Logical issues with belief.

[Farmer77]

2 minutes ago, 029b10 said:

Don't forget the smoke....

Words to live by!

[danydandan]

34 minutes ago, 029b10 said:

What prompted my posting to this thread was to respond to your belief that regarding the scriptures, in particular Matthew 4:8.  

I am not arguing for or against anything here since your thread is about the "Logical issues of belief", if you have an issue about the logic of your belief, it isn't with me but the fact that contradicts your belief.  

I have no believe in the scriptures, they are merely a fascination to me. Actually my fascination is more to do with why people take the Gospel as word of God and based on that understanding have such different interpretations of them. The thread was about a very loaded quiz I seen, it has gone long past that at this stage, and thread is nothing to do with my belief. 

I presented one interpretation of Matthew 4, not once have said I supported that interpretation. Did you assume I did and why? Like I said to @Guyver I'm off the opinion that the tale was a 'vision' that Jesus was supposed to of had after fasting. 

You seemed to assume I actually believed in what I presented and was using that to support or suggest that World was flat or that the Author of Matthew thought the World was flat. For some odd reason you introduced the Moon, now do you have anything to discuss about the interpretation I presented or not?

 

 

Edited March 8, 2019 by danydandan

[029b10]

9 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Words to live by!

I was going to ask the OP what about the fowls which creep, and goeth upon all four but I found this video 

 

Edited March 8, 2019 by 029b10

[danydandan]

23 minutes ago, 029b10 said:

I was going to ask the OP what about the fowls which creep, and goeth upon all four but I found this video 

 

I forgotten about that dude. Is he still alive and smoking?

[Farmer77]

2 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I forgotten about that dude. Is he still alive and smoking?

IDK if hes doing anything else but a couple of years ago he remade that song for a medicinal legalization campaign and it is the most amazing thing ever!

 

[danydandan]

5 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

IDK if hes doing anything else but a couple of years ago he remade that song for a medicinal legalization campaign and it is the most amazing thing ever!

 

Yeah I DuckDuckGoed him, seems even with all the hash he has anger issues and all his bloody albums are named after getting high or being high or guns.

[Farmer77]

4 minutes ago, danydandan said:

or guns.

I just googled him myself because that really isnt my scene. I like some "rap" type stuff but usually only stuff closer associated to reggae type music.   I will say that colt 45 is a cheap ass nasty lager that was once popular among black folks over here and im pretty sure thats what that album is named after

Edited March 8, 2019 by Farmer77

[029b10]

10 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I have no believe in the scriptures, they are merely a fascination to me

Are you trying to say that you do not believe in the scriptures, or that you have faith in the scriptures.  But it would be disingenuous of me to ask you that question at this point because I really don't care what you believe or don't believe; seeing that an a belief in something being true or not is nothing more than an uneducated opinion without a reason for what is believed.

[danydandan]

3 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

I just googled him myself because that really isnt my scene. I like some "rap" type stuff but usually only stuff closer associated to reggae type music.   I will say that colt 45 is a cheap ass nasty lager that was once popular among black folks over here and im pretty sure thats what that album is named after

I assumed Colt was a gun.

[Farmer77]

LOL my blind ass just blew up the album cover so I could see it

 

[danydandan]

1 minute ago, 029b10 said:

Are you trying to say that you do not believe in the scriptures, or that you have faith in the scriptures.  But it would be disingenuous of me to ask you that question at this point because I really don't care what you believe or don't believe; seeing that an a belief in something being true or not is nothing more than an uneducated opinion without a reason for what is believed.

I have no belief in the scriptures, as in I have no faith in them or a Faith based upon them. The Bible is simply a book that is fascinating to me, like I said earlier there isn't any need for faith in the scriptures being divinely inspired to discuss them. The whole book is open to interpretation, unless you're Catholic.

[danydandan]

5 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

LOL my blind ass just blew up the album cover so I could see it

 

The dude does look unhealthy!

[eight bits]

13 hours ago, Habitat said:

The pre-cognitive dreams I speak if, are something quite apart from that, they involve details that simply could not have been known in advance, by pattern recognition or any normal predictive mechanism.

Ain't no such critter. If something happened, then it was possible that it would happen. Whatever was possible could have been described in advance. That's true at every level of granualrity in description.

Known is not in evidence, and so whether it could have been known in advance is irrelevant. No statement of future contingency can properly be known (they all have an undecideable implication, as was known in Aristotle's time.) All a third party could observe is the advance description, and the after-the-fact verification.

We even have an expression in American English, "I knew it!" It means that I didn't know it

13 hours ago, Habitat said:

Randi and you have this much in common, you are smugly confident that all so-called paranormal or supernatural happenings that are reported, are either mistaken, or fraudulent.

No, actually the Randi claim is subtler, that because of his professional training and experience, he can establish conditions under which the feat could in principle be performed, but he is confident that it won't be. What he does is not much different than what a journeyman scientist does in designing a systematic investigation, control for uninteresting causal factors.

