Facts vs evidence

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, yes. But there is also something else at play. Some of them are in effect objectivist in a general sense. All that matters, is objective as objective reality whether God or the physical universe.

I have experience and evidence of that experience. Not all my experience is objective. I can describe the subjective, but have nothing beyond that description to share with others.

Merely imagining it and asking questions about it doesn't manifest it into reality even if it means it is possible. That's pretty thin, iffy evidence that doesn't hold up to questions under sharing.

For that matter, I have nothing that tells me my subjective experience leads only to the conclusions I come to about it. How do I know that I am not biased to want a particular conclusions about subjective experience over more valid conclusions out of my own feelings. My conclusions about my subjective experience are molded by personality, culture and feelings. Probably many other things I can't think of right now.

If I see some nebulous image of a loved one that I know has died, isn't immediately naming it a ghost just a bias of culture and my knowledge of culture? I've done no test and have nothing to compare it too other than vague cultural descriptions of what are called ghosts. It could be an hallucination brought on by drink or faulty brain chemistry. It could be my loved one didn't die, but got trapped in another dimension like Capt. Kirk.

Anyway, I'm only waking up and sort of dithering here.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have experience and evidence of that experience. Not all my experience is objective. I can describe the subjective, but have nothing beyond that description to share with others.

Merely imagining it and asking questions about it doesn't manifest it into reality even if it means it is possible. That's pretty thin, iffy evidence that doesn't hold up to questions under sharing.

For that matter, I have nothing that tells me my subjective experience leads only to the conclusions I come to about it. How do I know that I am not biased to want a particular conclusions about subjective experience over more valid conclusions out of my own feelings. My conclusions about my subjective experience are molded by personality, culture and feelings. Probably many other things I can't think of right now.

If I see some nebulous image of a loved one that I know has died, isn't immediately naming it a ghost just a bias of culture and my knowledge of culture? I've done no test and have nothing to compare it too other than vague cultural descriptions of what are called ghosts. It could be an hallucination brought on by drink or faulty brain chemistry. It could be my loved one didn't die, but got trapped in another dimension like Capt. Kirk.

Anyway, I'm only waking up and sort of dithering here.

No, I get it. My personal experience of that is a bit more pressing in a sense, since I am crazy. Not bat **** crazy, but rather high function crazy or in other words, I can know that I am crazy in some cases. But even then it is still real as a part of me, even if subjective and I still have to deal with and cope.
So back to you. If it for you as you works for, how you individually cope and it doesn't in the end carry over with how you deal with other humans, then it works. That is the pragmatic version of truth.
And no, I don't imply that you are crazy or anything of that ilk. Just that you cope.

 

[Brian2]

No, it is the Truth.
I decide how all of the world works and I don't have to doubt that, because doubt is from Satan. I don't doubt that I am the truth for how all the world works, therefore that is how the world works. And if you doubt that, it is from Satan.

That can also be done with rational and irrational by the way and is not unique to religion.

Yes if I say that is irrational and you disagree then I guess what I think is irrational.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes if I say that is irrational and you disagree then I guess what I think is irrational.

No, you just do it differently. I don't judge people as rational and irrational.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It means that there was a conquest of Canaan as the book of Joshua describes and at the time that the Bible indicates.

I looked at the first of your three links (Armstrong) after a search for who they were to determine their motivation for publishing. I found nothing to support that they were either academic or writing tendentious articles promoting religion. I wouldn't trust material from the latter.

The argument there seems to be that the archeologists looked in the wrong strata for the remains that might support the biblical account in Exodus because they assumed the wrong dates for it. Did you see a different argument there, and if not, do you think that is a valid explanation for not finding the expected evidence of an exodus and grounds for believing the claims of the story?

I didn't look at links from the Bible Archeology site except to gloss over one - the one with the cover of the Fall 2005 issue of Bible and Spade magazine. They're sites to promote religion, not to teach archeology.

How do you think that evidence for a conquest in Canaan is evidence that the Hebrews were the conquerors or that the conquerors whoever they were came from Egypt?

There is also evidence for Israel being in Egypt and for Joseph being there as a powerful ruler in Egypt but the conquest at the time and how the Bible describes is enough for the Biblical conquest story to be true.

I didn't see any such evidence in your post.

There is also evidence for the early writing of the Law and that the command to read the curse of the law on Mt Ebal actually did happen.

Why do you think that matters? Do you know where it is? It's in modern-day Israel? Why wouldn't Hebrew artifacts be found there?

I have no good examples that you would accept.

OK. I had asked you, "What areas do you see science going backward in? And I mean science, not government and industry. I would suggest that you have no good example." You understand, I hope, how that answer is understood. It ought to be easy for you to offer multiple examples were you correct, but none at all if you are not.

