Do you believe in God?

[sammy neuman]

And that is my contention, in that "belief" is unseverable from a decision, as a fundamental rule.

That it is a fundamental rule is not correct. Example: I am holding an anvil. I know that it is uncomfortably heavy. I know that if I drop it on my unshod foot it will certainly hurt. Therefore I decide to not drop the anvil on my foot, and instead place it carefully on the workbench.
To "know", and to "believe" are different things. Unarguably, there is nothing I had to "believe" to make that decision.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

And you are incorrect in your contention that it is a fundamental rule. Example: I am holding an anvil of unknown weight, but I know that it is uncomfortably heavy. I know that if I drop it on my foot it will certainly hurt. Therefore I decide to not drop the anvil on my foot, and instead place it carefully on the workbench.

Unarguably, there is nothing I had to "believe" to make that decision.

If what you are saying is true, then you made your decision, actually decisions, in disbelief that the anvil was uncomfortable, and disbelief it would hurt your foot if you dropped it on it, and disbelief that placing it on the workbench was a safe and viable alternative.

Now do you really think that is logically consistent?

 

[DQuaN]

If what you are saying is true, then you made your decision, actually decisions, in disbelief that the anvil was uncomfortable, and disbelief it would hurt your foot if you dropped it on it, and disbelief that placing it on the workbench was a safe and viable alternative.

Now do you really think that is logically consistent?

Disbelief is different from no belief.

Look, if you cannot get your head round how belief works, just stop. You make yourself look more ignorant and stupid every time you post.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Disbelief is different from no belief.

Well if that is your interpretation, then we can substitute "no belief" in the place of "disbelief".

So:
"If what you are saying is true, then you made your decision, actually decisions, in no belief that the anvil was uncomfortable, and no belief it would hurt your foot if you dropped it on it, and no belief that placing it on the workbench was a safe and viable alternative."

Oh my, that sounds so much more logical, don't you think?

Look, if you cannot get your head round how belief works, just stop. You make yourself look more ignorant and stupid every time you post.

If you cannot get your head around the absolute fact of reality, that "knowing" is nothing more than "belief" supported to the extent as to produce a high percentage, or concentrate of confidence, you will make yourself look more ignorant and stupid every time you post.

It is logically impossible to state you "know" something, and then declare that you have "no belief" in the same something.
I'm sorry but you need to go look up all the definitions of belief.
Perhaps the light bulb will come on.

 

[Mike458]

So:
"If what you are saying is true, then you made your decision, actually decisions, in no belief that the anvil was uncomfortable, and no belief it would hurt your foot if you dropped it on it, and no belief that placing it on the workbench was a safe and viable alternative."

Oh my, that sounds so much more logical, don't you think?

Oh dear... I think we need a facepalm meme here...

[insert facepalm meme here]

The reason why you don't drop the anvil on your foot is because of common sense. Which seems to be something that you don't have. I know that dropping an anvil on my foot will hurt, but dropping an anvil on your foot is very different from a non-existent god that has no evidence of actually existing. Your bible tells us all these radical claims; prove it!

 

[Famine]

If you cannot get your head around the absolute fact of reality, that "knowing" is nothing more than "belief" supported to the extent as to produce a high percentage, or concentrate of confidence, you will make yourself look more ignorant and stupid every time you post.

It is logically impossible to state you "know" something, and then declare that you have "no belief" in the same something.
I'm sorry but you need to go look up all the definitions of belief.

Ah, you're back to squashing "belief" into your own interpretation.

Belief is what you do when you don't have evidence. Knowledge is what you have when you do have evidence. They are not only not the same thing, they are opposite things.


Crucially, knowledge can be wrong, because you may not have enough evidence - but belief never is, because evidence is disregarded to suit the belief. If you drop on anvil on your foot knowing it'll hurt but it doesn't, your knowledge was wrong because you didn't have the evidence that it's an anvil made of polystyrene. If you drop an anvil on your foot believing that it won't hurt but it does, you probably just weren't believing it hard enough.

 

[Touring Mars]

It is logically impossible to state you "know" something, and then declare that you have "no belief" in the same something.

That's garbage and you know it - at least you should know it.

What you are saying is that there is no such thing as objective reality or knowable facts.

The Holocaust happened. The Patriots won Superbowl XLIX. Scotland beat Qatar 1-0 last week.

