Logical issues with belief.

[Guyver]

51 minutes ago, Habitat said:

It is not something that can be summoned, seemingly, and I don't whether "God" explains it, but I can't be swayed from it being real, at this stage, just had way too much of it happen.

Right, but you shouldn’t conflate God with other phenomenon.

[Habitat]

Just now, Guyver said:

Right, but you shouldn’t conflate God with other phenomenon.

I did not, but it certainly is hardly explicable "rationally".

[Guyver]

2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

When we find ourselves outside in the dark but in a group, the struggle to understand what's in the darkness is lessened, right?

Isn't this because we have faith in our friends, eventhough they may not be standing by close enough to see them?

 

 

Of course.  So what?

[Guyver]

Just now, Habitat said:

I did not, but it certainly is hardly explicable "rationally".

Right.  But we can’t even really correctly define rationally.  

[Will Due]

3 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Of course.  So what?

 

In my opinion, God is the greatest friend of all. Always nearby. Always there to help get through the struggle.

 

 

[Habitat]

20 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Right.  But we can’t even really correctly define rationally.  

Of course we can, as much as any word.

[Will Due]

 

When we're asleep and we have a dream, it amounts to an experience. Yet, we're unconscious. Supposedly without the ability to make choices. Supposedly inactive. Sound asleep.

To me this is hard evidence of at least one thing. That within our mind, within our being, there exists something that is interacting with us. Something that we're having experiences with, within.

 

 

[Guyver]

17 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

In my opinion, God is the greatest friend of all. Always nearby. Always there to help get through the struggle.

 

 

I think that’s a wonderful opinion.

[Guyver]

6 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Of course we can, as much as any word.

Rational relates to the mind.  Every mind is different.  So, we can only define rational based on our own understanding and that of other people.  But many people are crazy and so that takes rationality down just a notch.  We understand rational as we understand it based upon our own frame of reference.  But our frame of reference is demonstrably limited, therefore I stand by my assertion that we can’t even agree upon what “rational” really means.  If you mean rational from a subjective standpoint, fine.  But then again, that’s not really saying all that much.  What’s rational to you may not be rational to me.

[Will Due]

4 minutes ago, Guyver said:

I think that’s a wonderful opinion.

 

Especially when an opinion, ends up being more than just an opinion. 

 

 

[Guyver]

Just now, Will Due said:

Especially when an opinion, ends up being more than just an opinion. 

See....that’s just frustrating to me.  We have to play this out every time?  If you have something to say, you should just say it.  How does an opinion ever become more than an opinion Will?  The only way I know is demonstrable fact.  

If you have demonstrable fact, you should bring that, and if you don’t have that then you should bring big woo.  I mean, IMHO.

[Will Due]

2 minutes ago, Guyver said:

See....that’s just frustrating to me.  We have to play this out every time?  If you have something to say, you should just say it.  How does an opinion ever become more than an opinion Will?  The only way I know is demonstrable fact.  

If you have demonstrable fact, you should bring that, and if you don’t have that then you should bring big woo.  I mean, IMHO.

 

How can it be demonstrated without faith?

With faith, fact demonstrates itself.

 

 

[Guyver]

3 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

How can it be demonstrated without faith?

With faith, fact demonstrates itself.

 

Sorry.  That doesn’t make much sense to me and I don’t know what you mean.

There are people who claim to have been abducted by aliens.  They believe it and to them it’s a fact.  Extraterrestrial beings have abducted them and performed medical experiments on them.  They will swear to it and pass lie detector tests.  Some can offer physical evidence of it in the form of implants.  Does that mean that we should all believe that aliens abduct people?

[Habitat]

21 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Rational relates to the mind.  Every mind is different.  So, we can only define rational based on our own understanding and that of other people.  But many people are crazy and so that takes rationality down just a notch.  We understand rational as we understand it based upon our own frame of reference.  But our frame of reference is demonstrably limited, therefore I stand by my assertion that we can’t even agree upon what “rational” really means.  If you mean rational from a subjective standpoint, fine.  But then again, that’s not really saying all that much.  What’s rational to you may not be rational to me.

Suffice to say, precognitive dreams are not explicable by known factors. Which does not make them impossible, just hard to imagine how they could be.

[Guyver]

1 minute ago, Habitat said:

Suffice to say, precognitive dreams are not explicable by known factors. Which does not make them impossible, just hard to imagine how they could be.

Yes.  The problem is proving precognition.  It’s fine if it works for you and is a real thing, but others are not obligated to believe it just because you say you’ve experienced it.  I mean, I know I had some form of esp, or whatever you want to call it, to me it’s a real experience.  But I can’t prove the experience or the phenomenon, so people will comfortably dismiss it.  

Science doesn’t know what dark matter is, but the materialists are willing to accept it’s probably real.

[Habitat]

4 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Yes.  The problem is proving precognition.  It’s fine if it works for you and is a real thing, but others are not obligated to believe it just because you say you’ve experienced it.  I mean, I know I had some form of esp, or whatever you want to call it, to me it’s a real experience.  But I can’t prove the experience or the phenomenon, so people will comfortably dismiss it.  

Science doesn’t know what dark matter is, but the materialists are willing to accept it’s probably real.

Not a "problem" for me. I have no need to prove it, and if others want to dismiss it as impossible, that tells me more about them, than the matter at hand. Just a case of some people wanting to build a "fence" around reality, in their mind, and concentrating their lives on what is within their self-made fence, those of more capacious mind, probably don't feel the need to do that. Horses for courses.

[SHaYap]

22 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Not a "problem" for me. I have no need to prove it, and if others want to dismiss it as impossible, that tells me more about them, than the matter at hand. Just a case of some people wanting to build a "fence" around reality, in their mind, and concentrating their lives on what is within their self-made fence, those of more capacious mind, probably don't feel the need to do that. Horses for courses.

Problem is here where in that 'capacious mind' denotes what is in or what is out ?

~

[Habitat]

3 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Problem is here where in that 'capacious mind' denotes what is in or what is out ?

~

The more capacious, the less need for "out" labels, much can be left "undecided", and especially if there is no pressing need to do otherwise. In the contest between what has repeatedly demonstrated itself to me, convincingly, and "conventional wisdom" that says it isn't so, the former has to prevail. I don't out-source first hand observation. If you don't trust your own senses, best to retire to the corner of the room, curl up into a ball, and start rocking back and forth. Or watch Sean Carroll fan-gathering speech videos.

[danydandan]

3 hours ago, Guyver said:

I do my friend.  I have studied this topic in great detail and consider myself an expert on the bible in some aspects.

The bible not only never says the Earth is flat, the exact opposite argument that I would present.  The bible presents a solar system which travels in a circuit, and the root is circle which is what orbits actually are.  An eclipse is a circle.

A literalist interpretation of that allegorical take from the Bible would have no other option but to assume Satan literally took Jesus up to the Highest hilltop. Where Jesus could see every single kingdom of the World. Logically how can one see all Kingdoms from one place on the World if the Earth wasn't flat?

4 hours ago, and then said:

Or it would mean one of the authors - 66 books, 40 writers - used metaphor?

Obviously it's a metaphor, one needs context for qouting content of the Bible. One interpretation of Matthew 4 is that it was probably a dream. Now whats the actual message? There are about four good theories.

3 hours ago, Guyver said:

Well, first of all I’d like to disagree with your first point here Dan.  I think it is entirely possible to analyze whether or not the claims of the bible being divinely inspired or completed are valid or not....and I bet if we put our heads together we could absolutely present a very logical position for or against.

For example, the bible contains many prophecies which are presented as actual prophesies and these could be considered.  If a prophecy could be proven to be accurate, then that indicates divine inspiration because the future cannot be known by humans.

Or, would you disagree and claim that future could be known by some means?

It's completely impossible to determine the claims. Why? well, we don't know the Authors, we don't know of God existence, if God's there we don't know if he can communicate. Too many unanswerable questions to determine if the Bible is literally the word of God. Don't you think?

Again, with prophecy. If it came true there is still no way of knowing if God inspired these or not. You and I know prophecy is a fickle subject, in my opinion I trust anyone claiming to be prophetic, nor do I believe in prophecy. You and I have had conversations regarding statistical analyses in the past, this I believe is a good way to determine the probability of events.

[Coil]

My results below, I do not quite understand what the graphics and these bullets and hits. It seems to respond logically and there should be no contradictions.

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

Edited March 7, 2019 by Coil

[eight bits]

1 hour ago, Habitat said:

Suffice to say, precognitive dreams are not explicable by known factors. Which does not make them impossible, just hard to imagine how they could be.

Dreams emerge from the tail pipe of the best-known pattern recognition firmware in the Universe. Nothing could be easier than to imagine how "precognitive dreams" could be.

You used to like the verb to guess. What happened? "Pre-cognitive" is a faux-sophisticated way to say "good guess."

[Habitat]

5 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Dreams emerge from the tail pipe of the best-known pattern recognition firmware in the Universe. Nothing could be easier than to imagine how "precognitive dreams" could be.

You used to like the verb to guess. What happened? "Pre-cognitive" is a faux-sophisticated way to say "good guess."

You are guessing they are not real. Wrongly ! But, carry on.

[eight bits]

9 minutes ago, Habitat said:

You are guessing they are not real. Wrongly ! But, carry on.

You manage to get a lot wrong in a short post.

I am observing that they are real. Correctly.

What they aren't is suprising, or anything that makes the dreamer "special," or that promotes the experience of not always being wrong to evidence of divine intervention.

[danydandan]

23 minutes ago, Habitat said:

You are guessing they are not real. Wrongly ! But, carry on.

Are you suggesting that someone said dreams aren't real, or that prophetic dreams aren't real?

[Habitat]

24 minutes ago, eight bits said:

You manage to get a lot wrong in a short post.

I am observing that they are real. Correctly.

What they aren't is suprising, or anything that makes the dreamer "special," or that promotes the experience of not always being wrong to evidence of divine intervention.

Waffle on, brother, you adhere to the "law of large numbers" theory that says if there are enough dreams, sooner or later, one will seem to be a "hit", and erroneously be interpreted as "prophetic".  And you, and the smug supporters of that idea, would be wrong, yet again. Which is not to say people don't make these false connections, but that that is a cover-all, that can be applied to all, nope, incorrect.

Edited March 7, 2019 by Habitat