(December 3, 2015 at 8:46 am)robvalue Wrote: From a scientific or legal point of view, it doesn't matter what you know, it matters what you can demonstrate.

But informally, no one has any requirement to demonstrate anything, unless they want to influence someone else's beliefs. And I know CL doesn't aim to do so

Yep, you are correct. It was evidence for myself only but not something I would ever use to try to prove to anyone else because all they would have was my word.

I respect that you have the awareness to make that clear. Many others do not, and expect us to believe things based on their word.

(December 3, 2015 at 8:52 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote:

(December 3, 2015 at 8:23 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: If you witnessed Johnny kill Billy, would YOU know that Johnny killed Billy? Unless some other form of evidence comes in, you can't prove to other people that Johnny is guilty unless they chose to take your word for it. But you personally would still have enough information to know he did, for yourself.  

We did have that conversation, but that doesn't mean I agreed with you.  

That would depend entirely on what I witnessed, but even if I did undoubtedly see Johnny murder Billy, Johnny still shouldn't be convicted on the evidence of my testimony because personal testimony is a terrible standard of evidence.

I know. That's why I'm saying it would be evidence for yourself, but not something you could use to prove anything to another. Remember, this whole discussion all stemmed from Simon Moon making the claim that I base my personal beliefs entirely on "faith and wishful thinking" (which is not the case). It's not like I'm saying "look guys, you should all believe in God because this happened to me!"

I think it would be reasonable to say that if we were in your position, with the evidence you have, we would probably not come to the same conclusions you have. But since we are not you, at least I don't think we are, then that's fine

Although I do look like you. Except you don't look like yourself. This is confusing. Who am I again?

(December 3, 2015 at 8:55 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(December 3, 2015 at 8:52 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: That would depend entirely on what I witnessed, but even if I did undoubtedly see Johnny murder Billy, Johnny still shouldn't be convicted on the evidence of my testimony because personal testimony is a terrible standard of evidence.

I know. That's why I'm saying it would be evidence for yourself, but not something you could use to prove anything to another. Remember, this whole discussion all stemmed from Simon Moon making the claim that I base my personal beliefs entirely on "faith and wishful thinking" (which is not the case). It's not like I'm saying "look guys, you should all believe in God because this happened to me!"

No, it's likely that your faith is also rooted in a drastic misinterpretation of your personal experiences, which is another reason why objective corroboration is such a huge component of consensual, "true" reality. Without disproving naturalistic explanations for your experiences, you really are just picking the explanation you like best without regard for the truth.

(December 3, 2015 at 2:07 am)pool Wrote: I take it you mean the Abrahamic God?
The one that made the earth out of nowhere and made humans from mud. The one who supposedly loves us so much that he allows us to die and then go to "heaven"?

Yeah, no.

No, there is no specification on what God. Just A god. Whichever one you think would be most likely I suppose.

(December 3, 2015 at 8:52 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Yep, you are correct. It was evidence for myself only but not something I would ever use to try to prove to anyone else because all they would have was my word.

Let me get this straight. You believe something most extraordinary on the basis of one piece of evidence, that you won't share for whatever reason and that apparently you have not corroborated? Is that what you're saying?

Here's a bit of personal testimony for you. I swear on all I used to hold dear that the following actually happened, but you're free to dispute it as you wish. I will present the facts as I uncovered them at the time.

Way, way back in the day, probably around '02 or 3, my Sam was living in a small ground floor bedsit flat in Darlaston, about three miles up the road from me. She'd moved out of the family home but we'd not moved in together. The flat was right next to the main security door for the block (or complex for the Atlantically-challenged) and she used to get drunken idiots knocking the windows of a Friday night, wanting to be let in.

I would usually be staying with her most nights, young love and all that. The beauty of the place was that once the light was off, the bedroom/living room was totally dark and peaceful, perfect for snuggling up together in a delightfully single sized bed.

One night, at around stupid o'clock in the dead of the morning, we were settling down to sleep when there came the distinct sharp sound of the letterbox being rattled. Bang - bang. Like that. Two raps and nothing more. There had been no sound of footsteps or other doors going, or voices, or indeed any other sound at all. Dead silence. We both lay there frozen in shock. "Who the fuck's that?" asked Sam. I got out of bed, opened the living room door and went to the front door just to the right of it. I looked through the spyhole. Nothing there.

The front door is set back from the communal passageway by a couple of feet, leaving a short passage walled on either side. Nowhere for anyone to hide without being seen. The passageway floor is stone tiled, and there had been no footsteps. To make sure, I went out and checked. Not a living soul about. The letterbox itself was weighted; not sprung, but heavy. Unlikely that a draught would cause it to rattle, and there was no draught anyway. Besides, two knocks and nothing else? Isn't that a purely human thing?

Based on all this, what is the most likely explanation? I'll reveal the answer later.

(December 3, 2015 at 7:08 am)robvalue Wrote: It seems many theists can hold the contradictory beliefs that an omniscient being knows the future, and the idea that we have some control over that future.

If it's even possible to know the future before it happens, then it's deterministic. In other words, there are no alternatives to what is going to happen. Even if you replayed it a million times, the same thing would happen. If there is a genuine choice, then it's impossible the knowledge of the outcome can exist beforehand.

To demonstrate this: God knows what I will do for the next ten minutes. He appears to me, and tells me what I will do. Can I ignore him and behave otherwise?

So to be consistent, theists have to pick just one of these: free will, or God knowing the future. But since neither of them have any effect in reality (no free will, if it's the case, still seems like free will), neither get challenged so both can be held even though they are mutually exclusive. Just like I could say my pet dragon has both 30HP and 60HP. Since he doesn't exist and never gets hit, neither of those gets challenged so I can "believe" them both.

Whether or not things are deterministic remains to be seen. Maybe, maybe not. I lean towards determinism myself. Whatever is the case, I think the amount of choice we have is significantly less than what we think it is. It is known that the time we think we make decisions is not the time we actually make them, that alone shows we have some sort of self delusion about our choices.

Free will doesn't even make sense. It's not real. It couldn't be real. It's an illusion of an illusion. 

That could make you depressed, I guess, if you really thought about it - but there's really no point. We still act as if we have free will - at least language wise. I think we just need to find better ways to explain and conceptualise our own decisions and not elevate definitions of things themselves to a higher level than the thing they describe. I think that's what happened with a lot of things, including free will. Language overreached and played a game of its own here, with no relevance to reality.

(December 3, 2015 at 9:43 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(December 3, 2015 at 2:07 am)pool Wrote: I take it you mean the Abrahamic God?
The one that made the earth out of nowhere and made humans from mud. The one who supposedly loves us so much that he allows us to die and then go to "heaven"?

Yeah, no.

No, there is no specification on what God. Just A god. Whichever one you think would be most likely I suppose.

My stance is that if you don't have any evidence to present, no matter how poor it is, then there is nothing to talk about.  When one starts to discuss what god does and wants we can talk about that but so far no one has been very compelling.

(December 3, 2015 at 10:51 am)Stimbo Wrote: You believe something most extraordinary on the basis of one piece of evidence, that you won't share for whatever reason and that apparently you have not corroborated?

I never said it was the only reason I believe what I do. I simply said my reasons are not entirely based on faith and wishful thinking.