Neither of us witnessed all of these events. All but a handful of unfortunate souls on Earth witnessed the latter of these, yet it happened. The above are statement of fact, not a statement of my own views on the matter.

Belief need not and does not come into it. You could believe whatever you want but it doesn't make any difference to the objective truth that the result of Scotland v Qatar last week was 1-0 in Scotland's favour. You might believe that Qatar won 46-3, but the evidence would render your belief misplaced.

When it comes to whether or not one accepts something as true or as a fact, one simply cannot rely on one's own beliefs on the matter, especially when there exists ample evidence that might contradict one's beliefs. Whether Scotland really did beat Qatar 1-0 is largely inconsequential - but when people start making crap up about important historical or scientific facts - such as Holocaust deniers - that's when a line is crossed.

 

[DQuaN]

Well if that is your interpretation, then we can substitute "no belief" in the place of "disbelief".

So:
"If what you are saying is true, then you made your decision, actually decisions, in no belief that the anvil was uncomfortable, and no belief it would hurt your foot if you dropped it on it, and no belief that placing it on the workbench was a safe and viable alternative."

Oh my, that sounds so much more logical, don't you think?



If you cannot get your head around the absolute fact of reality, that "knowing" is nothing more than "belief" supported to the extent as to produce a high percentage, or concentrate of confidence, you will make yourself look more ignorant and stupid every time you post.

It is logically impossible to state you "know" something, and then declare that you have "no belief" in the same something.
I'm sorry but you need to go look up all the definitions of belief.
Perhaps the light bulb will come on.

Completely wrong on all counts. As stated by the two posts above.

 

[JKgo]

... Please someone get him a dictionary....Please. I mean, really? Ridiculous.

 

[Touring Mars]

While two individuals may perceive and report the same event differently, that difference in subjective experience does not change the objective reality. If you can bear another Scotland football story, this one is a good case in point...

Scotland played world champions Brazil in the opening game of the 1998 World Cup in France. Despite losing an early goal, Scotland fought back and the game was finely poised at 1-1 until Scotland conceded an unfortunate own-goal and lost the game 2-1.

Two competing narratives of the fateful own goal emerged... some people thought Boyd (#3) had scored it, others thought it was Burley (#8). One guy was so convinced it was Burley, he placed a £20 bet with me... but I thought it was Boyd. So we asked the two guys behind the bar to settle the argument... one said Boyd, the other said Burley. The bet increased now up to £100 - my mate was now alarmed because he couldn't be sure who it was himself.

How could so many people perceive the exact same thing differently - and how was the bet settled? There was a bizarre explanation... it turned out that the game was in fact being shown live on two different TV channels simultaneously - a very rare thing in the UK... BBC and ITV shared the rights to the opening game. The bar I was in was roughly L-shaped and had two TVs, but you couldn't see both screens at the same time.

It turns out the TV I was watching had BBC on it, and the other guy had been watching the other screen that had the ITV coverage on it. After the own-goal was scored, ITV cut to a replay that showed Burley reacting to the goal, while BBC cut to a replay that showed Boyd actually scoring the own goal... hence I knew my bet was safe.

About 10 minutes after the bet was placed, a detailed replay of the incident came on one of the screens we were both watching and it clearly showed that Boyd was the culprit, and I was £100 richer.

The funny thing was that about half the pub believed one thing and half the pub believed another - but the objective reality/ evidence (the replay of the incident) rendered all of those 'beliefs' (subjective experiences) irrelevant, and established the fact that my assertion was correct and the other guy was wrong.




(Cut to 1h26mins for the OG)

 

[GTsail]

Now, my statement again concerning this is that if you remove the individual, or individuals you likewise remove the perspective required to establish, know or percieve anything, objective or otherwise.
Hence there is nothing.
That is just a simple, basic, testable, measureable, repeatable, verifiable and conclusive fact of the matter.
If you like mathematical equivalents that is a classic example:
Any number minus the same number equals zero.

Further the tree in the forest is a prime example.
If you remove the individual from the forest and a tree falls, there is no sound, no vibration, no sight, no nothing.
Now this is the closer:
The only way that it can be percieved, known, or established from a reality position, that any of the above factors occurred, is by prior perception of the individual.
So if there is no individual there is no anything.

The starting point of my post is a follow-up to SCJ's earlier post about trees in the forest.

