Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Alan Burns on April 03, 2021, 11:08:03 AM
-
A timely reminder of what we are celebrating - "Graves into Gardens"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwX1f2gYKZ4
Have a happy, joyful Easter And God bless us all :)
-
Thank you, it's Easter tomorrow actually. I hope you have a happy one.
-
I hope Easter bunny is kind to everyone. :)
-
A timely reminder of what we are celebrating - "Graves into Gardens" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwX1f2gYKZ4 Have a happy, joyful Easter And God bless us all :)
Christos Anesti! Alleluia !
-
A timely reminder of what we are celebrating - "Graves into Gardens"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwX1f2gYKZ4
Have a happy, joyful Easter And God bless us all :)
I think you may find that many people celebrating Easter are celebrating the coming Spring-time, as per the origin of the term Easter, which has absolutely nothing to do with christianity, and everything to do with celebration of the Spring.
So for those that claim the 'real' meaning of Christmas is the birth of Jesus (rather than the winter solstice) then you a being a touch hypocritical if you also claim the 'real' meaning of Easter is the resurrection story of Jesus.
The reality is that in both cases the christian 'meaning' has been (almost certainly deliberatively) mashed up with an older celebration of the seasons.
-
Came across Śmigus-dyngus recently, in research for a zoom quiz:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9Amigus-dyngus
"The celebration has been traced back to the 14th century but may have earlier, pre-Christian origins involving the celebration of the March equinox; the origins of the word dyngus are obscure as it may come from the German Dingeier ("the eggs that are owed") or Dingnis ("ransom"). The occurrence of the celebration across the Western Slavic and Lechitic nations, including Hungary, suggests a common origin in pagan mythology, most likely a link with the mythological Slavic goddesses of fertility"
"The festival is traditionally celebrated by boys throwing water over girls they like and spanking them with pussy willows. Boys would sneak into girls' homes at daybreak on Easter Monday and throw containers of water over them while they were still in bed."
Good fun, I expect... (for the boys anyway!)
-
I think you may find that many people celebrating Easter are celebrating the coming Spring-time, as per the origin of the term Easter, which has absolutely nothing to do with christianity, and everything to do with celebration of the Spring.
Yes, Spring is a celebration of new life.
Easter is a wonderful celebration to acknowledge the ultimate source of new life.
You may see that many of the 8000+ comments on this video are from ex drug addicts and alcoholics who have turned their graveyards into gardens through the power of the risen Jesus Christ.
A new life is there for anyone who chooses to follow Jesus.
-
Christos Anesti! Alleluia !
Alithos Anesti! :)
-
Wishing all those celebrating it a Happy Easter.
G
-
Alithos Anesti! :)
Amen!
-
As the firstfruits were typical of the whole harvest (Leviticus 23:10-11), so is Christ. He rose, not to the exclusion but to the inclusion of all Humanity.
Ellicott's commentary (https://biblehub.com/commentaries/ellicott/1_corinthians/15.htm) on 1 Corinthians 15:20, "But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept'
-
Alleluia!
-
Ellicott's commentary (https://biblehub.com/commentaries/ellicott/1_corinthians/15.htm) on 1 Corinthians 15:20, "But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept'
Amen!
-
'Happy Easter, Happy Spring, Happy Happy Everything'
-
Happy Easter
https://newsthump.com/2016/03/25/christians-to-celebrate-resurrection-with-deadly-sin-of-gluttony/
-
Post addressed to ProfesorDavey and Udayana
Thank you both for having posted what I wished to have done but could not find a way to express it with your knowledge and clarity.
Owlswing
)O(
-
Saw this, liked it:
Happy Easter, Joyeuses Paques, Frohe Ostern, Happy Passover, Happy Ishtar
As a humanist you had me at 'Happy'.
-
Spring, season of new beginnings.
-
I think you may find that many people celebrating Easter are celebrating the coming Spring-time, as per the origin of the term Easter, which has absolutely nothing to do with christianity, and everything to do with celebration of the Spring.
So for those that claim the 'real' meaning of Christmas is the birth of Jesus (rather than the winter solstice) then you a being a touch hypocritical if you also claim the 'real' meaning of Easter is the resurrection story of Jesus.
The reality is that in both cases the christian 'meaning' has been (almost certainly deliberatively) mashed up with an older celebration of the seasons.
Zzzz!
-
I think you may find that many people celebrating Easter are celebrating the coming Spring-time, as per the origin of the term Easter, which has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity, and everything to do with the celebration of the Spring.
So for those that claim the 'real' meaning of Christmas is the birth of Jesus (rather than the winter solstice) then you a being a touch hypocritical if you also claim the 'real' meaning of Easter is the resurrection story of Jesus.
The reality is that in both cases the Christian 'meaning' has been (almost certainly deliberatively) mashed up with an older celebration of the seasons.
Correct - the Pagan festival at this time of year is Ostara.
Owlswing
)O(
-
Easter - or 'Pace' as it's sometimes called in Scotland, may well be bunged up with pre-Christian imagery, but, based as it is on the moveable feast of Passover - hence the coloquial name - it's about as Christian as you get.
Yes, the bunny nonsense is an American screw up of the hare - we know that...but the egg was first used to symbolise the stone which was rolled away in its groove, by a writer in the fourth century.
There may be pagan imigary in the egg (is there a god of chocolate?), but there's very firm basis on Christology as well.
As for new birth?
I'm all for that, since it is only possible through the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus.
-
Thank you, it's Easter tomorrow actually. I hope you have a happy one.
.. unless you are Eastern Orthodox. Orthodox Easter in 2021 is on Sunday, May 2, I believe.
-
Easter - or 'Pace' as it's sometimes called in Scotland, may well be bunged up with pre-Christian imagery, but, based as it is on the moveable feast of Passover - hence the coloquial name - it's about as Christian as you get.
Yes, the bunny nonsense is an American screw up of the hare - we know that...but the egg was first used to symbolise the stone which was rolled away in its groove, by a writer in the fourth century.
There may be pagan imigary in the egg (is there a god of chocolate?), but there's very firm basis on Christology as well.
As for new birth?
I'm all for that, since it is only possible through the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus.
Excellent post, Jim. Yes, we are also celebrating Passover.
It is so important to acknowledge 'Christ is Risen' this is the fulfilment of his life's work.
I have put your post on 'Forum Best Bits' where it is truly deserved.
-
I think you may find that many people celebrating Easter are celebrating the coming Spring-time, as per the origin of the term Easter, which has absolutely nothing to do with christianity, and everything to do with celebration of the Spring.
So for those that claim the 'real' meaning of Christmas is the birth of Jesus (rather than the winter solstice) then you a being a touch hypocritical if you also claim the 'real' meaning of Easter is the resurrection story of Jesus.
The reality is that in both cases the christian 'meaning' has been (almost certainly deliberatively) mashed up with an older celebration of the seasons.
I don't think it should be of any surprise to anyone that pagan and Christian feasts often overlap. The pagans worshipped creation. Christians, on the other hand, worship the One who made creation. Creation points to the One who made it.
-
Easter - or 'Pace' as it's sometimes called in Scotland, may well be bunged up with pre-Christian imagery, but, based as it is on the moveable feast of Passover - hence the coloquial name - it's about as Christian as you get.
