The Flesh And The Spirit

[Guest end3]

End,

 

You've agreed that nobody can be 100% certain about anything.  

 

So, if your answer to my question is that no body of evidence will change your mind - then you've just disagreed with yourself.

 

If your answer is that only evidence that is 100% certain would change your mind - then you've just disagreed with yourself.

 

The only reasonable answer you can give to my question is a value that is more than 0 % and less than 100 %.

.

.

.

Question : What percentage of confidence in a body of evidence would be needed to change your mind..?

.

.

.

Please answer.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

I don't know that I can answer your question BAA because we don't and most likely will never be able to test the parameters that we must test to declare certainty....simply because I don't think our observable environment is finite....just my opinion.

[bornagainathiest]

 

End,

 

You've agreed that nobody can be 100% certain about anything.  

 

So, if your answer to my question is that no body of evidence will change your mind - then you've just disagreed with yourself.

 

If your answer is that only evidence that is 100% certain would change your mind - then you've just disagreed with yourself.

 

The only reasonable answer you can give to my question is a value that is more than 0 % and less than 100 %.

.

.

.

Question : What percentage of confidence in a body of evidence would be needed to change your mind..?

.

.

.

Please answer.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

I don't know that I can answer your question BAA because we don't and most likely will never be able to test the parameters that we must test to declare certainty....simply because I don't think our observable environment is finite....just my opinion.

 

 

That's fine, End.  Opinions count.  Don't know's count too.  If you don't know something, that's ok as well.  

 

But please let me explain that my question wasn't about absolute certainty.  Nobody can be absolutely (100%) certain about anything, right?

 

My question was about reasonable or sufficient certainty.  You've given a 'Yes' to those (in # 132) and it's those I'm asking about.

 

Since you can't say that only evidence that is absolutely (100%) certain would change your mind, let me rephrase the question a tad.

.

.

.

What percentage of confidence in a body of evidence would be reasonable and sufficient for it to change your mind?  

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

Btw, we... ARE ...moving forward in this thread and so kudos and praise are due to you for that.     

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

I'm curious, End3.  How do you know that our knowledge is limited?  Our knowledge could just as easily be infinite, only we don't know it because our knowledge is limited, right?

 

You've created another brain-fuck under the umbrella of "everything is subjective".

I expect our knowledge is limited by what we can experience by some means. Ask Soldesray or whatever his handle is if brain-fuck is a symptom of ODD.

 

No, that doesn't square up.  If experience is so directly tied to knowledge, then how can you expect us to "know" a god based solely on the "experiences" of people 4,000 years ago?

 

The only way to address your question is to assume that their account, their experience, relates the story very well. I think my statement DOES square up because we only have so many ways of relating information/experience.

 

No, it doesn't square up.  You're trying to have it both ways.  First you say that god had already put forth the effort to let humanity know him (via Moses et al.), then you directly tie knowledge to experience.  If god's effort was to give us myths, then we have know direct experience; if we have no experience, we can't have knowledge.  This is the logical progression of your argument.

 

On top of it all, you are asking us to make the assumption that these ancients relayed their experiences accurately.  So, not only are we allowed no direct experience ourselves, by which we might gain knowledge, but we have to base what "knowledge" we have on the assumption that what "experiences" were had were rendered truthfully.  

 

Maybe god really should take his ball and go home; he's clearly not ready to play in the big league yet.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

I'm curious, End3.  How do you know that our knowledge is limited?  Our knowledge could just as easily be infinite, only we don't know it because our knowledge is limited, right?

 

You've created another brain-fuck under the umbrella of "everything is subjective".

I expect our knowledge is limited by what we can experience by some means. Ask Soldesray or whatever his handle is if brain-fuck is a symptom of ODD.

 

No, that doesn't square up.  If experience is so directly tied to knowledge, then how can you expect us to "know" a god based solely on the "experiences" of people 4,000 years ago?

 

The only way to address your question is to assume that their account, their experience, relates the story very well. I think my statement DOES square up because we only have so many ways of relating information/experience.

