‹ First  < 8 9 10 11 > 
 
   
 

Nature to Nature’s Fullest Extent

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21694
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
08 August 2019 11:17
 

bb, would you say that faith itself is a subjective experience?  That’s how I’ve experienced it - arising spontaneously in response to other subjective, revelatory experiences.  It’s not the product of reasoned analysis, anymore than hunger or pain are.

 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3830
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
08 August 2019 11:27
 
EN - 08 August 2019 11:17 AM

bb, would you say that faith itself is a subjective experience?  That’s how I’ve experienced it - arising spontaneously in response to other subjective, revelatory experiences.  It’s not the product of reasoned analysis, anymore than hunger or pain are.

Indeed.  That’s basically what this thread has been about, overall.

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3830
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
08 August 2019 11:37
 
Garret - 08 August 2019 11:17 AM

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

No, I’m not.

Faith is a belief.

Faith is belief that is not based on proof.

A belief is something you think is true.

Believe - to suppose or assume; understand”

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

They aren’t my rules.

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

It doesn’t matter.  I’m not seeking converts.

 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  510
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
08 August 2019 11:39
 
EN - 08 August 2019 11:17 AM

bb, would you say that faith itself is a subjective experience?  That’s how I’ve experienced it - arising spontaneously in response to other subjective, revelatory experiences.  It’s not the product of reasoned analysis, anymore than hunger or pain are.

Revelatory implies that information was “revealed”.

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  510
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
08 August 2019 11:41
 
bbearren - 08 August 2019 11:37 AM
Garret - 08 August 2019 11:17 AM

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

No, I’m not.

Faith is a belief.

Faith is belief that is not based on proof.

A belief is something you think is true.

Believe - to suppose or assume; understand”

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

They aren’t my rules.

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

It doesn’t matter.  I’m not seeking converts.

Belief - to understand
Understand - to perceive the meaning

All of this implies knowledge.
If you continue to use these words, I will only perceive you as expressing knowledge statements.

Also note, I have never once asked for proof, or implied that knowledge requires proof.  You keep adding that to our conversation, but it is not something I am adding.  In fact, I don’t want to talk about proof at all.

[ Edited: 08 August 2019 11:45 by Garret]
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3830
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
08 August 2019 12:51
 
Garret - 08 August 2019 11:41 AM
bbearren - 08 August 2019 11:37 AM
Garret - 08 August 2019 11:17 AM

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

No, I’m not.

Faith is a belief.

Faith is belief that is not based on proof.

A belief is something you think is true.

Believe - to suppose or assume; understand”

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

They aren’t my rules.

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

It doesn’t matter.  I’m not seeking converts.

Belief - to understand
Understand - to perceive the meaning

All of this implies knowledge.

Knowledge of my personal, subjective experience only.  That is the only “knowledge” to which I will ascribe.

If you continue to use these words, I will only perceive you as expressing knowledge statements.

Also note, I have never once asked for proof, or implied that knowledge requires proof.  You keep adding that to our conversation, but it is not something I am adding.  In fact, I don’t want to talk about proof at all.

You keep telling me that I am making “truth” and/or “knowledge” statements.  I keep telling you that I’m not.  For the sake of brevity, Why don’t we dispense with all the rest.  In other words, just tell me I’m making “truth” and/or “knowledge” statements, and I’ll reply with “I’m not.”  It will simplify the thread, and there will be no need for quoting each other’s text boxes.

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21694
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
08 August 2019 14:13
 
Garret - 08 August 2019 11:39 AM
EN - 08 August 2019 11:17 AM

bb, would you say that faith itself is a subjective experience?  That’s how I’ve experienced it - arising spontaneously in response to other subjective, revelatory experiences.  It’s not the product of reasoned analysis, anymore than hunger or pain are.

Revelatory implies that information was “revealed”.

Something is revealed, but it comes more in a flash, in an instant - in a religious experience it’s more the revelation of a person/God.  The normal rational thought process is not involved. When you taste something and sense a flavor, you just get it - you don’t have to analyze anything to conclude that it tastes like an orange, for example.

