‹ First  < 7 8 9 10 11 > 
 
   
 

Nature to Nature’s Fullest Extent

 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3830
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
07 August 2019 14:32
 
Garret - 07 August 2019 12:53 PM
bbearren - 07 August 2019 10:37 AM
Garret - 07 August 2019 09:41 AM

And yet you keep strawmanning me in order to deflect from the contradictions that you refuse to recognize.

If I were charitable, I would conclude that you don’t understand what I’m trying to ask.  I tried that, by asking a simple and direct question, so that you and I could both understand each other clearly, but you refused to answer, and instead put words in my mouth.

Are you, or are you not, asserting that I am making a claim for some type/kind/nuance/degree of something being “true”?

That depends, are you informing me that there is something you think is true?

Answer the question; are you, or are you not, asserting that I am making a claim for some type/kind/nuance/degree of something being “true”?

I will remind you, as I have reminded Ron a number of times, what we are discussing in this thread is my faith, not your concept of faith.  I won’t be drawn into a discussion of your concept of faith.  My faith is no strawman, it is my understanding of my personal, subjective experience, and applies to no one other than me.

 
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1880
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
07 August 2019 14:50
 
bbearren - 07 August 2019 08:59 AM
Ron - 07 August 2019 05:58 AM
bbearren - 06 August 2019 01:37 PM

It is my understanding that a faith which depends upon logic and/or intellect for its foundation is no faith at all.

So then what’s appealing about “faith”? Why embrace faith as an epistemology/mode of understanding in the first place?

I’ve never said that I “embrace faith as an epistemology/mode of understanding”.

You never said it exactly like that, BUT…

You have said:

It is my understanding that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent.

And you have indicated that this understanding is not based on logic, rationality, or intellect, but that it is faith based (YOUR faith). So this seems to be just another of your contradictions/dodges,

Why do I not declare some level of confidence in my faith?  Such a declaration would rely on intellect, not on faith, and as such would be meaningless and undermining.

What it may or may not rely on is irrelevant.

For you, perhaps, but not for me.

No. It us UNIVERSALLY relevant. It is logically impossible to hold some view that does NOT carry with it either zero confidence, complete and absolute confidence, or somewhere in between.

Your view is that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent. How confident are you that that is an accurate representation of the universe/nature?

(Based on your previous reply that you do not believe it to be true, and if you’re being consistent, you should say ‘zero’ (or some appropriately low description). However, I suspect some more tap dancing is forthcoming).

Could you not list the following in order from the faith that carries with it the least amount of confidence to the faith that carries with it the most amount of confidence?:

faith that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent

“It is my understanding that God is “nature”, to nature’s fullest extent.”  bbearren 06 August 2019 It is my understanding that a faith which depends upon logic and/or intellect for its foundation is no faith at all.  My faith is founded on personal, subjective experience, and nothing more.  Why do I not declare some level of confidence in my faith?  Such a declaration would rely on intellect, not on faith, and as such would be meaningless and undermining.  It is an errand upon which I will not embark.  To rely on faith and faith alone means just that; faith alone.

Is there a reason why you did not list the other faith-based beliefs from my post? Are you able to sort THOSE faiths/beliefs by confidence level?

Ron

[ Edited: 07 August 2019 14:52 by MrRon]
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  510
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
07 August 2019 14:51
 
bbearren - 07 August 2019 02:32 PM
Garret - 07 August 2019 12:53 PM
bbearren - 07 August 2019 10:37 AM
Garret - 07 August 2019 09:41 AM

And yet you keep strawmanning me in order to deflect from the contradictions that you refuse to recognize.

If I were charitable, I would conclude that you don’t understand what I’m trying to ask.  I tried that, by asking a simple and direct question, so that you and I could both understand each other clearly, but you refused to answer, and instead put words in my mouth.

Are you, or are you not, asserting that I am making a claim for some type/kind/nuance/degree of something being “true”?

That depends, are you informing me that there is something you think is true?

Answer the question; are you, or are you not, asserting that I am making a claim for some type/kind/nuance/degree of something being “true”?

