Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bump TopicReply to this topicRSS feed Start new topic Start Poll

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

> Questions for Christianity., Drop your questions here and discuss. (Religious Issues)

duHwaN
post Aug 21 2017, 01:08 PM

Nope
******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,040

Joined: May 2007
From: Penang
QUOTE(puchongite @ Aug 21 2017, 11:59 AM)
I have problem with this diagram.

Firstly we have to decide whether we want to use scientific methodology and terminology, or we want to use wishy washy watery words in the realm of faith.

As far as science is concerned, "poorly justified truth belief" is a bunch of contradicting words joined together.

Science adopts the notion that given time, things can move through different phases of classification. A belief is belief. Poorly justified is poorly justified. You cannot put the POSSIBILITY of future into the current classification, and claim to have something called "a poorly justified truth" ! Also, science has the notion of unknown, it is not anywhere in the diagram.
*
A historical example of poorly justified true belief would be the heliocentric model (recent topic discussed with Spike). Despite being conceptualized since 250BCE, it does not have enough justification to displace the more popular geocentric until 1500s.

And science notion of unknown can be anything outside KNOWLEDGE; basically anything under TRUTH (not overlapping belief), POORLY JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF, or just BELIEF.

The former is total absent in awareness, (like radio waves to a caveman) and latter with possibility like anti-universe being speculated (or it can end up being mere belief only)

Note; Btw, this is just a model. If you have a better one in mind, pls do share

This post has been edited by duHwaN: Aug 21 2017, 01:16 PM
puchongite
post Aug 21 2017, 01:19 PM

10k Club
********
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 12,815

Joined: May 2008
QUOTE(duHwaN @ Aug 21 2017, 01:08 PM)
A historical example of poorly justified true belief would be the heliocentric model (recent topic discussed with Spike). Despite being conceptualized since 250BCE, it does not have enough justification to displace the more popular geocentric until 1500s.

And science notion of unknown can be anything outside KNOWLEDGE; basically anything under TRUTH (not overlapping belief), POORLY JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF, or just BELIEF.

The former is total absent in awareness, (like radio waves to a caveman) and latter with possibility like anti-universe being speculated (or it can end up being mere belief only)
*
If you look at history in retropective, yes, you can say NOW that it is a truth which was poorly justified.

However, you can't do it NOW, for something which you have inadequate evidence, and also no certainty of future outcome, and claim to have a "poorly justified truth".

Look carefully at the TIME when you make the claim !

This post has been edited by puchongite: Aug 21 2017, 01:23 PM
duHwaN
post Aug 21 2017, 01:25 PM

Nope
******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,040

Joined: May 2007
From: Penang
QUOTE(puchongite @ Aug 21 2017, 01:19 PM)
If you look at history in retropective, yes, you can say NOW that it is a truth which was poorly justified.

However, you can't do it NOW, for something which you have inadequate evidence, and also no certainty of future outcome, and claim to have a "poorly justified truth".

Look carefully at the TIME when you make the claim !
*
So does a galaxy made of entirely anti-matter exist?

Anytime a claim is made, with insufficient evidence to back it up to be considered as KNOWLEDGE, it will be the entirety of BELIEF (except knowledge). Depending on what future evidence brings, it can either end up final form being the TRUTH (knowledge) OR FALSE (mere belief).

This post has been edited by duHwaN: Aug 21 2017, 01:31 PM
puchongite
post Aug 21 2017, 01:29 PM

10k Club
********
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 12,815

Joined: May 2008
QUOTE(duHwaN @ Aug 21 2017, 01:25 PM)
So does a galaxy made of entirely of anti-matter exist?
*
Scientists have many other terminologies to solve those issues. "Theory", "hypothesis", "belief", "assumptions" and so on.

Just don't make claims NOW that you have the truth for something you have inadequate evidence. There is no such thing called "poorly justified truth" now. Can only say it when you look back. Timing is of the essence. rclxms.gif
duHwaN
post Aug 21 2017, 01:35 PM

Nope
******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,040

Joined: May 2007
From: Penang
QUOTE(puchongite @ Aug 21 2017, 01:29 PM)
Scientists have many other terminologies to solve those issues. "Theory", "hypothesis", "belief", "assumptions" and so on.

Just don't make claims NOW that you have the truth for something you have inadequate evidence. There is no such thing called "poorly justified truth" now. Can only say it when you look back. Timing is of the essence.  rclxms.gif
*
So you are arguing on terminology, from an image I pulled off internet?

What do you call a claimed truth that is unproven (now)? Explain it in terms totally different in essence from "poorly justified true belief" since you claim there is no such thing

This post has been edited by duHwaN: Aug 21 2017, 01:35 PM
puchongite
post Aug 21 2017, 01:37 PM

10k Club
********
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 12,815

Joined: May 2008
QUOTE(duHwaN @ Aug 21 2017, 01:35 PM)
So you are arguing on terminology, from an image I pulled off internet?

What do you call a claimed truth that is unproven (now)? Explain it in terms totally different in essence from "poorly justified true belief" since you claim there is no such thing
*
That's just unsubstantiated claim. No make assumption on future outcome please !

No, I don't argue for the sake of arguing. I am saying many people are making these kind of unsubstantiated claims NOW.

This post has been edited by puchongite: Aug 21 2017, 01:40 PM
duHwaN
post Aug 21 2017, 01:46 PM

Nope
******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,040

Joined: May 2007
From: Penang
QUOTE(puchongite @ Aug 21 2017, 01:37 PM)
That's just unsubstantiated claim. No make assumption on future outcome please !