Can it be true that without an individual present to observe/listen them, trees don't make any sound if they fall in the forest?

So, I decided to consider the following situation:

Light from distant stars:
---------------------------
First we need answers from @SuperCobraJet to three questions:

1) How long have humans been on Earth?
2) How fast is the speed of light?
3) How far is it to the star "Eta Carinae" in the Carina Nebula?

For the sake of my discussion, lets say that SCJ's answers are: 1) 6000-7000 years, 2) 186,000 miles per second, 3) about 10,000 light-years.

So, then lets say that today a scientist (SCJ) takes a look thru a telescope at the Carina Nebula and can see the light being given off by the star "Eta Carinae", and decides to run some "maths" to determine when the light was generated.

After many calculations and hours staring at computer screens, the scientist calculates that the light we see today was generated by the star Eta Carinae 10,000 years ago. And the SCJ calculates that 10,000 years ago was before any humans were alive to "perceive" the light's generation.

Logically, doesn't this mean that "things" can happen without prior/initial human perception?

Therefore, wouldn't this mean that trees could/would make sounds when they fall, even if no humans were around to hear them? Since light (from my Eta Carinae example) can be generated without any humans around/alive to perceive its generation, sound from falling trees could/would also be generated without any humans around to perceive it (at the time of its generation).

What do you all think?
Have I provided some semblance of proof that something can occur (light generation 10,000 years ago) without the presence of any people to observe its generation? And that "prior perception" is not required?

More thoughts:
I think that sound from trees falling in a forest could also be tested with a whole bunch of cameras, placed around a bunch of old trees, and then just wait a long time until one of the trees falls, and watch to see if an animal happens to react to the "sound" made by the falling tree. No human would have "perceived" the sound when it was generated, but some animals would have heard the sound (and reacted to the sound), and which would prove that trees make a sound when the fall, even if no human was around to "perceive" the sound.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Touring Mars]

If a tree falls in a wood and no-one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?

I have another question: If one's argument falls on deaf ears, does it still make sense?

 

[Liquid]

@Touring Mars That football analogy... beautiful.

 

[Touring Mars]

I remember it like it was yesterday - infact yesterday was the 17th anniversary of that day

 

[Liquid]

I remember it like it was yesterday - infact yesterday was the 17th anniversary of that day

The very idea of using France 98, the best international football tournament there has been, Craig Burley and Tom Boyd in a theological discussion on the serious topic of objectivity and proof just blows my mind.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Oh dear... I think we need a facepalm meme here...

[insert facepalm meme here]

The reason why you don't drop the anvil on your foot is because of common sense. Which seems to be something that you don't have. I know that dropping an anvil on my foot will hurt, but dropping an anvil on your foot is very different from a non-existent god that has no evidence of actually existing. Your bible tells us all these radical claims; prove it!

This example has nothing to do with God, other than the influence of common sense or practical judgement as it is defined, can be influential in belief of him.

Likewise it is influential in the example unto belief that dropping the anvil your foot will hurt.
You most assuredly believe it and rightfully so.

Ah, you're back to squashing "belief" into your own interpretation.

No not really.
Rather I am attempting to squash out the reality of belief from the assumptive recesses of perception.
And I must say in this enviroment it is a trying process.

Belief is what you do when you don't have evidence. Knowledge is what you have when you do have evidence. They are not only not the same thing, they are opposite things.

I'm sorry but as a matter of practical reality they are one in the same.
Belief as defined also states that.
"Know", and all of it's extensions are an expression of belief at it's pinnacle of support and confidence.(little if any perceptable doubt)
Or mental acceptance to the extent as an expression of "knowing".

Crucially, knowledge can be wrong, because you may not have enough evidence

First, you just contradicted yourself, and in the process you just gave a good example to support what I am claiming.
Knowledge or the presumption of "knowing" can be wrong due to incomplete evidence, misinterpretation of evidence, or establishment of new evidence.
That is precisely why knowing can only be an expression of belief.
Since it is in reality, "not knowing" but rather "belief in knowing" something as factual when it may or maynot be.

-but belief never is, because evidence is disregarded to suit the belief.

Well speaking of evidence, where is yours to support this expression of pure speculative assumption?