Yes, the bunny nonsense is an American screw up of the hare - we know that...but the egg was first used to symbolise the stone which was rolled away in its groove, by a writer in the fourth century.
There may be pagan imigary in the egg (is there a god of chocolate?), but there's very firm basis on Christology as well.
As for new birth?
I'm all for that, since it is only possible through the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus.
Chocolate was a gift from the feathered serpent, the god called Quetzalcoatl by the Aztecs.
Quetzalcoatl was also borne by a virgin and human sacrifice was common in Aztec culture!
-
... but, based as it is on the moveable feast of Passover - hence the coloquial name - it's about as Christian as you get.
Err, what planet are you on - the timing of Easter is based on a Jewish (not a Christian) festival, and the dates are based on both the equinox and the lunar calendar - you cannot get more pagan if you tried.
So you can argue the toss as to whether the 'moveable' nature of the feast is originally Jewish or pagan, but it isn't originally Christian at all.
Hey, ho - another case of a Christian lacking perspective - some things don't change.
-
I don't think it should be of any surprise to anyone that pagan and Christian feasts often overlap.
True - throughout history new cultures and religions have usurped older traditions and ceremonies into their own as a way of persuading (often reluctant) peoples to convert.
The pagans worshipped creation. Christians, on the other hand, worship the One who made creation. Creation points to the One who made it.
Oh dear - and you were doing so well. I think that pagans celebrated nature and the natural world/forces etc, with deities and nature effectively one and the same. This is a world away from the notion of a monotheisitic god 'creating' the universe. And of course your assertion of the One who made creation is just that, an assertion, and one based on not a scrap of evidence. By contrast when you look around you and see spring bursting forth in all its glory you are seeing something that is both real and true - no assertions, faith or belief required.
-
Never understood why non-Christians get themselves in fits over this.
-
I don't think it should be of any surprise to anyone that pagan and Christian feasts often overlap. The pagans worshipped creation. Christians, on the other hand, worship the One who made creation. Creation points to the One who made it.
The Christians changed Pagan festivals by hijacking them.
Easter = Ostara - not such a great jump is it. The Winter Solstice becomes Christmas by moving Christ's (supposed) birth etc etc etc! Churches were erected at places where pagan festivals were celebrated. In some old churches you can, if you know where to look find pagan symbols carefully hidden by the builders who were not amused by the hijacking.
There is a church in East London which has a circular window with the Pagan Pentacle within it.
Owlswing
)O(
-
Never understood why non-Christians get themselves in fits over this.
I guess it is merely a response to Christians getting themselves in fits, with their condescending claims of the real meaning of Christmas and the real meaning of Easter.
The reality is that both Christmas and Easter are festivals that have multiple origins and multiple meanings - hence people celebrate them in different ways and there is no real meaning, as they mean different things to different people.
-
The Christians changed Pagan festivals by hijacking them.
Easter = Ostara - not such a great jump is it. The Winter Solstice becomes Christmas by moving Christ's (supposed) birth etc etc etc! Churches were erected at places where pagan festivals were celebrated. In some old churches you can, if you know where to look find pagan symbols carefully hidden by the builders who were not amused by the hijacking.
There is a church in East London which has a circular window with the Pagan Pentacle within it.
Owlswing
)O(
The first Christians didn't 'hijack' pagan festivals; they simply used the Jewish Passover as the template for the celebration of Easter.
Later denominations - Roman, Orthodox, whatever, may have messed it up a bit, but the fact remains that the origins of the Christian celebration of the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus are grounded in Judaism - and rightly so - rather than Paganism. The flummery of rabbits/hares and the rest are add ons and neither here nor there.
-
The first Christians didn't 'hijack' pagan festivals; they simply used the Jewish Passover as the template for the celebration of Easter.
Later denominations - Roman, Orthodox, whatever, may have messed it up a bit, but the fact remains that the origins of the Christian celebration of the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus are grounded in Judaism - and rightly so - rather than Paganism. The flummery of rabbits/hares and the rest are add ons and neither here nor there.
Christians are, as a group arrogant b*****ds! They are never bloody wrong! God (their God) forbid!
Easter and Christmas are not the only ones, but I've given up arguing seeing as how Christians are never, ever, wrong.
Damn Johnny Come lately religion anyway - Judaism, Hindu, Sikh, etc all pre-date your load of old jollop! The oldest known religious artifact is the Venus of Hohle Fels dated at between 35,000 and 40,000 years old
Have some respect for your elders!
Owlswing
)O(
-
The first Christians didn't 'hijack' pagan festivals; they simply used the Jewish Passover as the template for the celebration of Easter.
I accept that Christians based their celebration of passion (note not Easter, which has a different origin entirely) on the dates of passover - but those are themselves highly pagan in nature, being based on the equinox and the lunar cycle.
However there are examples where christians did highjack older festivals. Christmas being a good example - there is no evidence whatsoever for the date of Jesus' birth but they happened to decide to celebrate it smack on the winter solstice - hmm. Even more obvious - halloween and all saints day. Specifically moved by early christians in Celtic countries to coincide with the existing festival of Samhain.
Later denominations - Roman, Orthodox, whatever, may have messed it up a bit, but the fact remains that the origins of the Christian celebration of the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus are grounded in Judaism - and rightly so - rather than Paganism. The flummery of rabbits/hares and the rest are add ons and neither here nor there.
But the flummery (as you rather condescendingly call it) of rabbits/hares and the rest are add ons are actually not add ons at all, but faithful to the celebration of Easter as a celebration of the Spring - which is, of course, it's origin and distinct from passion/paschal (call it what you will) which is the christian celebration, while the etymology of the word Easter has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity but everything to do with celebration of the spring.
I suspect you actually know all this but cannot bring yourself to accept it.
-
I accept that Christians based their celebration of passion (note not Easter, which has a different origin entirely) on the dates of passover - but those are themselves highly pagan in nature, being based on the equinox and the lunar cycle.
However there are examples where christians did highjack older festivals. Christmas being a good example - there is no evidence whatsoever for the date of Jesus' birth but they happened to decide to celebrate it smack on the winter solstice - hmm. Even more obvious - halloween and all saints day. Specifically moved by early christians in Celtic countries to coincide with the existing festival of Samhain.
But the flummery (as you rather condescendingly call it) of rabbits/hares and the rest are add ons are actually not add ons at all, but faithful to the celebration of Easter as a celebration of the Spring - which is, of course, it's origin and distinct from passion/paschal (call it what you will) which is the christian celebration, while the etymology of the word Easter has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity but everything to do with celebration of the spring.
I suspect you actually know all this but cannot bring yourself to accept it.
Thank you, my dear Professor, you are so much more eloquent than I - especially when I lose my temper at the arrogance of Christians.
Owlswing
)O(
-
clarification:
A religious studies scholar Bruce Forbes summarizes:
"Saint Bede wrote that the month in which English Christians were celebrating the resurrection of Jesus had been called Eosturmonath in Old English, referring to a goddess named Eostre. And even though Christians had begun affirming the Christian meaning of the celebration, they continued to use the name of the goddess to designate the season."