 

No, it doesn't square up.  You're trying to have it both ways.  First you say that god had already put forth the effort to let humanity know him (via Moses et al.), then you directly tie knowledge to experience.  If god's effort was to give us myths, then we have know direct experience; if we have no experience, we can't have knowledge.  This is the logical progression of your argument.

 

On top of it all, you are asking us to make the assumption that these ancients relayed their experiences accurately.  So, not only are we allowed no direct experience ourselves, by which we might gain knowledge, but we have to base what "knowledge" we have on the assumption that what "experiences" were had were rendered truthfully.  

 

Maybe god really should take his ball and go home; he's clearly not ready to play in the big league yet.

 

You are going to tie everything to YOUR experience? There has been a lot of science down the river that you are borrowing experience. I think what you are trying to argue is that you won't rely on subjective experience as experience. And God gives us the Holy Spirit now. You discount this because you can't measure it.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

 

I'm curious, End3.  How do you know that our knowledge is limited?  Our knowledge could just as easily be infinite, only we don't know it because our knowledge is limited, right?

 

You've created another brain-fuck under the umbrella of "everything is subjective".

I expect our knowledge is limited by what we can experience by some means. Ask Soldesray or whatever his handle is if brain-fuck is a symptom of ODD.

 

No, that doesn't square up.  If experience is so directly tied to knowledge, then how can you expect us to "know" a god based solely on the "experiences" of people 4,000 years ago?

 

The only way to address your question is to assume that their account, their experience, relates the story very well. I think my statement DOES square up because we only have so many ways of relating information/experience.

 

No, it doesn't square up.  You're trying to have it both ways.  First you say that god had already put forth the effort to let humanity know him (via Moses et al.), then you directly tie knowledge to experience.  If god's effort was to give us myths, then we have know direct experience; if we have no experience, we can't have knowledge.  This is the logical progression of your argument.

 

On top of it all, you are asking us to make the assumption that these ancients relayed their experiences accurately.  So, not only are we allowed no direct experience ourselves, by which we might gain knowledge, but we have to base what "knowledge" we have on the assumption that what "experiences" were had were rendered truthfully.  

 

Maybe god really should take his ball and go home; he's clearly not ready to play in the big league yet.

 

You are going to tie everything to YOUR experience? There has been a lot of science down the river that you are borrowing experience. I think what you are trying to argue is that you won't rely on subjective experience as experience. And God gives us the Holy Spirit now. You discount this because you can't measure it.

 

 

The Prof is being consistent, End.

 

The disciple Thomas tied his belief in the resurrection of Jesus to his experience and I would too.  If Jesus appeared and showed me his wounds, then I would believe that he had risen as the gospels say.  But until that happens, I do not have the faith to do as the gospel writers expect their readers to do and to believe in Christ's resurrection on their say so.

[sdelsolray]

...

And God gives us the Holy Spirit now.

...

 

 

Just not in any way you can demonstrate.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Here again, End3, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".  All of the claims made concerning the christian god are supported entirely upon the "experiences" of the ancients.  I can not accept their experiences as evidence without I first have strikingly similar experiences.  Even then, it becomes evidence only to me, and those who might also share the experiences.  The rest of the world simply can't know it.  

 

And, yes, I know we borrow a lot of knowledge from past science; that's not the same as borrowing knowledge from past experience, though.  The science has demonstrated evidence, reproducibility, and peer review to support it.  The experience only has the word of he who experienced it.  This is why I am not trying to tie experience directly to knowledge.

[duderonomy]

We also have to remember that we don't even know who the ancients that wrote the Bible were.

 

Matthew Mark Luke and John weren't even written by Matthew Mark Luke and John for example. If the last verses of Mark were added later, and there's a good chance that the woman caught in adultery story in John was a later addition, how do we know that the Thomas story even happened?

 

All Christians really have is the Bible to hang their hats on, and it isn't reliable or trustworthy. How many mistakes and inaccuracies have to come to light in a book that claims divine inspiration before one sees that? How many of the underlying manuscripts have to disagree with each other before one sees that the Bible's foundation is built on shifting sand?

 

Without the Bible, what does the Christian have left to stand on? Certainly vague philosophies, doubts, and big "what ifs" aren't enough if one is to claim to represent absolute truth.   