 

[MikeF]

Actually, it's a metaphysical manifestation. As cognition is a transcendent physiological phenomenon that creates possibilities that do not otherwise physically exist.
The problem with your materialist philosophy is that it presumes existence is limited by and to it's physicality rather than by what is possible or impossible. Yet a bicycle, an airplane, a handgun, and even the idea of a wheel are all identified by the new possibilities they introduces into the realm of being, not by the materials their made of or the conglomeration of physical forces that enable them.

Not that I self-identify as however you define “materialist philosophy”, my view fully appreciates the possibilities that are enabled by our cognitive abilities. I find it interesting that all of what you have referenced refers to what you term “functionality”, arrived at through empiricism, of which you seem to hold in low esteem.

All that possibility is still bound within the physical laws of reality. Nothing of what you have mentioned breaks those boundaries. We can build robots that can assemble various parts and materials together in a way that those individual parts could not have done on their own. Yet it is not done with magic but simply leveraging the properties of matter and energy within the laws that govern their behavior within a particular environment.

Really, it is my view that fully embraces working to understand what is possible or impossible. My view also acknowledges and accepts that there are unknowns and some questions may never be resolved. What my view rejects is filling in a gap in knowledge or understanding with something made up and considering the matter settled.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not that I self-identify as however you define “materialist philosophy”, my view fully appreciates the possibilities that are enabled by our cognitive abilities. I find it interesting that all of what you have referenced refers to what you term “functionality”, arrived at through empiricism, of which you seem to hold in low esteem.

All that possibility is still bound within the physical laws of reality. Nothing of what you have mentioned breaks those boundaries. We can build robots that can assemble various parts and materials together in a way that those individual parts could not have done on their own. Yet it is not done with magic but simply leveraging the properties of matter and energy within the laws that govern their behavior within a particular environment.

Really, it is my view that fully embraces working to understand what is possible or impossible. My view also acknowledges and accepts that there are unknowns and some questions may never be resolved. What my view rejects is filling in a gap in knowledge or understanding with something made up and considering the matter settled.

Well, that one is simple. There are no coherent set of physical laws of reality, so we don't know that.

 

[MikeF]

Well, that one is simple. There are no coherent set of physical laws of reality, so we don't know that.

Simply saying they don't exist won't make them go away.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Simply saying they don't exist won't make them go away.

So please show the physical laws for all of the everyday world, since they exist, right?

 

[MikeF]

So please show the physical laws for all of the everyday world, since they exist, right?

Mikkel, if you are not convinced of the existence of coherent physical laws through your life experience, the inter-subjective corroboration of those around you, or through your schooling in which you were most likely provided an overview of current scientific understanding of the physical laws governing the cosmos, then nothing I can say in a post is going to convince you. If you are alone in your belief that physical laws do not exist, that is a cue to reevaluate your position.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Mikkel, if you are not convinced of the existence of coherent physical laws through your life experience, the inter-subjective corroboration of those around you, or through your schooling in which you were most likely provided an overview of current scientific understanding of the physical laws governing the cosmos, then nothing I can say in a post is going to convince you. If you are alone in your belief that physical laws do not exist, that is a cue to reevaluate your position.

I didn't say they didn't exist. I said they are incomplete for the everyday world.

 

[Hawkins]

Well scientists have shown us the pictures of stars being sucked into nearby black holes, so there is evidence of that, but I accept that for a historical claim such as Abraham Lincoln winning the vote im relying on historical scholars using a method to assess the likelihood of historical testimony. So yeah I agree I basically do rely on witness testimony at times.

But i still hold that it is reasonable to assess miracle testimony as unlikely to be true as miracles are not known by me to exist.

In my opinion.

You are fooled, since when scientists show the public what happened. They don't. It's the media which broadcast what we believe to be ultimately from the scientists. They broadcast to believed to be the scientists' testimony. Without explanation added (testimony), what broadcast can be movie scenes as well. The media require words from the scientists to explain what is being broadcast, they need to inform the audience that what broadcast is a reality instead of a movie scene. That's not proof, but an enhanced version of testimony from the eyewitnesses which are our scientists.

In a nutshell, evidence can only be acquired by you when you use a telescope to look into the stars, only then it becomes a piece of evidence for you.

 

[MikeF]

I didn't say they didn't exist. I said they are incomplete for the everyday world.

You said:

There are no coherent set of physical laws of reality, so we don't know that.

All this was in response to my saying:

All that possibility is still bound within the physical laws of reality.