Bede was so influential for later Christians that the name stuck, and hence Easter remains the name by which the English, Germans and Americans refer to the festival of Jesus' resurrection.
The origin of the name in no way detracts from the true meaning of what we now celebrate at Easter.
-
Christians are, as a group arrogant b*****ds! They are never bloody wrong! God (their God) forbid!
Easter and Christmas are not the only ones, but I've given up arguing seeing as how Christians are never, ever, wrong.
Damn Johnny Come lately religion anyway - Judaism, Hindu, Sikh, etc all pre-date your load of old jollop! The oldest known religious artifact is the Venus of Hohle Fels dated at between 35,000 and 40,000 years old
Have some respect for your elders!
Owlswing
)O(
I've plenty of respect for the evolving cultures, Owlswing - given my interest, how could I not?
Yet much of those cultures, prehistoric as well as historic, remain enigmatic.
My own discipline is a case in point. The only basis of codified religion which we have in Egypt was a mish-mash made by Greeks in an attempt to write down a theology which never actually existed ina codified or unified form in the first place. Much of our understanding of Celtic pre-Christian religion comes from Roman, and later Christian, sources.
Even Stonehenge has changed as far as our understanding goes - now we see a staged, evolving midwinter site which seems to have derived from the Orkney culture, where once it was seen as purely midsummer in its' outlook.
-
clarification:
A religious studies scholar Bruce Forbes summarizes:
"Saint Bede wrote that the month in which English Christians were celebrating the resurrection of Jesus had been called Eosturmonath in Old English, referring to a goddess named Eostre. And even though Christians had begun affirming the Christian meaning of the celebration, they continued to use the name of the goddess to designate the season."
Bede was so influential for later Christians that the name stuck, and hence Easter remains the name by which the English, Germans and Americans refer to the festival of Jesus' resurrection.
The origin of the name in no way detracts from the true meaning of what we now celebrate at Easter.
People get too caught up in the word. Proves little if anything at all.
-
Interesting that the primary feature of both a pagan and religious festival is a day of rest.
-
Interesting that the primary feature of both a pagan and religious festival is a day of rest.
I think many people would consider paganism to be a religion (certainly current day paganism) and therefor the distinction between pagan and religious is a tad ill-considered.
-
The origin of the name in no way detracts from the true meaning of what we now celebrate at Easter.
There we are - right on cue - a christian dictating to the rest of us what the true meaning of Easter is.
News for you chum - while there are plenty of people who see Easter as a time to mark the purported resurrection of Jesus there are plenty of others who see is as a Spring festival. Neither has a monopoly on determining its 'true' meaning albeit those that see it as the celebration of Spring are being faithful to the origin of the name of the festival.
But if we are using the work true - well perhaps we should use it properly - the definition being something which is in accordance with fact or reality.
So if we have two variant true meanings of Easter namely:
A). Associated with an assertion that a person died and then became alive again - an assertion based on no evidence and which contradicts all we know about physiology
B). Association with a season where days get longer and a little warmer, where growth of plants re-emerges and many species start to breed.
Which of those better aligns with being in accordance with fact or reality AB?
-
Interesting that the primary feature of both a pagan and religious festival is a day of rest.
Not in my Coven it wasn't!
A sunrise ritual and then, usually a monumental piss-up, a party for friends and family, most of whom watched the ritual from outside the Circle except for cakes and ale and tye the final blessing.
It was, in part, a party to thank our families for their forbearance in allowing us to disappear for rituals and practices for those rituals.
About the only sombre ritual was for Samhain.
Owlswing
)O(
-
A). Associated with an assertion that a person died and then became alive again - an assertion based on no evidence and which contradicts all we know about physiology
B). Association with a season where days get longer and a little warmer, where growth of plants re-emerges and many species start to breed.
Which of those better aligns with being in accordance with fact or reality AB?
Both align with reality
A) The torture, crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is well documented by several eye witness accounts which have withstood intense scrutiny for over two thousand years and have endured to form the foundation of the Christian church.
B) Our ability to perceive the miracle of new life with wonder and awe is a reality which exists through the power of our human soul. Without our God given soul we are just a meaningless continuum of the purposeless unguidable forces in a material universe.
-
Both align with reality
A) The torture, crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is well documented by several eye witness accounts which have withstood intense scrutiny for over two thousand years and have endured to form the foundation of the Christian church.
B) Our ability to perceive the miracle of new life with wonder and awe is a reality which exists through the power of our human soul. Without our God given soul we are just a meaningless continuum of the purposeless unguidable forces in a material universe.
I'm pretty sure there were no eye witnesses to A, and it cannot stand scrutiny for 5 minutes.
-
A) The torture, crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is well documented by several eye witness accounts which have withstood intense scrutiny for over two thousand years...
Simply false.
B) Our ability to perceive the miracle of new life with wonder and awe is a reality which exists through the power of our human soul.
Baseless assertion.
Without our God given soul we are just a meaningless continuum of the purposeless unguidable forces in a material universe.
::)
-
AB,
Both align with reality
It’s realities plural – the resurrection story may be convincing enough for some to be their reality, but older realities about Easter sit behind that one too. The amalgamation of religious beliefs that Christianity often did is called syncretism by the way – the resurrection story for example features in ancient Egyptian theology, and likely comes from earlier narratives still about death and re-birth in nature as the seasons turned.
While I’m here, Easter/Oestra is also the root for Oestrus, Oestrogen etc for obvious reasons.
A) The torture, crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is well documented by several eye witness accounts which have withstood intense scrutiny for over two thousand years and have endured to form the foundation of the Christian church.
Simply not true – there are no extant eye-witness accounts, and even if there were there’d be no way now to verify them. The best you have is a fairly common preceding myth whose iteration on this occasion happened to catch the wind.
B) Our ability to perceive the miracle of new life with wonder and awe is a reality which exists through the power of our human soul. Without our God given soul we are just a meaningless continuum of the purposeless unguidable forces in a material universe.
Reason- and evidence-free faith claims and an argmentum ad consequentiam.
-
Both align with reality
A) The torture, crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is well documented by several eye witness accounts which have withstood intense scrutiny for over two thousand years and have endured to form the foundation of the Christian church.
Nope - these stories are indistinguishable from fiction and can, therefore, be dismissed as being claims of historical fact.
B) Our ability to perceive the miracle of new life with wonder and awe is a reality which exists through the power of our human soul. Without our God given soul we are just a meaningless continuum of the purposeless unguidable forces in a material universe.
A nice mix of fallacies: your trademark incredulity with an added dash of ad consequentiam.
-
AB,
It’s realities plural – the resurrection story may be convincing enough for some to be their reality, but older realities about Easter sit behind that one too. The amalgamation of religious beliefs that Christianity often did is called syncretism by the way – the resurrection story for example features in ancient Egyptian theology, and likely comes from earlier narratives still about death and rebirth in nature as the seasons turned.
While I’m here, Easter/Oestra is also the root for Oestrus, Oestrogen, etc for obvious reasons.
Simply not true – there are no extant eye-witness accounts, and even if there were there’d be no way now to verify them. The best you have is a fairly common preceding myth whose iteration on this occasion happened to catch the wind.