[Guest end3]

but the point is, ultimately there is experience that we can't measure scientifically. And not sure what percentage we can attribute to immeasurable, but it's surely significant.

 

I get the point...got it. It's notable, but incomplete.

[florduh]

but the point is, ultimately there is experience that we can't measure scientifically.

 

I don't think science is in the business of measuring things like experience, emotion, altruism, jealousy, etc. Certainly, there is a scientific explanation as to HOW and WHY we experience such things, but the experience itself is subjective. Experiences, perceptions, emotions, ecstasy and profundity can be induced under lab conditions and the brain responses recorded. How an individual interprets an experience, either artificially induced or occurring naturally, is entirely up to the individual and will be influenced by his past experience and world view.

[Guest end3]

Here again, End3, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".  All of the claims made concerning the christian god are supported entirely upon the "experiences" of the ancients.  I can not accept their experiences as evidence without I first have strikingly similar experiences.  Even then, it becomes evidence only to me, and those who might also share the experiences.  The rest of the world simply can't know it.  

 

And, yes, I know we borrow a lot of knowledge from past science; that's not the same as borrowing knowledge from past experience, though.  The science has demonstrated evidence, reproducibility, and peer review to support it.  The experience only has the word of he who experienced it.  This is why I am not trying to tie experience directly to knowledge.

Given humanity is 4000 years removed, what make you believe you would HAVE the same experiences?

[duderonomy]

but the point is, ultimately there is experience that we can't measure scientifically. And not sure what percentage we can attribute to immeasurable, but it's surely significant.

 

I get the point...got it. It's notable, but incomplete.

 

You don't need experience. You don't need science, or it's measurements. You just need faith, and you are losing that by degrees, because you are putting your faith in something that isn't faithful in return, but you know that.

 

How has your faith, your subjectivity, and your endless search for something to cling to that just isn't there working out for you? Where's your "joy of the Lord"?  How many times do you have to rely on the Everlasting Arms and then fall on your ass before you see that it isn't real?  If you had something real you wouldn't be here torturing yourself and us with endless thoughts of your own making, you'd be here touting the greatness of Biblegod and his promises, because that would be your experience.

 

End, I don't think your post that I quoted is even aimed at me, but either way, you have the Bible, right? Tell us what Biblegod has done for you lately. Tell us how great he is. Tell us why he wants to test you by putting endless questions and constant thoughts in your head that indicate 'just one more day' or 'if I could only understand the infinite' and stuff like that as opposed to the simple black and white gospel that Jesus preached to the simple man.

 

For your own good, stop straddling the fence. You have the Bible with its straight forward promises. Get on board with it, or dump it. 

You are going to have to produce something or pretty soon Jesus, mythical or not, is going to spit you out. Measure this, can't measure that...who cares?

All you really have, Christian, is the Bible, unless you're Catholic, because then you'd have tradition too, and you don't want to get us started on Catholic tradition. 

[Guest end3]

 

but the point is, ultimately there is experience that we can't measure scientifically. And not sure what percentage we can attribute to immeasurable, but it's surely significant.

 

I get the point...got it. It's notable, but incomplete.

 

You don't need experience. You don't need science, or it's measurements. You just need faith, and you are losing that by degrees, because you are putting your faith in something that isn't faithful in return, but you know that.

 

How has your faith, your subjectivity, and your endless search for something to cling to that just isn't there working out for you? Where's your "joy of the Lord"?  How many times do you have to rely on the Everlasting Arms and then fall on your ass before you see that it isn't real?  If you had something real you wouldn't be here torturing yourself and us with endless thoughts of your own making, you'd be here touting the greatness of Biblegod and his promises, because that would be your experience.

 

End, I don't think your post that I quoted is even aimed at me, but either way, you have the Bible, right? Tell us what Biblegod has done for you lately. Tell us how great he is. Tell us why he wants to test you by putting endless questions and constant thoughts in your head that indicate 'just one more day' or 'if I could only understand the infinite' and stuff like that as opposed to the simple black and white gospel that Jesus preached to the simple man.

