangible, and neglect of such principles grants the opposite.
”
So then you can prove god exists. Go ahead.

If you insist on neglecting the issues of application, it won't be possible to evidence it to you I'm afraid (much like any other knowledge based claim)

“
And suppose that one person finds information that supports a given and another finds information against it at the hypothesis stage, how do you propose that one determines who's claims are capable of contextualizing the other?
”
If the evidence against is valid, confirmed then the first person has a lost cause. Unlike religion, the contradicitons aren't thrown out.

That's my point.

How do you propose to distinguish who's case is valid?

“
As for discrepancies within the field of religion, there are means to resolve them, much like there are means to resolve discrepancies in any field of knowledge (for instance, how many differing ideas in science are there about the origin of the universe or quantum physics? Or even how many different health practices are there, from acupuncture to surgery? Does this render such disciplines fallacious?)
”
No, but here we eventually upon gaining more knowledge reject those claims that are proven to be invalid, and support the claims that have not be dis-proved.


The means to resolve discrepancies in religion is just to deny the contradictions or rationalize them.

Its not clear why you can accept progressive knowledge in one sphere yet reject it in another

The problem is that those never truly get resolved. In fact, the more information and knowledge we have, the more of them are in need of resolving.

What truly resolves an issue is entering into the arena of application. Otherwise whatever knowledge one carries is no different than the burden a donkey labours under.

Since the texts are supposed to be the words of god, you can't really alter them can you ?

Since the words are essentially about the process of becoming sufficiently purified, what need is there for change?

“
hehe

once again, you have to unpack your usage of the word reality. Then perhaps we could see what you are alluding to as the contradictory factors.
”
Everything that we know today to exist and to be proven to exist.

who is the "we"?
and who is it "proven" to?

We can dance around this and get into the whole "how do we really know" idea again, but that is just a means to avoid the contradictions in the religious texts. IOW, name your book and then lets take a look.

actually at the moment I am just trying to understand who is this "we" you allude to ..... and as for the "how do we really know", that comes under the banner of epistemology, which is kind of like first base for any ontological discussion.

But if you want to start with a book, there are many, but the gita is a simple one to start on.

“
I am claiming that within the texts are frameworks that establish the issue (aka terminology and constituent relationships between them) and the means to apply it. IOW you get "what" and "how", much like any other text.
”
I understand that, just that we have already established that it's not a requirement to believe in god. So, you can further strengthen your belief by reading that which strengthens your belief. But not convince someone of it with the texts, because they have no way of testing and validating.

If one didn't have some inkling of a belief in the subject, the issue of application never arises. Its not so much that a person has no means to test it, but rather they don't have the impetus.

“
You don't think that acquiring knowledge of particle physics increases the belief of its validity?

IOW we embark in the pursuit of knowledge from a point of faith ("something we think might be true"), and upon achieving that knowledge, the faith is increased (or alternatively, in the frustration of such an attempt, one's faith stands to diminish)
”
No, it's not about faith. If you don't know or understand the subject, you are putting faith in others who claim to know. But if you understand the subject and the details and it is testable without being proven false, then you have something real, again and again.

My question is whether there is the possibility of embarking on the understanding of a subject without some issue of faith. (sure, once one follows through with application, they have recourse to a different grade of knowledge than those who accept or reject it on faith)

How do we test the texts for evidence of god ?

The same way we test the texts of anything.
By application

“
“ Which brings us back to finding only what supports the belief and not considering anything that questions it.

That has nothing to do with the scientific method. ”

Once again, you have two parties - pro and against - how do you propose the conflict gets resolved?



This is all great if you believe. Then yes, I would think you would feel obligated to study them.
”
The way it gets resolved is who's hypothesis stands the test without being dis-proved by conflicting information.

Once again, its the very nature of having a pro and against party that they both have access to conflicting information.

If there is conflicting information either the whole thing is wrong or it has to be modified to include whatever the confliciting information. The difference it can move with the truth. Whatever that turns out to be.

there is also the possibility that the perception of conflicting information is simply caused by a lack of understanding

There is no need to believe in it, just accept it's truth and or accept the evidence that dis-proves it. Whatever that is.

similarly one could argue that a person vouching for what they perceive is disproving it is simply labouring under a poor wealth of knowledge.