Reason- and evidence-free faith claims and an argmentum ad consequentiam.
BH
I have enormous respect for your knowledge and your patience.
Why do you bother to waste it on someone, anyone, who would not believe you unless you could prove that you were the reincarnation of Jesus Christ himself - except, of course, for the fact that there is absolutely no proof anywhere in reliably annotated history that Jesus Christ ever existed at all, anywhere or anywhen! Anywhere outside the accursed Bible of the Christian Church!
The fact that so many people do believe this monstrous piece of fiction., that millions of the poorest people in the world, pay what little money they have to the Christian church, effectively trying to buy their place in a non-existent heaven that the priests continue to lie about is one of the most damnable con-jobs that anywhere else other than religion would be a serious criminal offence!
Owlswing
)O(
Rant over - temperature declining - going for a large HobGolblin!
-
Nope - these stories are indistinguishable from fiction and can, therefore, be dismissed as being claims of historical fact.
B) Our ability to perceive the miracle of new life with wonder and awe is a reality which exists through the power of our human soul. Without our God given soul we are just a meaningless continuum of the purposeless unguidable forces in a material universe.
A nice mix of fallacies: your trademark incredulity with an added dash of ad consequentiam.
Please see my response to BH above!
Owlswing
)O(
-
Both align with reality
A) The torture, crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is well documented by several eye witness accounts which have withstood intense scrutiny for over two thousand years and have endured to form the foundation of the Christian church.
Don't make me laugh AB - there are no credible eye witness accounts of the death etc of Jesus - all we have is multiple generation handed down myth and the earliest extant copies of the story available to us is from about 150 years after the purported events.
Let's compare that with the Spring - any eye witnesses to the current Spring - yup me - anyone else want to tell us that over the past days they've been eye witnesses to the Spring.
And also regardless of eye witnesses, we have countless sources of verifiable and objective evidence for the Spring. Verifiable and objective evidence for the death and purported resurrection of Jesus - not a bean, zip, zilch. Plus, of course, it is objectively implausible.
So, no AB, they do not both align with reality - the Spring is objectively real and true. The resurrection of Jesus is merely an assertion, and one based on no evidence whatsoever.
-
AB,
It’s realities plural – the resurrection story may be convincing enough for some to be their reality, but older realities about Easter sit behind that one too.
A belief is not reality. What does it mean to be 'their reality'?
-
Nope - these stories are indistinguishable from fiction and can, therefore, be dismissed as being claims of historical fact.
Buzz argument from incredulity.
I think there are no grounds for dismissal of these stories.
They may describe an improbable event but I see you offering no falsification. Certainly I cant see any qualification for rejection as historical fact. You seem to be ignoring God dodging behaviour.
-
Nope - these stories are indistinguishable from fiction and can, therefore, be dismissed as being claims of historical fact.
Buzz argument from incredulity.
I think there are no grounds for dismissal of these stories.
They may describe an improbable event but I see you offering no falsification. Certainly I cant see any qualification for rejection as historical fact. You seem to be ignoring God dodging behaviour.
-
Buzz argument from incredulity.
I think there are no grounds for dismissal of these stories.
They may describe an improbable event but I see you offering no falsification. Certainly I cant see any qualification for rejection as historical fact. You seem to be ignoring God dodging behaviour.
They are unfalsifiable. They are not claims investigatible within the historical method which is a subset of the scientific method. At this point is when I ask you for the 6th 7th 8th thousandth time for a method to do so, and for the 6th, 7th, 8th thousandth time you will runaway, not answer, or post drivel.
-
Buzz argument from incredulity.
I think there are no grounds for dismissal of these stories.
They may describe an improbable event but I see you offering no falsification. Certainly I cant see any qualification for rejection as historical fact. You seem to be ignoring God dodging behaviour.
Don't be silly, Vlad: as ever the burden of proof is with you guys, and if you can firm up the provenance of these anecdotal stories then please feel free - and remember to outline the method(s) you've used.
You can start by explaining on what basis these stories are distinguishable from fiction since without that, along with describing the methods you've employed, there is nothing of substance that could be falsified.
-
NS,
A belief is not reality. What does it mean to be 'their reality'?
We’ve been through this before. Each of us has our own reality – and very often they overlap. Thus pretty much everyone has the reality that light in a vacuum travels at 186,000 mph. That’s not to say though that someone might not have his own reality that light actually travels at 4 mph and all we observe to the contrary is engineered to look that way by alien lizard people. Nor is it to say either by the way that one day there won’t be more accurate measuring devices that tell us that the previous calculation was wrong (or for that matter that alien lizard people won't make themselves known), so the common reality of most people now is mistaken.
That’s the thing about reality – it’s not an absolute (because of the risk of an unknown unknown that could change our minds) so in epistemological terms functional reality is beliefs that most people cohere around.
How could it be otherwise?
-
Vlad,
Buzz argument from incredulity.
That's not what the argument from incredulity entails, as has been explained to you many times before now.
I think there are no grounds for dismissal of these stories.
Depends what you mean by "dismissal", but absence of evidence is usually a good ground for not accepting them. That's why you "dismiss" my claims about leprechauns.
They may describe an improbable event but I see you offering no falsification.
Ah, your old burden of proof mistake again. I see you offering no falsification of leprechauns either. Now what?
Certainly I cant see any qualification for rejection as historical fact. You seem to be ignoring God dodging behaviour.
Certainly I cant see any qualification for rejection as historical fact. You seem to be ignoring leprechaun-dodging behaviour.
-
NS,
We’ve been through this before. Each of us has our own reality – and very often they overlap. Thus pretty much everyone has the reality that light in a vacuum travels at 186,000 mph. That’s not to say though that someone might not have his own reality that light actually travels at 4 mph and all we observe to the contrary is engineered to look that way by alien lizard people. Nor is it to say either by the way that one day there won’t be more accurate measuring devices that tell us that the previous calculation was wrong (or for that matter that alien lizard people won't make themselves known), so the common reality of most people now is mistaken.
That’s the thing about reality – it’s not an absolute (because of the risk of an unknown unknown that could change our minds) so in epistemological terms functional reality is beliefs that most people cohere around.
How could it be otherwise?
That's just gibberish. Each of us has our own experiences, to claim those as a 'reality' makes the idea of reality meaningless.
-
Vlad,
Depends what you mean by "dismissal", but absence of evidence is usually a good ground for not accepting them. That's why you "dismiss" my claims about leprechauns.
I have shaken hands with dismissal of your claims about Leprechauns. We will have to see whether any body elses claims
About Leprechauns are as close to dismissable as yours.
-
I have shaken hands with dismissal of your claims about Leprechauns. We will have to see whether any body else claims
About Leprechauns are as close to dismissable as yours.
Drivel
-
NS,
That's just gibberish. Each of us has our own experiences, to claim those as a 'reality' makes the idea of reality meaningless.
No it isn't. Are you claiming to know "the" reality about something?
How so?
-
Vlad,
I have shaken hands with dismissal of your claims about Leprechauns. We will have to see whether any body elses claims
About Leprechauns are as close to dismissable as yours.
What twisted attempt at a thought are you even trying to express here?
