Poll: choose your religious experience...

[Mr Walker]

13 hours ago, danydandan said:

No it doesn't, and provide links to it. Where it emphatically states a fact can be both true and false.

My educational background has nothing to do with my opinion on this, the accepted dictionaries of the English language define what a fact is, not you or I. I base my opinion on what they say.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fact

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/fact

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fact

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fact

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fact

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/fact

Doesn't say anything about false, or a false facts. Should I take your word for it or theirs?

The whole issue when your stating something you think or know to be true it's a fact at that time. However if it turns out later to be untrue it's no longer a fact. Also knowingly stating untrue opinions as fact doesn't make then false facts, because you know untrue truths can't exist.

I only had to get to the second of your sources to find this definition

 

: a piece of information presented as having objective reality 

• These are the hard facts of the case.

I rest my case 

 

Your fifth or so example gives this as one of the defintions of a fact

 

 

4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened:The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
5. Law. Often facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence.Compare question of fact, question of law.

And clearly, in such cases, facts could be true or false  or there would not be such ambivalence in the definition 

Edited August 24, 2018 by Mr Walker

[Jodie.Lynne]

Papa always warned me not to argue with idjits, people won't be able to tell the difference.....

 

 

[Habitat]

So true lies might actually exist ? Strange world !

[Mr Walker]

3 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Papa always warned me not to argue with idjits, people won't be able to tell the difference.....

 

 

Call me all the names you like.  The documentation is quite clear.  While a fact is a true statement  it is not ONLY a true statement 

it  can also be a false statement.

As long as it can be proven true or false it is a fact, and not just an opinion.

I feel much as you do, but am too polite to say so   

[Mr Walker]

3 minutes ago, Habitat said:

So true lies might actually exist ? Strange world !

That is  an interesting one. If someone said something intending it to be untrue, but it actually was true, then yes.  Although a lie, it could be true. 

[Jodie.Lynne]

4 minutes ago, Habitat said:

So true lies might actually exist ? Strange world !

nah, ordinary world. Strange people.

[Mr Walker]

5 hours ago, StarMountainKid said:

Mr Walker's blood pressure is rising, I think. There is something wrong with me or I am under-developed mentally because I don't see gods around me every day, false facts, … Though it is nice to read him taking off the gloves, so to speak. I know it's frustrating when no one believes you. No one believes me either when I post around here.

But it's like Krishnamurti said, he stands on the side of a dusty road handing out flowers, some just walk buy, some take a flower and throw it in the dust, few take the flower and appreciate its beauty. 

The other statement he made I like was, "Do you think in all these years anyone has taken your message seriously to heart?" He answered, "Probably not.." "Then why do you continue to talk?" He answered, "Because it's the right thing to do." 

I think we all consider we are doing the right thing. 

From my perspective there may be something wrong with you (but this was a humorous response to those who continually argue there  must be something wrong with me because I can. One assumption is only as valid/invalid as the other)

I have conscious control of my blood pressure and can  raise or lower it as the need demands

I appreciate that  other people have other experiences and opinions but the y cannot simply invalidate your own  The argument about fact is a case in point  I have a fixed opinion. danydandan has another I believe the sources  I  provide prove me right, but he believes that a fact must be true, and this affects his interpretation of the sources  I an not saying he is wrong a fact includes true statements.

But a fact also includes a statement which can be proven true or false, either now or when more information becomes available   eg  "There is life outside of earth" is a statement of fact, or a statement about a fact, which can be proven right or wrong  at sometime in the future  

[Habitat]

20 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

That is  an interesting one. If someone said something intending it to be untrue, but it actually was true, then yes.  Although a lie, it could be true. 

Well, yes, I can see the sense in that.

[+Sherapy]

21 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Been over this argument many times  A little research into the etymology and usage of the word shows that facts include true statements and untrue  statements.  To be a statement of a fact something only has to be capable of being proven true or false.