I will remind you, as I have reminded Ron a number of times, what we are discussing in this thread is my faith, not your concept of faith.  I won’t be drawn into a discussion of your concept of faith.  My faith is no strawman, it is my understanding of my personal, subjective experience, and applies to no one other than me.

At the moment, I cannot answer your question because I am confused.

I’ve tried to clarify things for our discussion, but you refuse to add clarity so that we can communicate on this.

This would go a lot easier if you stopped making assumptions about me.

 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3830
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
07 August 2019 15:08
 
Garret - 07 August 2019 02:51 PM
bbearren - 07 August 2019 02:32 PM
Garret - 07 August 2019 12:53 PM
bbearren - 07 August 2019 10:37 AM
Garret - 07 August 2019 09:41 AM

And yet you keep strawmanning me in order to deflect from the contradictions that you refuse to recognize.

If I were charitable, I would conclude that you don’t understand what I’m trying to ask.  I tried that, by asking a simple and direct question, so that you and I could both understand each other clearly, but you refused to answer, and instead put words in my mouth.

Are you, or are you not, asserting that I am making a claim for some type/kind/nuance/degree of something being “true”?

That depends, are you informing me that there is something you think is true?

Answer the question; are you, or are you not, asserting that I am making a claim for some type/kind/nuance/degree of something being “true”?

I will remind you, as I have reminded Ron a number of times, what we are discussing in this thread is my faith, not your concept of faith.  I won’t be drawn into a discussion of your concept of faith.  My faith is no strawman, it is my understanding of my personal, subjective experience, and applies to no one other than me.

At the moment, I cannot answer your question because I am confused.

Then I will wait until you get yourself un-confused.  As I suggested earlier, start with the OP and re-read through the entire thread, all of the posts.

I’m not proceeding until you answer my question.

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3830
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
07 August 2019 17:21
 
Ron - 07 August 2019 02:50 PM
bbearren - 07 August 2019 08:59 AM
Ron - 07 August 2019 05:58 AM
bbearren - 06 August 2019 01:37 PM

It is my understanding that a faith which depends upon logic and/or intellect for its foundation is no faith at all.

So then what’s appealing about “faith”? Why embrace faith as an epistemology/mode of understanding in the first place?

I’ve never said that I “embrace faith as an epistemology/mode of understanding”.

You never said it exactly like that, BUT…

You have said:

It is my understanding that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent.

And you have indicated that this understanding is not based on logic, rationality, or intellect, but that it is faith based (YOUR faith). So this seems to be just another of your contradictions/dodges,

Why do I not declare some level of confidence in my faith?  Such a declaration would rely on intellect, not on faith, and as such would be meaningless and undermining.

What it may or may not rely on is irrelevant.

For you, perhaps, but not for me.

No. It us UNIVERSALLY relevant.

No, it is not.

You have said:

It is my understanding that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent.

And you have indicated that this understanding is not based on logic, rationality, or intellect, but that it is faith based (YOUR faith).

My faith is not based on logic, rationality, or intellect.  It is, in its entirety, subjective, my understanding of my personal, subjective experience.

Your view is that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent.

No, that is NOT my view.  That is your rephrasing, and I will not accept it.  It is my understanding that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent.

Could you not list the following in order from the faith that carries with it the least amount of confidence to the faith that carries with it the most amount of confidence?:

faith that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent

“It is my understanding that God is “nature”, to nature’s fullest extent.”  bbearren 06 August 2019 It is my understanding that a faith which depends upon logic and/or intellect for its foundation is no faith at all.  My faith is founded on personal, subjective experience, and nothing more.  Why do I not declare some level of confidence in my faith?  Such a declaration would rely on intellect, not on faith, and as such would be meaningless and undermining.  It is an errand upon which I will not embark.  To rely on faith and faith alone means just that; faith alone.

Is there a reason why you did not list the other faith-based beliefs from my post? Are you able to sort THOSE faiths/beliefs by confidence level?

I’m not a gambler; I never bet any amount on anything with anyone.