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1880
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
08 August 2019 14:48
 
bbearren - 08 August 2019 10:51 AM
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.

Did you not notice the “/mode of understanding” part of my sentence? So given that a and b above both reference your understanding and your faith and are true statements, how can you 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?

Previously asked and answered.

No. I previously asked:

Also, is there anything else that you hold a belief in that can NOT be quantified on a confidence scale of 0 – 100? Or is it just THIS belief?

This time I’m asking:

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?

They are different questions.

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.

Yes, I know that. So go ahead and answer the question please.

Ron

 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3830
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
08 August 2019 16:43
 
Ron - 08 August 2019 02:48 PM
bbearren - 08 August 2019 10:51 AM
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.

Did you not notice the “/mode of understanding” part of my sentence? So given that a and b above both reference your understanding and your faith and are true statements, how can you deny that you embrace faith as an epistemology/mode of understanding?

You should have left out “epistemology” entirely.  I don’t embrace philosophy in any way, shape or form.  “Scientists are explorers. Philosophers are tourists.” —Richard Feynman

“The 1920’s come in, we learn about the expanding universe in the same decade as we learn about quantum physics, each of which fall so far out of what you can deduce from your armchair, that, the whole community of philosophers that previously had added materially to the thinking of the physical scientist, were rendered essentially obsolete, at that point.”—Neil deGrasse Tyson

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.

No. I previously asked:

Also, is there anything else that you hold a belief in that can NOT be quantified on a confidence scale of 0 – 100? Or is it just THIS belief?

And answered:

bbearren - 02 August 2019 Ron - 02 August 2019

Also, is there anything else that you hold a belief in that can NOT be quantified on a confidence scale of 0 – 100? Or is it just THIS belief?

This is not relevant to this conversation, but you did ask.  I live in central Florida, and this is the middle of our rainy season.  I can say, “I believe it’s gonna rain today.”  I have no level of confidence to attach to that statement.  It may or may not rain where I am today.  The weather forecast for today, in fact, has a 90% chance of rain.  I have experienced days with 100% chance of rain when it did not rain a drop where I was.

And followed up:

Ron - 02 August 2019 Well, if you “believe it’s gonna rain today” then you have SOME confidence that it will rain. Otherwise, what’s propping up the belief in the first place?”

bbearren - 02 August 2019 As for, “I believe it’s gonna rain today”, you’re not from central Florida, you don’t understand.  Today’s weather forecast has a 90% chance of precipitation.  “Thunderstorms will move through your area.  The high will be 89.  There will be rain in the morning.”  It’s 4:20 PM local time, not a drop of rain yet.”

The same answer still applies.

This time I’m asking:

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?

They are different questions.

Driving on a four-lane highway from the nearest town north of my hometown to my hometown, about half-way a county road intersects, and there is a traffic signal.  The county road is programmed for a demand green light; there has to be a vehicle waiting at the intersection to trip the magnetic sensor in order for the light on the four-lane to change to caution, then red, and give a green light to the vehicle on the county road.

This intersection is visible for about two miles of straight four-lane highway.  If the light is red when it first becomes visible, I don’t release my cruise control, because I believe the light will have turned to green before I reach it.  Traffic is variable, another car may approach on the county road, the light may turn to caution, then red before I reach it.  Still, I believe the light will have turned to green before I reach it, and I keep on cruising, but I get my right foot ready for the brake pedal.  Over the years, that belief has proven to be meritless a number of times.

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.

Yes, I know that. So go ahead and answer the question please.

You know the answer already.  It’s in the same category as my faith.  I don’t ascribe a level of confidence to it.

 
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1880
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
09 August 2019 05:55
 
bbearren - 08 August 2019 04:43 PM
Ron - 08 August 2019 02:48 PM
bbearren - 08 August 2019 10:51 AM
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.

Did you not notice the “/mode of understanding” part of my sentence? So given that a and b above both reference your understanding and your faith and are true statements, how can you deny that you embrace faith as an epistemology/mode of understanding?

You should have left out “epistemology” entirely.