  It  is true that in america it is less common to know this  or to see it in dictionaries but even there it is often taught  Facts change eg the population or capital of a country may change  Facts believed to be rue may be proven wrong in a court of law. Yet the y remain facts 

Its not what i mean it is what is   A fact is simply a statement capable of being proven true or false. If proven true it is a true fact if proven false it is a false fact  stements of fac tmay be made beore one kows or has measured to see if the statement is true or false   Opinions, subjective statements etc are not facts, but objective statements usually are

eg  " That vase is green. "  is a fact, even if the vase is red  but "That vase is pretty"  is not a statement of fact because it cannot be objectively proven 

You can hold an opinion that there is no god and if you sufficiently define god in a certain way you can show that such a god is unlikely or impossible.

But you cannot prove no gods exist, and so cannot know this for a fact.

However anyone who  truly encounters a god can know for a fact that gods exist (allowing for how such a god is defined) 

It is not a lie that i am 3 foot tall, it simply is not true.  A lie requires an intention to deceive. I had no such intention. 

To establish if it  is an accurate fact, one could measure my height.   

Its interesting I've been an educator for 40 years, and until I came onto UM and began conversing with Americans and other nationalities, i had never encountered anyone who thought that all facts were true  or that the definition of a fact was limited to  something which was true

 

A fact must be true to be asserted as a fact, in other words, there is supporting evidence of some kind. 

MW, you split hairs over all kinds of things. In this case, you have decided there are true facts and false facts, a false fact is an oxymoron. IMHO  It is understood that if something isn't true it isn't a fact. Maybe in your little podunk village you have your own idiomatic understandings, but typically a fact is considered true until it is not, at this point it is no longer a fact, if it works for you to understand something as a false fact knock yourself out.

You may believe that you know god on faith and you may not be intending to deceive.

It is acceptable to claim subjectively that you have had an experience that you interpret as god. You would say you know god, and we would all understand this to imply that you beleive you know god on faith. 

There is no other way at this time, but if arguing otherwise, is personally validating, knock yourself out. 

The rest of us have knowlegde God has not been proven to be false or true, it is unresolved, unanswered, not evidenced one way or the other at this point in human history. 

You don't know is probably a better position...

 

 

 

Edited August 24, 2018 by Sherapy

[freetoroam]

16 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I dont think anyone has ever studied the cause of " god blindness"

Are you on a wind up?

If you want to believe in a god, fine, but you can not insist to those who do not believe, that there really is a god. 

Now if you can produce a god which can be seen, heard and felt to the touch, then thats a different story, but you can not and what you believe and feel.in your heart and think in your mind is not going to convince a non believer.

God blindness? I have never heard anything so ridiculous, no doubt you will insist you are right although you,  like all the other believers have nothing to offer to really prove the existence of a god.

[StarMountainKid]

I've been laboring through pages of discussion of the definition of the word 'fact', and that's a fact. And here I thought 'alternate truth' was an interesting term. Maybe that's what's been discussed here all the time and not realizing it. 

Perhaps Mr Walker's and other's posts are examples of alternate truths. Maybe we all have our alternate truths. A sort of other dimension of objectivity. 

I'm not convinced objectivity is even possible, as we all exist at least one step removed from reality, as our awareness is always a creation of the brain/mind. 

So, what we discuss are really figments of our imagination, to put in in the most radical way. Of course, the mind believes it is experiencing reality, it's convinced of this. This it must do for its own sanity. 

This really doesn't matter, as this is the way we must live to survive. My point here is, is there a way to limit our confidence in our own personal alternate truth? There are many truths, but when we take some particular truth to be our truth, it becomes a lie. In the sense that, in this way, all other truths become lies except ours.

It seems to me, living is a very simple process when we stop to realize how much we add complications to it. Maybe this is my alternate truth, but it's a relief not to have to worry about the definition of the word 'fact'. 