Ron 07 August 2019:

faith that the sun will rise tomorrow

Not question of faith; astrophysics

faith that the Patriots will win the Superbowl

Not question of faith; sports

faith that your next flight will have a safe landing

Not question of faith; statistics.  And I don’t fly.

faith that Ganesh the Hindu God exists

That one is in the same category as my faith, and to which I will not ascribe a “level of confidence”.

faith that a UFO will land in your backyard and you will be greeted by friendly aliens

Not question of faith; astrophysics again

faith that you will get that job promotion you have been hoping for

Not question of faith, and I’m retired.  But I did give myself a 25% raise for my last 6 months.

faith that Bigfoot exists

Not question of faith; biology and ecology

 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  510
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
07 August 2019 21:41
 
bbearren - 07 August 2019 03:08 PM
Garret - 07 August 2019 02:51 PM
bbearren - 07 August 2019 02:32 PM
Garret - 07 August 2019 12:53 PM
bbearren - 07 August 2019 10:37 AM
Garret - 07 August 2019 09:41 AM

And yet you keep strawmanning me in order to deflect from the contradictions that you refuse to recognize.

If I were charitable, I would conclude that you don’t understand what I’m trying to ask.  I tried that, by asking a simple and direct question, so that you and I could both understand each other clearly, but you refused to answer, and instead put words in my mouth.

Are you, or are you not, asserting that I am making a claim for some type/kind/nuance/degree of something being “true”?

That depends, are you informing me that there is something you think is true?

Answer the question; are you, or are you not, asserting that I am making a claim for some type/kind/nuance/degree of something being “true”?

I will remind you, as I have reminded Ron a number of times, what we are discussing in this thread is my faith, not your concept of faith.  I won’t be drawn into a discussion of your concept of faith.  My faith is no strawman, it is my understanding of my personal, subjective experience, and applies to no one other than me.

At the moment, I cannot answer your question because I am confused.

Then I will wait until you get yourself un-confused.  As I suggested earlier, start with the OP and re-read through the entire thread, all of the posts.

I’m not proceeding until you answer my question.

I have.  Reading your posts and the things you say is what is confusing me.

I’ve followed along with what you’ve said.  Some of it makes sense to me.  I don’t agree with it, but I understand what you are saying.  Right not I have a specific problem because you’ve said two contradictory things.

So, if I read one post, my answer would be not.  But if I read a different post, my answer becomes yes.

So, my answer to your question is both yes and no.
I don’t think that is a satisfactory answer though.  I’d love to provide a clearer one, but I would need clarification on something first.

[ Edited: 07 August 2019 21:45 by Garret]
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  510
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
07 August 2019 21:51
 
bbearren - 30 July 2019 06:26 AM
Garret - 29 July 2019 09:53 PM

I don’t know what this means.

It is my understanding that god is nature, to nature’s fullest extent.

Link for linkage purposes.

This is a claim to knowledge.

I am not asking you to defend it, explain it, or tell me anything about it.  I am merely pointing out that you said it.  I am pointing out that it is a claim to know something about god/nature.

So when you turn around and say that you have made no claims to knowledge, that confuses me.  Because you have.  It’s right there.

Again, I am not challenging it in any way, shape, or form.  But if you tell me that you didn’t say this, well, then you’re trying to gaslight me, and that’s just being dishonest.

 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3830
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
07 August 2019 22:57
 
Garret - 07 August 2019 09:51 PM
bbearren - 30 July 2019 06:26 AM
Garret - 29 July 2019 09:53 PM

I don’t know what this means.

It is my understanding that god is nature, to nature’s fullest extent.

This is a claim to knowledge.

No it is not.  It is a claim of faith, the foundation of which is personal, subjective experience.  The “understanding” is my understanding of my personal, subjective experience.  It does not apply to anyone other than me.

bbearren 29 October 2014 

I have not always been a believer.  For the first 40 or so years of my life, I was agnostic/atheistic.  I have used every argument against belief in God as I’ve read in these forums, as well as some others that I haven’t seen here.  But that was changed.  I have had revelations.  A couple I am unable to adequately describe, as they were neither visual nor audible.  A number have been visual, and a couple audible.  However, I will offer neither descriptions nor explanations, as I know such would be fruitless.