-
Drivel
Can you explain why?
-
Vlad,
Can you explain why?
Incoherence is drivel.
-
Ah, your old burden of proof mistake again. I see you offering no falsification of leprechauns either. Now what?
I see you seem to be confusing burden of proof with falsification.
-
Vlad,
That's not what the argument from incredulity entails, as has been explained to you many times before now.
Depends what you mean by "dismissal", but absence of evidence is usually a good ground for not accepting them. That's why you "dismiss" my claims about leprechauns.
Ah, your old burden of proof mistake again. I see you offering no falsification of leprechauns either. Now what?
Certainly I cant see any qualification for rejection as historical fact. You seem to be ignoring leprechaun-dodging behaviour.
I thought I told you a while back I was agnostic about Leprechauns.
-
Vlad,
I see you seem to be confusing burden of proof with falsification.
No, you're confusing falsification with non-acceptance. I've explained to you the burden of proof countless times before but you've never once even tried to address your misunderstanding of it so I really cant see the point of correcting you on it yet again.
-
Vlad,
I thought I told you a while back I was agnostic about Leprechauns.
Whoosh!
-
NS,
No it isn't. Are you claiming to know "the" reality about something?
How so?
No, I am saying there is a reality. What are other 'realities'? What is someone's reality other than just their belief?
-
Can you explain why?
It is incoherent
-
NS,
What is anyone’s reality except their belief? Some beliefs though better align than others with certain precepts like reason, so we call those beliefs “objective” and those that don’t “subjective”. How we’d know whether either mapped accurately to “reality” though is beyond me.
-
NS,
What is anyone’s reality except their belief? Some beliefs though better align than others with certain precepts like reason, so we call those beliefs “objective” and those that don’t “subjective”. How we’d know whether either mapped accurately to “reality” though is beyond me.
Then you have just argued your 'reality' is worth only as much as any 'reality'. You don't really understand this stuff.
-
NS,
I’ve argued no such thing. There are functionally useful realities and functionally not useful realities, and the former are “worth” more than the latter.
I think it’s you who doesn’t understand this stuff - which surprises me by the way.
-
NS,
I’ve argued no such thing. There are functionally useful realities and functionally not useful realities, and the former are “worth” more than the latter.
I think it’s you who doesn’t understand this stuff - which surprises me by the way.
It surprises you because you are just that unable to understand. Reality in any sensible discussion is not just what different people believe because it makes the concept worthless as it can be contradictory. Get back to me when you want to deal with your logical contradictions
-
I haven't read this page yet, but in response to page 2:
In my earlier post I mentioned the first fruits ritual in the temple on the day after the Sabbath of Passover. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 compares Jesus' resurrection with the first fruits of the harvest. Basically the first sheaf of barley to be cut was taken to the temple and presented to God. The barley started to ripen at this time in Israel. The harvest of the crops is one of those things about the natural world that points to a greater reality. It points to the resurrection of mankind in the future. Jesus' resurrection is like the first sheaf of barley to be harvested, pointing to the final judgment when all the dead will come to life.
Also the one year-old lambs eaten at Passover were born in the spring the year before. They pointed to the substitutionary atonement of Jesus.
The point being that the gospel is revealed in nature.
-
Buzz argument from incredulity.
I think there are no grounds for the dismissal of these stories.
They may describe an improbable event but I see you offering no falsification. Certainly, I can't see any qualification for rejection as a historical fact. You seem to be ignoring God-dodging behaviour.
Any more than you have proof positive that they ever happened!
Owlswing
)O(
-
BH
I have enormous respect for your knowledge and your patience.
Why do you bother to waste it on someone, anyone, who would not believe you unless you could prove that you were the reincarnation of Jesus Christ himself - except, of course, for the fact that there is absolutely no proof anywhere in reliably annotated history that Jesus Christ ever existed at all, anywhere or anywhen! Anywhere outside the accursed Bible of the Christian Church!
The fact that so many people do believe this monstrous piece of fiction., that millions of the poorest people in the world, pay what little money they have to the Christian church, effectively trying to buy their place in a non-existent heaven that the priests continue to lie about is one of the most damnable con-jobs that anywhere else other than religion would be a serious criminal offence!
Owlswing
)O(
Rant over - temperature declining - going for a large HobGolblin!
And ditto about all other religions which promise similar things.
-
And ditto about all other religions which promise similar things.
Of course!
But there are not many people who espouse those "other religions" posting on this Forum.
And, before the Christians start baying for my blood, my religion makes no such claims or promises.
Owlswing
)O(
-
Of course!
But there are not many people who espouse those "other religions" posting on this Forum.
And, before the Christians start baying for my blood, my religion makes no such claims or promises.
Owlswing
)O(
I think on past record there is more chance for you starting to bay for your own blood than I.
I agree there are some terrible cons and delusions which call on the backing of God at the moment which I find I cannot agree with namely dominionism, false prophesy, the alignment of evangelicalism with the right wing and a macho calvinism.
However, that alignment was defeated in the US elections whereas in the UK there seems to be an alignment continuing between rightwing stances and an increasingly secular society which seems indefatigable.
On another point a christian wishes people a happy easter and all hell breaks lose with people reclaiming easter for anyone.
But I notice this thread hasn't been moved to the pagan thread pointing to a nasty habit of atheists and pagans spewing their bile out on the christian thread. This of course is my humble opinion.
-
ut I notice this thread hasn't been moved to the pagan thread pointing to a nasty habit of atheists and pagans spewing their bile out on the christian thread. This of course is my humble opinion.
Why would it be moved. It's primarily about Easter.
Humble?
Yes, you and Rees Mogg. Peas in a pod.
-
NS,
It surprises you because you are just that unable to understand. Reality in any sensible discussion is not just what different people believe because it makes the concept worthless as it can be contradictory. Get back to me when you want to deal with your logical contradictions
Stage magicians have things called “outs” – escape routes when the trick goes wrong. Your out there was “in any sensible discussion”. If by that you mean the colloquial us of “reality” as practical agreement based generally on reason and evidence then yes of course – that’s the reality of sensible discussion. That’s why I take the lift instead of jumping out of the window – “reality” is the expectation that the former will have the better outcome.
What we were talking about though was the epistemic use of “reality” – a very different matter. The objective/subjective belief split is a practically useful one, but both ends of that spectrum are bounded by unknowables. AB’s faith beliefs are nonsense in any objective sense but they’re still his subjective reality – in his head “god” really did cure Little Timmy of his rickets or find his car keys. More yet, let’s say that at one time pretty much everyone thought the world was flat or that evil spirits caused disease – these were “the” realities of their times. They were the conclusions whole societies reached on the basis of the best tools available to them, just as our reality is for us now. Who’s to say though that some long-future descendants of ours won’t look at our objective reality in the same way that we look at the objective realities of our ancestors – ie, as also the best mapping to a substrate of reality we were capable of but fundamentally wrong nonetheless in all sorts of important ways?