“

“
However mere reading alone doesn't grant knowledge since there are issues of application and comprehension within the greater sphere of literacy. If it was otherwise, any student who merely reads a book would be in a position to automatically to pass with flying colours.

If a student doesn't even believe there is any validity to the discipline, they probably won't even begin the process.
”
This is true, but it doesn't change the quality of the information.

My issue is that it is more to do with the quality of the student than the quality of the information.

They can choose to be ignorant of anything. But the information is there, testable and repeatable. Which is different than studying religious text which deals with the idea or belief in god.

That is to say, you could say the same thing about any unproveable idea and simply say you aren't looking hard enough.

Depends how specific a person can get with application.

For instance in the many discussions I've had on this topic, most atheists have a hard time understanding why its futile to call upon empiricism to validate something credited with a greater consciousness than ourselves.

IOW it remains unprovable to them simply because they insist on applying themselves in a manner doomed to failure.

"I believe in bigfoot, if only you would study it you would realize it's real"

a meaningless statement unless there are pending issues of application to back it up.

The simple problem is you can't prove or dis-prove god. So your studying an idea.

That's the default position of a person who has no access to the sphere of application. Whether all persons are subject to such a limitation is something else.

The question is, with your idea are you accepting information that contradicts or challenges the idea or not. If so, give me an example of information that you have accepted as contradictory and how you rationalize the differences.

Given that the information commonly called upon as contradictory is even contradicted by the disciplines it appears in (for instance an examination of ideas about how the universe was created reveals quite an extensive variety over 50 years of scientific history), I think you have to first of all examine where the authority of the call lies. Empirically speaking, the further a claim relies on rationalism and is divorced from any doable practices, the weaker it is. For instance the idea that life is composed merely of chemicals is not empirically strong since there is no case study of abiogenesis being observed. Similarly there are large gray areas in the field of what is claimed in (macro)evolution, since the further one moves in the direction of one genus eventually giving rise to another genus, the further one is moving away from a position of empirical strength.

But actually its no real talent to rationalize a claim, since premises will always remain flexible. IOW calling upon rationalism to resolve a conflict is often futile since both parties will have access to it. Philosophical discourse that doesn't have recourse to application is an ocean without shores.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

My point is that at no time does the patient offer a few tips about brain surgery.
”
Which, if you don't mind me saying, is a bit of a pointless and worthless statement given that you've just been asked to provide evidence for your claim to the existence of god [cancer]. The patient isn't offering tips, he's asking for evidence.

Anyway, now can you provide the evidence for your claim?

“
Already done, numerous times before.
”
Ok, for the moment we'll pretend that this is the case. I don't think, (given your eagerness to use words like 'ignorant'), that it's really pertinent for the teacher, which is you, to blame the students for their ignorance but to blame the teacher, which is you, for their inability to teach.

“
The problem is that persons such as yourself balk at the stage of application while simultaneously granting yourself the authority to determine credibility.
”
Kindly clarify and support this statement. You are seemingly suggesting that I need to... be religious for you to provide evidence for the existence of your god.

For now, kindly provide what you - the 'doctor', (or teacher), consider to be valid evidence for the existence of whatever god it is you choose. Just one example will do.

What is pointless is to embark on a claim of evidence to an audience that doesn't have the means to determine its validity or invalidity.

For instance if a doctor cited this as being this as the evidential basis for you having hypoxemia and not hemolysis

...its not clear what means you would call upon to agree or disagree with them ...

:shrug:

 

[(Q)]

What is pointless is to embark on a claim of evidence to an audience that doesn't have the means to determine its validity or invalidity.

In other words, you can't do it. Just admit your shortcomings, LG, rather than looking like a liar.

 

[lightgigantic]

In other words, you can't do it. Just admit your shortcomings, LG, rather than looking like a liar.

err ... actually the point is that you can't do it.

If you want, I can pretend to be a inimical drop out and you can pretend to be a physics professor.

Try and provide evidence to me of an electron while I label everything you say as "complete bollocks" and pronounce you a "deluded egghead".

Sounds like fun, eh?

 

[(Q)]

err ... actually the point is that you can't do it.

No LG, the point is quite clear to everyone that you can't produce your god and you make excuses for your own shortcomings.

If you want, I can pretend to be a inimical drop out...

You mean you haven't been pretending?

Try and provide evidence to me of an electron while I label everything you say as "complete bollocks" and pronounce you a "deluded egghead".