If you drop on anvil on your foot knowing it'll hurt but it doesn't, your knowledge was wrong because you didn't have the evidence that it's an anvil made of polystyrene. If you drop an anvil on your foot believing that it won't hurt but it does, you probably just weren't believing it hard enough.

Same problem here.

That's garbage and you know it - at least you should know it.

Sorry TM but it is a simple fact of practical reality.

What you are saying is that there is no such thing as objective reality or knowable facts.

No I'm not saying that.
But I am saying, again in reality that since we know that subject to the exposure of associated dynamic influences, we can only believe what is considered objective reality as an expression of knowing.
That does not establish that all of objective reality is evidentially alterable, but likewise we do not know which parts may be susceptible to it.

The Holocaust happened. The Patriots won Superbowl XLIX. Scotland beat Qatar 1-0 last week.
Neither of us witnessed all of these events. All but a handful of unfortunate souls on Earth witnessed the latter of these, yet it happened. The above are statement of fact, not a statement of my own views on the matter.

Well lets examine that for a moment.
In reality you are accepting these reports as factual.
Or in other words you personally believe they are factual.
I do too, BTW.
And the reason you do, is confidence in the integrity of the institutions doing the reporting.
In that as far as you know there is no logical reason to suspect any other out come.
But just for instance the Super Bowl outcome came under some scrutiny afterwards that could have resulted, had things gone a little differently, in a change in the official outcome.(highly unlikely of course but possible)
Had that been the case, then in reality your "knowing" would have actually been "not knowing".
Thats what I mean.

Belief need not and does not come into it. You could believe whatever you want but it doesn't make any difference to the objective truth that the result of Scotland v Qatar last week was 1-0 in Scotland's favour. You might believe that Qatar won 46-3, but the evidence would render your belief misplaced.

When it comes to whether or not one accepts something as true or as a fact, one simply cannot rely on one's own beliefs on the matter, especially when there exists ample evidence that might contradict one's beliefs. Whether Scotland really did beat Qatar 1-0 is largely inconsequential - but when people start making crap up about important historical or scientific facts - such as Holocaust deniers - that's when a line is crossed.

You know I see this concept repeatedly in this thread and I am always puzzeled by it.
This absolute distrust and always negative connotation associated with belief, indicative
of some ulterior motive like a Boogie man.
As if the word was another term for the Black Plague, and requires disassociation at all cost.
The disassociation having to be resultingly made even at the cost of practical reality.
This same belief being applied unto the establishment of objective reality, yet condemned unto a judgement of complete unrealiability.
Quite fascinating.

The funny thing was that about half the pub believed one thing and half the pub believed another - but the objective reality/ evidence (the replay of the incident) rendered all of those 'beliefs' (subjective experiences) irrelevant, and established the fact that my assertion was correct and the other guy was wrong.

Again strange how you describe this.
Half of the "beliefs" were anything but irrelevant, and were actually correct.
Among which was your "belief", not assertion.
Sorry but if you were betting £100 I have to conclude you were believing not asserting.
And as you pointed out, you had good reason too.
Lastly, conveniently worded to side step that the fact was established as per perception and belief.
The classic "seeing is believing" example.

 

[Famine]

No not really.
Rather I am attempting to squash out the reality of belief from the assumptive recesses of perception.
And I must say in this enviroment it is a trying process.

That's because you're talking bollocks.

Unfortunately you do this every few pages - get stuck in a hole of language that you then try to redefine your way out of. This particular redefinition is one you've tried before at least twice, so really there's no excuse for you to still pretend that belief is anything other than a position arrived at without evidence.

I'm sorry but as a matter of practical reality they are one in the same.
Belief as defined also states that.
"Know", and all of it's extensions are an expression of belief at it's pinnacle of support and confidence.(little if any perceptable doubt)
Or mental acceptance to the extent as an expression of "knowing".

Once again, you're trying to obfuscate the concept of a belief with a sloppy colloquialism. You did that last time too.

Belief is very specifically a position arrived at without evidence. While this can supplant actual knowledge in someone who believes in something hard enough, it is a position that has no evidence and cannot qualify as knowledge.

First, you just contradicted yourself

Nope.

and in the process you just gave a good example to support what I am claiming.

And nope. What I did was show why the pursuit of knowledge is progressive, enquiring and open-minded, but belief is unshakable and ignorant of evidence.

Knowledge or the presumption of "knowing" can be wrong due to incomplete evidence, misinterpretation of evidence, or establishment of new evidence.

