04 May 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf abiogenesis happened there would be evidence it happened. Do you think perhaps God came down and wiped away that evidence?
I already answered it. It depends on the situation. In many cases, it clearly does not.
An example is sufficient to refute it:
A matching DNA test of a blood sample found on the murder weapon is strong evidence that accused was the murderer. The absence of said matching DNA evidence is not strong evidence that he is not the murderer.
You're blowing smoke in my face... so good night, and good luck with your arguments.
04 May 15
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadABSOLUTELY!
But without using the word 'deluded', do you think your son could be wrong about reincarnation? By the phrase 'seeing the world differently' are you trying to maintain that you could both remain right despite having opposing views on the factuality of reincarnation?
How will you find out if reincarnation (which over half the world's population believes in) is "factually correct" or not? How would you determine that?
Maybe your problem is the common one of trying to put the Infinite into a mental box of your construction.
When we eventually find out, we will see that the TRUTH is far beyond what any brain could have ever imagined.
But we can accept that this must be so even with the limited knowledge (and evidence) that we have today. Because an Infinite that you could understand and put in a box is not worth the name.
04 May 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadA matching DNA test of a blood sample found on the murder weapon is strong evidence that the accused may have been cut by a knife. 😏
I already answered it. It depends on the situation. In many cases, it clearly does not.
An example is sufficient to refute it:
A matching DNA test of a blood sample found on the murder weapon is strong evidence that accused was the murderer. The absence of said matching DNA evidence is not strong evidence that he is not the murderer.
04 May 15
Originally posted by lemon limeMaybe so. But it wouldn't necessarily be the evidence you demand. I for example consider the existence of life to be very strong evidence that it happened.
If abiogenesis happened there would be evidence it happened.
Do you think perhaps God came down and wiped away that evidence?
No. And I may equally ask where the evidence that creation happened.
You're blowing smoke in my face... so good night, and good luck with your arguments.
No, I am not. I am perfectly willing to discuss this in detail, but all you care about is making claims and refusing to listen to any responses. You have already refused to start a thread on the topic, yet you insist on bringing up your claims here, but even here you are not interested in any response.
I have proved beyond a doubt that your claim about the absence of evidence is invalid. Call it 'blowing smoke in your face' all you like, it remains a fact that it is an invalid claim.
04 May 15
Originally posted by CalJustWell I find it blatantly obvious that it is not factual. I could go into some detail but this thread is no the place.
ABSOLUTELY!
How will you find out if reincarnation (which over half the world's population believes in) is "factually correct" or not? How would you determine that?
Maybe your problem is the common one of trying to put the Infinite into a mental box of your construction.
Maybe, maybe not. But I personally think you are merely trying to make anything possible by hand waving. It seems to me that either reincarnation happens or it doesn't. I don't think both are correct is a valid stand to take.
When we eventually find out, we will see that the TRUTH is far beyond what any brain could have ever imagined.
Then you are both wrong.
But we can accept that this must be so even with the limited knowledge (and evidence) that we have today. Because an Infinite that you could understand and put in a box is not worth the name.
I disagree.
04 May 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadOriginally posted by twhitehead
Well I find it blatantly obvious that it is not factual. I could go into some detail but this thread is no the place.
That would be really interesting - what you find blatantly obvious, that is. I don't believe in reincarnation due to some practical problems, but I would not call the 3 bn people or so deluded.
I disagree.
Of course you do! I wouldn't have expected anything else.
Originally posted by CalJustWell I think I would. Deluded is stronger than merely mistaken. It suggests being taken in by a person or an idea as well as being a belief and/or illusion. In this case I would say those that believe in reincarnation are taken in by a combination of an idea and their own desire for it to be so. Many also experience illusions that they think confirm the belief.
I don't believe in reincarnation due to some practical problems, but I would not call the 3 bn people or so deluded.
I do think 'deluded' is appropriate. It does not however mean mentally ill in this context (nor is 'mentally ill' its most common meaning despite lemon limes 'joke' ) .
05 May 15
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadOn reflection, this is the kind of argument Smugface would use!
Well I find it blatantly obvious that it is not factual.
What you find blatantly obvious is the considered belief of billions of people.
In fact, after such a statement, a Smugface icon would really be appropriate!
05 May 15
Originally posted by CalJustNo, I made no such argument. Hence the reason you had to paraphrase.
The argument was (and I paraphrase): "(it's true because) it's blatantly obvious. "
No reason, just prejudice.