No, I don't argue for the sake of arguing.  I am saying many people are making these kind of unsubstantiated claims NOW.
*
Nothing wrong with it. To pursue knowledge, one have to open to possibilities of the UNKNOWN. If one choose to limit oneself to known KNOWLEDGE only, I cannot see how that one can grow.

Going back in time, Aristarchus of Samos was unable to substantiate his claim... was he wrong THEN? As opposed to making unsubstantiated claim NOW.

Every claim will eventually be proven OR remain unproven (and maybe fade away). There is nothing wrong making claims of what the TRUTH may be...

Btw, do you have a better model than the image I pulled off internet wrt to KNOWLEDGE,TRUTH, etc???

This post has been edited by duHwaN: Aug 21 2017, 01:58 PM
danokchonger
post Aug 21 2017, 02:06 PM

Regular
******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,539

Joined: Feb 2008


QUOTE(duHwaN @ Aug 21 2017, 01:46 AM)
Nothing wrong with it. To pursue knowledge, one have to open to possibilities of the UNKNOWN. If one choose to limit oneself to known KNOWLEDGE only, I cannot see that one can grow.

Going back in time,  Aristarchus of Samos was unable to substantiate his claim... was he wrong THEN? As opposed to making unsubstantiated claim NOW.

Every claim will eventually be proven OR remain unproven (and maybe fade away). There is nothing wrong making claims of what the TRUTH may be...

Btw, do you have a better model than the image I pulled off internet wrt to KNOWLEDGE,TRUTH, etc???
*
well perhaps you should hilite to him that the diagram is the branch of philosophical studies pertaining knowledge, aka epistemology.
puchongite
post Aug 21 2017, 02:13 PM

10k Club
********
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 12,815

Joined: May 2008
QUOTE(duHwaN @ Aug 21 2017, 01:46 PM)
Nothing wrong with it. To pursue knowledge, one have to open to possibilities of the UNKNOWN. If one choose to limit oneself to known KNOWLEDGE only, I cannot see that one can grow.

Going back in time,  Aristarchus of Samos was unable to substantiate his claim... was he wrong THEN? As opposed to making unsubstantiated claim NOW.

Every claim will eventually be proven OR remain unproven (and maybe fade away). There is nothing wrong making claims of what the TRUTH may be...

Btw, do you have a better model than the image I pulled off internet wrt to KNOWLEDGE,TRUTH, etc???
*
To get the definition correct is the first step.

Otherwise people can do this :-

A doctor can go and prescribe an unproven medication.

A bridge can be built using an unproven structure.

One can claim there are plenty of virgins in the after life for you to enjoy if you follow the doctrine.


duHwaN
post Aug 21 2017, 02:23 PM

Nope
******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,040

Joined: May 2007
From: Penang
QUOTE(puchongite @ Aug 21 2017, 02:13 PM)
To get the definition correct is the first step.

Otherwise people can do this :-

A doctor can go and prescribe an unproven medication.

A bridge can be built using an unproven structure.

One can claim there are plenty of virgins in the after life for you to enjoy if you follow the doctrine.
*
So your problem is acting on claims, not the claim per se?

If like this, even KNOWLEDGE can be abused such (e.g. acting on partial knowledge)
puchongite
post Aug 21 2017, 02:48 PM

10k Club
********
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 12,815

Joined: May 2008
QUOTE(duHwaN @ Aug 21 2017, 02:23 PM)
So your problem is acting on claims, not the claim per se?

If like this, even KNOWLEDGE can be abused such (e.g. acting on partial knowledge)
*
Of course different claims have different impact. But if people know that they need to filter off claims, as they are unsubstantiated, then they will be more alert. But if unsubstantiated claim is disguised as truth, that's quite terrible.


Hoka Nobasho
post Aug 22 2017, 11:55 AM

Casual
***
Group: Junior Member
Posts: 353

Joined: Jul 2016


QUOTE(duHwaN @ Aug 21 2017, 09:12 AM)
Works both way, to whoever making the claim
1. I believe there is a God
2. I believe there is no God

You cannot assert a point (even a negative) while shirking the responsibility to back up your point, and insist the other does.

Which would be different story from..
I do not believe there is a God
*
While one cannot assert that there cannot be a god, and the preferable position would be "I do not believe there is a god", as I have previously mentioned, for pragmatic reasons, it would be okay to say "there is no god". It is not a dead-end to suggest that there'll never be any evidence found in the future should a god exists, but pragmatically, it would not be useful contemplating on its possibilities. Nobody cares about if you may be possibly be paid with your salary for the work you have done, as opposed to being certain on whether you are going to be paid or not, even when there isn't any evidence to suggest that they'll never ever pay you at all in the future.

So logically speaking, yes, one really cannot assert that there'll never be a god or if there's no god without considering any new evidence that we may find in the future.

But pragmatically speaking, yes, one could take the position to claim that there isn't a god, so that they wouldn't need to live their lives accordingly assuming there's one, even if it's possible. There's a possibility that Santa Claus might exist, but nobody really wanted to live with the understanding that there's really a person going in and out of chimneys of the world giving presents every year.
alexkos
post Oct 16 2017, 08:32 PM

Enthusiast
*****
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 779

Joined: Jun 2010
Reformed Christian reporting in. Quote me to have me answer your question concerning the gospel of Christ.

29 Pages « < 27 28 29Top
Bump TopicReply to this topicTopic OptionsStart new topic
 

Switch to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0693sec    3.24    6 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 19th October 2017 - 12:52 AM