Randi has generally implemented a filter on the challenge. The precise terms and conditions have varied over time, but the general idea is that the challenge involves a human performance (so not religious or metaphysical propositions), where the performer has received publicity for their feats before applying to the challenge.

Since I have nothing to do with the administration of the challenge, and never have, it is not obvious why you'd raise the issue of what I personally am confident of, smugly or otherwise. As if you'd know.

12 hours ago, Habitat said:

That is the main motive, you think ?

Yes. Theater people include many who take pride in the traditions of their craft. Theatrical magicians seem to be especially proud of their long heritage. It is entirely plausible to me that Randi, like Harry Houdini before him, would be outraged that criminals prey on the vulnerable using the same tools the stage performers use to pursue an honest profession.

For somebody who talks endlessly about psychology, simple human motivation often eludes you. Maybe you need to get out more.

As to advertising, I am unaware that Randi has any professional background or special training in that field. I have occasionally read advertising trade publications (I have a friend in that biz) where columnists have discussed, with contempt, those who cross the line. My personal view is that so long as the sausage does sizzle, then the sizzle is fair game for discussion.

Edited March 8, 2019 by eight bits

[Farmer77]

3 hours ago, danydandan said:

I'm saying there are multiple interpretations of the Bible, and in this case, Matthew 4 in particular. I'm just outlining one interpretation of this passage in that it can be inferred that if it was literally interpreted Satan took Jesus up to a high mountain, literally, and he showed him all Kingdoms of the World, literally! That's just one interpretation of many, are you disagreeing that this is a valid interpretation, or are you disageeing that there are multiple interpretations of this passage? 

Considering that interpretation would contradict Isiah 40:22, which christians propose is evidence that the ancient authors knew the earth was round, it would be interesting indeed.

[danydandan]

14 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Considering that interpretation would contradict Isiah 40:22, which christians propose is evidence that the ancient authors knew the earth was round, it would be interesting indeed.

I'm sure Isiah 40 is talking about earth as in, the ground or dirt, not the Earth. But again that's one interpretation without looking at the most accurate translations it's difficult to determine, but many are translated to disc or throne, not circle. 

There are multiple passages in the Bible that can be interpreted as 'flat Earth'. Off the top of my head Revalations has one about angels on each corner, Job has something about looking to the end of the world and seeing everything under heavens. There are loads that suggest the Earth(World) is fixed in place as in centre of the Universe and doesn't rotate. So one could say based on a number of these the Authors of many of the Gospels could not have been divinely inspired as I'd like to assume God would know that the Earth rotates around the Sun.

Edited March 8, 2019 by danydandan

[Habitat]

18 minutes ago, eight bits said:

it is not obvious why you'd raise the issue of what I personally am confident of, smugly or otherwise. As if you'd know.

Try this:

18 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Ain't no such critter

A smug assertion made on zero information, about this dream. You have made up you mind that there is no such animal, as a dream that predicts that which could not have been predicted by "normal" processes, and in fact, in this case, seemed so utterly improbable, as to confound understanding of how such a dream could arise. Hence my recall of vocalizing, as I awoke from it, the words, "as if that could ****ing happen !" Until it happened, in reality, in fine detail, in the same precise physical location, as dreamt, and answered the "how". You spend your time here invoking "rational" explanations for everything, and I mean everything, if you really believed that in the depths of your soul, you would not even enter such discussions. You do understand that ? Obviously not.

[danydandan]

4 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Try this:

A smug assertion made on zero information, about this dream. You have made up you mind that there is no such animal, as a dream that predicts that which could not have been predicted by "normal" processes, and in fact, in this case, seemed so utterly improbable, as to confound understanding of how such a dream could arise. Hence my recall of vocalizing, as I awoke from it, the words, "as if that could ****ing happen !" Until it happened, in reality, in fine detail, in the same precise physical location, as dreamt, and answered the "how". You spend your time here invoking "rational" explanations for everything, and I mean everything, if you really believed that in the depths of your soul, you would not even enter such discussions. You do understand that ? Obviously not.

Do you understand why your here discussing stuff you are absolutely sure of? Ironic ain't it?

[Habitat]

15 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Do you understand why your here discussing stuff you are absolutely sure of? Ironic ain't it?

No irony whatsoever, he is arguing that he knows no such thing exists, which involves billions and billions of people never, ever, ever, having a genuine dream of the future, that was beyond doubt, a look into the future. That is simply guesswork, and there is no way he could know that, not having the data. Despite his claiming an affinity with Jung, who most decidedly did credit such things. I, on the other hand have the data, of numerous such dreams, personally, and am not stupid enough to think it is all a coincidence. I can't report on others experiences, as accurately as my own,  and my experience over decades speaks far more eloquently than the 8 bits theory of dreams. I have "something" to talk about, the naysayer is talking up "nothing". Down the ages, nothing at all. That is a fools game forced upon people in the grip of totalitarian rationalism, that admits of nothing else, bar itself. Thank God (joke) I am not so afflicted !