I'm not going down your fallacious rathole again, LG.

 

[lightgigantic]

No LG, the point is quite clear to everyone that you can't produce your god and you make excuses for your own shortcomings.

I also can't teach a dog to drive a car.

I don't consider that's because of my short comings though ....

You mean you haven't been pretending?
I'm not going down your fallacious rathole again, LG.

Its not my rathole.

Its the rathole you're currently arguing out of.

 

[Sarkus]

just as much as belief in advanced aspects of particle physics is a prerequisite before beginning the arduous task of studying it.

So if I don't believe in gravity I will suddenly float away?
Interesting.
Thanks for that, LG.

Given that you need no prerequisite belief in advanced particle physics in order to study it, are you saying that your "application" needs no prerequisite belief in God?

Please note that an advanced particle Physicist can provide anyone with evidence.
You may not understand it without study, but the evidence is there - for anyone to see, regardless of whether they study or not.
The "application" to provide us with the evidence is to ask an advanced particle physicist for it. He may need to go and perform some complex stuff with numerous machines... but we wouldn't.

At no point would I need to believe in the stuff in order to be shown the evidence.

So please - go and apply your methodology and then show us evidence of God. If we feel we are incapable of understanding it then it will be up to us to go and study so that we can also understand.

Try and provide evidence to me of an electron while I label everything you say as "complete bollocks" and pronounce you a "deluded egghead".

But you haven't had the decency to provide the evidence of God yet. If you do, and we call it "complete bollocks" etc, then fair enough - but please have the decency first to provide the evidence.
And not just evidence of "God's work" but of God, please.

Thanks.

 

[(Q)]

I also can't teach a dog to drive a car.

But, you CAN produce your god, right?

Its not my rathole.

Its the rathole you're currently arguing out of.

That is of course a lie.

 

[jpappl]

LG,

“
Successful application of theistic principles grants god the status of being real and tangible, and neglect of such principles grants the opposite.
”
So then you can prove god exists. Go ahead. ”

If you insist on neglecting the issues of application, it won't be possible to evidence it to you I'm afraid (much like any other knowledge based claim)

Your contradiciting yourself, you say you can prove god exists. You say you don't need to read the texts to believe in god. Since I don't need to read the texts to believe, then I don't need to read the texts for you to prove it to me.

“ “
And suppose that one person finds information that supports a given and another finds information against it at the hypothesis stage, how do you propose that one determines who's claims are capable of contextualizing the other?
”
If the evidence against is valid, confirmed then the first person has a lost cause. Unlike religion, the contradicitons aren't thrown out. ”

That's my point.

How do you propose to distinguish who's case is valid?

Simple, if you case has a lot of contradicitons and evidence that counters your claims, then your claims aren't valid. Parts of them may have validity, but the negatives have to be weighed and they are not being weighed.

It's a lie, it's a farce, because not all of the information is being used.

“
We can dance around this and get into the whole "how do we really know" idea again, but that is just a means to avoid the contradictions in the religious texts. IOW, name your book and then lets take a look. ”

actually at the moment I am just trying to understand who is this "we" you allude to ..... and as for the "how do we really know", that comes under the banner of epistemology, which is kind of like first base for any ontological discussion.

But if you want to start with a book, there are many, but the gita is a simple one to start on.

I'll take a look and get back to you.

If one didn't have some inkling of a belief in the subject, the issue of application never arises. Its not so much that a person has no means to test it, but rather they don't have the impetus.

No we don't. We can learn about all sorts of things that we didn't believe in before, things that we didn't even know existed. But the difference is we have evidence of their existence.

My question is whether there is the possibility of embarking on the understanding of a subject without some issue of faith. (sure, once one follows through with application, they have recourse to a different grade of knowledge than those who accept or reject it on faith)

Right and there is, just look at mathematics. It becomes clear whether you believe in it or not, that 2 + 2 = 4.

“ How do we test the texts for evidence of god ? ”

The same way we test the texts of anything.
By application

That's not a test. That's a confirmation exercise for the faithful.

If there is conflicting information either the whole thing is wrong or it has to be modified to include whatever the confliciting information. The difference it can move with the truth. Whatever that turns out to be. ”

there is also the possibility that the perception of conflicting information is simply caused by a lack of understanding

What that the creation stories are bogus. How is that not conflicting, what am I mis-understanding about the fact that the texts are full of contradictions when compared to what WE have learned. Our base of knowledge is at odds with the texts, that is not a mis-understanding.