Yes.

That is precisely why knowing can only be an expression of belief.

No. It's precisely why knowing is never an expression of belief, because it is underpinned by evidence alone. Belief is a position arrived at without evidence.

Since it is in reality, "not knowing" but rather "belief in knowing" something as factual when it may or maynot be.

Belief is a position arrived at without evidence. While it's certainly possible to believe in knowing, you would have to do so in spite of evidence, not because of it.

Well speaking of evidence, where is yours to support this expression of pure speculative assumption?

Literally every religion ever.

To a true believer, no evidence will ever be enough to convince them to stop believing. We've seen it over and over again in this thread and others - one chap said that because his holy book says that aliens don't exist, he wouldn't accept the existence of aliens even if they appeared to him in person.

Oddly, just about every atheist I know says that they would accept the existence of a deity if they appeared to them in person.

This is because knowledge can be wrong - but belief will never accept that it is.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The bible has never made such claims of an easter bunny.

Wrong.

1. And lo the heavens spake and the people raised their eyes to the voice. 2. A mighty squeak there was, and the people said "Lo, the bunny tis arose". 3. And the people knew that it was good for the Bunny would bring them chocolate at Easter. 4. And a couple of bank holidays to boot.

That's a local bible that I wrote myself, that's perfectly okay to do by the standards of your own church, remember?

Again, you prove the bible right by mocking.

There is no proof of the bible.

You go boy.

Yes Dad.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

And which way is that?

I shouldn't have to spell it out: the tooth fairy.

Obviously it is not about subjectivity, but rather the quest for objectivity.
However, there is absolutely, positively, without exception, no way to establish objectivity apart from the subjective perception of the individual or individuals.
If there is another way it can be done, please clue me in, I would really like to know what it is.
Now, my statement again concerning this is that if you remove the individual, or individuals you likewise remove the perspective required to establish, know or percieve anything, objective or otherwise.
Hence there is nothing.
That is just a simple, basic, testable, measureable, repeatable, verifiable and conclusive fact of the matter.
If you like mathematical equivalents that is a classic example:
Any number minus the same number equals zero.

Further the tree in the forest is a prime example.
If you remove the individual from the forest and a tree falls, there is no sound, no vibration, no sight, no nothing.
Now this is the closer:
The only way that it can be percieved, known, or established from a reality position, that any of the above factors occurred, is by prior perception of the individual.
So if there is no individual there is no anything.

Given the overwhelming demand by many in this thread for evidence, proof and the like, I'm really shocked at the challenge to this.

This is so far from the original point you tried to make, so let's cut right back to it:

No, the realm of the spiritual cannot be tested or measured by Science.
So you are assuming it cannot be known or evidential on that basis.
Now I will agree that is logical, but is also subjective.
Or biased and prejudiced against the possibilty that individually it can be explored and confirmed.

Thinking "I've spoken to God" is not confirming anything.

I've mentioned this before in this thread that what I am experiencing and describing is a relationship as opposed to a Religion.

Victims of Stockholm Syndrome do tend to see things as a relationship, yes.

Still doesn't answer why you've called this "relationship" you have something that can be tested and repeated, yet plenty of people have had religious dealings in the past without becoming quite so blinkered.

Absolutely and unequivically, NO.
It has nothing to do with your head other than, it is aware of it.
Or in other words you can recieve cognizant material that originates in your spirit.
Or further specifically from the Holy Spirit once you have it.
The only part your head plays is in awareness of it since it is directly connected.
And with practice it can be differentiated as to where it originates.
Now as a practical concept I fully realize that sounds a bit over the top.
It is also probably the biggest stumbling block to the carnal mind.
But nevertheless that is the confirmation process of the added dimensional reality.

"I believe I'm being talked to. Therefore, I am."

This has nothing to do with "carnal minds", either. It has everything to do with thinking on one's own.

Well I would only remind you, a shotgun shell is still made up of a number of individual pellets.
Each of which carry velocity, inertia and singularity of impact.
And sometimes like a shotgun, it is the best choice for the task at hand.

Perhaps that was a bad analogy. "Verbal diarrhea" is more apt.

If conclusive objective physical evidence is your requirement, then you have presumed yourself apart from it right from the get go.
Perhaps you have never heard the term "word of mouth".
That is the only evidence available by which to learn of it.

