Posts by zannahdoll

120

Evidence! How did you come to know reality?

by zannahdoll in

is it possible that when we (as a people) make an advancement in science and learn new facts that they sometimes disprove what was once considered fact?

unless you test something for yourself you are taking the word of someone else.

or do you trust that things are certain?

zannahdoll

I love this:

The thing is, I can conceive of a progression and reason to get to these things. Inventions fall under the same category. But how did a purely natural species conceive of a spiritual realm?

tec: good one :) glad you enjoyed your trip. Sorry to hear about the drive though.

notverylikely

What makes something mass hysteria? Is it because all the witnesses witnessed something supernatural: therefore they didn't witness it? Even when there are repeated circumstances? And when there are people who are physically altered after?

For a moment, for the purpose of this next argument, let's say that pink unicorns are in fact real. Although the general population do not know about this (the same way we don't all know you are wearing a pink t-shirt). You and 1,000 other people see this pink unicorn. You document it. Then the pink unicorn shows up more then once, another few thousand see it people see it. Then the pink unicorn dies or moves away. She doesn't come around anymore. You and some 5,000 + share with the world: "YES! I saw a pink unicorn. I documented it. I can validate it with other witnesses."
The world will not believe you. Mass Hysteria.
Then 100 years passes. Another unicorn shows up, only this one is blue and it shows up in another country and to a new group of a few thousand people... same things happen.
The world still doesn't believe you: Mass Hysteria, even now that it happened twice...
If something supernatural such as unicorns did in fact exist: why wouldn't people believe you if these things happen? Or would there be some people who did believe you? Would they be crazy to trust you (and the few thousand witnesses)? Or do they only not believe you because it is outside of their perception of the world? The fact that they can't perceive it being possible wouldn't change that it happens.

Isn't this similar to how we know our history? Before video camera there are history books: don't we get our facts that events happened purely because they are documented and there were witnesses?

Why is it easy for us to believe what we hear on the news as fact? Or a slice of life story a person tells you that happened to them? For instance if I tell you I went to a college lecture and there were some 50 students who heard the professor speak. If I told you the professor existed and gave an interesting lesson. I don't have it video taped. I have far less witnesses then the Marian Apparitions. The professor will be dead before another 100 years passes. There will not be a repetition of this event because I will not take this class again. However if I were to tell you that you that it is more likely you would believe me. Why? Because it doesn't conflict with your perception of reality. However both Marian Apparitions and professors that you never meet for yourself depend on taking someone else's word for it.

What about a sole eye witness to a crime? Should they take the stand in a trial? Should a jury believe them? Or should it be dismissed as hysteria? If there were 100 people to witness the crime then it would be mass hysteria... but no, we trust witnesses... because if they say something it is in our realm of understanding, in our world of perception.

120

Evidence! How did you come to know reality?

by zannahdoll in

is it possible that when we (as a people) make an advancement in science and learn new facts that they sometimes disprove what was once considered fact?

unless you test something for yourself you are taking the word of someone else.

or do you trust that things are certain?

zannahdoll

tec

How was your trip?

120

Evidence! How did you come to know reality?

by zannahdoll in

is it possible that when we (as a people) make an advancement in science and learn new facts that they sometimes disprove what was once considered fact?

unless you test something for yourself you are taking the word of someone else.

or do you trust that things are certain?

zannahdoll

notverylikely

I've demonstrated amply that your assertion was untrue.

When? I have not seen this done ONCE yet.

I guess that proves that voice synthesized thermometers are a myth or that blind people can't read.

Would still take your ears... still takes one of your 5 senses. My point about eyes was that in order for us to use tools we need our senses to depend on them. You bringing up a voice synthesized thermometer doesn't discredit my point, it only confirms it.

So, either you just proved that Elvis is still alive or that God is unprovable or that you are closet Hindu.

None of the above. I showed that I trust my senses and take a leap of faith. I didn't say it was provable. What I am saying it is like anything else: what is considered provable is based on our senses and what others tell us. AND things that have been proven true have also, later, been unproven when we have more knowledge. We are limited to what we know. In light of new knowledge we sometimes learn what we once knew to be incorrect.

AND I am not saying anything new. Same points. We are going in circles.

