How do we know we know?

[idiotsavant]

Thanks for stopping in Whitney.  I think we’re still on topic - exploring the roots of personal claims of knowledge.

That's my problem. You're assuming. You're arguing from your conclusions not to them. One must follow the evidence where it leads, not selectively pick the evidence one likes that supports his conclusion. I don't do assumptions.

I disagree.  We all assume more than we realize.  Can you prove your statement:

If He is capable of anything why did He fail at making a perfect Universe/creation?

Without any assumptions; explicit or implied?  Btw, my assumption was rhetorical, I could just as easily argue that “If we assume that God is imperfect, then we wouldn’t have problems with Bible inconsistencies.”

I would be interested to know the evidence you followed to your world view.

Another translation is die.

And how do we know which translation we can trust?  Have you found the Prefect Translation?  The Perfect Understanding?  

You cannot cling to only this verse with no way of explaining the other.

Actually I can, but I won’t.  My opinions are simply an attempt to mesh my God experience with Bible writ.  And I did explain the others - typos or some such human error.  Unless of course that shoe is on my foot...  

Jehoviah's Witness?  No, I’ve conversed with JWs on several occasions.  They feel like dead men.  They have the letter, but don’t know Spirit.

Peace - I/s

[pinkocommie]

You cannot cling to only this verse with no way of explaining the other.

Actually I can, but I won’t.

 

[idiotsavant]

You cannot cling to only this verse with no way of explaining the other.

Actually I can, but I won’t.

 

You're right Pc, bad form on my part.  My apologies Sophus, that didn't come across the way I hoped...  Your point is valid and shouldn't be dizzed.

[elliebean]

Can you prove your statement:

[ a question]

Just thought I should point that out, in case anyone missed it.

[idiotsavant]

If He is capable of anything why did He fail at making a perfect Universe/creation?

And in that question are three statements: "He is capable of anything", "He failed" and "imperfect Universe"

[i_am_i]

If He is capable of anything why did He fail at making a perfect Universe/creation?

And in that question are three statements: "He is capable of anything", "He failed" and "imperfect Universe"

Sophistry.

[elliebean]

If He is capable of anything why did He fail at making a perfect Universe/creation?

And in that question are three statements: "He is capable of anything", "He failed" and "imperfect Universe"

And at the beginning of the question is the word "if". So does that mean you're asking Sophus to prove that the universe is imperfect?

[Davin]

Okay, I think I’ve got this. My thought process was just as you described. My original thoughts on DWs were null, then came the DW image (nano-second), then not-DW. That happened to me with Jesus. Only it ended with yes.

Not DW - Maybe DW - No DW.  Not JC - Maybe JC - Yes JC.

Yes, the stances are similar, but the process for reaching them aren't. You said, "That happened to me with Jesus. Only it ended with yes." Which means you see the process as similar. I don't see how they are similar. In all my experiences with waffles, they don't dance. So how is a lack of dancing waffles similar to Jesus?

What value sanity?

Karadan, my apologies, I wasn’t ignoring your post,  I just now stumbled on it.  And I hope you take no offense at my “What value sanity?" statement.  I’m actually questioning Davin’s definition of sanity.  I concluded years ago that joy and happiness matter much more than social acceptance / validation. And I learned that the only person altogether happy is the village idiot...

So joy and happiness are more important to you than the truth, and you would rather be happy in delusion than to understand how the universe really works... Then I think you're done on this topic.

[Sophus]

Another translation is die.

And how do we know which translation we can trust?  Have you found the Prefect Translation?  The Perfect Understanding?

I don't speak Hebrew but I'm sure there's someone who could tell us which is more accurate. It could even have multiple meanings. That wasn't my point though. If you reread, my point was that you may, indeed, be interpreting it correctly, simply because neither one of us knows the original meaning of the word. However, if you are right, all that proves is that there's another contradiction in the Bible, as the other verses I listed clearly state there is an eternal hell which I will stop, drop and roll in after I die.

Can you prove your statement:

There was no claim. As Elliebean pointed out: it was a question.

Jehoviah's Witness?  No...

The reason I asked is because JoHo's don't believe in hell.

[idiotsavant]

So how is a lack of dancing waffles similar to Jesus?

The lack of dancing waffles is similar to the lack of Jesus

So joy and happiness are more important to you than the truth, and you would rather be happy in delusion than to understand how the universe really works... Then I think you're done on this topic.

Which brings us to narcism.  Isn’t that standard Atheist doctrine?  Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die?

And no, were not quite done here yet...

I’m not sure we are ever motivated by logic. After all, emotion means “to move’. I think logic is a tool for movement, not its source.

I think we should all strive to live rationally....

Can you tell me one decision you made today that cannot be traced back to an emotional need?  

I agree Sophus, the Bible has apparent contradictions - I write them off as typos and human error.  You seem to place much importance on this.  Why?

Your question contains three assumptions: (If) God is perfect (then) Creation should be perfect (and) Creation is not perfect.