 

For your own good, stop straddling the fence. You have the Bible with its straight forward promises. Get on board with it, or dump it. 

You are going to have to produce something or pretty soon Jesus, mythical or not, is going to spit you out. Measure this, can't measure that...who cares?

All you really have, Christian, is the Bible, unless you're Catholic, because then you'd have tradition too, and you don't want to get us started on Catholic tradition.

 

Very simply D, I pray. It's a relationship that makes me feel good. And you might say a relationship with who, and that is expected. Not into church anymore. I always enjoyed communion. Other than that, churchy is not for me.....but a relationship with God is.

[duderonomy]

 

 

but the point is, ultimately there is experience that we can't measure scientifically. And not sure what percentage we can attribute to immeasurable, but it's surely significant.

 

I get the point...got it. It's notable, but incomplete.

 

You don't need experience. You don't need science, or it's measurements. You just need faith, and you are losing that by degrees, because you are putting your faith in something that isn't faithful in return, but you know that.

 

How has your faith, your subjectivity, and your endless search for something to cling to that just isn't there working out for you? Where's your "joy of the Lord"?  How many times do you have to rely on the Everlasting Arms and then fall on your ass before you see that it isn't real?  If you had something real you wouldn't be here torturing yourself and us with endless thoughts of your own making, you'd be here touting the greatness of Biblegod and his promises, because that would be your experience.

 

End, I don't think your post that I quoted is even aimed at me, but either way, you have the Bible, right? Tell us what Biblegod has done for you lately. Tell us how great he is. Tell us why he wants to test you by putting endless questions and constant thoughts in your head that indicate 'just one more day' or 'if I could only understand the infinite' and stuff like that as opposed to the simple black and white gospel that Jesus preached to the simple man.

 

For your own good, stop straddling the fence. You have the Bible with its straight forward promises. Get on board with it, or dump it. 

You are going to have to produce something or pretty soon Jesus, mythical or not, is going to spit you out. Measure this, can't measure that...who cares?

All you really have, Christian, is the Bible, unless you're Catholic, because then you'd have tradition too, and you don't want to get us started on Catholic tradition.

 

Very simply D, I pray. It's a relationship that makes me feel good. And you might say a relationship with who, and that is expected. Not into church anymore. I always enjoyed communion. Other than that, churchy is not for me.....but a relationship with God is.

 

 

Fair enough. Which God do you desire a relationship with then?  You know you can't have Biblegod without the Bible tagging along, right?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Here again, End3, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".  All of the claims made concerning the christian god are supported entirely upon the "experiences" of the ancients.  I can not accept their experiences as evidence without I first have strikingly similar experiences.  Even then, it becomes evidence only to me, and those who might also share the experiences.  The rest of the world simply can't know it.  

 

And, yes, I know we borrow a lot of knowledge from past science; that's not the same as borrowing knowledge from past experience, though.  The science has demonstrated evidence, reproducibility, and peer review to support it.  The experience only has the word of he who experienced it.  This is why I am not trying to tie experience directly to knowledge.

Given humanity is 4000 years removed, what make you believe you would HAVE the same experiences?

 

Nothing.  

[Guest end3]

 

 

Here again, End3, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".  All of the claims made concerning the christian god are supported entirely upon the "experiences" of the ancients.  I can not accept their experiences as evidence without I first have strikingly similar experiences.  Even then, it becomes evidence only to me, and those who might also share the experiences.  The rest of the world simply can't know it.  

 

And, yes, I know we borrow a lot of knowledge from past science; that's not the same as borrowing knowledge from past experience, though.  The science has demonstrated evidence, reproducibility, and peer review to support it.  The experience only has the word of he who experienced it.  This is why I am not trying to tie experience directly to knowledge.

[/quote

 

Given humanity is 4000 years removed, what make you believe you would HAVE the same experiences?

Nothing.

 

 

 

 

Well, how can you discount their story?

 

 

[Guest end3]

sorry, editing cluster screw

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

Here again, End3, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".  All of the claims made concerning the christian god are supported entirely upon the "experiences" of the ancients.  I can not accept their experiences as evidence without I first have strikingly similar experiences.  Even then, it becomes evidence only to me, and those who might also share the experiences.  The rest of the world simply can't know it.  