“ There is no need to believe in it, just accept it's truth and or accept the evidence that dis-proves it. Whatever that is. ”

similarly one could argue that a person vouching for what they perceive is disproving it is simply labouring under a poor wealth of knowledge.

Examples please.

My issue is that it is more to do with the quality of the student than the quality of the information.

This is backwards. The quality of the student is not as important as the quality of the information. If you have 30 great students studying a bunch of nonsense, they will not have gained any knowledge no matter how hard they study.

A bad student with good information available will at least learn something of value, even if they didn't fully apply themselves.

This is why we teach math and grammar etc and not reading tea leaves.

For instance in the many discussions I've had on this topic, most atheists have a hard time understanding why its futile to call upon empiricism to validate something credited with a greater consciousness than ourselves.

IOW it remains unprovable to them simply because they insist on applying themselves in a manner doomed to failure.

Then you should stop saying that you can prove god exists.

I understand that it is futile because I know you have no evidence. I realize that doesn't change your belief, but you can't offer clear evidence for the belief to offer a justification for me to believe.

So the failure, getting back to the student and the information, is the information and not the student.

The information is not good enough and as you said, there is no requirement to even read the information to believe in it.

So it's meaningless.

“ "I believe in bigfoot, if only you would study it you would realize it's real" ”

a meaningless statement unless there are pending issues of application to back it up.

What do you mean ? please re-phrase

“ The simple problem is you can't prove or dis-prove god. So your studying an idea. ”

That's the default position of a person who has no access to the sphere of application. Whether all persons are subject to such a limitation is something else.

What ? again re-phrase.

“ The question is, with your idea are you accepting information that contradicts or challenges the idea or not. If so, give me an example of information that you have accepted as contradictory and how you rationalize the differences. ”

Given that the information commonly called upon as contradictory is even contradicted by the disciplines it appears in (for instance an examination of ideas about how the universe was created reveals quite an extensive variety over 50 years of scientific history), I think you have to first of all examine where the authority of the call lies. Empirically speaking, the further a claim relies on rationalism and is divorced from any doable practices, the weaker it is. For instance the idea that life is composed merely of chemicals is not empirically strong since there is no case study of abiogenesis being observed. Similarly there are large gray areas in the field of what is claimed in (macro)evolution, since the further one moves in the direction of one genus eventually giving rise to another genus, the further one is moving away from a position of empirical strength.

But actually its no real talent to rationalize a claim, since premises will always remain flexible. IOW calling upon rationalism to resolve a conflict is often futile since both parties will have access to it. Philosophical discourse that doesn't have recourse to application is an ocean without shores.

You have only managed to talk about the changes to our thinking in various scientific fields but have failed to realize that even though there is a constant adjustment in our thinking based on new evidence, that the mountain of evidence against your claims is not being considered.

IOW, you didn't answer the question.

But I agree that there are/will be challenges to current thinking that should continue to be addressed and considered. That is the way it should be. But it only works in the sciences.

 

[lightgigantic]

So if I don't believe in gravity I will suddenly float away?
Interesting.
Thanks for that, LG.

More to the point, if you don't believe in gravity you will have recourse to some other idea as to why you don't float away and you certainly won't have recourse to penetrating much of what is offered in the way of physics.

Given that you need no prerequisite belief in advanced particle physics in order to study it, are you saying that your "application" needs no prerequisite belief in God?

Belief certainly doesn't have prerequisites. Answering the call of evidence is something else entirely ....

Please note that an advanced particle Physicist can provide anyone with evidence.

sure

But for most people things like this require an authoritative explanation from them.

You may not understand it without study, but the evidence is there - for anyone to see, regardless of whether they study or not.
The "application" to provide us with the evidence is to ask an advanced particle physicist for it. He may need to go and perform some complex stuff with numerous machines... but we wouldn't.

At no point would I need to believe in the stuff in order to be shown the evidence.

the problem with an adamant atheist like yourself however is that you bring a healthy amount of inimical attitude to the table.

Kind of saying that you wish physicists would get down to the real business of providing evidence and not mere psychedelic t-shirt prints

So please - go and apply your methodology and then show us evidence of God. If we feel we are incapable of understanding it then it will be up to us to go and study so that we can also understand.