I am a believer.  I believe in God.  I believe God.  I believe in Christ.  I believe Christ.  My faith, however, is not like the faith of EN; I haven’t tossed the Old Testament, nor picked only my favorites from the New Testament.  My faith is not like the faith of Mario.  I’m not Catholic, I don’t hold the Pope or Mary in any holy regard, and there is no scriptural foundation for a so-called “doctrine of the trinity”.  I don’t subscribe to any theology, and have as little use for theology as I have for philosophy.

I have no intention of trying to convince/convert anyone.  I have no concern regarding whether or not my faith should be viewed as some alternative possible truth.  It does not matter.  Dismiss it as you will, I shall offer no counterpoint, no historical context, no proof.  Feel free to be as vehemently denigrative as you wish; it is meaningless.

I do not hold that God is “supernatural”.  It is my understanding that God is “nature”, to nature’s fullest extent.  My faith is nonapologetic, nor does it require acceptance.  It is mine; it does not meld fully with any denomination of which I am aware.  I do not consider myself a “christian” in the denoted sense of that word in today’s culture.

 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  510
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
08 August 2019 06:17
 
bbearren - 07 August 2019 10:57 PM
Garret - 07 August 2019 09:51 PM
bbearren - 30 July 2019 06:26 AM
Garret - 29 July 2019 09:53 PM

I don’t know what this means.

It is my understanding that god is nature, to nature’s fullest extent.

This is a claim to knowledge.

No it is not.  It is a claim of faith, the foundation of which is personal, subjective experience.  The “understanding” is my understanding of my personal, subjective experience.  It does not apply to anyone other than me.

This is still knowledge.  You are telling us that you have knowledge of something.  Faith is a belief.  Belief is thinking something is true.  You can protest all you like, but that is what these words mean.

bbearren 29 October 2014 

I have not always been a believer.  For the first 40 or so years of my life, I was agnostic/atheistic.  I have used every argument against belief in God as I’ve read in these forums, as well as some others that I haven’t seen here.  But that was changed.  I have had revelations.  A couple I am unable to adequately describe, as they were neither visual nor audible.  A number have been visual, and a couple audible.  However, I will offer neither descriptions nor explanations, as I know such would be fruitless.

I am not questioning, or interested in any of this.  I am not challenging it either.  I accept that you think all of this is true.

I am a believer.  I believe in God.  I believe God.  I believe in Christ.  I believe Christ.  My faith, however, is not like the faith of EN; I haven’t tossed the Old Testament, nor picked only my favorites from the New Testament.  My faith is not like the faith of Mario.  I’m not Catholic, I don’t hold the Pope or Mary in any holy regard, and there is no scriptural foundation for a so-called “doctrine of the trinity”.  I don’t subscribe to any theology, and have as little use for theology as I have for philosophy.

Again, you say that you believe in God.  If you believe something, you think that it is true.  It doesn’t matter what other words you add, or who you are different from.  I am not challenging your belief.  I am not asking for an explanation of it.  I am not asking you to justify it.  I have never asked you to do any of these things.

I have no intention of trying to convince/convert anyone.  I have no concern regarding whether or not my faith should be viewed as some alternative possible truth.  It does not matter.  Dismiss it as you will, I shall offer no counterpoint, no historical context, no proof.  Feel free to be as vehemently denigrative as you wish; it is meaningless.

I do not hold that God is “supernatural”.  It is my understanding that God is “nature”, to nature’s fullest extent.  My faith is nonapologetic, nor does it require acceptance.  It is mine; it does not meld fully with any denomination of which I am aware.  I do not consider myself a “christian” in the denoted sense of that word in today’s culture.

I have never accused you of apologetics.  I haven’t accused you of any of this.  I haven’t challenged you on it at all.  All of this is irrelevant to everything I’ve said in this entire thread.  The fact that you keep saying it in response to me is evidence that you don’t understand what I’ve been asking of you this entire time.