A synonym for "rumour" is a good choice to use in this situation. I agree.

Again I believe that is a misinterpretation of the situation.
If someone warns you of a impending critical circumstance, it is not to be assumed that their intentions are only of evil trickery.

Again, you are ignoring the part of the situation where this someone is the reason for the impending critical circumstance.

I can not emphasize the following point enough:

You have been given the power to choose your own fate.
Perhaps you should stop and really contemplate that.

No need, I take responsibility for my life every day.

And for that to be a true reality there actually has to be something from which to choose.
If you are limited to only good choices, is that really a choice?
Particularly if in reality the spectrum of choice is a span of good as well as evil?

Reality does not require choice. Especially a choice in following an imaginary figure.

Now God says the road you are on he does not have any part in and cannot because it is in direct opposition to him.
It is completely run and controlled by Satan, and there is no good thing in it.
It's a dead end.

A dead end that he himself would've put me on. A dead end that he himself created.

This is where I'll hear he's a loving god again, right?

Principly it is no different than if you had money invested with Bernie Madoff, and someone told you, hey get your money away from him, he is a crook. And you say well by all indication I am doing quite well with him.
And again they say he is a crook, take your investment away from him, and I will show you where to invest it where it will be safe and give you a good return.
How is that of evil intention?

You're forgetting the part where they made Bernie what he is, and they were originally close business partners until Bernie wanted to go solo. Oh, and they also have no proof of this good return, I'm told to just believe it'll all work out.

God is just like the doctor, he is not threatening to make you sick, you are already sick.
And our disease is attributable to spiritual genetics, inherited from the first man and woman right on down the line. And originally contracted by exercising, guess what, choice. And we are back to it again.

Already sick with something he gave me, in this situation.

Quite.
And likewise a paycheque is made out to you, at the Bank of God waiting for you to come in and cash
it.

For what, the third or forth time now, I'll repeat myself: my paycheque is physical. It exists.

Sorry, but as per the factual aspects, I have to disagree.

You've already confirmed you don't have a strong grasp on what the word factual means.

Where is James Bond site that the whole world goes to visit? The site that was prophesied about? The site that everyone wants a piece of?
Where is 2 billion people worshipping ol Jamsey?
Where does Jamsey proclaim creation, and when did James sacrifice his son for the world?

If you're implying these things somehow prove God/Jesus' existence, it means nothing. A lot of people are fans of Bieber, too. "The second coming" is also prophesied on a regular basis. So, er... yeah.

How do you know those people that killed in the name of God, are Godly people...??? You don't.

They stated as much. But if you're going to insist that I don't know it, please, tell me how you do.

ONly the Creator does, hence why He says He judges by the heart, and not by deeds.

Which I believe @Imari already touched on pages ago: that's a patently idiotic selection process.

Jesus said, love your neighbor, and your enemy. Are these people killing religiously actually following Christ?
If not, how can you say they follow God?

I don't have to; they say it. I also see "hate the sin, not the sinner" used a lot as justification for all sorts of horrible treatment to others by Christians.

The toothfairy gave you a material reward, which is temporary, since you don't know if you will be breathing tomorrow.
Christ will give you a spiritual eternal reward. Your free choice of what reward you want.

I don't know if I will be breathing tomorrow, sure. I also don't know of a magical sky daddy being there to take me away, either.

 

[Touring Mars]

Well lets examine that for a moment.
In reality you are accepting these reports as factual.
Or in other words you personally believe they are factual.
I do too, BTW.
And the reason you do, is confidence in the integrity of the institutions doing the reporting.
In that as far as you know there is no logical reason to suspect any other out come.
But just for instance the Super Bowl outcome came under some scrutiny afterwards that could have resulted, had things gone a little differently, in a change in the official outcome.(highly unlikely of course but possible)
Had that been the case, then in reality your "knowing" would have actually been "not knowing".
Thats what I mean.

Let's stick to considering immutable facts, such as 'Scotland and Qatar played a football match last week'. How people perceive or remember it might differ - but the objective fact is that this event did occur, and there is ample evidence to support that claim. I know that Scotland played Qatar last week because I watched it on live TV, and I also know people who were actually there - belief need not and does not come into it.

Half of the "beliefs" were anything but irrelevant, and were actually correct.
Among which was your "belief", not assertion.

