Creation vs. Evolution

[SuperCobraJet]

Nope.



Why would abide by the results of a vote over whether or not I think something? That makes no sense to me whatsoever.

There are two points, which I have made, which end this discussion.

1) Action does not require beleif. I have proven this rigorously with multiple examples which demonstrate that one does not always act on belief.

The next one is the biggie. This one's for all the marbles.

2) I cannot be said to believe something if I do not think it is 100% guaranteed truth.

See that second one there? That's the end of the discussion.

Do I think it is 100% guaranteed truth that Pako likes broccoli? No. Do I think it is likely? Yes. Likely enough to act on? yes.

Do I think it is 100% guaranteed truth that the sun will come up tomorrow? No. Do I think it is likely? Yes. Likely enough to not take action in preparation for the sun not coming up? Yes.

Do I think it is 100% guaranteed truth that evolution is correct? No. Do I think it is likely? Yes. Likely enough to live my life as though it were true? Yes.

Do I think it is 100% guaranteed truth that I exist? Yes.

That last one is belief. The rest is not. There is no argument here. There is no possible way to claim otherwise. You have no case to make.

I win. Let's move on.

You are evidently incable of comprehending that by definition, actions determine beliefs. To you have your own private dictionary called the DANOFF edition?

 

[Danoff]

You are evidently incable of comprehending that by definition, actions determine beliefs. To you have your own private dictionary called the DANOFF edition?

How can you sit there and tell me with a straight face (I assume) that actions determine beliefs when I've given you EXAMPLES (plural) of actions that does not require belief?d

 

[Pako]

Hopefully I'm not alone when I say... what??

Is there a problem? Better yet, is there a problem with having trust and enough integrity to be trusted?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

How can you sit there and tell me with a straight face (I assume) that actions determine beliefs when I've given you EXAMPLES (plural) of actions that does not require belief?d

Because your definition and the standardised accepted definition found in the published dictionary of the same are in complete conflict. That is precisely why I asked you if you have your own personal version. So whose definition do you think we should accept?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Man, I must be getting desperate.

Famine, please tell me you have not failed to recognize the validity of the argument I presented.
I will not take that statement as a concession or admission on anything. I only seek to establish some sign of comprehentional life on the other side of this discussion.

A thousand pardons if I end up double posting

 

[Danoff]

Because your definition and the standardised accepted definition found in the published dictionary of the same are in complete conflict. That is precisely why I asked you if you have your own personal version. So whose definition do you think we should accept?

You want me to sign on to definition number 3 (or whatever it is), and then you'll hold me to definition number 2 (or whatever it is). I'm not going to play ball.

You're using the term belief in a strict sense. To mean the perception of absolute truth. In that sense, I have no beliefs.

If you want to use the term belief to mean "judges to be probable" or "accepts". Then I'll agree that I believe in lots of stuff... but that doesn't help your argument. Because using belief in that sense is not the same as using it in the religious sense.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

You want me to sign on to definition number 3 (or whatever it is), and then you'll hold me to definition number 2 (or whatever it is). I'm not going to play ball..

Here it is again

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
be‧lieve  /bɪˈliv/
–verb (used without object) 1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.

Now focus carefully on the the last statement. It is the only one thats relevant to the argument I presented.
I established that you have acted purposefully.
The definition says the only way for you to have done that, is by belief.

You're using the term belief in a strict sense. To mean the perception of absolute truth. In that sense, I have no beliefs.

If you want to use the term belief to mean "judges to be probable" or "accepts". Then I'll agree that I believe in lots of stuff... but that doesn't help your argument. Because using belief in that sense is not the same as using it in the religious sense.

(Quoted from an earlier post)Whoa Famine! Not so fast. This discussion has nothing to do with what I believe, (well maybe a teeny bit) this is about two individuals who said they don't believe in anything or no belief system. To which I replied: not so. At there insistance I am proceeding with proving they do.

I wasn't trying to prove you believe in anything more than what has been established.

 

[Danoff]

I do not agree with the dictionary that one can only act with belief. This statement is the most troubling:

"to have confidence in"

Confidence is defined as "full trust; belief in the powers, trustworthiness, or reliability of a person or thing" by dictionary.com

I do not thing one has to have FULL TRUST in something to act purposefully. I refer you to my earlier examples where you act without full trust.

Confidence, on the otherhand, can mean less than full trust. It can mean you're "pretty sure". If you want to go with that meaning of confidence, I'll agree that I believe. But that's not the same thing as religious belief.

 

[FoolKiller]

Do you have your own private dictionary called the DANOFF edition?

I do not agree with the dictionary

I guess that is a yes.

 

[Danoff]

I guess that is a yes.

It's not really part of the definition that I disagreed with.

This is really quite simple. Religious folks believe without doubt that God exists. Scientists believe nothing without doubt (excepting for the cogito which is proven).