You still have an “understanding” of god.  That means you have knowledge of god.  I have never said you have “proof”.  I have NOT ONCE SAID THAT.  I have never accused you of being a christian, or trying to convert people, or anything else.  I have simply tried to understand what you were saying, and why you were saying it to us.

None of what you said addresses or contradicts what I’ve been talking about the whole time in this thread.

 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3830
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
08 August 2019 08:14
 
Garret - 08 August 2019 06:17 AM

This is still knowledge.  You are telling us that you have knowledge of something.  Faith is a belief.  Belief is thinking something is true.  You can protest all you like, but that is what these words mean.

Full stop.

I do have knowledge that I have had personal, subjective experiences.  I believe that these experiences did occur.  Having had these experiences, an understanding of these experiences has coalesced.  My understanding applies only to these experiences—to nothing else, to no one else.  My understanding is personal, and subjective.

Neither my experiences nor my understanding of them is falsifiable, which means that, as well as being personal and subjective, they cannot be tested, cannot be proven to be true.  I do not, cannot, extrapolate these experiences into making an objective truth claim for the simple reason that my experiences are not falsifiable.  They will not support any such claim, and I do not make any such claim.

The only claim I am making is that I have had personal, subjective experiences, and I can only apply that claim to myself.  When I say that I’m not trying to convince anyone, I also mean that I am not trying to convince anyone that I have had these personal, subjective experiences.  Dismiss them as you wish.

To reiterate, I make no claim of knowledge of god.  My only claim is that I have had personal, subjective experiences from which an understanding has coalesced, but that understanding applies only to those experiences, not to anything outside those experiences.  I have no objective evidence against which one could make tests, which means that “my understanding” is not a legitimate theory, and I cannot claim to know anything from it.  It cannot be misconstrued into “a truth claim”.  For that very reason, I do not write or say, “God is nature to nature’s fullest extent”, and I refuse to have that phrase attributed to me.  I say instead, “It is my understanding that God is “nature”, to nature’s fullest extent.”  I phrase it as a non-falsifiable theory, with no legitimate standing.  No truth claim can be made from a non-falsifiable theory.

 
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1880
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
08 August 2019 08:54
 
bbearren - 07 August 2019 05:21 PM
Ron - 07 August 2019 02:50 PM
bbearren - 07 August 2019 08:59 AM
Ron - 07 August 2019 05:58 AM
bbearren - 06 August 2019 01:37 PM

It is my understanding that a faith which depends upon logic and/or intellect for its foundation is no faith at all.

So then what’s appealing about “faith”? Why embrace faith as an epistemology/mode of understanding in the first place?

I’ve never said that I “embrace faith as an epistemology/mode of understanding”.

You never said it exactly like that, BUT…

You have said:

It is my understanding that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent.

And you have indicated that this understanding is not based on logic, rationality, or intellect, but that it is faith based (YOUR faith). So this seems to be just another of your contradictions/dodges,

Why do I not declare some level of confidence in my faith?  Such a declaration would rely on intellect, not on faith, and as such would be meaningless and undermining.

What it may or may not rely on is irrelevant.

For you, perhaps, but not for me.

No. It us UNIVERSALLY relevant.

No, it is not.

You have said:

It is my understanding that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent.

And you have indicated that this understanding is not based on logic, rationality, or intellect, but that it is faith based (YOUR faith).

My faith is not based on logic, rationality, or intellect.  It is, in its entirety, subjective, my understanding of my personal, subjective experience.

Your view is that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent.

No, that is NOT my view.  That is your rephrasing, and I will not accept it.  It is my understanding that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent.

Could you not list the following in order from the faith that carries with it the least amount of confidence to the faith that carries with it the most amount of confidence?:

faith that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent

“It is my understanding that God is “nature”, to nature’s fullest extent.”  bbearren 06 August 2019 It is my understanding that a faith which depends upon logic and/or intellect for its foundation is no faith at all.  My faith is founded on personal, subjective experience, and nothing more.  Why do I not declare some level of confidence in my faith?  Such a declaration would rely on intellect, not on faith, and as such would be meaningless and undermining.  It is an errand upon which I will not embark.  To rely on faith and faith alone means just that; faith alone.

