How confident are you about various so called facts?

by slimboyfat 175 Replies latest social entertainment

  • bohm
    SBF -- I think your approach to uncertainty/certainty expressed in your initial post is quite different from the views you expressed before your exile. Do you feel you have revised your beliefs yourself?
  • slimboyfat
    I'm not sure.
  • bohm
    lol :-D
  • bohm
    no seriously, the idea your beliefs can be ranked in terms of degree of certainty on the same scale is pure Bayesian theory of confirmation
  • truthseeker100
    bohm Heisenberg would laugh at that. LOL It seems I am ending a lot of posts with LOL. LOL
  • Esse quam videri
    Esse quam videri

    1. The earth is a sphere rather than flat in shape. 100 %

    2. Global warming is a real phenomenon of serious concern that is caused by human activities. 65%

    3. Life on Earth evolved its many forms through the process of natural selection. o.o1%

    4. The gospels are based on a real apocalyptic preacher called Jesus who lived in first century Palestine. 90%

    5. J F Rutherford was a drunk who cheated on his wife with various women.

    Was a drunk or drank too much sometimes?

    Cheated on his wife with various women? 10%

    6. Smoking causes lung cancer. 100%

    7. Men really walked on the moon. 100%

    8. Consciousness survives death. 0.5%

    9. Moses wrote the Pentateuch. 35%

    10. Dragons exists. 0.000000000000000001%

    11. Homeopathy is effective beyond placebo. 20%

    12. O J Simpson was innocent. 0.000000000001%

    13. Scotland will be an independent country within 20 years. 20%

    14. There will be a nuclear war sometime in the 21st century. .05%

    15. The New Testament originally contained the divine name. 90%

    16. At least one of the presidents of the Watchtower was homosexual. 15%

    17. The universe began in a Big Bang around 14 billion years ago. 85%

    14 billion years ago 10%

    With a big bang. 0.00000000000000001%

    18. China is the country with the most people. 100%

  • peacefulpete

    The divine name occurs in every surviving copy of the LXX earlier than 150 CE. Not a single pre-Christian copy replaces the divine name with kyrios.

    I have already said why I am not convinced by this argument. Further, In the 2 tiny fragments we have that have been tentatively dated from preChristian times the paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton (unreadable to Greek or most Jewish readers) within the Greek text argues rather strongly that the DN was not to be read aloud or in common usage.

    The Jewish Talmud says the Christian gospels contained the divine name.

    That is how some interpret these words:

    "The 'Gilyon[im]' and the [Biblical] books of the "Minim" (Judæo-Christians?) are not saved [on Shabbat] from fire; but one lets them burn together with the names of God written upon them." R. Jose the Galilean says: "On week-days the names of God are cut out and hidden while the rest is burned." R. Tarphon says: "I swear by the life of my children that if they fall into my hands I shall burn them together with the names of God upon them."

    If you find that a convincing argument that the NT contained the Tetragrammaton that's up to you. But consider, the names of God were a list of 7 titles/names including El, Elohim, Adonai, Yhwh, Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh, Shaddai, and Ẓeba'ot. (according to Jewish Encyclopedia) Therefore any use of the words God or Lord etc. would be considered Names of God. I weigh the NT manuscript and quotes as sufficient evidence that the DN was not in the NT.

  • Simon
    The same futility of expecting a cat to understand farming, supermarkets, automobiles and the concept of a pet. How can we be so very sure we've got it all worked out?

    Because we're not cats and it's not that we're halfway along the scale from the cat to 'everything'. The cat is nowhere close.

    Again, the appeal to mystery and "what don't we know" is a common theist refuge and isn't very convincing.

    Sure, we don't know everything but we know enough that we should be convinced of a great deal of things. We trust our lives every day to the machines and controls that rely on our understanding of the universe being correct - every time we go through a set of traffic lights for instance.

    What we don't know and what we're still learning is the detail and minutia and the refinements of the knowledge already built up.

    Also, cats are evil. They are plotting our demise. The "idiot look" at the cupboard is just to throw off your suspicions.

  • Diogenesister
    VI just interested in your magician Jesus theory. Do you have any links to info around that please?
  • peacefulpete

    I'm afraid our discussion about the merits of any particular item on your original list got us off topic. Sorry.

    Ultimately, I sincerely agree with Simon's comment. We need not be concerned that every well thought out and researched conclusion may some day prove to be incomplete. Sure it may happen. But it is paralyzing, this obsessing about the unknowns. It is perfectly reasonable and productive to have resolutions, yet, be be open to new evidence when it may arise. Also it is perfectly reasonable to reserve judgement and not feel the need to take a position where evidence is deemed insufficient. I think we all likely agree in principle but somehow we get drawn into taking sides on controversy, or conversely, find shelter in indecision when a reasonable conclusion is possible.

    And yes our cats would kill and eat us if they could. I'm sure of that one as well.

Share this