You missed the key point that the views held by various people were totally irrelevant when it came to establishing what actually happened. Who was right and who was wrong was established by the evidence, not by the strength of the conviction held by either party, or how they might have arrived at that conviction in the first place.

There's a clear difference between knowledge and belief provided you stick to their proper definitions. Let me be clear in saying that I am using the same definitions as Famine i.e. belief is a view arrived at without or in spite of evidence. By this definition, once there is evidence then belief becomes irrelevant. My view that Boyd had scored the goal was categorically not a belief - it was based on unequivocal evidence, footage that it turned out the other guy hadn't seen because he was watching a different channel.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

That's because you're talking bollocks.

This particular redefinition is one you've tried before at least twice, so really there's no excuse for you to still pretend that belief is anything other than a position arrived at without evidence.

Belief is very specifically a position arrived at without evidence.
It's precisely why knowing is never an expression of belief, because it is underpinned by evidence alone.
Belief is a position arrived at without evidence.
Belief is a position arrived at without evidence.

Well here is a definition for you, that I've already posted once before.
You might want to pay particular attention to #3.

Full Definition of BELIEF
1
: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2
: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3
: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence


So again in reality belief spans the evidential as well as the non evidential which is a given to start with.
Something that is evidentially based, doesn't change the fact that it can be believed.

 

[Famine]

Yay! The cherry-picking one definition from one dictionary game!

Well here is a definition for you, that I've already posted once before.
You might want to pay particular attention to #3.

And you might like to not ignore all of the other definitions, as you did before. I do like how you've missed off the first part of that page, where all three definitions are held as equals to feelings, and the synonym discussion afterwards, which includes the reminder that "belief" is used when there is no certainty...

The etymology of "belief" is from the Old English "geleafa", from "gelove" - the same root from which we get "love" - and means "to hold dear". Your colleagues in the Roman Catholic Church defined it as "something true as in religious doctrine".


So. Belief is what you have when there is no evidence and knowledge is what you have when there is.

 

[Scaff]

God lets babies die because they may be the next Hitler or Stalin......

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...yearold-to-stop-the-next-hitler-10311046.html

....makes you wonder why he dropped the ball so much with Hitler and Stalin!

Well here is a definition for you, that I've already posted once before.
You might want to pay particular attention to #3.

Full Definition of BELIEF
1
: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2
: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3
: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence


So again in reality belief spans the evidential as well as the non evidential which is a given to start with.
Something that is evidentially based, doesn't change the fact that it can be believed.

So you missed out the first and last part of your source that doesn't support your claim, quoting only the bit you wanted and ignoring the rest.

That would seem to be rather misleading.

 

[DK]

God lets babies die because they may be the next Hitler or Stalin......

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...yearold-to-stop-the-next-hitler-10311046.html

....makes you wonder why he dropped the ball so much with Hitler and Stalin!



So you missed out the first and last part of your source that doesn't support your claim, quoting only the bit you wanted and ignoring the rest.

That would seem to be rather misleading.

I wouldn't be surprised if every aborted pregnancy could've been the next Mozart/Babe Ruth/Winston Churchill/Edison in his opinion.

 

[Scaff]

I wouldn't be surprised if every aborted pregnancy could've been the next Mozart/Babe Ruth/Winston Churchill/Edison in his opinion.

I don't think he's done that one yet, but he did claim that abortion was a left wing, lesbian plot.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...tion-rights-make-straight-women-more-lesbians

 

[Touring Mars]

I'd say Pat Robertson had finally lost his marbles, but he didn't have any to lose in the first place.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Let's stick to considering immutable facts, such as 'Scotland and Qatar played a football match last week'. How people perceive or remember it might differ - but the objective fact is that this event did occur, and there is ample evidence to support that claim. I know that Scotland played Qatar last week because I watched it on live TV, and I also know people who were actually there - belief need not and does not come into it.

I don't disagree in that these events can be considered as to having taken place.
But what you are saying in reality is, there is no opposition to belief and belief unto knowing as factual the events took place.
As I said it is logically impossible to state you know something and at the same time claim that you have no belief in it.
Belief is unseverable from the knowing status, and is in fact again still an expression of it, even in a seemingly unchallengeable condition.