Once again, assuming that you don't find it difficult to find a normative description in scripture, that opportunity is already available to you.

But you haven't had the decency to provide the evidence of God yet. If you do, and we call it "complete bollocks" etc, then fair enough - but please have the decency first to provide the evidence.
And not just evidence of "God's work" but of God, please.

hehe

Perhaps if you could provide something other than a psychedelic t-shirt print in the name of physics, I could follow your demand.

 

[lightgigantic]

But, you CAN produce your god, right?

Your very request indicates why you always fall short of discussing the issue.

If you can't produce the usa president, why on earth would you assume that someone produce god?

IOW the very notion of something being shown on request is a methodology of empiricism. Kind of like saying the only technical prerequisite for having direct perception of the president is to open a door, even though in real life such a methodology won't see you get past the first of his 100 secretaries.

That is of course a lie.

stranger than fiction, my son.

 

[lightgigantic]

Jpappl

Your contradiciting yourself, you say you can prove god exists. You say you don't need to read the texts to believe in god. Since I don't need to read the texts to believe, then I don't need to read the texts for you to prove it to me.

What you're not factoring in is the person making the request for the phenomena to be evidenced to. The whole issue of reading texts tends to help prime a person for such a request, although reading alone certainly doesn't equate with a completely evidenced claim unless it is also complemented with an element of application.

How do you propose to distinguish who's case is valid?
”
Simple, if you case has a lot of contradicitons and evidence that counters your claims, then your claims aren't valid. Parts of them may have validity, but the negatives have to be weighed and they are not being weighed.

It's a lie, it's a farce, because not all of the information is being used.

I'm not sure you understand.

Both parties are making the claim that they have the means to contextualize the claims of the other due to the strength of their validity.

How do you propose to resolve such a conflict?

“
If one didn't have some inkling of a belief in the subject, the issue of application never arises. Its not so much that a person has no means to test it, but rather they don't have the impetus.
”
No we don't. We can learn about all sorts of things that we didn't believe in before, things that we didn't even know existed. But the difference is we have evidence of their existence.

Hardly

Empiricists advocate that perception is most accurate when the influence of the mind on the senses is kept to a minimum. One should carefully observe and not permit preconceived ideas to interfere with objectivity. Ridiculing this notion in Conjectures and Refutations, Karl Popper tells of a lecture he gave in which he asked his students to carefully observe, then write down what they observe. The students naturally wanted to know what they should observe. In other words, they asked for an idea to guide their observation. The idea, in turn, has to be fixed to a perception: Watch what I do, or Watch what happens in the window. Even the empirical truth that reality is limited to what our senses can perceive is really just an idea fixed to perception.
-Substance and shadow, R. Crowley

“
My question is whether there is the possibility of embarking on the understanding of a subject without some issue of faith. (sure, once one follows through with application, they have recourse to a different grade of knowledge than those who accept or reject it on faith)
”
Right and there is, just look at mathematics. It becomes clear whether you believe in it or not, that 2 + 2 = 4.

Mathematics is a system of pure rationalism so its not really conducive to the topic at hand

“
“ How do we test the texts for evidence of god ? ”

The same way we test the texts of anything.
By application
”
That's not a test. That's a confirmation exercise for the faithful.

Well it may come as a surprise, but that's the means that any claim is tested

“
If there is conflicting information either the whole thing is wrong or it has to be modified to include whatever the confliciting information. The difference it can move with the truth. Whatever that turns out to be. ”

there is also the possibility that the perception of conflicting information is simply caused by a lack of understanding
”
What that the creation stories are bogus. How is that not conflicting, what am I mis-understanding about the fact that the texts are full of contradictions when compared to what WE have learned. Our base of knowledge is at odds with the texts, that is not a mis-understanding.

As already mentioned, even the ideas of universal creation and annihilation are contradicted by the scientific disciplines they appear in. You just have to examine the plethora of theories that have sprung up and fallen by the way side over the past 70 years (although I will concede that certain religious texts, due to the text critical issues that surround them, are not reliable in this regard - IOW consulting the bible to troubleshoot your computer is just as fruitful as consulting physics for a moral outlook for life)

“
“ There is no need to believe in it, just accept it's truth and or accept the evidence that dis-proves it. Whatever that is. ”

similarly one could argue that a person vouching for what they perceive is disproving it is simply labouring under a poor wealth of knowledge.
”
Examples please.

heliocentrism is not in vogue despite having quite a few strong scientific advocates several centuries ago

“
My issue is that it is more to do with the quality of the student than the quality of the information.
”
This is backwards. The quality of the student is not as important as the quality of the information.