That’s why the “/” is there. The question still stands. Given a and b above, how is it that you can deny that you are embracing faith as a mode of understanding?

I don’t embrace philosophy in any way, shape or form.  “Scientists are explorers. Philosophers are tourists.” —Richard Feynman

“The 1920’s come in, we learn about the expanding universe in the same decade as we learn about quantum physics, each of which fall so far out of what you can deduce from your armchair, that, the whole community of philosophers that previously had added materially to the thinking of the physical scientist, were rendered essentially obsolete, at that point.”—Neil deGrasse Tyson

All these quotes are irrelevant and unnecessary. I’m familiar with DeGrasse, Feynman, etc. Your tendency to insert these distracts and clutters the conversation more than it illuminates anything. I’d appreciate it if you just answered the questions.

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.

No. I previously asked:

Also, is there anything else that you hold a belief in that can NOT be quantified on a confidence scale of 0 – 100? Or is it just THIS belief?

And answered:

bbearren - 02 August 2019 Ron - 02 August 2019

Also, is there anything else that you hold a belief in that can NOT be quantified on a confidence scale of 0 – 100? Or is it just THIS belief?

This is not relevant to this conversation, but you did ask.  I live in central Florida, and this is the middle of our rainy season.  I can say, “I believe it’s gonna rain today.”  I have no level of confidence to attach to that statement.  It may or may not rain where I am today.  The weather forecast for today, in fact, has a 90% chance of rain.  I have experienced days with 100% chance of rain when it did not rain a drop where I was.

And followed up:

Ron - 02 August 2019 Well, if you “believe it’s gonna rain today” then you have SOME confidence that it will rain. Otherwise, what’s propping up the belief in the first place?”

bbearren - 02 August 2019 As for, “I believe it’s gonna rain today”, you’re not from central Florida, you don’t understand.  Today’s weather forecast has a 90% chance of precipitation.  “Thunderstorms will move through your area.  The high will be 89.  There will be rain in the morning.”  It’s 4:20 PM local time, not a drop of rain yet.”

The same answer still applies.

Rehashing all this was totally unnecessary, as I wasn’t (re)asking. Another distracting tendency of yours that I wish would cease.

This time I’m asking:

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?

They are different questions.

Driving on a four-lane highway from the nearest town north of my hometown to my hometown, about half-way a county road intersects, and there is a traffic signal.  The county road is programmed for a demand green light; there has to be a vehicle waiting at the intersection to trip the magnetic sensor in order for the light on the four-lane to change to caution, then red, and give a green light to the vehicle on the county road.

This intersection is visible for about two miles of straight four-lane highway.  If the light is red when it first becomes visible, I don’t release my cruise control, because I believe the light will have turned to green before I reach it.  Traffic is variable, another car may approach on the county road, the light may turn to caution, then red before I reach it.  Still, I believe the light will have turned to green before I reach it, and I keep on cruising, but I get my right foot ready for the brake pedal.  Over the years, that belief has proven to be meritless a number of times.

I’m not sure I follow. What is it in this scenario that you understand to be the case? And, at the same time, does not merit belief in it? As in…

I understand that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent, yet I don’t believe it to be true that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent.

Can you take the exact format of my sentence above and just replace the “God is nature…” part with whatever components in your traffic example would convey your meaning? That would make things easier. Thanks.

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.

Yes, I know that. So go ahead and answer the question please.

You know the answer already.  It’s in the same category as my faith.  I don’t ascribe a level of confidence to it.

But I’m not asking you to ascribe a level of confidence to it. My question was…

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

 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3830
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
09 August 2019 09:10
 
Ron - 09 August 2019 05:55 AM
bbearren - 08 August 2019 04:43 PM
Ron - 08 August 2019 02:48 PM
bbearren - 08 August 2019 10:51 AM
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.

Did you not notice the “/mode of understanding” part of my sentence? So given that a and b above both reference your understanding and your faith and are true statements, how can you deny that you embrace faith as an epistemology/mode of understanding?

You should have left out “epistemology” entirely.

That’s why the “/” is there. The question still stands. Given a and b above, how is it that you can deny that you are embracing faith as a mode of understanding?