[Habitat]

1 hour ago, Scudbuster said:

Forget it Walker, the vast odds say he's not out there, and never was:

Thus is a fallacy, in my opinion, it devolves from an idea that there is an economic model of universe creation, and wastage is forbidden by it. I don't know that whatever created it, is a minimalist, who churns out enough galaxies etc, but no more !

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, Scudbuster said:

Forget it Walker, the vast odds say he's not out there, and never was:

Dumb poster based on a lack of knowledge of christian theology (which is only only one model of human faith, anyway, and in which creationism is only one pov)

In Christianity humans are not the only creation  of god The universe teems with his creations (although ancient people didn't realise how big the universe was)

 In the bible narrative we are the only species to follow the rebellious angels and the only species thus to become cut off from god and the other species 

As an evolutionist myself i accept that god (whom I know as a real and powerful alien being)  is an evolved product of a naturally evolved universe 

I don't know how much of the universe god occupies, controls, or has an interest in,  although personally "gods"  mind(the cosmic consciousness)  has taken me to the centre of our galaxy and to hundreds of inhabited planets throughout the galaxy. That was enough for me to cope with.  (But there is no religion involved in this .Ii is a mind which mentors  and perhaps controls the many races of space and helps them evolve from  pre sentience into space faring races  before introducing itself and inviting them into the "galactic confederation" )

It is human minds who have made this a religious scenario  because, to ancient people, such an alien being had to be a god   

God is not omnipotent or omniscient, although it comes close to omnipresent, through its communication technology.  

It is limited by its physical reality, but empowered by ancient, learned knowledge, wisdom, and technology. 

Imagine one of us with our knowledge, technology,  and abilty, being viewed through the eyes and mind of a Neandertal or cromagnon. 

Edited August 24, 2018 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

2 hours ago, freetoroam said:

Are you on a wind up?

If you want to believe in a god, fine, but you can not insist to those who do not believe, that there really is a god. 

Now if you can produce a god which can be seen, heard and felt to the touch, then thats a different story, but you can not and what you believe and feel.in your heart and think in your mind is not going to convince a non believer.

God blindness? I have never heard anything so ridiculous, no doubt you will insist you are right although you,  like all the other believers have nothing to offer to really prove the existence of a god.

Of course a god must be able to be touched heard  etc and not just by one person but by all those in the vicinity  or else it is only in a persons mind.

I am speaking of gods who manifest in all sorts of physical forms but are real, who can push you out of the way of a speeding car or warn you of an approaching bushfire   They can cure your body or mind  while explaining what the y are doing  They can teach you things and sometimes lend a part of their abilities to empower you and give you abilities  etc.

They are just as real and solid as you or me.

  So why cant i present evidence of such a being's existence?   I just don't have any. I do have many witnesses to such manifestations and their results 

Unlike most, i don't carry a phone around with me, so if god manifested, i would have no way of recording it. And suppose i took a picture of a man, or a tree, or  a pillar of light, or a burning bush   because that was the form god took on that occasion.

Why on earth would a photo of that mean anything to you.

But here it is. I would be dead a number of times over, as would my wife, if not for the direct physical intervention of god (or if you prefer,  one of god's agents)  

So I don't care what others have the need to believe or disbelieve I KNOW  god is real, powerful,  and able to do things in the real world, including save your life. 

 

I already explained my approach in this instance.

i was responding to constantly  being called ill, uneducated,  or needy, or mentally unwell etc., because i claim to know god 

I was responding to the idea that those who know or believe  god are somehow deficient, by suggesting (partly tongue in cheek) that it is those who CANNOT see such a clearly evident being, who must be deficient 

And seriously,  I don't know why some of us can see and sense it so clearly while others cannot, or why god spends so much time on some but apparently not on others.

  it reminds me of my own colour blindness. I cant see some subtle shades of red and green, which appear brown to me and was enough to keep me out of the air force as a teenager,  so I sometimes wear some mismatched outfits.

I know what it is like to be colour blind.