I know you only belive the latter, as you seem to think a perfect creation would lack pain and suffering.  How do you substantiate this idea?  What evidence did you follow to that conclusion?  Prove to me this is not an assumption.

Peace - I/s

[Davin]

And no, were not quite done here yet...

You may not be, but I am. You already said you value happiness over reality.

[idiotsavant]

I didn’t know happiness and reality were mutually exclusive.  And I didn’t know my question would be too difficult for you.

Peace - I/s

[Davin]

I didn’t know happiness and reality were mutually exclusive.  And I didn’t know my question would be too difficult for you.

Too difficult? No. Off topic? Yes. Beneficial to any rational discussion? I don't see how it is. I'm really doing my best to remain civil, I would appreciate it if you didn't try to invoke hostility. I don't think happiness and reality are mutually exclusive, however saying that you prefer happiness over validation is: because if the validation is something that makes you unhappy, you'd rather choose happy or reality. I will answer the remaining questions, but I'm pretty much done with this.

So how is a lack of dancing waffles similar to Jesus?

The lack of dancing waffles is similar to the lack of Jesus

I know, that is why no one should believe in Jesus: for the same reason no one should believe in dancing waffles.

So joy and happiness are more important to you than the truth, and you would rather be happy in delusion than to understand how the universe really works... Then I think you're done on this topic.

Which brings us to narcism.  Isn’t that standard Atheist doctrine?  Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die?

No, it's not. There are no standard doctrines for atheism, just as there is no standard doctrine for theism. This is off topic.

And no, were not quite done here yet...

I’m not sure we are ever motivated by logic. After all, emotion means “to move’. I think logic is a tool for movement, not its source.

I think we should all strive to live rationally....

Can you tell me one decision you made today that cannot be traced back to an emotional need?

Every decision I make. I have very little connection to my emotions, to relate, I need to give an example: when I place my hand on a hot burner I feel the burning but do not immediately remove my hand from the burner, I first see what is causing the burning and then calmly remove it from the burner. The "pain" to me isn't what it is to other people. I still feel it, but nothing causes me to scream out or jump around saying "ouch." The same thing that happens to me physically, happens to me emotionally. Yes I realize the emotions are there, but I do not do things from emotion. While I can understand that emotions can be a trigger to signal that one must make a decision, the decision itself should be rational. Seeing things doesn't always cause an emotional response but one can still make actions based on what is seen, so emotions aren't the only motivator for decision making. This is highly off topic though.

The reason why I said I think that you're done on this topic is because you stated that happiness is more important than verification, which means that if anything makes you unhappy you'd rather believe something else instead of trying to know what reality is. Once you're comfortable about learning things that may make you unhappy and accepting them as truth, then I think this discussion can continue: because verification is a very important thing if you want to make sure you know what you know.

[idiotsavant]

We are right on topic Davin.  I’m suggesting that you don’t know what truly motivates you.

Yes I realize the emotions are there, but I do not do things from emotion. While I can understand that emotions can be a trigger to signal that one must make a decision, the decision itself should be rational. Seeing things doesn't always cause an emotional response but one can still make actions based on what is seen, so emotions aren't the only motivator for decision making

Emotions are the only motivator for decision making.  Today you wrote computer code to achieve a business goal.  The code is cold stark logic - on or off only.   But why did you write that code?  To make money of course - cold hard cash.  But why do you want cash?  To buy things you need and enjoy - Bingo! We need food and shelter to survive.  We know we need food and shelter because we feel hunger and cold.  After our basic needs are met, we look to fulfill our desires - joy, pleasure, comfort, happiness, etc.  Emotion is king, logic its tool.  Prove me wrong - tell me just one decision you’ve made that cannot be traced back to an emotional need or desire...

I don’t recall stating that happiness is more important than verification.  I did say it was more important than social validation, implying that social acceptance is not my #1 priority.  (But it is at least #4 or 5, as social connections help me feel safe and secure)

A neuro-surgeon told me I feel pain more acutely then most because I have an abundance of surface sensory nerves.  You sound like a woman I know, whose lack of surface sensory nerves endangers her welfare.  She once scalded her hand in warm water.  Is your situation the same?

Peace - I/s

[Davin]

Emotions are the only motivator for decision making.

It might help if you defined what definition you're using for "emotions" so that we're on the same page and not arguing against two different versions of emotion.

Prove me wrong - tell me just one decision you’ve made that cannot be traced back to an emotional need or desire...

Who are you talking to?

I don’t recall stating that happiness is more important than verification.  I did say it was more important than social validation, implying that social acceptance is not my #1 priority.  (But it is at least #4 or 5, as social connections help me feel safe and secure)

I see, then it was just another off topic statement then.

A neuro-surgeon told me I feel pain more acutely then most because I have an abundance of surface sensory nerves.  You sound like a woman I know, whose lack of surface sensory nerves endangers her welfare.  She once scalded her hand in warm water.  Is your situation the same?

Nope, my nerves are normal.