Is there a reason why you did not list the other faith-based beliefs from my post? Are you able to sort THOSE faiths/beliefs by confidence level?

I’m not a gambler; I never bet any amount on anything with anyone.

Ron 07 August 2019:

faith that the sun will rise tomorrow

Not question of faith; astrophysics

faith that the Patriots will win the Superbowl

Not question of faith; sports

faith that your next flight will have a safe landing

Not question of faith; statistics.  And I don’t fly.

faith that Ganesh the Hindu God exists

That one is in the same category as my faith, and to which I will not ascribe a “level of confidence”.

faith that a UFO will land in your backyard and you will be greeted by friendly aliens

Not question of faith; astrophysics again

faith that you will get that job promotion you have been hoping for

Not question of faith, and I’m retired.  But I did give myself a 25% raise for my last 6 months.

faith that Bigfoot exists

Not question of faith; biology and ecology

How is it that you can:

a) claim that it is your understanding that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent
b) explain that this understanding is not based on logic, rationality, or intellect, but that it is faith based (YOUR faith).

and then deny that you embrace faith as an epistemology/mode of understanding???

Also, since you have stated that it is your understanding that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent – yet you don’t believe it to be true, can you give a similar example of something else understood to be a certain way, but not meriting belief in it?

And since faith in the Hindu god Ganesh is in the same category as your faith, and many (if not all) of the Ganesh adherents would be able to ascribe some level of confidence to that faith, how do you explain their ability to do so? Do you think that they simply have a lack of understanding of what faith is? Or do you think they’re being dishonest in their assessment? Or something else?

Ron

 

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  510
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
08 August 2019 09:46
 
bbearren - 08 August 2019 08:14 AM
Garret - 08 August 2019 06:17 AM

This is still knowledge.  You are telling us that you have knowledge of something.  Faith is a belief.  Belief is thinking something is true.  You can protest all you like, but that is what these words mean.

Full stop.

I do have knowledge that I have had personal, subjective experiences.  I believe that these experiences did occur.  Having had these experiences, an understanding of these experiences has coalesced.  My understanding applies only to these experiences—to nothing else, to no one else.  My understanding is personal, and subjective.

Neither my experiences nor my understanding of them is falsifiable, which means that, as well as being personal and subjective, they cannot be tested, cannot be proven to be true.  I do not, cannot, extrapolate these experiences into making an objective truth claim for the simple reason that my experiences are not falsifiable.  They will not support any such claim, and I do not make any such claim.

The only claim I am making is that I have had personal, subjective experiences, and I can only apply that claim to myself.  When I say that I’m not trying to convince anyone, I also mean that I am not trying to convince anyone that I have had these personal, subjective experiences.  Dismiss them as you wish.

To reiterate, I make no claim of knowledge of god.  My only claim is that I have had personal, subjective experiences from which an understanding has coalesced, but that understanding applies only to those experiences, not to anything outside those experiences.  I have no objective evidence against which one could make tests, which means that “my understanding” is not a legitimate theory, and I cannot claim to know anything from it.  It cannot be misconstrued into “a truth claim”.  For that very reason, I do not write or say, “God is nature to nature’s fullest extent”, and I refuse to have that phrase attributed to me.  I say instead, “It is my understanding that God is “nature”, to nature’s fullest extent.”  I phrase it as a non-falsifiable theory, with no legitimate standing.  No truth claim can be made from a non-falsifiable theory.

In this thread, please quote where I have asked you to falsify your understanding.

You keep replying with comments about how I can’t ask you to do this.  The thing is though, I haven’t asked you to.  Not once.  You THINK I am asking you this, but I keep telling you I am not.  I need this to really sink in.  I am not asking you to defend your belief.

I am trying to understand it.

[ Edited: 08 August 2019 09:48 by Garret]
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3830
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
08 August 2019 10:27
 
Garret - 08 August 2019 09:46 AM

In this thread, please quote where I have asked you to falsify your understanding.