 

And, yes, I know we borrow a lot of knowledge from past science; that's not the same as borrowing knowledge from past experience, though.  The science has demonstrated evidence, reproducibility, and peer review to support it.  The experience only has the word of he who experienced it.  This is why I am not trying to tie experience directly to knowledge.

[/quote

 

Given humanity is 4000 years removed, what make you believe you would HAVE the same experiences?

Nothing.

 

 

 

 

Well, how can you discount their story?

 

 

 

Not believing it is possible to have a similar experience is not the same as discounting their story.  As a story, I no more discount it than I do The Lord of the Rings.  

As evidence, though...  

 

However, plausible it is that Frodo really did save Middle Earth by destroying The Ring, until I see a hobbit myself, I remain unconvinced that the events took place anywhere outside of Tolkien's mind.

[Guest end3]

Not believing it is possible to have a similar experience is not the same as discounting their story.  As a story, I no more discount it than I do The Lord of the Rings.  

As evidence, though...  

 

However, plausible it is that Frodo really did save Middle Earth by destroying The Ring, until I see a hobbit myself, I remain unconvinced that the events took place anywhere outside of Tolkien's mind.

lol, noted, but you have no means of assessment other than declaration.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Not believing it is possible to have a similar experience is not the same as discounting their story.  As a story, I no more discount it than I do The Lord of the Rings.  

As evidence, though...  

 

However, plausible it is that Frodo really did save Middle Earth by destroying The Ring, until I see a hobbit myself, I remain unconvinced that the events took place anywhere outside of Tolkien's mind.

lol, noted, but you have no means of assessment other than declaration.

 

So, you're saying that I can't assess the archaeological record to determine if there ever was a mass exodus of Israelites from Egypt?  (There wasn't, by the by).  You're saying I can't conduct an experiment to determine whether holding a stick over the Red Sea would make the waters part?  Or whether throwing a chunk of wood into a poison stream would make the water sweet?  

 

According to the "experience" of Jacob, putting striped sticks into a watering trough produces striped goats.  Having spent years raising both goats and sheep, and with even my limited understanding of Mendelian genetics, I'm pretty sure it would be easy to disprove this "experience" as genuine reproducible knowledge. 

 

You're suggesting that there is nothing beyond "declaration" by which it can be known that the bible is myth?  I declare!

[bornagainathiest]

but the point is, ultimately there is experience that we can't measure scientifically. And not sure what percentage we can attribute to immeasurable, but it's surely significant.

 

I get the point...got it. It's notable, but incomplete.

 

Agree, End.

 

Experience that can't be measured scientifically can still be sufficient evidence to change minds, however.

 

Thomas experienced sufficient non-scientific evidence to change his mind about Jesus being raised from the dead.

 

I've said that if I experienced the (sufficient) same non-scientific evidence, that'd change my mind about Jesus too.

 

Every day you experience sufficient non-scientific evidence to cause you to change your mind about lots of things.

 

In none of these cases are these experiences 100% cast-iron, absolute certainties. 

 

But they are sufficient. 

 

So, I must ask you to commit to answering this question.

 

What percentage of confidence in a body of evidence would be sufficient to cause you to change your mind? 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

End,

 

Please note that by saying 'Yes' to these points...

 

Absolute knowledge is impossible for humans, but limited knowledge (based upon evidence) is sufficient for us to know and understand things to a reasonable degree of certainty.   (Yes)

 

Is that standard sufficient for you?  (Yes)

 

Will you allow your super limited authority to speak to a reasonable standard of confidence?  (Yes)

 

...in post # 132, you've agreed that you will accept evidence of a reasonable standard of confidence.

.

.

.

So you can no longer reject evidence on the grounds that it's not known to an absolute (100%) level of confidence.

 

You are now committed to accepting any evidence that's of a reasonable standard of confidence.

 

​All that remains to be determined is what constitutes a reasonable standard of confidence.

 

And this would best be done on a case-by-case basis.

.

.

.

I hope that you will honorably abide by your agreement in any future threads.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.