Previously answered: bbearren - 07 August 2019  I’ve never said that I “embrace faith as an epistemology/mode of understanding”.  That I have faith, as I have said many times, is a result of personal, subjective experience.

I don’t embrace philosophy in any way, shape or form.  “Scientists are explorers. Philosophers are tourists.” —Richard Feynman

“The 1920’s come in, we learn about the expanding universe in the same decade as we learn about quantum physics, each of which fall so far out of what you can deduce from your armchair, that, the whole community of philosophers that previously had added materially to the thinking of the physical scientist, were rendered essentially obsolete, at that point.”—Neil deGrasse Tyson

All these quotes are irrelevant and unnecessary. I’m familiar with DeGrasse, Feynman, etc. Your tendency to insert these distracts and clutters the conversation more than it illuminates anything. I’d appreciate it if you just answered the questions.

I have absolutely no use for philosophy in any way, shape or form.  If you leave “philosophy” out of the discussions, I’ll stop expressing my disdain for “philosophy” in the discussions.  Simple, no?

By the way, it’s “Tyson”, not “DeGrasse”, and it’s “deGrasse”, not “DeGrasse”.

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.

No. I previously asked:

Also, is there anything else that you hold a belief in that can NOT be quantified on a confidence scale of 0 – 100? Or is it just THIS belief?

And answered:

bbearren - 02 August 2019 Ron - 02 August 2019

Also, is there anything else that you hold a belief in that can NOT be quantified on a confidence scale of 0 – 100? Or is it just THIS belief?

This is not relevant to this conversation, but you did ask.  I live in central Florida, and this is the middle of our rainy season.  I can say, “I believe it’s gonna rain today.”  I have no level of confidence to attach to that statement.  It may or may not rain where I am today.  The weather forecast for today, in fact, has a 90% chance of rain.  I have experienced days with 100% chance of rain when it did not rain a drop where I was.

And followed up:

Ron - 02 August 2019 Well, if you “believe it’s gonna rain today” then you have SOME confidence that it will rain. Otherwise, what’s propping up the belief in the first place?”

bbearren - 02 August 2019 As for, “I believe it’s gonna rain today”, you’re not from central Florida, you don’t understand.  Today’s weather forecast has a 90% chance of precipitation.  “Thunderstorms will move through your area.  The high will be 89.  There will be rain in the morning.”  It’s 4:20 PM local time, not a drop of rain yet.”

The same answer still applies.

Rehashing all this was totally unnecessary, as I wasn’t (re)asking. Another distracting tendency of yours that I wish would cease.

Why did you rehash it in the first place?  Read your own post.  In a discussion with me, you’re gonna get my replies written to my preference.  You’re gonna get called out when you rephrase my words into something I have not said.

This time I’m asking:

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?

They are different questions.

Driving on a four-lane highway from the nearest town north of my hometown to my hometown, about half-way a county road intersects, and there is a traffic signal.  The county road is programmed for a demand green light; there has to be a vehicle waiting at the intersection to trip the magnetic sensor in order for the light on the four-lane to change to caution, then red, and give a green light to the vehicle on the county road.

This intersection is visible for about two miles of straight four-lane highway.  If the light is red when it first becomes visible, I don’t release my cruise control, because I believe the light will have turned to green before I reach it.  Traffic is variable, another car may approach on the county road, the light may turn to caution, then red before I reach it.  Still, I believe the light will have turned to green before I reach it, and I keep on cruising, but I get my right foot ready for the brake pedal.  Over the years, that belief has proven to be meritless a number of times.

I’m not sure I follow. What is it in this scenario that you understand to be the case? And, at the same time, does not merit belief in it? As in…

I understand that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent, yet I don’t believe it to be true that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent.

Can you take the exact format of my sentence above and just replace the “God is nature…” part with whatever components in your traffic example would convey your meaning? That would make things easier. Thanks.

No, I will not.  The “exact format” is your rephrasing, yet again, into something I have not said.  I will not allow it.  I will not respond to it.  Get rid of your rephrasing and ask your question in your own words, or by quoting me directly, not by twisting my words into something that I have not said.

