100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Topic:
where is now?
|
|
you can take a picture of something that happens now. by the time you can look at the picture it's a depiction of something that happened in the past.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that there is some conflation here between belief, verification, and being true. indeed. a belief cannot be verified to be true for all. requires faith. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Considering and/or calling a statement "true" does not make it so. The question is what does. i've answered that i don't know how many times. to experience it makes it true to the one who experienced it. Experiencing a statement makes it true to the one who experienced it? I have no idea what it means to experience a statement. not what i said. i said that were i to experience what the claimant said was true would make the claim true to me as well. short of my experiencing what the claiment says he experienced makes the claim possibly untrue. so his truth is not my truth until and unless i experience what he experienced. of course i can say it's true that he made the claim. i experienced him make the claim but that is moot as regards the claim being true for me. question everything. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
jrbogie
on
Sun 10/02/11 10:56 AM
|
|
No offense, but I personally don't think much of anyone who condones punishment just for the sake of punishment. You should run for government and rid the USA of the death penalty then. I count 34 states that still have the death penalty. an absurd statement. firstly, the death penalty is not punishment for the sake of punishment which is the comment you replied to cowboy. secondly, i too am against the death penalty but i at least realize that nobody who might 'run for government' would ever be in a position to have the power to 'rid the usa of the death penalty.' the only government body that could do that and has in the past done that is the supreme court made up of nine justices none of whom 'ran for government.' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but andy, didn't you read the opening post? there have been reports and many consistent rumors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and he's totally different now. As soon as we moved in together, it started to become difficult. He was no longer on the up and up with his manorisms, appearance, or interests. It's so sad. Why do some people do this? to give a fair answer i'd have to blow suds off a few cold ones with the guy. you know, hear his side of the story. you're buying the beer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We've agreed to disagree long time ago. But Cowboy still goes on and on stating his beliefs as if he got them from God himself. That gets real annoying. This is a religion forum, this is where people discuss "god". Whichever belief that is nevertheless, this forum is for talking about God. So of course I would be talking about God. I would suggest if you don't wish to hear about God, speaking in a different forum. -Disclaimer- Not ment in an insulting way, or to push you away from this forum. Just a word of advise, since this is indeed the religion forum. Religion = Belief in a God(s) and or some form of spiritual belief. So again, of course "god" would be discussed in here. so if i do not believe that racism is good for mankind, which i don't, i should not participate on a skinhead forum?? what is a forum if not for the free and open discussion and exchange of views no matter how different the views? i happen to think that religious dogma is a detriment to humanity. that many dastardly deeds have been comitted "in the name of god" and absurdly excused as "god's will" and i'm not alone in this thinking. so where if not a religious forum should i express my views on religion and god?? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Past lives?
|
|
i've little information about anybody here BUT myself, jeannie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
On belief...
|
|
Another point is that we (all humans) hold certain beliefs on faith alone and it doesn't have to be religious is nature (as you know). We believe many things even IF skepticism is part of our evaluative process. We begin with a theory (belief)and evey day we proceed on that belief. >> I'm hungary, I'm going to eat << versus >> I'm not going to eat, there's no point, I'm dying anyway <<. We do have faith and thus a certain level of belief, even if we hold that skepticism is first rule of order. not so, red. at least in my case. soul doesn't lend credibility to my saying this but i've no faith in anything or anybody. i may conclude that something told to me or that i read is highly feasable based how i judge the credibility of the person and a likely explanation, but i never believe it to be fact. you say 'we begin with a theory [belief]'. a belief is not a theory by any stretch of the imagination. we begin with a postulate and from their form a hypothesis. the theory follows later when a test or tests can be conducted and shown to produce predictable and repeatable results in support of the new theory. i've posted this before: 'a good theory will describe a large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definite predictions that can be tested. if the predictions agrees with the observations, the theory survives that test, though it can never be proved to be correct.' stephen hawking, the universe in a nutshell. so even the best scientific theories should not be believed to be fact, proved or even provable according to hawking. sure it's passed every test of the decades or centuries but nobody knows if it will pass the next test. scientists never take anything on faith alone. they love to one up the other guy. always trying to challenge a theory using scientific methodology to see if the theory will hold up to the latest test. in