120

Evidence! How did you come to know reality?

by zannahdoll in

is it possible that when we (as a people) make an advancement in science and learn new facts that they sometimes disprove what was once considered fact?

unless you test something for yourself you are taking the word of someone else.

or do you trust that things are certain?

zannahdoll

notverylikely

I said: "It is my opinion, that there has not been sufficient "counter-proof" (as you suggest) to show God does not exist."

You said:

Well there's your problem. You are trying to test negative proof, something that is not falisifiable and untestable. You might as well try to prove that pink unicorns don't exist.

As lovely as it would be to believe in a pink unicorn I have never had a personal experience with a pink unicorn. I have not known anyone who has had an experience with a pink unicorn. I have not read any history about a pink unicorn or about important people who believe in a pink unicorn.

I have had personal experiences with God. I have known many, many people who have had personal experiences, often more spectacular then my own. I have read about many, many cultures in history that expressed belief in a higher being. There have been many important people who have had reason to believe in a higher being.

It is through these things: my senses and trust in other people and their senses: that I believe: yes, God exists. I take a leap of faith. Just as we do for anything else that we believe.

120

Evidence! How did you come to know reality?

by zannahdoll in

is it possible that when we (as a people) make an advancement in science and learn new facts that they sometimes disprove what was once considered fact?

unless you test something for yourself you are taking the word of someone else.

or do you trust that things are certain?

zannahdoll

notverylikely

my question from the beginning and throughout is how we know evidence. How we know reality. My take, from the beginning is that it is based on our senses and what others tell us. Which, is our perception. Now you say that we haven't debated that. I did not only barely now come to the conclusion that reality changes... I held that from the beginning. --- yes, we go in circles and you do take me out of context answering one line at a time rather then a concept I present. * sigh *

It is that you say that reality changes, yet you need repeatable situations to prove something to be true (evidence). What I am showing is that because reality changes that because something repeats does not always make it true. Tools are helpful, but for us to agree on the temperature it still takes our human eyes to see how the thermostat reads.

The Marian Apparitions that I am speaking of are not her face in toast or water stains on walls. They are of people seeing a physical woman in the sky who gives them a message to love others, build a church, follow Jesus and the effects and cures people have witnessed and felt as a result. Sometimes viewed by thousands. They know her and who she is because it is a supernatural event that an ordinary woman could not do and because of her messages.

The Marian Apparitions I speak of would not be repeatable or testable the way my surgery was not and the way your wearing a pink shirt was not. Doesn't mean that my surgery wasn't a reality and your pink shirt was not a reality. It also doesn't mean that these Apparitions are not a reality.

We do not always come to know evidence/reality based on repeated events. We do not always know reality based on what is tested. There are some real events (my surgery, your pink shirt) that are not testable and not repeated. It doesn't take away from their reality. And now the circle continues...

The descriptions and purposes of the many gods in Hindu is similar to the description of the many saints and their purposes in Catholicism. And that there is a higher god(s) in Hindu that are more important then the other god(s) is similar to the God in Catholicism being 3 Persons in One God above all else. I didn't make up this concept: it was in a college course and in a text book that these comparisons were first made to me. The other comparisons I made are also there.

22

The fascinating mind of ANSELM (the man who proved God exists)

by Terry in

that one thing, of course, exists through itself, and so it is greater than all the other things.

so that than which nothing greater can be thought exists in the understanding.

but if it exists in the understanding, it must also exist in reality.

zannahdoll

BurnTheShips

In other words, God is omnipotent in theory, but not in effect.

There are often things, as people, that we have in our power to do and do not do. Sometimes we are lazy or sometimes there are multiple things we can do and choose to do one thing and not others. Sometimes we can do something but we do not do it because it would be unkind. Reminds me of a mother's wisdom "just because you can doesn't mean you should."

My understanding is that God is like a parent. Parents allow their children to make their own mistakes if they really want them to learn for themselves. God allows us to have some power and allows Himself to be absent/ignored in order for us to choose Him. It doesn't mean He isn't there, it just means we can choose other then Him. When I see my mom I can hug and kiss her: the opportunity is there, but I can choose not to. (I give her hugs and kisses)

22

The fascinating mind of ANSELM (the man who proved God exists)

by Terry in

that one thing, of course, exists through itself, and so it is greater than all the other things.

so that than which nothing greater can be thought exists in the understanding.

but if it exists in the understanding, it must also exist in reality.

zannahdoll

Anselm Rocks! Thanks for this post Terry.

His foundational argument dovetails into the Best of All Possible Worlds argument.