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.

Yes, I know that. So go ahead and answer the question please.

You know the answer already.  It’s in the same category as my faith.  I don’t ascribe a level of confidence to it.

But I’m not asking you to ascribe a level of confidence to it. My question was…

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?

The same answer applies.  I don’t ascribe a level of confidence to it, and I most certainly won’t make an attempt to give explanation for the faith of anyone else.

It’s “Ganesha”, by the way, not “Ganesh”.

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21694
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
09 August 2019 09:46
 

A person only has access to his/her own personal experiences, so it’s impossible to judge anyone else’s.  I’ve never met anyone who claims to have personally experienced Ganesha, so I wouldn’t know what they experience, if anything.  You can only judge your own experience, so it doesn’t do any good to compare yours with theirs.

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17722
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
09 August 2019 09:54
 
EN - 09 August 2019 09:46 AM

A person only has access to his/her own personal experiences, so it’s impossible to judge anyone else’s.  I’ve never met anyone who claims to have personally experienced Ganesha, so I wouldn’t know what they experience, if anything.  You can only judge your own experience, so it doesn’t do any good to compare yours with theirs.

Yet you discount mine.

 
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1880
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
09 August 2019 10:26
 
bbearren - 09 August 2019 09:10 AM
Ron - 09 August 2019 05:55 AM
bbearren - 08 August 2019 04:43 PM
Ron - 08 August 2019 02:48 PM
bbearren - 08 August 2019 10:51 AM
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.

Did you not notice the “/mode of understanding” part of my sentence? So given that a and b above both reference your understanding and your faith and are true statements, how can you deny that you embrace faith as an epistemology/mode of understanding?

You should have left out “epistemology” entirely.

That’s why the “/” is there. The question still stands. Given a and b above, how is it that you can deny that you are embracing faith as a mode of understanding?

Previously answered: bbearren - 07 August 2019  I’ve never said that I “embrace faith as an epistemology/mode of understanding”.  That I have faith, as I have said many times, is a result of personal, subjective experience.

Stop being so disingenuously literal. You…

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)

THEREFORE, your understanding is faith based! So how can you deny that you are embracing faith as a mode of understanding that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent? Unless you are going to deny a and/or b. Are you?

I have absolutely no use for philosophy in any way, shape or form.  If you leave “philosophy” out of the discussions, I’ll stop expressing my disdain for “philosophy” in the discussions.  Simple, no?

This is just another distraction. Where am I interjecting philosophy? Basically, I’ve been trying to unpack two things… your apparent embrace of faith as a mode of understanding and the confidence level of your claim that it is your understanding that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent. IF there’s any “philosophy” in my questioning, then it’s directly related to your position.

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.

No. I previously asked:

Also, is there anything else that you hold a belief in that can NOT be quantified on a confidence scale of 0 – 100? Or is it just THIS belief?

And answered:

bbearren - 02 August 2019 Ron - 02 August 2019

Also, is there anything else that you hold a belief in that can NOT be quantified on a confidence scale of 0 – 100? Or is it just THIS belief?

This is not relevant to this conversation, but you did ask.  I live in central Florida, and this is the middle of our rainy season.  I can say, “I believe it’s gonna rain today.”  I have no level of confidence to attach to that statement.  It may or may not rain where I am today.  The weather forecast for today, in fact, has a 90% chance of rain.  I have experienced days with 100% chance of rain when it did not rain a drop where I was.

And followed up:

Ron - 02 August 2019 Well, if you “believe it’s gonna rain today” then you have SOME confidence that it will rain. Otherwise, what’s propping up the belief in the first place?”

bbearren - 02 August 2019 As for, “I believe it’s gonna rain today”, you’re not from central Florida, you don’t understand.  Today’s weather forecast has a 90% chance of precipitation.  “Thunderstorms will move through your area.  The high will be 89.  There will be rain in the morning.”  It’s 4:20 PM local time, not a drop of rain yet.”

The same answer still applies.