science we investigate to disprove a theory knowing that any attempt to prove it would be wasted time. So sorry I made you write all that for nothing. I wrote that very quickly before leaving for work and did not proof read it. I used an inappropriate word - my bad. But thanks for trying to correct my thinking - though it was language that was wrong. I have no choice but to accept that you do not proceed in your day-to-day existence with any, faith, trust, or belief, in anything becasue I don't know you. I will say however, that I cannot imagine what kind of person, friend, or relative, you would be if others could have no 'faith', 'trust', or 'belief' that your actions/behaviors were predictable. I say that because it seems impossible for someone to place such values in person who holds none of those values himself preferring to skeptical of everything and everyone around him. To me that would be one scary dude. i didn't say i don't make judicious use of the benefit of the doubt, red. big difference in thinking that something said to me is highly plausible because of the credibility that i afford that particular person and concluding that because he/she said it it must be absolutely true. to think it absolutely true i would simply be taking everything someone tells me on faith alone. we're talking a very fine line here for the purpose of discussion. i can reach a conclusion that what someone close to me tells me is resonable without having faith that it is absolutely true. i see nothing scary about that. i simply think that truth is within each of us and only within each of us as individuals. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When discussing what it takes for a statement TO BE true, our knowing that it does not require our checking to see is anything but a moot point. it's not a truth to me unless i check myself. experience it myself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We need not check to see if the cup is on the table in order for the claim to be true. it's only true to the claimant who observed the cup on the table. everybody else would need rely on faith in what the claimant says is true. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am going to say this one more time... There is no debate here regarding whether or not an observer is necessary for consideration. We know that already. It is a given. The question is what makes the statement true. An observer is not the answer, nor does repeatedly putting forth the notion that an observer is necessary do anything other than state what has been already granted. Considering and/or calling a statement "true" does not make it so. The question is what does. i've answered that i don't know how many times. to experience it makes it true to the one who experienced it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it is a progressive understanding of observed and measured ideas... and therefore still subject to the 'truth' of the person observing... or the persons 'verifying' the stated 'truth'. Are you saying that truth is subject to the people, or that the personal concept of 'truth' is subject to people? If the cup is on the table, then the statement that the cup is on the table is considered "true." If there are no observers it is irrelevant. If there are no observers the statement does not exist. If there are no observers, there is no cup, there is no table. There is no statement to be considered.   in other words, if you experience that the cup is on the table then and only then is the statement true, no? not unlike the proverbial tree falling in the woods. if nobody is there to hear it then it doesn't make a sound. yes, the falling doesn disturb the air but sound only happens when that disturbed air affects an eardrum or a device like a microphone. no ear, no mic, no sound. only disturbed air. which wasn't heard. why wasn't the falling tree heard? because there was nobody around to hear it. nobody to experience the falling tree as making a sound. No, it's not quite the same. The question: "If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound..." .. is a question about an event or about the way things are. It is a question about actual reality. Our question is about a statement and whether or not it is "true." It is not about whether or not the cup or the table actually exist in reality. So the subject is the STATEMENT and the question is about what it takes for it to be true, (or "considered" true.) Without an observer there can be no consideration. So for a statement to be considered true, you need an observer to do the considering. If you just want to know what it takes for it to be true, (without an observer) then I say that the question is a moot point. Even if a universe existed that contained a table and a cup sitting on it, it is a moot point. There are no observers, there for the cup and the table cannot be perceived, therefore their existence is not acknowledge or known and there can be no statement about it. okay. so someone observes the cup on the table. is he telling the truth if he tells someone who did not observe the cup on the table? how can you know? it's true to the observer but it would require faith in what he's telling is truthful for another to BELIEVE that it's true, no? in this case, the sense of sight was required. in the case i presented a sense of hearing was required. so lets go back to the forrest and say that there was somebody there to experience the noise made by the falling tree. that he claims he head a falling tree to someone who wasn't there mean that the falling tree actually made a sound? how could you know he was even truthful when he said he was there to hear it without faith that what he says is true? truth exists only within each of us. MY truths are only those things i experience myself. to think otherwise would be to BELIEVE which i never do. question everything. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Past lives?