End of story. It's really really easy.

To prove me wrong, find something that I have no doubt in.

 

[Famine]

Here it is again

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
be‧lieve  /bɪˈliv/
–verb (used without object) 1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.

Now focus carefully on the the last statement.

The last statement isn't part of the definition. It's an example of the use of that definition in a phrase.

It is the only one thats relevant to the argument I presented.

In that case, oh dear.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

It's not really part of the definition that I disagreed with.

This is really quite simple. Religious folks believe without doubt that God exists. Scientists believe nothing without doubt (excepting for the cogito which is proven).

End of story. It's really really easy.

To prove me wrong, find something that I have no doubt in.

Danoff read the last sentence in my prior post.

 

[Danoff]

Danoff read the last sentence in my prior post.

I think you know full well the way in which we were using the word "belief"... in the religious sense.

In the coloquial sense, I'll say things like "I believe it's gonna rain this weekend." And "I believe it's about time you pay up". That use must exist in the dictionary, but in this discussion it's not useful.

In the religious sense, belief means 100% certainty. It means the perception of absolute truth. In that sense, I believe only that I exist.

You understand what I'm saying at this point, so I think we can move on.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

The last statement isn't part of the definition. It's an example of the use of that definition in a phrase.

In that case, oh dear.

It appears I may have painted myself into a corner.
Although I have to admit it is still consistant with the definition.

Funny, as I recall this all started with a post about details.

Famine that prayer sure did the trick. Don't ever say your not a man of faith. Ha Ha.

 

[Pako]

I think you know full well the way in which we were using the word "belief"... in the religious sense.

In the coloquial sense, I'll say things like "I believe it's gonna rain this weekend." And "I believe it's about time you pay up". That use must exist in the dictionary, but in this discussion it's not useful.

In the religious sense, belief means 100% certainty. It means the perception of absolute truth. In that sense, I believe only that I exist.

You understand what I'm saying at this point, so I think we can move on.

Why can't someone who believes have doubts? Why are they not allowed to question their faith?

That is certainly something I have never conveyed in our discussions.

 

[Danoff]

Why can't someone who believes have doubts? Why are they not allowed to question their faith?

That is certainly something I have never conveyed in our discussions.

If you have doubt in the existence of God, I believe (there I go using that word colloquially) you'd be referred to as an agnostic. Plus, I'm pretty sure you don't get into heaven if you have doubts about your faith.

 

[Pako]

If you have doubt in the existence of God, I believe (there I go using that word colloquially) you'd be referred to as an agnostic. Plus, I'm pretty sure you don't get into heaven if you have doubts about your faith.

I think agnostic is the belief in some kind of supreme being but not sure what it is and not adopting a known definition of a god.

There have been periods in my life that I doubt God's existence. Usually when things aren't going the way I want them to. I have hit some really dark times where I have questioned my faith only to come to the realization that I couldn't have done it without Him. It was through a power greater than myself that I was able to overcome those situations. When I am faced with those situations today, I know (believe) that God is there and will not forsake me and leave me hangin'.

 

[Danoff]

This is the definition of agnostic that I use:

"One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism."

Does the following ont fit that description?

There have been periods in my life that I doubt God's existence.

I'd say you were agnostic during that period. Certainly not a true believer, not a Christian. In order to be Christian you have to believe in God absolutely first and formost.

At least that's my understanding of it.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

After review of the of the whole belief discussion I don't see where my error makes much difference concerning the validity of the argument being made. Even though it is not part of the definition it is certainly consistent with the definition. I did err concerning it and its relevance, but if you remove it from the discussion it doesn't alter the land scape to any significant degree. It does however change the tact of some of the points and how they were made.

I think you know full well the way in which we were using the word "belief"... in the religious sense..

Due to probabilities I can see why.

In the coloquial sense, I'll say things like "I believe it's gonna rain this weekend." And "I believe it's about time you pay up". That use must exist in the dictionary, but in this discussion it's not useful..

Quite frankly, it was in this sense I was operating as I pointed out to FAMINE in a prior post

In the religious sense, belief means 100% certainty. It means the perception of absolute truth. In that sense, I believe only that I exist.

You understand what I'm saying at this point, so I think we can move on.

Lastly I believe I owe all of you an apology, particularly DANOFF for some inferences that were made, even though I made them under a incorrect perception.

 

[Danoff]

Lastly I believe I owe all of you an apology, particularly DANOFF for some inferences that were made, even though I made them under a incorrect perception.

I don't think you owe me an apology. I've been called/heard much worse on this forum than anything you said.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I don't think you owe me an apology. I've been called/heard much worse on this forum than anything you said.

Thankyou. I really think that after the reviewing of this whole discussion, that it may have gotten off to a misconceptual start.

 

[ledhed]

Most life forms get off to a conceptual start.

 

[wfooshee]

So now with concieve we have another word to define??!?!?!?!