Rehashing all this was totally unnecessary, as I wasn’t (re)asking. Another distracting tendency of yours that I wish would cease.

Why did you rehash it in the first place?

I didn’t. I was simply making a comparison between a previous post and the current post because you had conflated the two different questions. My goal was to get you to see the difference and respond to the SECOND question - not a rehash of the first question.


Read your own post.  In a discussion with me, you’re gonna get my replies written to my preference.  You’re gonna get called out when you rephrase my words into something I have not said.

This time I’m asking:

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?

They are different questions.

Driving on a four-lane highway from the nearest town north of my hometown to my hometown, about half-way a county road intersects, and there is a traffic signal.  The county road is programmed for a demand green light; there has to be a vehicle waiting at the intersection to trip the magnetic sensor in order for the light on the four-lane to change to caution, then red, and give a green light to the vehicle on the county road.

This intersection is visible for about two miles of straight four-lane highway.  If the light is red when it first becomes visible, I don’t release my cruise control, because I believe the light will have turned to green before I reach it.  Traffic is variable, another car may approach on the county road, the light may turn to caution, then red before I reach it.  Still, I believe the light will have turned to green before I reach it, and I keep on cruising, but I get my right foot ready for the brake pedal.  Over the years, that belief has proven to be meritless a number of times.

I’m not sure I follow. What is it in this scenario that you understand to be the case? And, at the same time, does not merit belief in it? As in…

I understand that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent, yet I don’t believe it to be true that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent.

Can you take the exact format of my sentence above and just replace the “God is nature…” part with whatever components in your traffic example would convey your meaning? That would make things easier. Thanks.

No, I will not.  The “exact format” is your rephrasing, yet again, into something I have not said.  I will not allow it.  I will not respond to it.  Get rid of your rephrasing and ask your question in your own words, or by quoting me directly, not by twisting my words into something that I have not said.

There is no “twist”. Since you have said that you understand that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent, AND that you don’t believe it to be true, then my phrasing is an accurate representation of your position, regardless of whether you ever made the conjoined statements. It’s like if I had claimed…

a) It is my understanding that chicken soup is good
b) I don’t believe that chicken soup is good

then an accurate phrasing would be:
Ron understands that chicken soup is good, yet he doesn’t believe it to be true that chicken soup is good.

There’s nothing wrong/inaccurate/misleading about that rephrasing.

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.

Yes, I know that. So go ahead and answer the question please.

You know the answer already.  It’s in the same category as my faith.  I don’t ascribe a level of confidence to it.

But I’m not asking you to ascribe a level of confidence to it. My question was…

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?

The same answer applies.  I don’t ascribe a level of confidence to it, and I most certainly won’t make an attempt to give explanation for the faith of anyone else.

I’m not asking to explain someone else’s faith per se – I’m pointing out that it’s not problematic for the vast majority of people to assess their confidence levels in their faith, so what do you suppose might be differentiating them from you?

It’s “Ganesha”, by the way, not “Ganesh”.

I’ve seen it both ways…
https://kashgar.com.au/blogs/gods-goddesses/the-hindu-god-ganesh-who-is-this-elephant-headed-deity-anyway


Ron

 
proximacentauri
 
Avatar
 
 
proximacentauri
Total Posts:  335
Joined  07-02-2017
 
 
 
09 August 2019 11:20
 
EN - 08 August 2019 02:13 PM
Garret - 08 August 2019 11:39 AM
EN - 08 August 2019 11:17 AM

bb, would you say that faith itself is a subjective experience?  That’s how I’ve experienced it - arising spontaneously in response to other subjective, revelatory experiences.  It’s not the product of reasoned analysis, anymore than hunger or pain are.

Revelatory implies that information was “revealed”.

Something is revealed, but it comes more in a flash, in an instant - in a religious experience it’s more the revelation of a person/God.  The normal rational thought process is not involved. When you taste something and sense a flavor, you just get it - you don’t have to analyze anything to conclude that it tastes like an orange, for example.

If I had a nickel for every revelation I heard of when I was a Christian…the nickels would be worth more.

 
‹ First  < 8 9 10 11 >