A fact is something that is supported by a theory and or a wealth of evidence I understand that no fact is concrete, but at least there is supporting evidence. You can hardly give supporting evidence a personal experience...especially when it involves matters of spirituality.
How Do Theists Separate Fact from Fiction?
- Thread starter PsychoticEpisode
- Start date
A fact is something that is supported by a theory and or a wealth of evidence I understand that no fact is concrete, but at least there is supporting evidence. You can hardly give supporting evidence a personal experience...especially when it involves matters of spirituality.
Isn't the supporting evidence usually someone elses personal experience? Or have you personally checked the evidence for each and everything you accept as true?
Did anyone ever bother to check out Muhammads claims of talking with an angel? Did you?
So do 'scientists' not dream?
When they dream do they not dream of unimaginable possibilities?
Do you really think the most brilliant scientists thought logic was everything? LOL
I hope you guys respect Einstein, cause that was a scietific dreamer at his best!
When absurd possibilities contradict known facts, they become fiction if taken litterally in a physical sence. But not all absurd possibilities contradict known facts, and not all absurd possibilities are meant to be taken litterally!
Fact and Fiction have alot of inbetweens, cause the fact is their is not enough facts to completely prove much of anything.
Furthermore, many things that get labelled fiction, don't contradict the facts, they just venture into the unknowns!
When they dream do they not dream of unimaginable possibilities?
Do you really think the most brilliant scientists thought logic was everything? LOL
I hope you guys respect Einstein, cause that was a scietific dreamer at his best!
When absurd possibilities contradict known facts, they become fiction if taken litterally in a physical sence. But not all absurd possibilities contradict known facts, and not all absurd possibilities are meant to be taken litterally!
Fact and Fiction have alot of inbetweens, cause the fact is their is not enough facts to completely prove much of anything.
Furthermore, many things that get labelled fiction, don't contradict the facts, they just venture into the unknowns!
I recommend the thread on Intuition which Doreen has started, if you haven't read it. Don't let clueless atheists confuse you.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=97320
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=97320
I would argue that those who believe in god do so out of fear...fear of death, fear of the unknown etc.
What are some definitions of god?
To that child yes, and if someone told him the USA existed and he asked "why", and the other person said "just have faith that it exists",...he would be abandoning rational discourse in favor of faith if he chose to believe something with no verifiable proof other than someone elses word, no proof= not valid.
Would you believe someone that told you your mom was a murder just because they wrote a book about it and in that book they assured you they were telling the truth?
I found my way thanks.
I would pose the same question to you SAM.
Because I claimed that personal experience is the only way to know the truth if you lack faith?
It's usually public experience, shared and mutually considered, answerable to reason, when it's called "evidence".SAM said:
Although, with the right kind of faith, even someone's account of their last night's dreams can be taken as evidence of anything from witchcraft by the evil old woman down the street to the fate of all humanity, by the true believer.
actually the evidence is shared and mutually considered and answerable to a very specific community.
You don't even see geologists giving the low down on biology, what to speak of people hired by Walmart.
You can also find similar kooky shenanigans in science ...... generally characterized as type I and type II errors
I would argue that those who believe in god do so out of fear...fear of death, fear of the unknown etc.
What are some definitions of god?
To that child yes, and if someone told him the USA existed and he asked "why", and the other person said "just have faith that it exists",...he would be abandoning rational discourse in favor of faith if he chose to believe something with no verifiable proof other than someone elses word, no proof= not valid.
Would you believe someone that told you your mom was a murder just because they wrote a book about it and in that book they assured you they were telling the truth?
I found my way thanks.
To answer this, I need to generalize a little, so this isn't always the case, but generally:
Those that believe in God outta fear, have not found their way.
Those kind of believers are the kind that talk about spirituality, but don't know it, and try to apply it physically.
Those are the believers that ignore science and turn a blind eye to physical evidence because they take their messages litterally so anything that contradicts is viewed at as a threat to their faith - so to them science is a threat.
Those are the kind of believers that make me still against religion in some ways!
However many open minds found God through facing their fears, not from fear itself. By facing their fears they are able to live without worry or regret. And once a mind is free, no doubters can cause a free mind to doubt themselves.