If there is a best that presupposes that there is a worst. Because there is a best isn't to say the other does not exist, it actually confirms the opposite exists or there would be no need for a distinction of "Best."

Some people have a hard time eating what is best for their bodies. It doesn't mean that a healthy way of eating doesn't exist: but junk food and candy sure are hard to pass up. We make eating and lifestyle choices every day.

Could God have created a heaven's and Earth in which man did NOT disobey and fall bringing death, corruption and futility?If not---why not?
If so--why didn't He?

Yes, God could have. However: in so doing He would not allow people choices. There would not be any good to do, all would be good already. There would not be taste or variety. We would hold the same opinions. There would not be will power or discipline: there would be nothing to tempt us and we would have no choice but to do what is good. Also: without challenge and corruption there isn't triumph. For Anselm as a Catholic death was not the end of the story. Jesus died on the cross, and then there was Easter. We would be robots if there was not only the choice to disobey but also things that tempt us to disobey. As a Catholic we believe in free will and making continually making choices daily. Also: death isn't the end and life on earth, in terms of eternity, isn't very much at all.

120

Evidence! How did you come to know reality?

by zannahdoll in

is it possible that when we (as a people) make an advancement in science and learn new facts that they sometimes disprove what was once considered fact?

unless you test something for yourself you are taking the word of someone else.

or do you trust that things are certain?

zannahdoll

Terry:

We agree here :

You come to know reality with your 5 senses.
Your mind sets us a workshop.
You separate the sensory bite into categories of your own making: concepts.
Differentiate, integrate=form conclusions.

Here I only agree with you in part:

Now, at this point, we separate the stupid people from the intelligent ones.
Smart people take a skeptical view of their conclusions and constantly put those conclusions to the test.
Stupid people settle back and defend their conclusions no matter what counter-proof is offered.

I agree with you that smarter people are more skeptical. However, where you may disagree with me, you can be skeptical to a fault. Due to being burned in the past people can stop trusting trustworthy people. A person can be skeptical of new information, no matter how factual it is, if it differs from their own way of thinking. Are "Stupid People" the only ones who defend their conclusions? What if there is not sufficient "counter-proof"? What comes to mind to me are debaters and attorneys on opposing sides: does this mean that there is always one side that is the smart side while the other side is the stupid side because both will defend their conclusions no matter what counter-proof is offered?

No one constantly puts their conclusions to the test or they would never act on their conclusions. That would be impossible. You may revisit a conclusion and test it repeatedly, but you (you in the general sense; all people) do give the testing a rest and accept their conclusions or we would not function. We accept facts that are presented to us and use them. If we constantly questions facts then we could not use them. For example: you accept facts such as the reality of your computer to type on, your means of transportation, that the food you eat exists and isn't a figment of your imagination. You do not constantly question it or you would not use a computer, you wouldn't go anywhere, you wouldn't eat anything... It is true for more abstract thinking as well:

Terry: do you question that you feel God doesn't exist? Haven't you grown to accept that He does not exist, and if he does it is incredibly unlikely? I believe God exists. I do not constantly test this conclusion. But from time to time I do. When I was a pre-teen I questioned God's existence. When I was 17/18 I questioned God's existence. I questioned God a few times in my 20s and most recently when I first visited this site. And I seek out and speak to such wise souls as yourself, people who think entirely contradictorily to myself. It is my opinion, that there has not been sufficient "counter-proof" (as you suggest) to show God does not exist. And then I recall my own personal experiences, miracles and experiences of others I trust and I see evidence, in my life and in the lives of many people I know and many people's lives throughout history, that God does exist. It is a leap of faith, because I'm trusting my senses and I'm trusting what other people have told me. However: so it is with everything else. Knowing any kind of reality takes a leap of faith in your senses and in what other people tell you. Knowing I still defend a position of God and then you stating "Stupid people settle back and defend their conclusions no matter what counter-proof is offered." feels as though you are insinuating I am stupid.

Terry: you're known to say things like "theists don't think". Here you speak of "stupid people". However, I've also have said that it is a great disservice to human kind to separate people into "us" and "them" and to say one is right and the other wrong. Here are your words from another thread:

The first thing that happens when people start talking about God is that a wall goes up between them called I'M RIGHT/YOU'RE WRONG.
And that is just a hop and skip away from disrespecting the humanity of our species.