In terms of a particular individual coming to grasps with it, its the primary focus of any pedagogical model.

If you have 30 great students studying a bunch of nonsense, they will not have gained any knowledge no matter how hard they study.

If you have 30 students applying themselves in a nonsensical manner, the result is identical

A bad student with good information available will at least learn something of value, even if they didn't fully apply themselves.

sure

Its not uncommon to encounter an atheist who quotes a few scriptural passages to back up their claim

This is why we teach math and grammar etc and not reading tea leaves.

This also explains why critical thinking is not relegated to issues of mere maths and grammar.

“
For instance in the many discussions I've had on this topic, most atheists have a hard time understanding why its futile to call upon empiricism to validate something credited with a greater consciousness than ourselves.

IOW it remains unprovable to them simply because they insist on applying themselves in a manner doomed to failure.
”
Then you should stop saying that you can prove god exists.

Hence if you read my posts carefully, you see I argue more to the point that one cannot evidence a claim to an individual who messes up at the point of application

I understand that it is futile because I know you have no evidence.

Ironically, given your complete inability to approach the issues of application that surround it, the only way your statement could be true is if you are omniscient ... which in itself would be a proof of god

I realize that doesn't change your belief, but you can't offer clear evidence for the belief to offer a justification for me to believe.

What I can't offer is a means to evidence the claim via the methodology you insist on using. This says nothing about the claim, but many things about your attitude to the subject.

So the failure, getting back to the student and the information, is the information and not the student.

Basically there are three points where a student can mess up - theory, application and conclusion. If they can't even theoretically get it right as to what direction the means of application lies, the buck stops right there.

The information is not good enough and as you said, there is no requirement to even read the information to believe in it.

Actually my point is that an element of belief is required to initialize the investigation. Becoming informed with the subject matter via texts helps facilitate that.
So it's meaningless.

“
“ "I believe in bigfoot, if only you would study it you would realize it's real" ”

a meaningless statement unless there are pending issues of application to back it up.
”
What do you mean ? please re-phrase

Its difficult to find what are the normative descriptions surrounding the claim that big foot exists

“
“ The simple problem is you can't prove or dis-prove god. So your studying an idea. ”

That's the default position of a person who has no access to the sphere of application. Whether all persons are subject to such a limitation is something else.
”
What ? again re-phrase.

If for whatever reason one denies the issues of application that surround a given, it just becomes a claim that bridges a vast gap to conclusion. IOW the very arena of dis/proving is the arena of application. If a person has a claim and no application, then sure, there is no means. My point is that your not having recourse to the means to apply yourself , and thus rendering the question of god unable to be proved or disproved, is much like the status of any person who lies outside the professional arena of any discipline of knowledge.

“ The question is, with your idea are you accepting information that contradicts or challenges the idea or not. If so, give me an example of information that you have accepted as contradictory and how you rationalize the differences. ”

Given that the information commonly called upon as contradictory is even contradicted by the disciplines it appears in (for instance an examination of ideas about how the universe was created reveals quite an extensive variety over 50 years of scientific history), I think you have to first of all examine where the authority of the call lies. Empirically speaking, the further a claim relies on rationalism and is divorced from any doable practices, the weaker it is. For instance the idea that life is composed merely of chemicals is not empirically strong since there is no case study of abiogenesis being observed. Similarly there are large gray areas in the field of what is claimed in (macro)evolution, since the further one moves in the direction of one genus eventually giving rise to another genus, the further one is moving away from a position of empirical strength.

But actually its no real talent to rationalize a claim, since premises will always remain flexible. IOW calling upon rationalism to resolve a conflict is often futile since both parties will have access to it. Philosophical discourse that doesn't have recourse to application is an ocean without shores.
”
You have only managed to talk about the changes to our thinking in various scientific fields but have failed to realize that even though there is a constant adjustment in our thinking based on new evidence, that the mountain of evidence against your claims is not being considered.

IOW, you didn't answer the question.

once again, without a clear call on the authority of this mountain you are alluding to, I can't really discuss it

But I agree that there are/will be challenges to current thinking that should continue to be addressed and considered. That is the way it should be. But it only works in the sciences.