Your claim that the laws of nature are incomplete is not quite right, rather it is our understanding of them that is incomplete. If you acknowlege that they exist, then whether we know of them or not we are still bound by them in their completeness, otherwise they wouldn't be laws they would be suggestions or guidelines.

 

[Brian2]

I looked at the first of your three links (Armstrong) after a search for who they were to determine their motivation for publishing. I found nothing to support that they were either academic or writing tendentious articles promoting religion. I wouldn't trust material from the latter.

The argument there seems to be that the archeologists looked in the wrong strata for the remains that might support the biblical account in Exodus because they assumed the wrong dates for it. Did you see a different argument there, and if not, do you think that is a valid explanation for not finding the expected evidence of an exodus and grounds for believing the claims of the story?

The article shows the Biblical time frame for the Exodus and Conquest and tells us why the 13th century timing is wrong and how the archaeological evidence shows the conquest story to be accurate and that the 13th century archaeology shows the stories in the later book of Judges to be accurate and not associated with the conquest story of Joshua.
Yes, archaeological evidence in the Biblical time period of the conquest, which shows the same destruction as the conquest story in Joshua tells us, is evidence that the conquest story in Joshua in the Biblical time period of the conquest, is true.

How do you think that evidence for a conquest in Canaan is evidence that the Hebrews were the conquerors or that the conquerors whoever they were came from Egypt?

It is not evidence that the conquerors came from Egypt but is evidence that the conquerors were the Hebrews, as written in the book of Joshua. The archaeology confirms the Bible account.

I didn't see any such evidence in your post.

No I did not post specifically on that, the conquest evidence is enough to take in and the conquest story is certainly good evidence that the Exodus story has truth in it.

Why do you think that matters? Do you know where it is? It's in modern-day Israel? Why wouldn't Hebrew artifacts be found there?

View attachment 75843

There are plenty of archaeological digs in modern day Israel.
The finds at Mt Ebal (altars and curse tablet) are archaeological finds that confirm the book of Joshua also (Joshua chapter 8) and the reading of the curses in the Law from Mt Ebal.
And the curse tablet having such early Hebrew characters also confirms a very early dating for the tablet, possibly the one Joshua read from, and confirms that the Jews had writing then and so Moses could have written the Law.

OK. I had asked you, "What areas do you see science going backward in? And I mean science, not government and industry. I would suggest that you have no good example." You understand, I hope, how that answer is understood. It ought to be easy for you to offer multiple examples were you correct, but none at all if you are not.

I gave my opinion about science going backwards in some areas and science (and no doubt you) would disagree.
I did not say I had no examples, just that I had no good examples that you would accept.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...


Your claim that the laws of nature are incomplete is not quite right, rather it is our understanding of them that is incomplete. If you acknowlege that they exist, then whether we know of them or not we are still bound by them in their completeness, otherwise they wouldn't be laws they would be suggestions or guidelines.

So you claim that something you don't know by your own admission is true not the less. Yeah, you are a True Believer.
You are in effect reporting how you think individually and then claim that I have to think like you.

 

[PureX]

Not that I self-identify as however you define “materialist philosophy”, my view fully appreciates the possibilities that are enabled by our cognitive abilities. I find it interesting that all of what you have referenced refers to what you term “functionality”, arrived at through empiricism, of which you seem to hold in low esteem.

You can't possibly know that to be so. So you are clearly speaking from your bias. Humans also use imagination, intuition, chance, aesthetics, and several other means of generating those new possibilities.

All that possibility is still bound within the physical laws of reality.

Again, what matters are the new possibilities, and the fact that they transcend the possibilities of the physical parts, themselves. As the whole transcend the sum of the parts.

Nothing of what you have mentioned breaks those boundaries.

Yes, in both fact and actuality, they do. Imagination does it all the time. We can imagine all kind of things defying the laws of physics. And it's because we can imagine these, that we can create possibilities that physics along could not. So does logic. So does cognitive self-awareness. These are not physical phenomena. They are by defition and actuality meta-physical phenomena as they are how we can be aware of and identify and then transcend the limitations of physical phenomena.

We can build robots that can assemble various parts and materials together in a way that those individual parts could not have done on their own. Yet it is not done with magic but simply leveraging the properties of matter and energy within the laws that govern their behavior within a particular environment.

Only we can do that. Because we are meta-physical beings. It's because of the new possibilities that manifest through this metaphysicality that these new combinations of physical phenomena can happen. Without self-awareness, imagination, intuition, logic, chance, and so on, those robots will never exist. They cannot happen by physics alone.

Really, it is my view that fully embraces working to understand what is possible or impossible. My view also acknowledges and accepts that there are unknowns and some questions may never be resolved. What my view rejects is filling in a gap in knowledge or understanding with something made up and considering the matter settled.