I know I am capable of anything as long as I am motivated enough to put the effort in. Some things come more naturally then other things, so sometimes it takes lots of practrice to become successful.
Deffinitions of God varry from person to person, but I'll give you some metephores and some math:
As I said early I am the God of my own body. But in reality all living things with free will are the Gods of themselves.
This goes much bigger and smaller then what we understand.
We are God, we are a part of God, and we are all full of Gods!
Many scietists are still looking for how one came from nothing. But what most fail to recognize is that everything has 2 sides, even one.
0= 1+1
This math equation is one of the simmplest logical equations out there.
I think of Binary and I only care about the last 'switch'
1+1 in binary actually equals 10 but the 1 is a completely different system, I only care about our system, and the 0.
Getting 1 outta 0 without another 1 would require an inverter or a change in Gates for Boolean Logic - but getting 1 and 1 outta 0 is actually the most basic logical math we have available.
As for the child, so your saying to the child the USA wouldn't exist unless he blindly believed someone else, yet you fail to recognize that the USA does exist even if the child doesn't understand, see or even know of it. Things do exist that we are not always exposed to.
Would I believe someone that said my mom was murdered?
No but I'd want to know why someone would think such a thing, but at least this claim would be easily turned false as soon as I contacted my mom. If something had happened to her, then I'd be currious to what information and/or misinformation this book writer had. But your example is asking if I'd take someone elses word for something I know to be false. That is much different then finding something that others don't believe just because it isn't understood.
Apply my self to what specifically?
The normative aspects of a discipline only apply to one's social acceptance within the group. They have no direct bearing on the person acquisition of knowledge. But a blinding flash of the obvious is a special use of "blinding flash." But don't worry about it being lost on you.
Alas I don't hang out in the physics labs enough to enjoy this, but my friend who does says the sudden illumination of a physics student can be quite something, depending on the lab of course.
I was wondering how long it would take you to go there, hence the continuing use of quoted references and definitions.
Cognitive science and Alpha Centaurians?
Now I like Cognitive Science enough to have bothered to get a degree in it, but the "science" in Cognitive Science is pretty much decorative. And Putnam is usually a fun read, but he is a philosopher and your quote is knee deep in a thought experiment where he is playing with the concept of prescriptive competence for AI. Nor is he proposing anything like what you are proposing.
"So a description of our "competence" which is compete and prescriptive is certainly an impossible task for us."
Of course descriptive competence is easy. If you can do it then you know how to do it.
[Cognitive scientists might think of prescriptive competence] "'No one ... aims and anything like a complete description of how we ought to think...' I certainly agree that this is the right reaction ... as long as "cognitive science" is really pursued as empirical model building and not as philosophy by other means. [his emphasis throughout]
Thanks for the trip down memory lane, I haven't read any Putnam in a while. How old it that any way ... 1985, Essays for Hempel on his 80th b-day?
Oh, Putnam is an atheist you know? I doubt he is going to support a normative god. Maybe you should read: http://books.google.com/books?id=7J...er&source=gbs_navlinks_s#v=onepage&q=&f=false
And you should stop making lame excuses for your self. "Harder" to recall is not difficult to over come. Provide something worth remembering.
You've not the least idea of my convictions and my convictions are founded on my perceptions of what is. Show me some convincing god and I will be convinced. Its not like I'm a theist you know.
No, nouns are inherently descriptive of a person, place or thing.
Man you are starting to get pathetic. Nouns are an essential part of statements, normative and otherwise, but they aren't what makes the statement normative. That is done by the verb or verbal auxiliary like "ought."
Dogs ought to be curbed - normative
He curbed his dog - descriptive
In fact you should read Hume on the is/ought problem.
As usual you have taken a simply request that you pony up on your vacuous claims and have side tracked it into pointless trivial minutia. I'm getting to the point where even if you do have a god, it doesn't seem like a god any one sane would ever care to associate with.
Is this really all you have gotten from your theism?
the normative descriptions that surround theistic claims of course.