You missed the key point that the views held by various people were totally irrelevant when it came to establishing what actually happened. Who was right and who was wrong was established by the evidence, not by the strength of the conviction held by either party, or how they might have arrived at that conviction in the first place.

I didn't miss your point, it is pretty obvious.
Barring evidence to the contrary, the fact the replay established and clarified the event is unchallengeable.
I am questioning part of your interpretation.
In that belief was not eliminated, but rather was offered an objective clarification by the replay.

Belief is more relevant and essential than before, in that it was reaffirmed for the half that believed correctly.
Consequentially this is reinforced as well, since someone lost 100lbs. and you gained 100lbs.
Where we differ is your conclusion on suspension of belief in the presence of seemingly irrefutable evidence on the supported side.
Again in reality that is a logically unjustifiable assumption, even if it has a very high percentage of
favorable odds for correctness.
Knowing is still believing.
Belief spans the evidential as well as the non evidential and again does not become severable, even on the seemingly unchallengeable evidence side.
Likewise knowing is always a partial assumption, or in reality "as far as I know" so again because of that, belief is unseverable.

There's a clear difference between knowledge and belief provided you stick to their proper definitions. Let me be clear in saying that I am using the same definitions as Famine i.e. belief is a view arrived at without or in spite of evidence. By this definition, once there is evidence then belief becomes irrelevant. My view that Boyd had scored the goal was categorically not a belief - it was based on unequivocal evidence, footage that it turned out the other guy hadn't seen because he was watching a different channel.

Again I don't agree.
To the contrary it is more relevent than ever.
It is still a belief, just a well supported one, and so much so, as to be extended to the claim of knowing.
And BTW did you believe the evidence?
Of course you did.

Belief as defined only has to meet one of several separately specified requirements.
The fact that a evidentially supported proposition can be believed is obvious, even if it was not defined as such.
However, as has been provided, it is defined as such.

 

[Dotini]

I don't disagree in that these events can be considered as to having taken place.
But what you are saying in reality is, there is no opposition to belief and belief unto knowing as factual the events took place.
As I said it is logically impossible to state you know something and at the same time claim that you have no belief in it.
Belief is unseverable from the knowing status, and is in fact again still an expression of it, even in a seemingly unchallengeable condition.



I didn't miss your point, it is pretty obvious.
Barring evidence to the contrary, the fact the replay established and clarified the event is unchallengeable.
I am questioning part of your interpretation.
In that belief was not eliminated, but rather was offered an objective clarification by the replay.

Belief is more relevant and essential than before, in that it was reaffirmed for the half that believed correctly.
Consequentially this is reinforced as well, since someone lost 100lbs. and you gained 100lbs.
Where we differ is your conclusion on suspension of belief in the presence of seemingly irrefutable evidence on the supported side.
Again in reality that is a logically unjustifiable assumption, even if it has a very high percentage of
favorable odds for correctness.
Knowing is still believing.
Belief spans the evidential as well as the non evidential and again does not become severable, even on the seemingly unchallengeable evidence side.
Likewise knowing is always a partial assumption, or in reality "as far as I know" so again because of that, belief is unseverable.



Again I don't agree.
To the contrary it is more relevent than ever.
It is still a belief, just a well supported one, and so much so, as to be extended to the claim of knowing.
And BTW did you believe the evidence?
Of course you did.

Belief as defined only has to meet one of several separately specified requirements.
The fact that a evidentially supported proposition can be believed is obvious, even if it was not defined as such.
However, as has been provided, it is defined as such.

Not a bad post, certainly not one by an idiot.

I see we have here an incommensurability of paradigms. TM and most others have a paradigm based on the current standard model of physics. SCJ has a paradigm based on Christian tradition and Aristotelian logic. It could be debated which paradigm is the better choice to live by - or even if one has a choice at all.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I see we have here an incommensurability of paradigms. TM and most others have a paradigm based on the current standard model of physics. SCJ has a paradigm based on Christian tradition and Aristotelian logic. It could be debated which paradigm is the better choice to live by - or even if one has a choice at all.

But we can clearly see which exists in a provable, measurable framework. The other exists in a series of millenia-old legends written and permuted by man in lieu of science or political power.

 

[Dotini]

But we can clearly see which exists in a provable, measurable framework. The other exists in a series of millenia-old legends written and permuted by man in lieu of science or political power.

True enough!
And yet humanity is badly divided. What is our true nature?