To get back to the sensible discussion point: of course our objective understanding of reality allows us to have sensible discussions – so sensible that we can use it to fly rockets to Mars in fact – whereas the subjective realities of faith claims cannot be discussed sensibly because they’re all equally in/valid. Our objective understanding of reality runs out fairly quickly though. We cannot for example discuss sensibly the blueprint of a Star Trek style teleportation machine because we don’t currently have a map of reality that allows us to do that – for epistemic purposes speculations about that are effectively reduced to the status of faith claims.
If you think that has logical contradictions though, then by all means tell me what they are.
-
Not sure about this unknown unknown thing nor how it fits in with the question of the existence of God..but then it seems to have come from Donald Rumsfeld via yourself.
-
Of course!
But there are not many people who espouse those "other religions" posting on this Forum.
And, before the Christians start baying for my blood, my religion makes no such claims or promises.
Owlswing
)O(
Doesn't your religion promise supernatural power?
-
Vlad,
Not sure about this unknown unknown thing nor how it fits in with the question of the existence of God..but then it seems to have come from Donald Rumsfeld via yourself.
What is it that you're not sure about? To claim categoric correctness about something is to claim omniscience - people aren't omniscient.
-
I think you may find that many people celebrating Easter are celebrating the coming Spring-time, as per the origin of the term Easter, which has absolutely nothing to do with christianity, and everything to do with celebration of the Spring.
So for those that claim the 'real' meaning of Christmas is the birth of Jesus (rather than the winter solstice) then you a being a touch hypocritical if you also claim the 'real' meaning of Easter is the resurrection story of Jesus.
The reality is that in both cases the christian 'meaning' has been (almost certainly deliberatively) mashed up with an older celebration of the seasons.
Cheap, cynical bollocks. "Easter" was originall called in English "Pasch", and we should go back to that.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Pasch
-
Cheap, cynical bollocks. "Easter" was originall called in English "Pasch", and we should go back to that.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Pasch
Pasch and Easter are entirely different words with different etymologies - hence the discussion.
Pasch is derived from passion and ultimately from passover. It is the derivative term linked to the death and purported resurrection of Jesus.
Easter is derived from at least one purported god of the Spring and its etymology is entirely different from Pasch or Pascal etc.
Most countries refer to the Christian festival marking the death and purported resurrection of Jesus as Pasch, Passion, Paschal etc. In the UK we refer to Easter which has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus or Christianity, and indeed is linked to a pagan goddess of the Spring.
More than happy for you Christians to go back to celebrating Pasch, and the rest of us can celebrate Easter as a Spring festival. In reality, of course both festivals have been mashed up over the centuries and no-one has a monopoly on the real meaning of the festival, regardless of whether you call it Pasch or Easter - it means different things to different people.
-
Vlad,
What is it that you're not sure about? To claim categoric correctness about something is to claim omniscience - people aren't omniscient.
I've seen definitions where unknown unknown kind of makes sense but even that definition is inappropriate for the question of the existence of God which is an known unknown in terms of proof.
Omniscience is a complete red herring since whether something
Is a known known or an unknown unknown doesn't involve omniscience.
In the system where you can have unknowns apparently you can have unknown knowns a term which more than adequately describes Goddodging..
-
Pasch and Easter are entirely different words with different etymologies - hence the discussion.
Pasch is derived from passion and ultimately from passover. It is the derivative term linked to the death and purported resurrection of Jesus.
Easter is derived from at least one purported god of the Spring and its etymology is entirely different from Pasch or Pascal etc.
Most countries refer to the Christian festival marking the death and purported resurrection of Jesus as Pasch, Passion, Paschal etc. In the UK we refer to Easter which has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus or Christianity, and indeed is linked to a pagan goddess of the Spring.
More than happy for you Christians to go back to celebrating Pasch, and the rest of us can celebrate Easter as a Spring festival. In reality, of course both festivals have been mashed up over the centuries and no-one has a monopoly on the real meaning of the festival, regardless of whether you call it Pasch or Easter - it means different things to different people.
I'm wondering why a chap such as yourself who has no trouble with the change in meaning of the word marriage is weirdly upset about the change in meaning in the word Easter.
Oh I get it it's the anti Christian thing to do.
-
Vlad,
I've seen definitions where unknown unknown kind of makes sense but even that definition is inappropriate for the question of the existence of God which is an known unknown in terms of proof.
It’s simpler than that. Some people claim “god” as an absolute, categoric, “not even the possibility of being wrong about that ever ever ever” truth. Unless you can eliminate every piece of information in the universe that could potentially at least falsify the claim though – ie, omniscience – you cannot make that claim.
Omniscience is a complete red herring since whether something
Is a known known or an unknown unknown doesn't involve omniscience.
Oh dear. Omniscience is necessary for absolute, epistemic certainty for the reason I just explained. Without it you cannot eliminate the possibility of a piece of information that could show you to be wrong.
In the system where you can have unknowns apparently you can have unknown knowns a term which more than adequately describes Goddodging.
Incoherent word salad, but if it means what I think you mean by it then the same is true for leprechaun dodging. How does that help you?
-
Sorry Hillside your attempts at making a known unknown into an unknown unknown have been blown.
Your turdpolishing has thus become a known known.
-
Vlad,
Sorry Hillside your attempts at making a known unknown into an unknown unknown have been blown.
Your turdpolishing has thus become a known known.
Do you genuinely not understand what's being said here or are you just straw manning again to get off the hook of your own mistake?
-
Vlad,
Do you genuinely not understand what's being said here or are you just straw manning again to get off the hook of your own mistake?
There is no mistake. The question of God's existence is not an unknown unknown. Therefore omniscience and indeed the existence of unknown unknowns has nothing to do with it...since this is a known unknown.
The existence of the four categories makes Goddodging a possibility.
-
Vlad,
There is no mistake. The question of God's existence is not an unknown unknown.
Yes there is – the unknown unknown is the possibility that the “question of God’s existence” could be answered in the negative. You have no way to eliminate that possibility.
Therefore…
You don’t have a therefore when your premise has collapsed…
… omniscience and indeed the existence of unknown unknowns has nothing to do with it...since this is a known unknown.
Gibberish. It’s not the existence of something that’s being claimed, just its possibility. How would you propose to eliminate that possibility?
The existence of the four categories makes Goddodging a possibility.
Again, so's leprechaun dodging. And again, how does that help you?
-
Vlad,
Yes there is – the unknown unknown is the possibility that the “question of God’s existence” could be answered in the negative. You have no way to eliminate that possibility.
You don’t have a therefore when your premise has collapsed…
Gibberish. It’s not the existence of something that’s being claimed, just its possibility. How would you propose to eliminate that possibility?
Again, so's leprechaun dodging. And again, how does that help you?
Yes I suppose there could be Leprechaun dodging but your thesis that there cannot be Goddodging is undone by unknown knowns.
-
Vlad,
Yes there is – the unknown unknown is the possibility that the “question of God’s existence” could be answered in the negative.
That is a known unknown if you know you dont know it.
-
Pasch and Easter are entirely different words with different etymologies - hence the discussion.
Pasch is derived from passion and ultimately from passover. It is the derivative term linked to the death and purported resurrection of Jesus.
Easter is derived from at least one purported god of the Spring and its etymology is entirely different from Pasch or Pascal etc.