|
|
the point? that i've seen nothing to suggest we've lived past lives. like these easy ones, jeannie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Past lives?
|
|
I feel that like some of our traits are genetically inherited,then past experiences are also.I feel that they are coded somehow into our DNA and then at certain times we can "remember/recall something even when have not actually done it in our lives.it would be interesting to hear other views on this topic i've seen nothing that suggests we've lived past lives. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
jrbogie
on
Sat 10/01/11 03:02 PM
|
|
it is a progressive understanding of observed and measured ideas... and therefore still subject to the 'truth' of the person observing... or the persons 'verifying' the stated 'truth'. Are you saying that truth is subject to the people, or that the personal concept of 'truth' is subject to people? If the cup is on the table, then the statement that the cup is on the table is considered "true." If there are no observers it is irrelevant. If there are no observers the statement does not exist. If there are no observers, there is no cup, there is no table. There is no statement to be considered. in other words, if you experience that the cup is on the table then and only then is the statement true, no? not unlike the proverbial tree falling in the woods. if nobody is there to hear it then it doesn't make a sound. yes, the falling doesn disturb the air but sound only happens when that disturbed air affects an eardrum or a device like a microphone. no ear, no mic, no sound. only disturbed air. which wasn't heard. why wasn't the falling tree heard? because there was nobody around to hear it. nobody to experience the falling tree as making a sound. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does a personal concept of 'truth' change whether or not a statement is true? sure, if you have faith. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to attempt to keep this one a little more focused than usual. I mean usually a thread meanders here and there, however, this one is about epistemic criterion; in particular - what would it take for a claim to be true. I do not think that there is a universally applicable answer which would satisfy all statements/claims. no claim can be taken to be ABSOLUTELY true. the best we can do is theorize: 'a good theory will describe a large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definite predictions that can be tested. if the predictions agrees with the observations, the theory survives that test, though it can never be proved to be correct.' stephen hawking, the universe in a nutshell. so if something is true means that it's been proved to be fact then nothing other than what we've experienced can be called factual. to think it true would require faith of which i've none. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
On belief...
|
|
Are you making the claim that discussions of philosophy is good practice for the real world? How so? How does it add to your real world? Now... I don't think that that is any of your business. How does sound reasoning add to the world is a much better question. That is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of social convention. ah, but the social convention in saudi arabia would suggest that women should not drive. if that's not a matter of opinion why do women drive here???? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
On belief...
|
|
Another point is that we (all humans) hold certain beliefs on faith alone and it doesn't have to be religious is nature (as you know). We believe many things even IF skepticism is part of our evaluative process. We begin with a theory (belief)and evey day we proceed on that belief. >> I'm hungary, I'm going to eat << versus >> I'm not going to eat, there's no point, I'm dying anyway <<. We do have faith and thus a certain level of belief, even if we hold that skepticism is first rule of order. not so, red. at least in my case. soul doesn't lend credibility to my saying this but i've no faith in anything or anybody. i may conclude that something told to me or that i read is highly feasable based how i judge the credibility of the person and a likely explanation, but i never believe it to be fact. you say 'we begin with a theory [belief]'. a belief is not a theory by any stretch of the imagination. we begin with a postulate and from their form a hypothesis. the theory follows later when a test or tests can be conducted and shown to produce predictable and repeatable results in support of the new theory. i've posted this before: 'a good theory will describe a large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definite predictions that can be tested. if the predictions agrees with the observations, the theory survives that test, though it can never be proved to be correct.' stephen hawking, the universe in a nutshell. so even the best scientific theories should not be believed to be fact, proved or even provable according to hawking. sure it's passed every test of the decades or centuries but nobody knows if it will pass the next test. scientists never take anything on faith alone. they love to one up the other guy. always trying to challenge a theory using scientific methodology to see if the theory will hold up to the latest test. in science we investigate to disprove a theory knowing that any attempt to prove it would be wasted time. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
