The wisest man in the world is the one who realizes he knows nothing.

[Desert Snake]

Interesting /and humorous/ thread. The poll you created refers to ''evidence''. ''Evidence,'', is not equal, though. Merely because you do not have 'evidence' for something, does not mean that others do not, as well.

This is why you must argue arguments on a /idea by point basis, as opposed to a ''my evidence tells me your prposed argument cannot be made'', basis. //ie it's a 'backwards' style of argumentation, that is not tenable, because it assumes that thet the person essentially ''knows everything''.

 

[leibowde84]

Blind faith is no longer needed for that.

Material or physical, whichever one wants to call it... has an absolute it must meet for science and that is having mass. It's already been shown that there are "stuff" with no mass and when all particles are smashed in an excellerator, they are condensed to a pure light/energy and cannot be broken down any further. . all that's left is light and void with no form.

At best, it's already concluded that it wasn't "material." That pure light was the only initial that created/formed all of the particles in and of and out of itself.

I stand corrected. I should have used the term "energy".

 

[leibowde84]

Interesting /and humorous/ thread. The poll you created refers to ''evidence''. ''Evidence,'', is not equal, though. Merely because you do not have 'evidence' for something, does not mean that others do not, as well.

This is why you must argue arguments on a /idea by point basis, as opposed to a ''my evidence tells me your prposed argument cannot be made'', basis. //ie it's a 'backwards' style of argumentation, that is not tenable, because it assumes that thet the person essentially ''knows everything''.

Belief is not knowledge. The OP does not address whether something should be considered either true or false. It asks about WITHHOLDING BELIEF either way.

Talk about an untenable argument ... geeze. The asks simply whether it is prudent to withhold belief until evidence is presented. It doesn't ask whether something should be considered false until evidence presented. Withholding belief does not mean that one considers a claim to be false. That is counter-intuitive and contradicts the meaning of the word "withhold".

Here is the question again. In the interest of prudence is it best to withhold belief (either than something is true or false, obviously) until evidence is available?

 

[viole]

In the interest of prudence, is it better to withhold belief in anything until it can be sufficiently verified with independent evidence?

Are you witholding belief in God?

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

Are you witholding belief in God?

Ciao

- viole

Nope. The evidence I have is subjective, and, as such, I can't say that my belief is "reasonable" or "prudent". That I freely admit.

 

[viole]

Nope. The evidence I have is subjective, and, as such, I can't say that my belief is "reasonable" or "prudent". That I freely admit.

Sorry for the provocation. But I enjoy rocking boats, lol.

Honestly, I would have no problems to claim beliefs that are not supported by any evidence. Not even subjective "evidence". For instance, I believe in life on other planets.

Therefore, I would just replace the word "belief" with the word "knowledge" in your post. Only knowledge can be justified when we have independent evidence, even if it can still be ultimately wrong.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Desert Snake]

Sorry for the provocation. But I enjoy rocking boats, lol.

Honestly, I would have no problems to claim beliefs that are not supported by any evidence. Not even subjective "evidence". For instance, I believe in life on other planets.

Therefore, I would just replace the word "belief" with the word "knowledge" in your post. Only knowledge can be justified when we have independent evidence, even if it can still be ultimately wrong.

Ciao

- viole

Can you give a definition for ''independent evidence''?

 

[Desert Snake]

Belief is not knowledge. The OP does not address whether something should be considered either true or false. It asks about WITHHOLDING BELIEF either way.

Talk about an untenable argument ... geeze. The asks simply whether it is prudent to withhold belief until evidence is presented. It doesn't ask whether something should be considered false until evidence presented. Withholding belief does not mean that one considers a claim to be false. That is counter-intuitive and contradicts the meaning of the word "withhold".

Here is the question again. In the interest of prudence is it best to withhold belief (either than something is true or false, obviously) until evidence is available?

There are a bunch of variables in your proposition. Like how much 'evidence', what sort of evidence, etc.

 

[viole]

Can you give a definition for ''independent evidence''?

What do you mean with "definition"?

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

Sorry for the provocation. But I enjoy rocking boats, lol.

Honestly, I would have no problems to claim beliefs that are not supported by any evidence. Not even subjective "evidence". For instance, I believe in life on other planets.

Therefore, I would just replace the word "belief" with the word "knowledge" in your post. Only knowledge can be justified when we have independent evidence, even if it can still be ultimately wrong.

Ciao

- viole

Great point.

 

[Desert Snake]

What do you mean with "definition"?

Ciao

- viole

Ie what do you mean when you write ''independent evidence''.

 

[leibowde84]

Ie what do you mean when you write ''independent evidence''.

Not based on a person's subjective experiences, I presume. Evidence that can be seen by others and verified.

 

[viole]

Ie what do you mean when you write ''independent evidence''.

Mmh. Let's see. Moving my queen now.

What about evidence of X that is not contradicted by any counter evidence of X?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Desert Snake]

Mmh. Let's see. Moving my queen now.

What about evidence of X that is not contradicted by any counter evidence of X?

Ciao

- viole

This would seem to be a matter of argumentation, then. 'Counter evidence', however, can be subjective, as could evidence. //Subjective literally, but objective to the person./

 

[viole]

This would seem to be a matter of argumentation, then. 'Counter evidence', however, can be subjective, as could evidence. //Subjective literally, but objective to the person./

True, but in this case we cannot call it independent evidence, according to my definition.

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

This would seem to be a matter of argumentation, then. 'Counter evidence', however, can be subjective, as could evidence. //Subjective literally, but objective to the person./

That's true. Evidence can be subjective. But, there is a major issue with this kind of evidence, as subjective experience left unverified has been shown to be unreliable.

 

[McBell]

Every statement ever made by any human would neither be right or wrong without absolutes.

Now there is some nifty gymnastics!

Everything you've ever said and everything that I've ever said would be opinions and assumptions.

they aren't?

A closed system has absolutes, so they are "needed." Going beyond that particular closed system, would signal that energy can be created and can be destroyed...would signal along the lines of a "Creator" outside of that system.

This is nothing more than wishful thinking.

As for absolute morals, they are only needed if we want to live in peace, individually and collectively.

Sad they do not exist then.

 

[outhouse]

Now there is some nifty gymnastics!

Way to kind

 

[McBell]

Way to kind

Since my heart attack the 17th, I have been trying to be a kinder, nicer *** hole.
How am I doing?

 

[Unification]

Now there is some nifty gymnastics!


they aren't?


This is nothing more than wishful thinking.


Sad they do not exist then.

Absolute: energy cannot be created or destroyed.

You keep indirectly saying that absolutes are "needed," and then say they aren't.

All you're saying is that "energy cannot be created or destroyed in a closed system but it can be outside of that system." Then you say "wishful thinking" to the very thing you're indirectly proactive for. Even then, closed systems have "absolutes."