Its the nature of empiricism taking the lag of rationalism.

For instance there is tons of work to be done in understanding the origins of the universe and not so much in determining the boiling point of water.

btw change is also there in theistic disciplines. It just moves more slowly instead since it operates through the language of social values of communities

 

[Pipes75]

Alright Swarm,
What is it you seek to know?

Do you want to know spirtuality and physical reality are 2 oppisite sides to the same thing? - because it seems many out here in this forum are convinced the physical realities are the only side - but even the most brilliant scientists of the past knew otherwise! Evidence is how we find truth in the Physical. The Spiritual side does not require evidence to know, but we all need to find our own way of understanding, otherwise doubt can cause us to lose faith, and we might need another crash to rise again. Unfortunetly, because everyone is afraid of things they don't understand, we tend to view crashes as breakdowns, and we don't always recieve the positive messages that come to us, because when we think we are having a breakdown, most think they need proffessional help, or they view there experience as a 'malfunction' even if they overcome the experience on their own. Heightened emotions and heightened self awareness can be scarey when not prepared for the journey! I see the positive side of my crash, that's what changed me forever!

Do you want to find your One? - many different ways of finding One. Most logical thinkers do understand One to the mind. We are in control of everything we do. We are the only One that matters to our mind (got to stay respectful of others though).

Do you want to understand the multiple deffinitions One has to the 3 different asspects of ourselves (Mind, Body, and Soul)? - I briefly explained the mind, but to the Body we are many life forms that make up One whole person. To the Soul, we are a part of One much bigger picture. These brief deffinitions can be explained many different ways, so you might find yours is different then mine - but thats okay, cause One is still all that matters, it just has more then one way to make it important!

 

[jpappl]

LG,

Your contradiciting yourself, you say you can prove god exists. You say you don't need to read the texts to believe in god. Since I don't need to read the texts to believe, then I don't need to read the texts for you to prove it to me. ”

What you're not factoring in is the person making the request for the phenomena to be evidenced to. The whole issue of reading texts tends to help prime a person for such a request, although reading alone certainly doesn't equate with a completely evidenced claim unless it is also complemented with an element of application.

So I ask you to repeat this. Is it a requirement to read the texts in order to believe in god ?

“ How do you propose to distinguish who's case is valid?
”
Simple, if you case has a lot of contradicitons and evidence that counters your claims, then your claims aren't valid. Parts of them may have validity, but the negatives have to be weighed and they are not being weighed.

It's a lie, it's a farce, because not all of the information is being used. ”

I'm not sure you understand.

Both parties are making the claim that they have the means to contextualize the claims of the other due to the strength of their validity.

How do you propose to resolve such a conflict?

I understand. What is missed here is that the information is not comparable. One can be tested and evidence provided. The other can not and never will be able to.

So even for that which is not fully understood yet, there will come a time that it is either proven or dis-proven by the scientific process.

With religion, you never have an end and no beginning is needed, just faith.

“
My question is whether there is the possibility of embarking on the understanding of a subject without some issue of faith. (sure, once one follows through with application, they have recourse to a different grade of knowledge than those who accept or reject it on faith)
”
Right and there is, just look at mathematics. It becomes clear whether you believe in it or not, that 2 + 2 = 4. ”

Mathematics is a system of pure rationalism so its not really conducive to the topic at hand

Well pick another then. The bottom line is there are many instances in learning about many subjects where faith or belief is not required.

You asked the question and I provided an example.

As already mentioned, even the ideas of universal creation and annihilation are contradicted by the scientific disciplines they appear in. You just have to examine the plethora of theories that have sprung up and fallen by the way side over the past 70 years (although I will concede that certain religious texts, due to the text critical issues that surround them, are not reliable in this regard - IOW consulting the bible to troubleshoot your computer is just as fruitful as consulting physics for a moral outlook for life)

And we will continue to come up with theories that are later proven wrong or adjusted, that's the beauty of science. We keep searching for the truth, whatever that is and where ever that leads us.

The difference being that they are contradictions and become corrections to the original idea. No reason or incentive to hide behind the lie, except for the human factor which does affect scientists of course.