Most countries refer to the Christian festival marking the death and purported resurrection of Jesus as Pasch, Passion, Paschal etc. In the UK we refer to Easter which has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus or Christianity, and indeed is linked to a pagan goddess of the Spring.
More than happy for you Christians to go back to celebrating Pasch, and the rest of us can celebrate Easter as a Spring festival. In reality, of course both festivals have been mashed up over the centuries and no-one has a monopoly on the real meaning of the festival, regardless of whether you call it Pasch or Easter - it means different things to different people.
Yes, I know. That's why I think we should go back to calling the Christian festival Pasch.
-
Vlad,
That is a known unknown if you know you dont know it.
There is no "it" - just possibilities. Anything's possible, and you have no way to know what the possible things might be - they're unknown unknowns. That's your problem.
-
Vlad,
There is no "it" - just possibilities. Anything's possible, and you have no way to know what the possible things might be - they're unknown unknowns. That's your problem.
First of all there are things which are impossible. Square circles etc.
Secondly If I had asked you to name/describe an example of an unknown unknown you would have said that was a silly request...and yet you've named one! So that becomes a known unknown.
But again this has nothing to do whether God exists which is a known unknown however you try to cut it.
It's God or no God.
-
Vlad,
First of all there are things which are impossible. Square circles etc.
But only if you assume that reason, logic etc are absolute. What if reality isn’t that way though – eg the brain in a bottle problem? What you’re missing here is that our understanding of reality is only as good as our ability to understand reality. And unless you’re claiming omniscience, that ability is limited.
Secondly If I had asked you to name/describe an example of an unknown unknown you would have said that was a silly request...and yet you've named one! So that becomes a known unknown.
We really should have a face palm emoji here. Again – when anything is possible it’s impossible to name all those possible things. As you have no way of knowing what they might be, you have an unknown unknowns problem.
But again this has nothing to do whether God exists which is a known unknown however you try to cut it.
But it does have everything to do with the claim “god certainly exists”. The “certainly” is your problem here. How would you eliminate the possibility that you’re wrong about that?
It's God or no God.
Depends what you mean by “God”, but this isn’t about the (supposed) fact of god – it’s about the epistemic robustness of the claim you’re making about the existence of “him” being certain.
-
Vlad,
But only if you assume that reason, logic etc are absolute. What if reality isn’t that way though – eg the brain in a bottle problem? What you’re missing here is that our understanding of reality is only as good as our ability to understand reality. And unless you’re claiming omniscience, that ability is limited.
Omniscience is a red herring since we can discuss God without discussing omniscience. You seem to be suggesting then that there can be no known unknowns.
If you are willing to chuck out reason and logic for a dubious idea then your credibility is dashed since the same argument will be used against your good self.We really should have a face palm emoji here. Again – when anything is possible
Let me stop you there anything is possible is just a cliche to encourage people and not true
But it does have everything to do with the claim “god certainly exists”. The “certainly” is your problem here. How would you eliminate the possibility that you’re wrong about that?
But I'm not saying that, since not everybody knows it and those that might cannot prove it. That is why I'm happy to use the term Known unknown. Unfortunately then God certainly exists is still a known unknown because he either does or doesn't. There is no unknown unknown that can slip in. There is no third way. If there were it would confound both Atheism and theism.
'God certainly exists' is also not a known known since ''we'' do not all know that. You leave here Hillside, having suggested reason and logic might be unreliable completely discredited on your appeal to both of those. Funnily enough I feel myself mourning over that.
-
Vlad,
Omniscience is a red herring since we can discuss God without discussing omniscience.
No it isn’t a red herring for reasons I keep explaining and you keep ignoring. Certainty at a colloquial, everyday, functional level is fine. At an absolute level though you cannot have epistemic certainty unless you know every possible thing that could be, ie omniscience.
This shouldn’t be difficult to understand.
You seem to be suggesting then that there can be no known unknowns.
Don’t be daft. If I had a complicated maths problem I wouldn’t know the answer, but I’d know there is one.
If you are willing to chuck out reason and logic for a dubious idea then your credibility is dashed since the same argument will be used against your good self.
See above.
Let me stop you there anything is possible is just a cliche to encourage people and not true
Why isn’t it true?
But I'm not saying that, since not everybody knows it and those that might cannot prove it. That is why I'm happy to use the term Known unknown. Unfortunately then God certainly exists is still a known unknown because he either does or doesn't. There is no unknown unknown that can slip in. There is no third way. If there were it would confound both Atheism and theism.
Oh dear. Again – “God’s” existence is your realty. Your reality is bounded by your ability to understand it. That ability is limited. Thus the claim “god is” cannot be epistemically certain (unless you’re also omniscient).
'God certainly exists' is also not a known known since ''we'' do not all know that. You leave here Hillside, having suggested reason and logic might be unreliable completely discredited on your appeal to both of those. Funnily enough I feel myself mourning over that.
Wrong again – see above. All I’m saying here is that there can be no absolute positions when our ability to understand reality isn’t also total.
Why is this difficult for you to grasp?
-
Vlad,
No it isn’t a red herring for reasons I keep explaining and you keep ignoring. Certainty at a colloquial, everyday, functional level is fine. At an absolute level though you cannot have epistemic certainty unless you know every possible thing that could be, ie omniscience.
This shouldn’t be difficult to understand.
Don’t be daft. If I had a complicated maths problem I wouldn’t know the answer, but I’d know there is one.
See above.
Why isn’t it true?
Oh dear. Again – “God’s” existence is your realty. Your reality is bounded by your ability to understand it. That ability is limited. Thus the claim “god is” cannot be epistemically certain (unless you’re also omniscient).
Wrong again – see above. All I’m saying here is that there can be no absolute positions when our ability to understand reality isn’t also total.
Why is this difficult for you to grasp?
It's not about anybody in particular's 'reality' it's about knowledge and knowing what we don't know, that being the collective we of course. We know we don't know regarding God's existence. And that is it.
We can see from this that omniscience has nothing to do with it.
Please stop talking bollocks.
-
It's not about anybody in particular's 'reality' it's about knowledge and knowing what we don't know, that being the collective we of course. We know we don't know regarding God's existence. And that is it.
Unless you have some method at hand to demonstrate "God's existence" then you are just begging the question.
Please stop talking bollocks.
My irony meter has just exploded - again.
-
Unless you have some method at hand to demonstrate "God's existence" then you are just begging the question.
My irony meter has just exploded - again.
This thread isn't about that it's about whether the existence of God is an unknown unknown or a known unknown.........or a known known or an unknown known (Yes, I thought that when Hillside first brought it up.)
-
Vlad,
It's not about anybody in particulars 'reality' it's about knowledge and knowing what we don't know, that being the collective we of course. We know we don't know regarding God's existence. And that is it.
We can see from this that omniscience has nothing to do with it.
Please stop talking bollocks.
Please stop being so dull witted or so dishonest that you won't address the argument that's undoing you. I'll try it a different way: everything we call knowledge rests on axioms. Axioms are foundational statements used as the basis for argument that cannot themselves be demonstrated to be true. "I exist" for example is an axiom - I can't step outside of myself to demonstrate its truth, so I just have to take it as axiomatically true if I'm to proceed.
Still with me? OK then...