Rather you deem it more valuable to discredit them (usually by corrupting the theory that supports the said issue of application)
Its not only applied to one's social acceptance, since the statistical commonality of habit tends to indicate the way in which things do and do not function.
If you disagree, feel free to explain why a person has no need to be concerned if their particular surgeon happens to be bereft of, say, eye sight.
They might also inform you of the learning process being gradual, and not one of "sudden illumination, as it were .......
The problem is not so much your quotes but your inability to bring them to bear on everyday issues.
lol
imagine that, eh, even an atheist (and an atheist scientist at that) finds need for use of the word normative.
I hope this makes you feel better
hence the "proactive" of "proactive interference"
:shrug:
Your convictions are dead easy to read ... especially when your tone of language sinks to what you offered for a final sentence there.
You're not out to be convinced of god.
You are out to convince yourself (and perhaps others) that there isn't a god.
(and to top it all off, you insist that you have no pending issues for proactive interference)
fancy that, eh?
Probably explains why they are so important in explaining how something ought to be ....
so you can now agree that normative descriptions shape the pursuit of knowledge?
That there are things one ought to do if they want to know certain things?
If so, try going back to the original cited text and see if you can pick up three key words about what one ought to do.
He was discussing issues of morality and his arguments do not really hold up in the arena of pursuit of goals.
eg - if you want to do task A to achieve goal B, you ought to perform C
what the hell do you expect?
Its not even clear if you accept that normative descriptions offer a simple and straight forward means of rendering a claim knowable.
As long as one cannot see that, one couldn't even participate in a discussion on wood joinery
its more in line with what you can hope to get, for as long as you prevent yourself from accessing the tools for the task.
Clueless in the sense that there are no real clues to God's existence. If you are disposed to clues with no meaning then please take up theism. Atheism is still waiting for the first bonafide clue for God's existence.
Despite the glorious attempts of forum theists to inundate us with volumes of rhetorical nonsense, perceived truths, philosophical revelations and reasoning beyond reason ....... in the end, all they have said is God exists because He just does.
No matter how it is sartorially displayed or eloquently described, a God is no more real than the first time you ever heard of one.
A clueless person waiting for clues.
Sounds like a good script for a woody allen film
lol
and this is distinct from your existence in what way?
sure
for as long as one remains on one's laurels, the constitutional position of the armchair philosopher. Passive contemplation is never going to produce the results of active investigation.
Perhaps that's it. You're equating imagination with results.
or more precisely, you're imagining that there are no results to attain, so sitting on one's tush is just as effective as any other approach.
:shrug:
That's what they said about meditation.
Be specific please.
If he's a good surgeon, what do I care?
Oh, no. That sort of illumination is quite sudden. Learning can be gradual or immediate, thats part of the fun.
Actually he's a philosopher and is it really surprising that a philosopher is interested in normatives? It is endlessly amusing to see theists think they have a monopoly on morality.
I hope this makes you feel better
Much like your ability to keep calling Putnam a scientist? You are oh, so spot on for everything.
I'm out to give you a chance to make good on your claims. I'd like to think you have a shred of personal integrity. Please stop disappointing me.
Oh, for the record I don't consider myself an atheist or a theist. I'm interesting in what is true. If you can make your case instead of pussyfooting around then I'd be quite satisfied with whatever the outcome is.
Nouns do not explain anything. Nouns are the object about which explanations are directed toward. Nouns are the what, not the how - to use your words. Look its obvious you don't understand any of this and aren't interested in learning and it isn't really relevant. Let's get back to the actual details.
Shape? You and your weasel words. Normative descriptions are expressions of the community standards and that can impact the researcher's ability to function within the community.
You should at the very least read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem
You seem to be conflating goal directed behavior with moralistic prognostications.
Be specific.
So you were conflating the two. Good grief you are obtuse. Yes I know about goal directed language. It is imprecise, but convenient from an ordinary speech perspective.
I expect you to continue your campaign of obfuscation because you are immoral and empty handed.
But set you heart at ease, I've been familiar with goal directed language for about 40+ years now. It is amazing that you've only just discovered it and so wonder if others were as in the dark as you were. But the rest of the world gets access to it pretty early in life.
It must seem pretty amazing to you.