It sounds like you don't like to disrespect the humanity of our species, and I genuinely enjoy many of your thoughtful and provoking posts, you have challenged me and I like that. However the thing that you critique in others is something I feel you are a little bit guilty of yourself.

120

Evidence! How did you come to know reality?

by zannahdoll in

is it possible that when we (as a people) make an advancement in science and learn new facts that they sometimes disprove what was once considered fact?

unless you test something for yourself you are taking the word of someone else.

or do you trust that things are certain?

zannahdoll

notverylikely:

Hinduism and Catholiscm are not related.

I agree, they are not. All the more fascinating to me how they are similar. My point was that, in my thinking, they are different perceptions of the same reality.

120

Evidence! How did you come to know reality?

by zannahdoll in

is it possible that when we (as a people) make an advancement in science and learn new facts that they sometimes disprove what was once considered fact?

unless you test something for yourself you are taking the word of someone else.

or do you trust that things are certain?

zannahdoll

notverylikely:

On Testable and Repeatable, and a little on Math and Science:

Here is a true life story of my own thats causes are untestable, it is not repeated however it remains a factual reality:

I had surgery for a fluke problem in my intestine last March. What happened wasn't due to an unhealthy lifestyle, I maintain a healthy weight (could loose a couple pounds but I'm thin), I don't smoke/drink heavily, and at the time I hadn't had a drink in a couple months. There is not a family history of intestinal problems. I hadn't been working out heavily or doing any heavy lifting. I have never had surgery before (except wisdom teeth being pulled out) so it wasn't due to a complication of a prior problem. What happened was a small tear formed by my colon and my intestine (that moves and flows) was caught and stuck in this new little hole formed by the tear. The hole, being small, then worked as a clamp on my intestine. No food would pass through. I was very, very sick. It was miserable and very painful. Surgery fixed it, enlarging the hole in order to free my intestine of its death clamp. The doctors had NO IDEA how the tear came about.

This event in my life is a one time occurrence. There is no evidence as to how it came about after tests. It is not repeatable. It is a fact and it is reality.

I said: "There are miracles/supernatural events that have been well documented, many observers, etc... some repeated... favorites of mine, being a Catholic, are the Marian Apparitions. "

You responded:

Are they testable, repeatable? Can you show me the documentation to test their validity?

I cannot say all the Marian Apparitions are repeatable, although some are. Yes! I can show you documentation of their validity: sometimes a few witnesses, sometimes thousands: here is a quick wiki link. Currently there are apparitions in Medjugorje, not yet confirmed by the Catholic Church, however countless people will attest to these occurrences. http://www.medjugorje.org/

However, due to your perceptions and who you trust as experts you would not accept the documentation. I'm making an assumption now, however, I bet that the experts you trust in any field, the moment they start speaking of something supernatural you would no longer consider them a valid expert.

Repetition

The reason I brought up Pavlov's Dog previously (which is something else either I didn't explain clearly or you took me out of context) is that repetition does not always prove cause and effect. Pavlov would ring a bell and it did not effect his dog. Later he always rang the bell when feeding his dog. Then when he would ring the bell the dog would salivate. Did ringing a bell cause the dog to salivate? Well, in a sense, yes, but really it is that now the dog associates the sound of a ringing bell with food. Pavlov changed the dog's perception of a bell ringing, and in a sense, changed the dog's reality. Before the dog would hear a bell and nothing, now the dog hears the bell and he salivates. Both facts, reality changed. It wasn't that it was something naturally repeatable, it was repetition that forced a change in the nature of the dog.

Similarly not all correlations prove something. Repeatable evidence depends on correlations. Some correlations are good and necessary and some are silly slippery slopes. An example: smoking causing lung cancer = good correlation. Ice Cream causes drowning = bad correlation, however statistically when it is hot outside more there is a higher demand for ice cream, more ice cream is produced and consumed. Also when it is hot outside more people go swimming, and due to a greater amount of swimmers the statistics of drowning goes up as well. Just because something is repeated or happens more then one occasion does not mean it is factual evidence.

Math and Science

Math and Science are not the only way we get our information on reality. Why I had a fluke intestinal problem is not explained by these things, and it doesn't take away the reality of it. Check out what Albert says:

Albert Einstein stated that "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics Einstein, p. 28. The quote is Einstein's answer to the question: "how can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality?" He, too, is concerned with The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences.