Greater purposes

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would be lying of I said "I don't know" because I do know.
I know in the following sense:

2. Cognitive (Rational)

With cognitive, you know something because you’ve thought your way through it, argued it, or rationalized it.

Hi Trailblazer!

Don't go there. They only rationally accept evidence, but they don't understand that their belief in evidence is without evidence, because their belief is rational and not empirical.

 

[ppp]

but they don't understand that their belief in evidence is without evidence

I don't even believe that that phrase is coherent.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't even believe that that phrase is coherent.

There is no evidence for evidence using evidence in a meta-sense. We are playing truly objective justified reasons, which are with evidence, proof, truth and what not. That is not possible.
Evidence is in practice a belief system, that apparently works.
Keep believing in evidence, but don't try to give truly objective justified reasons for it. It is not possible in practice.

There is a reason, how it is methodological naturalism and not true naturalism.

 

[ChristineM]

I would be lying of I said "I don't know" because I do know.
I know in the following sense:

2. Cognitive (Rational)

With cognitive, you know something because you’ve thought your way through it, argued it, or rationalized it.

So i back to the beginning and ask for the evidence that provides you with this knowing. Thinking about something doesn't make it real

 

[ppp]

objective

Until you can supply an unequivocated definition of what you mean by objective, you have nothing coherent to say on the matter, Mikkel.

 

[Trailblazer]

Hi Trailblazer!

Don't go there. They only rationally accept evidence, but they don't understand that their belief in evidence is without evidence, because their belief is rational and not empirical.

Here is how I see it:

Atheists say they require evidence but when they are presented with evidence they say "that's not evidence."
The reason they say that is because what was presented to them is not evidence to them since it does not help to prove to them that the belief is true, and the body of facts or information presented to them does not indicate to them that the belief is true.

But that does not mean it is not evidence, by the definitions of the word evidence,

Evidence: anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true: EVIDENCE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

because what is evidence to one person is not necessarily evidence to another person; so they should not say say "that's not evidence" but rather they should say "that's not evidence to me." Otherwise I consider what they say to be self-centered and arrogant, and frankly, I am sick of listening to it. Who the hell do they think they are to be defining what evidence is? They would not see the evidence for God if it hit them in the head.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So i back to the beginning and ask for the evidence that provides you with this knowing. Thinking about something doesn't make it real

Then you have to give evidence for the fact that evidence works on all of the world and you can't.
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12.

Thinking about something makes it real that I am thinking about it and if my thinking can further lead to other real behavior, it works. You are looking at it right now.

Btw You only think that "Thinking about something doesn't make it real." and that makes it real for your, so you really made your post.
Here is something a little more about real, than just a Google defintion:

...
Austin highlights the complexities proper to the uses of ‘real’ by observing that it is (i) a substantive-hungry word that often plays the role of (ii) adjuster-word, a word by means of which “other words are adjusted to meet the innumerable and unforeseeable demands of world upon language” (Austin 1962a, 73). Like ‘good,’ it is (iii) a dimension-word, that is, “the most general and comprehensive term in a whole group of terms of the same kind, terms that fulfil the same function” (Austin 1962a, 71): that is, ‘true,’ ‘proper,’ ‘genuine,’ ‘live,’ ‘natural,’ ‘authentic,’ as opposed to terms such as ‘false,’ ‘artificial,’ ‘fake,’ ‘bogus,’ ‘synthetic,’ ‘toy,’ but also to nouns like ‘dream,’ ‘illusion,’ ‘mirage,’ ‘hallucination.’ ‘Real,’ is also (iv) a word whose negative use “wears the trousers” (a trouser-word) (Austin 1962a, 70).

In order to determine the meaning of ‘real’ we have to consider, case by case, the ways and contexts in which it is used. Only by doing so, according to Austin, can we avoid introducing false dichotomies (for a criticism of Austin’s attack on sense-data see Ayer 1967 and Smith 2002).
...
Austin, John Langshaw | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

So here is real.
Imagine that you are playing with the word real. Here is how you do. You know imagining something is not real, but it is real that you can imagine something. Now imagine a pond, a little lake. It is not a real pond, but it is real that you can imagine it.
In the pond are 2 ducks. A real duch and an unreal duck, because the 2nd duck is a decoy duck and thus not real, but it is a real decoy duck.
Now you have learned not to trust real as you use it.
How it is really real that I without evidence believes in God and that in part is the real reason, why I answer you.

I don't like it, that you don't understand that you are subjective, when you demand this:
"So i back to the beginning and ask for the evidence that provides you with this knowing. Thinking about something doesn't make it real"
It is only real for you to demand it, because it is real to you.

Stop using this double standard for beliefs. Your beliefs are real and that standard for all other beliefs. Well, they are not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Here is how I see it:

Atheists say they require evidence but when they are presented with evidence they say "that's not evidence."
The reason they say that is because what was presented to them is not evidence to them since it does not help to prove to them that the belief is true, and the body of facts or information presented to them does not indicate to them that the belief is true.

But that does not mean it is not evidence, by the definitions of the word evidence,

Evidence: anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true: EVIDENCE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

because what is evidence to one person is not necessarily evidence to another person; so they should not say say "that's not evidence" but rather they should say "that's not evidence to me." Otherwise I consider what they say to be self-centered and arrogant, and frankly, I am sick of listening to it. Who the hell do they think they are to be defining what evidence is? They would not see the evidence for God if it hit them in the head.

Correct. Truth has no singular universal definition and some cases of truth are subjective.

 

[Trailblazer]

So i back to the beginning and ask for the evidence that provides you with this knowing. Thinking about something doesn't make it real

Of course thinking about something does not make it real...
What makes something real?

Real: actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
real means - Google Search

How do you KNOW what is real and what is unreal? Atheists think that the only thing that is real is what they can see in the material world and what they can prove, but there is no reason to think that and they cannot prove that.

If I told you what the evidence is that provides me with this knowing you would say "that's not evidence." I have been listening to atheists say that on various forums for seven years, day and night.

Atheists say they require evidence but when they are presented with evidence they say "that's not evidence."

The reason they say that is because what was presented to them is not evidence to them since it does not help to prove to them that the belief is true, and the body of facts or information presented to them does not indicate to them that the belief is true.

But that does not mean it is not evidence, by the definitions of the word evidence,

Evidence: anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true: EVIDENCE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

because what is evidence to one person is not necessarily evidence to another person; so they should not say say "that's not evidence" but rather they should say "that's not evidence to me." Otherwise I consider what they say to be self-centered and arrogant. Frankly, I am sick of listening to it, and that is why I do not present evidence to atheists anymore, except in certain cases.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Until you can supply an unequivocated definition of what you mean by objective, you have nothing coherent to say on the matter, Mikkel.

I can't, because objective have several meanings:
Definition of OBJECTIVE

But I can show that evidence as a concept is not objective, because it doesn't mean the definition of 1a, 2a and 2b.
What makes evidence evidence is cognitive and subjective.

Here are 5 different definitions of truth:
Truth | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Sorry to burst your bubble but reality is not that simple. There are even more version of truths than these.

 

[ChristineM]

Then you have to give evidence for the fact that evidence works on all of the world and you can't.
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12.

Thinking about something makes it real that I am thinking about it and if my thinking can further lead to other real behavior, it works. You are looking at it right now.

Btw You only think that "Thinking about something doesn't make it real." and that makes it real for your, so you really made your post.
Here is something a little more about real, than just a Google defintion:


So here is real.
Imagine that you are playing with the word real. Here is how you do. You know imagining something is not real, but it is real that you can imagine something. Now imagine a pond, a little lake. It is not a real pond, but it is real that you can imagine it.
In the pond are 2 ducks. A real duch and an unreal duck, because the 2nd duck is a decoy duck and thus not real, but it is a real decoy duck.
Now you have learned not to trust real as you use it.
How it is really real that I without evidence believes in God and that in part is the real reason, why I answer you.

I don't like it, that you don't understand that you are subjective, when you demand this:
"So i back to the beginning and ask for the evidence that provides you with this knowing. Thinking about something doesn't make it real"
It is only real for you to demand it, because it is real to you.

Stop using this double standard for beliefs. Your beliefs are real and that standard for all other beliefs. Well, they are not.

Well done, you exceed my wildest expectations.

And still ignoring dictionary definitions. So cool eh

 

[ChristineM]

@

Of course thinking about something does not make it real...
What makes something real?

Real: actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
real means - Google Search

How do you KNOW what is real and what is unreal? Atheists think that the only thing that is real is what they can see in the material world and what they can prove, but there is no reason to think that and they cannot prove that.

If I told you what the evidence is that provides me with this knowing you would say "that's not evidence." I have been listening to atheists say that on various forums for seven years, day and night.

Atheists say they require evidence but when they are presented with evidence they say "that's not evidence."

The reason they say that is because what was presented to them is not evidence to them since it does not help to prove to them that the belief is true, and the body of facts or information presented to them does not indicate to them that the belief is true.

But that does not mean it is not evidence, by the definitions of the word evidence,

Evidence: anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true: EVIDENCE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

because what is evidence to one person is not necessarily evidence to another person; so they should not say say "that's not evidence" but rather they should say "that's not evidence to me." Otherwise I consider what they say to be self-centered and arrogant. Frankly, I am sick of listening to it, and that is why I do not present evidence to atheists anymore, except in certain cases.

Yes i know the definitions, what i am asking is...

How do you "know" how the impossible to know?

 

[ppp]

I can't, because objective have several meanings:

Light, broom, straw and duck also have several usages. And yet somehow I can manage to identify the specific usage I intend when I use a given word. The only times that I intend two usages simultaneously are when I am making jokes. Let me know when you are ready to stop punning.

You can’t trust atoms, they make up everything.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well done, you exceed my wildest expectations.

And still ignoring dictionary definitions. So cool eh

I like that you think everything is decided by dictionary definitions.
So when you went to university, all you did was read definitions off Google. If that was the case, it explains a lot. But it is not the case, I know.
What is the case apparently, is that you in some cases don't understand how words work as words, when we look closer.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Light, broom, straw and duck also have several usages. And yet somehow I can manage to identify the specific usage I intend when I use a given word. The only times that I intend two usages simultaneously are when I am making jokes. Let me know when you are ready to stop punning.

You can’t trust atoms, they make up everything.

Could you make an argument?
Evidence as a word have no strong objective referent. Evidence is cognitive and what makes evidence depends on what you assume evidence is.

 

[ppp]

Evidence as a word have no strong objective referent.

Incoherent.

 

[ChristineM]

I like that you think everything is decided by dictionary definitions.
So when you went to university, all you did was read definitions off Google. If that was the case, it explains a lot. But it is not the case, I know.
What is the case apparently, is that you in some cases don't understand how words work as words, when we look closer.

Dictionary definition are generally accepted as the definition of a word. The common world wide acceptence ensures there is no confusion when discussing a particular topic.

And dont make **** up about my life, it stupid to pretend you are clairvoyant but fyi, Google did not exist when i first went to uni, but the OED did

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Incoherent.

That is without evidence as you have used no evidence or reasoned argument. It tells me something about you.

Now you can make it up and try to make an actual argument or it stand that you can't. Your choice.

 

[MNoBody]

I absolutely agree.

evidentially when an individual is navigating a bike down a dangerous hill, one's personal sense will be pretty much all that matters, at that moment, to that one and, to no one else.
one is born, lives and dies and the only thing that mattered to each and every one was their sense which they got from the whole ordeal.
so this is all pretty relativistic.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Dictionary definition are generally accepted as the definition of a word. The common world wide acceptence ensures there is no confusion when discussing a particular topic.

And dont make **** up about my life, it stupid to pretend you are clairvoyant but fyi, Google did not exist when i first went to uni, but the OED did

Yes, generally. But the word "real" is not that simple.

Sorry. for the other part.

Now you can choose to read this or not.
"Austin highlights the complexities proper to the uses of ‘real’ by observing that it is (i) a substantive-hungry word that often plays the role of (ii) adjuster-word, a word by means of which “other words are adjusted to meet the innumerable and unforeseeable demands of world upon language” (Austin 1962a, 73). Like ‘good,’ it is (iii) a dimension-word, that is, “the most general and comprehensive term in a whole group of terms of the same kind, terms that fulfil the same function” (Austin 1962a, 71): that is, ‘true,’ ‘proper,’ ‘genuine,’ ‘live,’ ‘natural,’ ‘authentic,’ as opposed to terms such as ‘false,’ ‘artificial,’ ‘fake,’ ‘bogus,’ ‘synthetic,’ ‘toy,’ but also to nouns like ‘dream,’ ‘illusion,’ ‘mirage,’ ‘hallucination.’ ‘Real,’ is also (iv) a word whose negative use “wears the trousers” (a trouser-word) (Austin 1962a, 70).

In order to determine the meaning of ‘real’ we have to consider, case by case, the ways and contexts in which it is used. Only by doing so, according to Austin, can we avoid introducing false dichotomies (for a criticism of Austin’s attack on sense-data see Ayer 1967 and Smith 2002)."

And then we will see, where we go next.