[W:1303]***To Believe or Not To Believe

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

1. Really? How we know they were Egyptian leaders? Are you kidding me? Or are you that badly informed that you have never heard of the Valley of the Kings? The pyramids?

Sure.

You know? Other than the texts, the graves? The evidence of their lives?

How do you know it wasn't all fiction created by the Egyptians?

For example of Ramses II we know an awful lot.

No, you don't. You only know what was written down.

The year of his birth, the year of death, the years of his reign, the wife he had, the names of the children he had, wars he fought, peace treaties he made with other leaders of the region, his grave, his body, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Again, you only know what was written down. It could all be fiction. The same thing that you are applying to the Bible can be applied to any text.

2. really? Nobody can prove they were Egyptian leaders? :lamo

That's right. For all we know, it was elaborate fiction.

Sure, the Cheops the plumber was buried in the great Pyramids.

No one knows who was buried in the pyramids, great or (not so great?).

There is an enormous level of evidence of the Pharaohs,

No, there is written text of the pharaohs. Who is to say that text is not just some fiction? They did, after all, create an elaborate set of stories around their various gods, just as the Greeks and the Romans did.

there is near no evidence of Jesus son of god.

Yes there is. The Bible itself, Jewish and Roman texts. You say it's fiction. I say all the text about pharaohs and who was actually buried in the pyramids in Egypt is fiction. So there. What applies to one applies to the other.

 

[devildavid]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Dictionaries do not define words, people do. The word 'intuition' is from Latin, and generally means to 'watch over (as in events)', or to 'perceive'. It may or may not refer to spiritual intuition. Today, the word generally refers to perceiving without necessarily an observation taking place.

Science is not a truth, nor does it lead to it. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That is it. That is all science is. Theories are not a Truth. They are intuitions of what may be the Truth, but they are not the Truth themselves. This applies to all theories, whether they are scientific theories or nonscientific theories.

Who writes dictionaries?

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Experience of the senses. If the knowledge is not acquired through the five senses, it is not empirical. And empirical knowledge is not opinion, belief, or anything subjective. So if you have knowledge from your senses, then anyone should get the same knowledge from the same senses.

WRONG. Observation is not a proof. It IS subjective. It IS based on opinion and belief. It is subject to the problems of phenomenology. It is evidence only.

Consider the simple event of the observation of a sunrise:

To one, it is a god rising up to warm the world.
To another, it is a vehicle for such a god.
To another, it is a the result of a god placing a source of warmth over the Earth.
To another, it is a ball of fire that orbits the stationary Earth.
To another, it is a plasma that is stationary, and the Earth's rotation causes the day/night cycle.
To another, it is a plasma that is not stationary, and the Earth and the Sun move together through space
To another, it is a plasma that is orbiting the Earth, and the Earth orbits it, and nothing is stationary.
To another, it is a simple appreciation of the warmth the Sun provides every day and it doesn't matter why it's there.

One event, eight different interpretations of that event. Eight different observations of that event.

Observation must necessarily require interpreting the stimuli from your senses. You see a dog. It looks lost. What does 'lost' look like? The problems of phenomenology affect ALL observation, even that which is augmented by instrumentation.

Science isn't observation. It is a set of falsifiable theories. Observation is part of no theory, though an observation may have inspired one. Some theories of science were not even inspired by observation at all, such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

It is demonstrable that using the method of science we have gained demonstrable knowledge about the world. If you can show the same from non-science methods, I will reconsider, but I know of none.

Science is not a 'method' or a 'procedure'. It is a set of falsifiable theories. ANY method or procedure is fine. It is the test of falsifiability that takes a theory beyond the simple circular argument (or argument of faith).

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Who writes dictionaries?

Grab a dictionary, and read the author's name (usually the name of an organization). They wrote that dictionary.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Experience is subjective.

That it is. This is what that branch of philosophy known as phenomenology is all about.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

You should do more research on the Historical Jesus. Here's a starter for you:

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas

While a good text, there are a few secondary arguments that have a few holes in them. He does present a sound basic argument though.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

So all of pinqy's knowledge about the world has come to him through science? You must be a barrel of laughs at parties.