There is no need to believe in it, just accept it's truth and or accept the evidence that dis-proves it. Whatever that is. ”

similarly one could argue that a person vouching for what they perceive is disproving it is simply labouring under a poor wealth of knowledge.
”
Examples please. ”

heliocentrism is not in vogue despite having quite a few strong scientific advocates several centuries ago

Yes, but guess what, we moved on. That's the point, to move with the truth.

So in that case, what was perceived as dis-proving it was valid.

So do you have an example where current scientific knowledge has been proven wrong by the religious texts ? Since we are operating under such a poor wealth of knowledge.

“ If you have 30 great students studying a bunch of nonsense, they will not have gained any knowledge no matter how hard they study. ”

If you have 30 students applying themselves in a nonsensical manner, the result is identical

ok, but if you have one applying themselves and the information is valid, then he/she will gain knowledge.

if the information is invalid, then nobody will gain knowledge.

“ A bad student with good information available will at least learn something of value, even if they didn't fully apply themselves. ”

sure

Its not uncommon to encounter an atheist who quotes a few scriptural passages to back up their claim

LOL, but a negative I am sure.

“ “
For instance in the many discussions I've had on this topic, most atheists have a hard time understanding why its futile to call upon empiricism to validate something credited with a greater consciousness than ourselves.

IOW it remains unprovable to them simply because they insist on applying themselves in a manner doomed to failure.
”
Then you should stop saying that you can prove god exists. ”

Hence if you read my posts carefully, you see I argue more to the point that one cannot evidence a claim to an individual who messes up at the point of application

But you said we don't need to read the texts to believe. So how can we mess up ?

“ I understand that it is futile because I know you have no evidence. ”

Ironically, given your complete inability to approach the issues of application that surround it, the only way your statement could be true is if you are omniscient ... which in itself would be a proof of god

I assure you I am not god. Again, we don't need to read the texts to believe.

So who do you distrust or have a bigger issue with. Those who are atheist and don't read your texts, or those who believe and don't read your texts.

“ I realize that doesn't change your belief, but you can't offer clear evidence for the belief to offer a justification for me to believe. ”

What I can't offer is a means to evidence the claim via the methodology you insist on using. This says nothing about the claim, but many things about your attitude to the subject.

What does my attitude on the subject have to do with anything. I am not asking for you to produce god, you said you could prove it. I didn't offer any suggestions on what that proof needs to be, but I know you know what the word means.

So you tell me what method you prefer.

“ So the failure, getting back to the student and the information, is the information and not the student. ”

Basically there are three points where a student can mess up - theory, application and conclusion. If they can't even theoretically get it right as to what direction the means of application lies, the buck stops right there.

Ok, so if a person wants to study bigfoot, the information (evidence and details about bigfoot ) is not as important as hard they study it.

IOW, if the apply themselves enough, bigfoot will be real.

“
“ "I believe in bigfoot, if only you would study it you would realize it's real" ”

a meaningless statement unless there are pending issues of application to back it up.
”
What do you mean ? please re-phrase ”

Its difficult to find what are the normative descriptions surrounding the claim that big foot exists

It doesn't matter, if it doesn't exist, there will be no good information.

My point is that your not having recourse to the means to apply yourself , and thus rendering the question of god unable to be proved or disproved, is much like the status of any person who lies outside the professional arena of any discipline of knowledge.

Ok, thanks. The difference being that there are those who are experts in professional fields that can provide evidence for their claims. Over and over again.

The same can't be said about the claim of god's existence, no matter the perceived expertness.

once again, without a clear call on the authority of this mountain you are alluding to, I can't really discuss it

:bugeye:

Its the nature of empiricism taking the lag of rationalism.

For instance there is tons of work to be done in understanding the origins of the universe and not so much in determining the boiling point of water.

btw change is also there in theistic disciplines. It just moves more slowly instead since it operates through the language of social values of communities

But there is no change to the claims of origin.

This is why I don't respect religions. I do have respect for individuals belief in god or gods. I do understand that there is some value in the texts.

But it makes no sense to put my faith in a particular belief when the information supporting that particular belief is so freaking wrong it's laughable.

So, in short there is more evidence in the texts to not believe, if that is the cornerstone for the belief itself.

 

[(Q)]

If you can't produce the usa president, why on earth would you assume that someone produce god?

Back to your old intellectually dishonest content, again, I see. Good luck with that.

 

[lightgigantic]

Back to your old intellectually dishonest content, again, I see. Good luck with that.