Go back and read the exchange again.
You asked how I would knew something. I said that to me it is obvious, and I could go into more detail as to why I find it obvious if I chose to do so.
I did not as you claim make an argument. I was not attempting to convince you of the validity of the original claim.
I did not as you claim say there was no reason. In fact I quite clearly stated the exact opposite.
Hence no need for a smugface.
06 May 15
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadAdmittedly, comparing somebody with Smugface is probably the worst insult one can come up with on RHP!
No, I made no such argument. Hence the reason you had to paraphrase.
[b]No reason, just prejudice.
Go back and read the exchange again.
You asked how I would knew something. I said that to me it is obvious, and I could go into more detail as to why I find it obvious if I chose to do so.
I did not as you claim make an argument. I was not attempt ...[text shortened]... was no reason. In fact I quite clearly stated the exact opposite.
Hence no need for a smugface.[/b]
So, on reflection, I retract that.
Let me get back to the theme of your Thread, which is Delusion.
My main point all along is that Delusion is difficult to identify from outside. For example, in all the discussion in this Forum between JWs and mainline Christians, BOTH sides accuse the other of delusion. However, I am sure that there are intelligent persons on both sides, who have reason for what they believe. Otherwise, why would JWs ( and Mormons, for that matter) dedicate a large chunk of their valuable time in missionary work?
Again, in the JW debates there have been verses of the Bible bandied about which certainly seem to support their claim as to the Trinity, and similarly on the other side. So, my point is that EACH side could take your four questions and determine conclusively that the other is deluded.
When you then throw into that argument the comment: it is patently obvious (even when one follows it with saying that this pov can be substantiated) it does not really add anything, but closes the debate, just as Smugface closes all his debates by saying in effect: it says so in the Bible, stupid!
So, summarising my entire posts in this thread, my comment would be:
1. No, you cannot use your four questions to establish Delusion or the lack of it, and
2. The world is NOT dualistic, black and white, Right and Wrong, but most often the Truth is a combination of various opposing ideas.
Richard Rohr calls this "Yes, and..." thinking, in his book of the same title.
Am I repeating myself? If so, then I apologise... 😉
06 May 15
Originally posted by CalJustI fully agree. I have personally known a number of intelligent people with differing beliefs and reasons for those beliefs.
However, I am sure that there are intelligent persons on both sides, who have reason for what they believe. Otherwise, why would JWs ( and Mormons, for that matter) dedicate a large chunk of their valuable time in missionary work?
So, my point is that EACH side could take your four questions and determine conclusively that the other is deluded.
Quite possibly so. So maybe my method is not flawless.
When you then throw into that argument the comment: it is patently obvious (even when one follows it with saying that this pov can be substantiated) it does not really add anything, but closes the debate, just as Smugface closes all his debates by saying in effect: it says so in the Bible, stupid!
I think you misunderstood what I said and the context in which I said it. We were not discussing whether or not reincarnation is true, nor trying to persuade each other of a given position. The question on the table at the time was whether or not it is possible to know whether reincarnation is true. Essentially, you seemed to be claiming agnosticism (the claim that nothing can be known for curtain about a given topic). My response was that to me it is not only known, but my knowledge is far from iffy for me and I have good reasons for my claim. I chose not to go into those reasons as they are not relevant.
So, summarising my entire posts in this thread, my comment would be:
1. No, you cannot use your four questions to establish Delusion or the lack of it, and
2. The world is NOT dualistic, black and white, Right and Wrong, but most often the Truth is a combination of various opposing ideas.
I agree with your 1. that it may not be a fool proof system. It is the best I've got. I have in this thread asked what other methods people use, and so far there has been nothing substantial given. It seems most people do not attempt it.
As for 2. I disagree. I think the world is not only dualistic on many questions, and in addition, opposing ideas can often be both wrong and not both true or on the way to the truth.
Am I repeating myself? If so, then I apologise... 😉
Nothing wrong with saying something again in a different way for clarity. We are often misunderstood on this forum. I disagree with your points, but I do think I understand them and I do think your are being honest about them.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
06 May 15
Originally posted by lemon limeUnless we're incredibly lucky, it's highly unlikely we shall find any direct evidence of abiogenesis. Time and geological activity is quite an effective combination, so there's no need for a god to erase evidence from that long ago.
If abiogenesis happened there would be evidence it happened. Do you think perhaps God came down and wiped away that evidence?