It seems to me that not being able to see or sense god is a form of god blindness. 

Ps i am not unusual or unique.

A significant minority of humans claim direct physical contact with an angel or god, often under miraculous and life saving circumstances.

To me, an angel is a part of god and a way god manifests to human beings When i speak of god manifesting,  it is often in the form others might describe as an angel  

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/28/third-britons-believe-have-guardian-angel/

 

https://www.*** blocked ***/expressyourself/199424/We-can-all-see-angels-and-I-ll-show-you-how

 

More than half of all Americans believe they have been helped by a guardian angel in the course of their lives, according to a new poll by the Baylor University Institute for Studies of Religion. In a poll of 1700 respondents, 55% answered affirmatively to the statement, "I was protected from harm by a guardian angel." The responses defied standard class and denominational assumptions about religious belief; the majority held up regardless of denomination, region or education — though the figure was a little lower (37%) among respondents earning more than $150,000 a year.

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1842179,00.html

 

Edited August 24, 2018 by Mr Walker

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Of course a god must be able to be touched heard  etc and not just by one person but by all those in the vicinity  or else it is only in a persons mind.

I am speaking of gods who manifest in all sorts of physical forms but are real, who can push you out of the way of a speeding car or warn you of an approaching bushfire   They can cure your body or mind  while explaining what the y are doing  They can teach you things and sometimes lend a part of their abilities to empower you and give you abilities  etc.

They are just as real and solid as you or me.

  So why cant i present evidence of such a being's existence?   I just don't have any. I do have many witnesses to such manifestations and their results 

Unlike most, i don't carry a phone around with me, so if god manifested, i would have no way of recording it. And suppose i took a picture of a man, or a tree, or  a pillar of light, or a burning bush   because that was the form god took on that occasion.

Why on earth would a photo of that mean anything to you.

But here it is. I would be dead a number of times over, as would my wife, if not for the direct physical intervention of god (or if you prefer,  one of god's agents)  

So I don't care what others have the need to believe or disbelieve I KNOW  god is real, powerful,  and able to do things in the real world, including save your life. 

 

I already explained my approach in this instance.

i was responding to constantly  being called ill, uneducated,  or needy, or mentally unwell etc., because i claim to know god 

I was responding to the idea that those who know or believe  god are somehow deficient, by suggesting (partly tongue in cheek) that it is those who CANNOT see such a clearly evident being, who must be deficient 

And seriously,  I don't know why some of us can see and sense it so clearly while others cannot, or why god spends so much time on some but apparently not on others.

  it reminds me of my own colour blindness. I cant see some subtle shades of red and green, which appear brown to me and was enough to keep me out of the air force as a teenager,  so I sometimes wear some mismatched outfits.

I know what it is like to be colour blind.

It seems to me that not being able to see or sense god is a form of god blindness. 

Ps i am not unusual or unique.

A significant minority of humans claim direct physical contact with an angel or god, often under miraculous and life saving circumstances.

To me, an angel is a part of god and a way god manifests to human beings When i speak of god manifesting,  it is often in the form others might describe as an angel  

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/28/third-britons-believe-have-guardian-angel/

 

https://www.*** blocked ***/expressyourself/199424/We-can-all-see-angels-and-I-ll-show-you-how

 

More than half of all Americans believe they have been helped by a guardian angel in the course of their lives, according to a new poll by the Baylor University Institute for Studies of Religion. In a poll of 1700 respondents, 55% answered affirmatively to the statement, "I was protected from harm by a guardian angel." The responses defied standard class and denominational assumptions about religious belief; the majority held up regardless of denomination, region or education — though the figure was a little lower (37%) among respondents earning more than $150,000 a year.

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1842179,00.html

 

Nonsense, you beleive in god on faith until you have evidence to show otherwise. And you don’t, you don’t have witnesses, you are not special or unique, you are human exhibiting human qualities such as confirmation bias and using magical thinking to explain events in your life. 

All the article shows is that the human mind is prone to magical thinking, yet, in fact, we don’t know if there is or isn’t anything more. 

To insist that there is all kinds of gods with no evidence is wishful faithing on your part. 

 

 

[+Sherapy]

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Dumb poster based on a lack of knowledge of christian theology (which is only only one model of human faith, anyway, and in which creationism is only one pov)

In Christianity humans are not the only creation  of god The universe teems with his creations (although ancient people didn't realise how big the universe was)

 In the bible narrative we are the only species to follow the rebellious angels and the only species thus to become cut off from god and the other species 

As an evolutionist myself i accept that god (whom I know as a real and powerful alien being)  is an evolved product of a naturally evolved universe 

I don't know how much of the universe god occupies, controls, or has an interest in,  although personally "gods"  mind(the cosmic consciousness)  has taken me to the centre of our galaxy and to hundreds of inhabited planets throughout the galaxy. That was enough for me to cope with.  (But there is no religion involved in this .Ii is a mind which mentors  and perhaps controls the many races of space and helps them evolve from  pre sentience into space faring races  before introducing itself and inviting them into the "galactic confederation" )

It is human minds who have made this a religious scenario  because, to ancient people, such an alien being had to be a god   

God is not omnipotent or omniscient, although it comes close to omnipresent, through its communication technology.  

It is limited by its physical reality, but empowered by ancient, learned knowledge, wisdom, and technology. 

Imagine one of us with our knowledge, technology,  and abilty, being viewed through the eyes and mind of a Neandertal or cromagnon. 

I think you find solace and a way to cope with your god construct. I think you focus your attention on trying to argue and defend  that your intuitions or picture of reality are true or not true as opposed to focusing on if the picture of reality that you have constructed is useful or not, does it help you with your own behavior, does it make or enhance your personal relationships, make your life better in ways that are good for you. 

Your construct doesn’t seem to be useful in a positive, empowering way for you online. Have you noticed this? 

I think denial and illusion on occasion can be a good thing, reality can be very harsh and hard to swallow and denial/illusion can buffer the sting, make it tolerable, as long as one doesn’t get OCD about it. Lol  

IMHO, you seem to see your mind as intentional meaning you think whatever goes on in it correlates to actual reality, that your own mind causes reality, what you don’t see, or acknowledge is you are using mental short cuts such as heuristics, seeing patterns, anthropomorphizing, confirmation bias, magical thinking etc. these things are evolutionary survival instincts that are hardwired into our brains. If you were to use critical thinking or skepticism you would begin to see how much “you” imply causation. 

For example: you quit smoking, you used your strength of conviction and honoring of commitment and quit literally overnight, yet, you constructed a tale, argue endlessly that a light beam zapped you and it took away your addiction, and the next day you went to the doctor to be tested for nicotine and the results showed that literally overnight the nicotine from years of smoking was absent. 

Yet nicotine stays in the system anywhere from 3 to 10 days depending on how much you smoked and how long. 

 

Edited August 24, 2018 by Sherapy

[danydandan]

7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I gave you the bit from the OED and the explanation demonstrating this 

 

Alternatively, fact may also indicate an allegation or stipulation of something that may or may not be a true fact,^[7] (e.g., "the author's facts are not trustworthy"). This alternate usage, although contested by some, has a long history in standard English.^[8]

Some examples from OED:

This is..a false fact, supported by a supposed motive - 1824, Westm. Rev.

It bases its accusations on false statements and inaccurate facts. - 1941, A. M. Lindbergh Diary

Waksal hotly disputed some of the facts in that story. - 2002, Vanity Fair

Clearly then there are true facts and false facts 

This is because a fact is a statement which can be PROVEN to be true or false 

Incidentally a  lie is a false statement made knowingly. (it is not a lie unless the intent to lie is there) 

However many facts are unintentionally incorrect .

Again your problem is your fixation that  a fact can only be true (which is a rule in science but not in logic language or philosophy)

leads you to conclude that if something is not true, it is not a fact.  That is wrong. It is still a fact but a false fact a  long a s iit has objective  qualities which can be mesured 

You can find this definition in dictionaries and you can find its historical background outlined 

Maybe its an Australian thing, but i went through school and university and taught English and all the humanities for 40 years and NEVER encountered the belief that a fact had to be true, until i came on UM  

One of the first definitions we taught children for the national curriculum, when the  begin humanities  (along with terms like objective/subjective opinion belief and evidence) is that a fact is a statement capable  of being proven true or false and that some facts are wrong. 

We then give them  series of facts and get them to prove if they are right or wrong  We show why subjective statements cannot be proven true or false while objective (factual ) ones can 

 

That's isn't from OED it's from Wikipedia. Provide the actual link please. Not a copy and paste.

I assume Wikipedia citess the OED? Can you find the actual definitions from OED? Like everything else words evolve and change (unlike your opinions, old age?) the very vast majority of English speaking people go by what is defined in the dictionary now not 200-300 years ago.

https://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/dictionary/true-facts-and-false-facts/

Here a good link. But anyway I strongly disagree with you. But arguing with you is pointless.

Edited August 24, 2018 by danydandan

[danydandan]

7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I only had to get to the second of your sources to find this definition

 

: a piece of information presented as having objective reality 

• These are the hard facts of the case.

I rest my case 

 

Your fifth or so example gives this as one of the defintions of a fact

 

 

4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened:The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
5. Law. Often facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence.Compare question of fact, question of law.

And clearly, in such cases, facts could be true or false  or there would not be such ambivalence in the definition 

None of these present false facts. Do any of them state or say something untrue? No they do not.

First one means that information presented at the time is deemed to be a fact. Like I said if later on it's confirmed not to be true it's no longer a fact. It's your definition of personal evidence of your experiences. Is it not?

Second one says true or suppose to have happened. Both mean true and not false. Again when presented at the time it's a fact considered true. This again if later on it's deemed untrue it's no longer a fact.

Third one, says the same thing. Basically evidence isn't always a fact. But presented as fact in law. But something can't be a fact if it's untrue.

Let'selaborate a bit in something from my field. Have you ever heard of Weins law? It was considered a fact or law of nature. Until experiments at longer wavelengths showed otherwise. It wasn't until Planck came up with his equation and science explaining the equation that we actually got a law or fact of nature about a blackbody. Would you consider Weins Law as a fact? I'd hope not. Placks equation is a fact. He also kinda backed up the existence of atom's and introduced people to the quantum physics with his explaination. Connsider people who used to say atom's don't exist, would you consider their statements as fact?

Those two examples are not false facts they are just untrue. Neither of the above examples can or are considered false facts, they were facts at the time until such time they were proven incorrect. Now they are just wrong hypotheses.

Edited August 24, 2018 by danydandan

[freetoroam]

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I am speaking of gods who manifest in all sorts of physical forms but are real, who can push you out of the way of a speeding car or warn you of an approaching bushfire

Really out of respect for all the people who have not been saved by this god which you allege can save peoples lives, i find this pretty low.

And your reason for the deaths of thousands of innocent people who have been killed by a speeding car or in a bush fire is?? Please do not tell me none of them believed in a god or that they had sinned!

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

They are just as real and solid as you or me.

No they are not...and that Mr Walker = is a .fact

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

So why cant i present evidence of such a being's existence?   I just don't have any. I do have many witnesses to such manifestations and their results 

.their results? Like the same results you have, nothing but your belief.

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

It seems to me that not being able to see or sense god is a form of god blindness

You like those words...god blindness. Please do not take this too personally, but you are talking ****

 

But am going to give you the benefit of the doubt cos i quite like you, give me some time to look this up to see if it is recognised as a medical condition,

Right done, this is what i found:

 

[zenron]

Other (specify): surviving armageddon and able to be in paradise on earth.

also mr walker what do you believe.

do you know king james version of the bible?

also angels is god creation, also I don't believe in trinity

and angels do not protect everyone, and those who say that they are their guardian angel are wrong, itd becuase of right time and right place, or even satans demons, god does not rule over earth, satan does and his demons they got cast down to earth from heaven etc
 

[StarMountainKid]

15 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I don't know how much of the universe god occupies, controls, or has an interest in,  although personally "gods"  mind(the cosmic consciousness)  has taken me to the centre of our galaxy and to hundreds of inhabited planets throughout the galaxy. That was enough for me to cope with.  (But there is no religion involved in this .Ii is a mind which mentors  and perhaps controls the many races of space and helps them evolve from  pre sentience into space faring races  before introducing itself and inviting them into the "galactic confederation" )

Hopefully I'm not lifting this partial quote out of context. If I may ask, how are these gods helping humanity to evolve? It seems to me a practical matter. I personally have not noticed any improvement in humanity due to the influence of these gods. So, what's going on? Why aren't they helping us as a civilization?

[Podo]

I think being visited or otherwise communicating with one of the classical Celtic deities would be interesting, as would communing with one of the more primal forces from shamanic pathways. Real shamanic paths from thousands of years ago, that is, not the modern plastic shamans. The Norse gods might be interesting, but if you have read the Norse myths you know that it rarely ends well for the mortal in question.

[Mr Walker]

18 hours ago, danydandan said:

That's isn't from OED it's from Wikipedia. Provide the actual link please. Not a copy and paste.

I assume Wikipedia citess the OED? Can you find the actual definitions from OED? Like everything else words evolve and change (unlike your opinions, old age?) the very vast majority of English speaking people go by what is defined in the dictionary now not 200-300 years ago.

https://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/dictionary/true-facts-and-false-facts/

Here a good link. But anyway I strongly disagree with you. But arguing with you is pointless.

It is not about what has changed  A fact is a statement capable of being proven true or false Has ALWAYS been the definition of a fact during the last 300 years  That INCLUDES those proven true and those proven false.  As stated, I have never encountered the belief that facts can only be true, anywhere in the modern Australian curriculum (although science has a specific definition a scientific fact)  Yup araguing wit me is pointless unless you can find evidences to prove me wrong.

I have provided adequate sources to prove that while it is not the predominant definition, especially in America, my definition is more inclusive and also accepted 

If you read my links through i think you would find I had posted where the quote came from,

As it turns out, though, the definition of fact as "a statement that can be proven true or false" has been active for four centuries. On the other hand, it has been criticized and contested for at least the last two centuries.

The earliest attestation for fact in the Oxford English Dictionary is from 1545. The word is a borrowing from Latin, deriving from the past participle of the verb facere meaning "make" or "do." The spelling shows that it came straight from Latin, not via Old French, and its original meaning was the one from Latin: "something made or done." The meaning of "something that is known to be true" came during the following century. The closest OED definition to "a statement that can be proven true or false" is its fifth one: "Something that is alleged to be, or conceivably might be, a ‘fact'." This one dates from around 1730. The OED even has an attestation of false fact from 1824.

Google Books allows a much earlier attestation of false fact, from 1688 in the Journals of the House of Commons. A passage reads:

Or, suppose the Judges were corrupt; and directed false Law, or false Fact, or overawed the Jury; or admitted a Party to be a Witness, or Juror (as in Effect it was); That was enough to render the Verdict corrupt….

Here's another one, from 1738, with a bonus true facts in the same sentence:

They will be of opinion that it is the duty of every corrector of a book to take from it all the false facts and to substitute true facts in their room ….

 

Aside from the fact (the true fact, in fact) that fact has been able to denote something either false or true for most of the time it has been in the English language, 

https://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/dictionary/true-facts-and-false-facts/

  

[Mr Walker]

19 hours ago, danydandan said:

None of these present false facts. Do any of them state or say something untrue? No they do not.

First one means that information presented at the time is deemed to be a fact. Like I said if later on it's confirmed not to be true it's no longer a fact. It's your definition of personal evidence of your experiences. Is it not?

Second one says true or suppose to have happened. Both mean true and not false. Again when presented at the time it's a fact considered true. This again if later on it's deemed untrue it's no longer a fact.

Third one, says the same thing. Basically evidence isn't always a fact. But presented as fact in law. But something can't be a fact if it's untrue.

Let'selaborate a bit in something from my field. Have you ever heard of Weins law? It was considered a fact or law of nature. Until experiments at longer wavelengths showed otherwise. It wasn't until Planck came up with his equation and science explaining the equation that we actually got a law or fact of nature about a blackbody. Would you consider Weins Law as a fact? I'd hope not. Placks equation is a fact. He also kinda backed up the existence of atom's and introduced people to the quantum physics with his explaination. Connsider people who used to say atom's don't exist, would you consider their statements as fact?

Those two examples are not false facts they are just untrue. Neither of the above examples can or are considered false facts, they were facts at the time until such time they were proven incorrect. Now they are just wrong hypotheses.

I explained that fact is something withiin a statement  which has objective reality as opposed to only subjective reality  Thus it can be objectively measured to be true or false  The definition I gave says EXACTLY that 

 

: a piece of information presented as having objective reality 

Ie presented as.

"The sky is green."

is a statement presented as having objective (ie measurable)  reality . Thus it fits the definition of fact. It is false, thus it is a false fact.

"The sky is beautiful"  can never be a statement of fact, because beauty is a subjective quality incapable of  objective measurement  

Edited August 25, 2018 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

7 hours ago, StarMountainKid said:

Hopefully I'm not lifting this partial quote out of context. If I may ask, how are these gods helping humanity to evolve? It seems to me a practical matter. I personally have not noticed any improvement in humanity due to the influence of these gods. So, what's going on? Why aren't they helping us as a civilization?

Actually if you study human society, we are progressing.  If you look at the statistical indicators of global human well being, even in recent decades, most have shown significant improvement

To answer your question 

First, through general revealed knowledge and wisdom. While one can argue how much of any religion is wise  there is a lot of wisdom in all of them.

Some parts of all religions become socially and economically dated, but many do not. I can live by the  wisdoms of the bible in the 21st century quite comfortably and successfully,  as long as i adapt to the changing nature of our society. I could do the same with any religion I basically live at and behave as the bible instructs a man to do aalloing for the act ta t i live now and not 2000 yeras ago  

Second, through individual revealed wisdom and knowldge 

God reveals things to millions of people helping them become stronger, wiser, better adjusted, more productive,  and more empowered 

Third, through the power god gives to people to effect change 

No matter what people say, all western society and hence most of the world, through colonialism lives by Judaeo christian values  That has crested a good place to live in 

Think of the Christians and other religious people who have changed the world for the better  because they had the energy drive motivation etc of their faith to push them on through danger and hard times Look t the billions of dollars raised by believers for many religions to help the poorest and most needy  Believers give much more in time and money than non believers, to all forms of aid and charity Thts true across all mainstream religions (I dont know about the much smaller ones but i would think the same would be true )       

Not least is its emphasis on the spiritual and non material, which helps balance humanities destructive love of the material and our greed  

The bible, for example, shows that contentment and happiness come from within, and from our character/spirit,  not from  our wealth or possessions

This means we can reduce resource use to a sustainable level and only live on what we need for safety and comfort, IF we follow that wisdom 

it teaches the importance of family and says that  families should not be broken by desire or other worldly things, and that love and  respect  are important qualities in a relationship . It even gives a brilliant piece of advice on marriage  'ie  "do not be unequally yoked" In other  words do not marry /make a commitment to, a person who is too different from  yourself or pulling in a different direction because it just won't work out