What's next, relieve? Then maybe perceive? Retrieve? Achieve? Grieve?

All of these rhyme with "Eve." This is all her fault!! Except she couldn't possibly have known about Btrieve databases.

I may have been working too hard this week . . . . .

 

[Small_Fryz]

I have hit some really dark times where I have questioned my faith only to come to the realization that I couldn't have done it without Him. It was through a power greater than myself that I was able to overcome those situations. When I am faced with those situations today, I know (believe) that God is there and will not forsake me and leave me hangin'.

When i go through these times i realise i can either give up and die or fight and live on. Be proactive and change. When one has to do something one can do quite a lot. I never underestimate what im capable of once the chips are on the table. Good old fighting instinct.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I realize there is some anxiousness on the part of some to drop the forgoing belief discussion, however if you would be so kind, please indulge me a little longer.

Nope.
Why would abide by the results of a vote over whether or not I think something? That makes no sense to me whatsoever.

There are two points, which I have made, which end this discussion.

1) Action does not require beleif. I have proven this rigorously with multiple examples which demonstrate that one does not always act on belief.

You are definitely right and I was wrong on this one.

The next one is the biggie. This one's for all the marbles.
I cannot be said to believe something if I do not think it is 100% guaranteed truth.

OK, this is your established criteria for believing.

See that second one there? That's the end of the discussion.

?

Do I think it is 100% guaranteed truth that Pako likes broccoli? No. Do I think it is likely? Yes. Likely enough to act on? yes.
Do I think it is 100% guaranteed truth that the sun will come up tomorrow? No. Do I think it is likely? Yes. Likely enough to not take action in preparation for the sun not coming up? Yes.
Do I think it is 100% guaranteed truth that evolution is correct? No. Do I think it is likely? Yes. Likely enough to live my life as though it were true? Yes.

Concerning these three, if you are not acting upon belief, upon what are you acting?

Do I think it is 100% guaranteed truth that I exist? Yes.

That last one is belief. The rest is not. There is no argument here. There is no possible way to claim otherwise. You have no case to make.

I win. Let's move on.

?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Famine, I have a unrelated question that I have been wanting to ask you about, reguarding some statements you made early on in this discussion prior to it veering off on the belief course.
You indicated that in order to explain a complex concept to someone with a different level of knowledge on the subject, you would have to falsify or in some way compromise the integrity of the concept.
Since explanations are done on a regular basis in various subjects at various levels of understanding without compromisng the integrity of the subject, why do you say this?

 

[Famine]

Famine, I have a unrelated question that I have been wanting to ask you about, reguarding some statements you made early on in this discussion prior to it veering off on the belief course.
You indicated that in order to explain a complex concept to someone with a different level of knowledge on the subject, you would have to falsify or in some way compromise the integrity of the concept.
Since explanations are done on a regular basis in various subjects at various levels of understanding without compromisng the integrity of the subject, why do you say this?

Please give me an example (it's better if you stay scientific, since I can hopefully provide you with more detail) of what you say.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

You know which science you trust - the ones that make the internet and computer happen - and you know which science you don't trust - the ones that say that life is subject to evolution and the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. There's no real reason for you to distinguish them from each other (after all, the same science that says the Earth is 4.5 billion years old is responsible for geostationary satellites which help make your internet happen) but you do, because you believe in one and not the other. You can't evaluate them critically to any meaningful level because you simply don't have the knowledge to - and there's no shame in this, because not one of us does have the knowledge to critically evaluate all science meaningfully. I look at particle physics the same way that a dog looks at you when you talk to it in Welsh. "Popular science" has a lot to answer for on this level - it erodes the real science to a level where us mere mortals can understand it but, as Professor Hawking once said about the universe, if you understand it you simply don't know enough about it. I can explain some of my work to a level where even my dad, who has trouble taking in new concepts at his age, can understand it - but he'd understand it at a level where there's only a sliver of truth in it.

I was referring to parts of this statement.

 

[Famine]

I know what you were referring to (because, for a change, I actually said it). I was asking you to provide an example of a complex system being explained to the general public "without compromising the integrity of the subject".

I can provide you with thousands of examples where complex scientific principles are explained in a highly simplified manner - to the point of not being true anymore, but easy to understand. I just want you to try and give me a single example where you don't think this is the case, so I can show you that it is.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I know what you were referring to (because, for a change, I actually said it). I was asking you to provide an example of a complex system being explained to the general public "without compromising the integrity of the subject".

Are you saying I have frequently misquoted you?

I can provide you with thousands of examples where complex scientific principles are explained in a highly simplified manner - to the point of not being true anymore, but easy to understand. I just want you to try and give me a single example where you don't think this is the case, so I can show you that it is.

Rather than that, just tell me if in your opinion, there is a way to adequately explain any of the ones you cite that does not render them untrue. If they can't be, then tell me why?