Or pretending that scientific empiricism can and will answer it all sooner or later and then considering every other possible means ef exploring the questions invalid and immaterial.

 

[MikeF]

So you claim that something you don't know by your own admission is true not the less. Yeah, you are a True Believer.
You are in effect reporting how you think individually and then claim that I have to think like you.

Think about it this way Mikkel. Like our ancestors of 10,000 years ago, they and we are born, live, eat, deficate, engage in sexual reproduction, have offspring, and die. They existed but did not know how any of that worked. They did not know why some things gave susstinence and others did not. They did not know why they got ill or why it sometimes led to death and other times they recovered. They did not know how the respiratory system functions or what was necessary about air. They did not know how babies grew in a mothers womb. But then as now, they and we had or have existence. Not knowing the how of a thing does not negate the existence of a thing.

When we talk about physical laws or the laws of nature, we are simply talking about the how of the Cosmos. The existence of the how is intrinsic to the existence of the thing itself, in this case, the Cosmos, of which we are a part. You imply some sort of unjustified belief going on, but it is simply not the case.

 

[Audie]

I looked at the first of your three links (Armstrong) after a search for who they were to determine their motivation for publishing. I found nothing to support that they were either academic or writing tendentious articles promoting religion. I wouldn't trust material from the latter.

The argument there seems to be that the archeologists looked in the wrong strata for the remains that might support the biblical account in Exodus because they assumed the wrong dates for it. Did you see a different argument there, and if not, do you think that is a valid explanation for not finding the expected evidence of an exodus and grounds for believing the claims of the story?

I didn't look at links from the Bible Archeology site except to gloss over one - the one with the cover of the Fall 2005 issue of Bible and Spade magazine. They're sites to promote religion, not to teach archeology.

How do you think that evidence for a conquest in Canaan is evidence that the Hebrews were the conquerors or that the conquerors whoever they were came from Egypt?

I didn't see any such evidence in your post.

Why do you think that matters? Do you know where it is? It's in modern-day Israel? Why wouldn't Hebrew artifacts be found there?

View attachment 75843



OK. I had asked you, "What areas do you see science going backward in? And I mean science, not government and industry. I would suggest that you have no good example." You understand, I hope, how that answer is understood. It ought to be easy for you to offer multiple examples were you correct, but none at all if you are not.

There's some terrif evidence that it's all true.

www.Discovery.Global

Enter the exciting world of Discoveries! You will discover articles and videos of Bible Prophecy, Dinosaurs, Biblical Discoveries, Geology, Evolution and much more!

www.discovery.global

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Think about it this way Mikkel. Like our ancestors of 10,000 years ago, they and we are born, live, eat, deficate, engage in sexual reproduction, have offspring, and die. They existed but did not know how any of that worked. They did not know why some things gave susstinence and others did not. They did not know why they got ill or why it sometimes led to death and other times they recovered. They did not know how the respiratory system functions or what was necessary about air. They did not know how babies grew in a mothers womb. But then as now, they and we had or have existence. Not knowing the how of a thing does not negate the existence of a thing.

When we talk about physical laws or the laws of nature, we are simply talking about the how of the Cosmos. The existence of the how is intrinsic to the existence of the thing itself, in this case, the Cosmos, of which we are a part. You imply some sort of unjustified belief going on, but it is simply not the case.

Yeah all things including your brain exists independent of your brain. That is your trick. The universe in itself is not in part you. Go figure.

 

[Audie]

You can't possibly know that to be so. So you are clearly speaking from your bias. Humans also use imagination, intuition, chance, aesthetics, and several other means of generating those new possibilities.

Again, what matters are the new possibilities, and the fact that they transcend the possibilities of the physical parts, themselves. As the whole transcend the sum of the parts.

Yes, in both fact and actuality, they do. Imagination does it all the time. We can imagine all kind of things defying the laws of physics. And it's because we can imagine these, that we can create possibilities that physics along could not. So does logic. So does cognitive self-awareness. These are not physical phenomena. They are by defition and actuality meta-physical phenomena as they are how we can be aware of and identify and then transcend the limitations of physical phenomena.

Only we can do that. Because we are meta-physical beings. It's because of the new possibilities that manifest through this metaphysicality that these new combinations of physical phenomena can happen. Without self-awareness, imagination, intuition, logic, chance, and so on, those robots will never exist. They cannot happen by physics alone.

Or pretending that scientific empiricism can and will answer it all sooner or later and then considering every other possible means ef exploring the questions invalid and immaterial.

Or pretending that in the absence of any
supporting evidence or example, it is sufficient
to rely on faith to show that scientism really does
stalk the land.