- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by no1marauderYou sound like Satan trying to tempt Christ to jump off a high building...
I have an experiment for you since you claim you experience God "directly" in everyday life. Go to the nearest tall building and walk off it. Since the existence of the building itself and the ground below is merely a matter of "faith" according to you (as bbarr correctly points out, nothing is directly observable by human beings) if you click your heels ...[text shortened]... her nothing bad will happen to you. Please attempt this experiment and report back. Tootles.
Besides, as you say nothing is directly observable, would you explain how light cannot be directly observed...
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou think you're Christ now??
You sound like Satan trying to tempt Christ to jump off a high building...
Besides, as you say nothing is directly observable, would you explain how light cannot be directly observed...
EDIT: Bbarr already did. The concept seems tooooooooooo difficult for you; find a science book and actually read some of it.
1 edit
Originally posted by dottewellLook, these concepts are not really useful. I can "directly observe" David Copperfield making an elephant disappear; does that mean the elephant actually stopped physically existing? Of course not. Whatever label you want to stick unto a belief, it must be measured against the evidence to believe in it. There is no hard and fast dividing line where this is "faith" and this is "probability" and this is "certainty". All human knowledge is to some extent situational. That being said, what dj is doing is playing semantic games - the quality of the evidence is what is important, not labels.
No, you're right. Perhaps we should say the following are not matters of faith:
Things which can be directly observed, or indirectly observed, or whose existence we have good grounds to posit based on things that we can observe directly or indirectly.
twhitehead: A good definition of faith is belief in something that you do not have sufficient evidence to consider it a fact based solely on the evidence.
I think this is wrong; you believe the evidence is sufficient enough so the definition is internally inconsistent. There's really no escaping from the fact that it is up to each individual to weigh the evidence.
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerSometimes you come across as completely demented. This is yet another one of those times; I'm sure you do think of yourself as Christ-like and beset upon by agents of Satan. That should be between you and a mental health professional.
[b]You think you're Christ now??
Nope. You just reminded me of Satan. 😞[/b]
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderNo you can't, as your use of quotation marks admits. You can see him _appear_ to make an elephant disappear. And the more closely it approximates to a real experience, the better the trick.
I can "directly observe" David Copperfield making an elephant disappear.
I don't need any further evidence to know that there is a computer screen in front of me.
[edit: is it worth getting into this side-argument?]
Originally posted by dottewellSure, if you want to get into an exhaustive analysis of what "a computer screen" means and how you can never perceive a computer screen an sich. Then we could proceed to the possibility of there being an "average computer screen" or, if you prefer, the "screen in the street". Keen?
[edit: is it worth getting into this side-argument?]
1 edit
Originally posted by dottewellI used the quotation marks because we don't directly observe anything; images go to our retina, go up the optic nerve and then are put together in some semblance of order by the operation of our brains. I also very much hate people taking one part of a post out of context and "answering it" while ignoring the real point of the post. That is what you just did.
No you can't, as your use of quotation marks admits. You can see him _appear_ to make an elephant disappear. And the more closely it approximates to a real experience, the better the trick.
I don't need any further evidence to know that there is a computer screen in front of me.
[edit: is it worth getting into this side-argument?]
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by no1marauderMatthew 4:5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, 6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
You think you're Christ now??
EDIT: Bbarr already did. The concept seems tooooooooooo difficult for you; find a science book and actually read some of it.
It was nothing personal.
Originally posted by no1marauderNor has anyone observed the cranial elves responsible for putting in the colour.
I used the quotation marks because we don't directly observe anything; images go to our retina, go up the optic nerve and then are put together in some semblance of order by the operation of our brains.
Originally posted by dj2beckerExcept you put yourself in the role of Christ.
Matthew 4:5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, 6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
It was nothing personal.