Edited March 8, 2019 by Habitat

[danydandan]

17 minutes ago, Habitat said:

No irony whatsoever, he is arguing that he knows no such thing exists, which involves billions and billions of people never, ever, ever, having a genuine dream of the future, that was beyond doubt, a look into the future. That is simply guesswork, and there is no way he could know that, not having the data. Despite his claiming an affinity with Jung, who most decidedly did credit such things. I, on the other hand have the data, of numerous such dreams, personally, and am not stupid enough to think it is all a coincidence. I can't report on others experiences, as accurately as my own,  and my experience over decades speaks far more eloquently than the 8 bits theory of dreams. 

So why are you discussing something you KNOW beyond doubt happens? What's the difference between discussing something you know existing or not existing? That's the ironic point here isn't it? 

You are both discussing something you know for certain, apparently, but are so un-sure you both need to discuss it. 

Edited March 8, 2019 by danydandan

[Habitat]

16 minutes ago, danydandan said:

You are both discussing something you know for certain, apparently, but are so un-sure you both need to discuss it. 

I only comment because I have had the experience, there is absolutely zero chance I would be talking down such dreams, as non-existent, has I not had that experience, I would say, quite simply, that I just don't know. 8 bits does not know, but is trying to convince himself he does, because he needs to quash all such things, because it conflicts with his world view, I say, to hell with the fixed world view, let's just have the facts and adjust the world view to that, not the other way round.

[+Liquid Gardens]

 

1 hour ago, Habitat said:

I, on the other hand have the data,

No, you have no data, if you did you'd be providing it.  You have a story and a memory, and maybe you should do some actual research on psychology and see what experts have to say on memory.

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, danydandan said:

You are both discussing something you know for certain, apparently, but are so un-sure you both need to discuss it. 

I didn't see where 8 said he knew that Habitat's story is untrue for certain; I read it as being certain that Habitat's justification and 'reasoning' on how he supposedly knows the truth have problems.

[eight bits]

Before we get all excited about what I know versus what I say I know but don't, let's try this.

What I was commenting on was this bit of blather:

16 hours ago, Habitat said:

The pre-cognitive dreams I speak if, are something quite apart from that, they involve details that simply could not have been known in advance, by pattern recognition or any normal predictive mechanism.

The making of a prediction is foretelling. Whether foretelling is accompanied by foreknowing is not established by the foretold coming true. There are substantial and unresolved problems (after 2000-2500 years of recorded efforts attempting to resolve them) with all claims of contingent foreknowledge. So yes, Habbie, if words have meaning, then I know that you have never had foreknowledge in the strict sense of knowing. However, a foretelling performed with confidence later vindicated by coming true? Sure, it happens to people all the time. BFD.

But you make an additional claim, that there is a form of utterance that refers to the future which exceeds the possibility of being achieved by pattern recognition or any "normal" predictive mechanism. That is a contradictory assertion, as I explained in a previous post. Let me dramatize the situation in a little skit:

Woo pitcher: He couldn't possibly have foretold that.

Woo catcher: But he did foretell it, therefore it was possible for him to foretell. What's more, it happened, so it was possible for it to happen, and therefore it was, as a matter of fact, possible for him to foretell it correctly.

QED-BFD.

And that is what I claimed to know.

Edited March 8, 2019 by eight bits

[GoldenWolf]

8 hours ago, Habitat said:

The challenge for them is not to succumb to the temptation of interpreting that absence of available evidence, as the evidence of absence, as the saying goes. And that is not something I would have done, either.

Thousands of years of no evidence....

[Habitat]

9 hours ago, eight bits said:

Whether foretelling is accompanied by foreknowing is not established by the foretold coming true.

That depends entirely on what the detail of what was foretold, was. In theory, it would be possible to dream intricate detail and have it all come true,  just by chance. But in practice, the point is reached, where that element of chance, is erased. However unlikely it might seem. Naturally if I dream, months in advance, say, that it will snow at Christmas, and I live in the New England area of the USA, and it does indeed snow, then it was a high probability event anyway, and the foretelling is easily dismissed. If I were to dream it snowed in Brisbane, Australia at Xmas, and it happened, I would consider that extremely significant, as the chances of it happening are so vanishingly small. So qualification of the statement in the quote box, is badly needed. I don't claim the dream I alluded to, was quite as unlikely as that summer snow, but it was certainly getting in to that territory, although assigning probabilities would be very difficult. Suffice to say, it was a very convincing demonstration. If it were the only such dream I ever had, I probably would not have taken too much from it, but it is the accumulation of many such dreams, that tips it into being a certainty, for me.