Considering that he can't even define science, his knowledge about the world must necessarily also be undefinable.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Experience from the senses, empiricism, is not subjective. You are using the wrong sense of the word. You’re talking about reasoning and extrapolation from experience. That’s not empiricism.

You seem to be denying your argument here.

 

[devildavid]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Experience is subjective.

Thinking of something is not experience.

 

[devildavid]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Considering that he can't even define science, his knowledge about the world must necessarily also be undefinable.

At least he doesn't invent his own incorrect definition of science, as you do.

 

[devildavid]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Grab a dictionary, and read the author's name (usually the name of an organization). They wrote that dictionary.

So, are the authors people?

 

[zyzygy]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

So, are the authors people?

I own ten different dictionaries and they all have the same definitions of words. How can that be?!!!

 

[Angel]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Thinking of something is not experience.

Experience is subjective. If you don't see this, then your blindness about everything else is explained.

 

[Cephus]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Thinking of something is not experience.

But that's all they really have. They dream up an explanation for some supposed event, don't really care if their explanation is valid, and demand that they have to be right because it makes them feel food. And when we point out what they're doing, they whine. There is something seriously wrong with these people.

 

[Peter King]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

You should do more research on the Historical Jesus. Here's a starter for you:

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas

Well, that is nice, as stated there might have been someone called Jesus, but who can prove that his was the son of god? And still that does not mean any of it stated in the bible ever happened with regard to Jesus. That people believe in something to begin with and then start looking for evidence to suit their already existing believes is not a historical study.

Historical studies are based on empirical evidence, not on people who are not looking for what they already see as the truth but for something that suits their faith, that tries to destroy christianity by claiming there is no god or to create social change.

 

[Angel]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

But that's all they really have. They dream up an explanation for some supposed event, don't really care if their explanation is valid, and demand that they have to be right because it makes them feel food. And when we point out what they're doing, they whine. There is something seriously wrong with these people.

Educate yourself, man. Read Locke. Read Berkeley. Read Hume. You're clueless about empiricism and talking smack about those who know more than you. That's greasy kid stuff. Grow up.

 

[devildavid]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Grab a dictionary, and read the author's name (usually the name of an organization). They wrote that dictionary.

Once again, are the authors people? Is this question too tough for you?

 

[devildavid]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

That it is. This is what that branch of philosophy known as phenomenology is all about.

Philosophy doesn't have branches. It just is.

 

[Logicman]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Historical studies are based on empirical evidence, not on people who are not looking for what they already see as the truth but for something that suits their faith, that tries to destroy christianity by claiming there is no god or to create social change.

If your standard for authenticity is empirical evidence for historical individuals, please provide empirical evidence for these individuals from antiquity:

1. Hippocrates
2. Attila the Hun
3. Archimedes of Syracuse
4. Confucius
5. Hannibal

 

[Peter King]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

If your standard for authenticity is empirical evidence for historical individuals, please provide empirical evidence for these individuals from antiquity:

1. Hippocrates
2. Attila the Hun
3. Archimedes of Syracuse
4. Confucius
5. Hannibal

Did I make an empirical call that they all existed? We are not talking about any of these figures.

But what we do know of these is that none of them said they were the son of god/savior/prophet or that they were crucified and subsequently risen from the dead.

 

[Logicman]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Did I make an empirical call that they all existed? We are not talking about any of these figures.

Show me the empirical data for ANYONE from 2,000 years ago.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

You should do more research on the Historical Jesus. Here's a starter for you:

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas

You keep on bringing that book up, but you provide no evidence you actually read it, or understand it is pop apologists, and worthless. It greatly exaggerates the validity of the claims, and does not give a critical view of what is there.

 

[Omega Man]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Yes you were. I see you too like to deny your own arguments. Funny how you people backpedal like this.

So IOW, you've gotten to the "nuh-uh" portion of your argument.


OM

 

[Peter King]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Show me the empirical data for ANYONE from 2,000 years ago.

There are historical figures of which actual documents are available.

 

[Logicman]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

You keep on bringing that book up, but you provide no evidence you actually read it, or understand it is pop apologists, and worthless.

You make a lot of really screwball statements. That's another one that deserves the bottom of the bird cage.