You have not, but apparently you don’t understand the implications of falsifiability.  A “truth statement” or “knowledge statement” must be based on objective evidence, that is, evidence that can be examined by anyone and tested against experiment or observation.  This means that if the evidence does not stand up to such experimentation or cannot be observed objectively, any “truth” or “knowledge” statement based on it has been falsified, is unreliable, and no truth can be confirmed or established by that evidence.

Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity is falsifiable.  It can be (and has been repeatedly) tested via experiment and/or observation.  It has never been falsified.  The same can be said for quantum mechanics.  It can be (and has been repeatedly) tested via experiment and/or observation.  It has never been falsified.

The only evidence I have is personal and subjective.  It cannot be subjected to experiment, it cannot be independently observed, cannot be falsified because it is not objective evidence.  It does not meet the criteria of falsifiability, and no “truth statement” or “knowledge statement” can be based on it.  I’m not asking you to falsify it, I’m saying that it is subjective evidence and cannot be falsified.  It is not “a valid theory”, and I cannot make a “truth” or “knowledge” statement based on it.

You keep replying with comments about how I can’t ask you to do this.  The thing is though, I haven’t asked you to.  Not once.  You THINK I am asking you this, but I keep telling you I am not.  I need this to really sink in.  I am not asking you to defend your belief.

I’m not saying that you are asking me to defend my belief.  I am simply saying that it is not possible to defend my belief; it is subjective.

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3830
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
08 August 2019 10:51
 
Ron - 08 August 2019 08:54 AM

How is it that you can:

a) claim that it is your understanding that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent
b) explain that this understanding is not based on logic, rationality, or intellect, but that it is faith based (YOUR faith).

and then deny that you embrace faith as an epistemology/mode of understanding???

Epistemology - a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge.”  I have made no claim of knowledge.  I have made a claim of faith.

Also, since you have stated that it is your understanding that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent – yet you don’t believe it to be true, can you give a similar example of something else understood to be a certain way, but not meriting belief in it?

Previously asked and answered.

And since faith in the Hindu god Ganesh is in the same category as your faith ...

That is to say, faith based on personal, subjective evidence.  That’s the category to which I refer.

 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  510
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
08 August 2019 11:17
 
bbearren - 08 August 2019 10:27 AM
Garret - 08 August 2019 09:46 AM

In this thread, please quote where I have asked you to falsify your understanding.

You have not, but apparently you don’t understand the implications of falsifiability.  A “truth statement” or “knowledge statement” must be based on objective evidence, that is, evidence that can be examined by anyone and tested against experiment or observation.  This means that if the evidence does not stand up to such experimentation or cannot be observed objectively, any “truth” or “knowledge” statement based on it has been falsified, is unreliable, and no truth can be confirmed or established by that evidence.

Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity is falsifiable.  It can be (and has been repeatedly) tested via experiment and/or observation.  It has never been falsified.  The same can be said for quantum mechanics.  It can be (and has been repeatedly) tested via experiment and/or observation.  It has never been falsified.

The only evidence I have is personal and subjective.  It cannot be subjected to experiment, it cannot be independently observed, cannot be falsified because it is not objective evidence.  It does not meet the criteria of falsifiability, and no “truth statement” or “knowledge statement” can be based on it.  I’m not asking you to falsify it, I’m saying that it is subjective evidence and cannot be falsified.  It is not “a valid theory”, and I cannot make a “truth” or “knowledge” statement based on it.

You keep replying with comments about how I can’t ask you to do this.  The thing is though, I haven’t asked you to.  Not once.  You THINK I am asking you this, but I keep telling you I am not.  I need this to really sink in.  I am not asking you to defend your belief.

I’m not saying that you are asking me to defend my belief.  I am simply saying that it is not possible to defend my belief; it is subjective.

But you are making a knowledge claim when you say you have faith in god/nature/whatever.

Faith is a belief.  A belief is something you think is true.

Your additional rules have no bearing on the definition of the words “faith” and “belief”.

If you want me to interpret your statements different, I would suggest using different words.

 
‹ First  < 7 8 9 10 11 >