...so all we understand to be true rests on axioms, as do the tools and methods we employ to justify our understandings - logic and reason included. The problem with that though is that we can't apply any tools and methods to the axioms themselves - there's no way to drill down to verify them (if there was they wouldn't be axioms), and it's quite possible therefore that they're wrong.
So why does all this matter? For the most part it doesn't – we live our lives with gradations of truth claims from objective to subjective, and the former allow us to cure diseases and make rockets while the latter allow (some of) us to spout faith claims on websites. And that's fine so far as it goes, but it doesn't justify reaching outside that spectrum of belief types to claim absolute truths. To do that you'd need to know not only that your reasoning was correct, but also that the axioms on which it rests are correct, and then the axioms you find below the first ones, and then the axioms beneath those ones, and then... it's only when you'd have non-axiom reliant truths that you'd be able to justify absolutist truth claims.
And do you know what that would be called? Yep - omniscience.
Do you get it now?
-
Vlad,
This thread isn't about that it's about whether the existence of God is an unknown unknown or a known unknown.........or a known known or an unknown known (Yes, I thought that when Hillside first brought it up.)
No it isn't. It's about whether the statement "god absolutely is" (or for that matter anything else absolutely is) can ever be made without eliminating the possibility of unknown unknowns - ie. omniscience. The most someone could say for this purpose is something like, "within the bounds of human ability to understand things, god is" though that person would still have all his work ahead of him to shift that claim from a subjective faith statement to an objective fact.
-
Vlad,
Please stop being so dull witted or so dishonest that you won't address the argument that's undoing you. I'll try it a different way: everything we call knowledge rests on axioms. Axioms are foundational statements used as the basis for argument that cannot themselves be demonstrated to be true. "I exist" for example is an axiom - I can't step outside of myself to demonstrate its truth, so I just have to take it as axiomatically true if I'm to proceed.
Still with me? OK then...
...so all we understand to be true rests on axioms, as so do the tools and methods we employ to justify our understandings of the world - logic and reason included. The problem with that though is that we can't apply any tools and methods to the axioms themselves - there's no way to drill into them to verify them (if there was they wouldn't be axioms), and it's quite possible therefore that they're wrong.
So why does all this matter? For the most part it doesn't – we live our lives with gradations of truth claims from objective to subjective, and the former allow us to cure diseases and make rockets while the latter cause (some of) us to spout faith claims on websites. And that's fine so far as it goes, but it doesn't justify reaching outside that spectrum of belief types to claim absolute truths. To do that you'd need to know not only that your reasoning was correct, but also that the axioms on which it rests are correct, and then the axioms you find below the first ones, and then the axioms beneath those ones, and then... it's only when you'd have non-axiom reliant truths that you'd be able to justify absolutist truth claims.
And do you know what that would be called? Yep - omniscience.
Do you get it now?
I'm afraid just defining omniscience doesn't justify it's appearence in the context of our argument.
No truth claims are involved here merely Knowledge claims the claim being that collectively we don't know whether God exists and hence we know we don't know. That, is a known unknown.
,
And that's it...... The turd that not even you could polish.
-
Vlad,
I'm afraid just defining omniscience doesn't justify it's appearence in the context of our argument.
No truth claims are involved here merely Knowledge claims the claim being that collectively we don't know whether God exists and hence we know we don't know. That, is a known unknown.
,
And that's it...... The turd that not even you could polish.
Why not just for once try to reply to what I actually just said?
-
Vlad,
No it isn't. It's about whether the statement "god absolutely is"
Let me stop you there. I have been arguing on this thread that collectively we do not know whether God exists. God either absolutely is or He absolutely isn't and that is, collectively a known unknown.
-
Vlad,
Let me stop you there. I have been arguing...
To my recollection you've never actually argued anything...
...on this thread that collectively we do not know whether God exists.
Or individually either. That test is failed because no-one can take the claim "god is" from the subjective (faith/guessing) to the objective (fact).
If that is something you wish to discuss try someone else. God either absolutely is or He absolutely isn't and that is, collectively a known unknown.
But whether "God" absolutely is or isn't is unknowable without eliminating the unknowns unknowns that could determine our knowledge of that. That's why - like any other truth claim - "god is" is bounded by human capacity to map reality. If you want to confine yourself to that capacity though (as you must unless you claim omniscience) then you have your original problem still of bridging the subjective/objective divide to arrive at a provisional truth.
-
Again this is about a ''we'' to stick with the language of Donald Rumsfeld knowing that ''we'' don't Know if God exists. In other words we don't have to be omniscient to know we don't know. So any mention of omniscience is non sequitur.
Do you know that you can't know? Do you know that there are unknown unknowns in this regard or this context? At the end of the day though ''we'' Know that ''we'' don't know whether there is a God or not.
It seems to me that If you encountered God, you would say that really I don't know i've encountered God....so I will act as if I haven't(Good luck with that.) But then again how would you know that you haven't? Taking such a line looks very much like ''preference''.
Stepping back though if that is your position that looks like a case of God dodging par excellence in my opinion.
-
Let me stop you there. I have been arguing on this thread that collectively we do not know whether God exists. God either absolutely is or He absolutely isn't and that is, collectively a known unknown.
I agree that either a god exists, or a god does not exist.
Those options exclude any middle ground.
It does not get us very far though, as it says nothing about the possibility that a god exists.
-
Vlad,
Again this is about a ''we'' to stick with the language of Donald Rumsfeld knowing that ''we'' don't Know if God exists. In other words we don't have to be omniscient to know we don't know. So any mention of omniscience is non sequitur.
Again, if anyone wants to claim “god exists” in an absolute sense then he has an even bigger problem than someone who would claim “god exists” bounded by human ability to understand anything.
Capiche?
Do you know that you can't know? Do you know that there are unknown unknowns in this regard or this context? At the end of the day though ''we'' Know that ''we'' don't know whether there is a God or not.
FFS. Yet again – the issue here is that you cannot eliminate the possibility of unknown unknowns that could change your mind about something. That’s all.
Just write that down over and over again until it sinks in.
It seems to me that If you encountered God, you would say that really I don't know i've encountered God....so I will act as if I haven't(Good luck with that.) But then again how would you know that you haven't? Taking such a line looks very much like ''preference''.
Presumably the god in which you believe would have at its disposal the means to persuade me beyond reasonable doubt of its existence.
Stepping back though if that is your position that looks like a case of God dodging par excellence in my opinion.
Except “goddodging” is a piece of mindless fuckwittery for reasons that have been explained to you countless times. Only if this god finally showed up and presented to me good reason to think there wasn’t some other cause for the experience could I be accused of it. For now though – as ever – you can’t dodge something you’ve been given no good reason to think exists in the first place.
But then you knew that already didn’t you.
-
BR,
I agree that either a god exists, or a god does not exist.
Those options exclude any middle ground.
It does not get us very far though, as it says nothing about the possibility that a god exists.
Report to moderator
Yes, anything could be said to exist or not. That's not the point though - the point concerns the status of our knowledge about that, despite Vlad's endless diversions from it.
-
I agree that either a god exists, or a god does not exist.
Those options exclude any middle ground.
It does not get us very far though, as it says nothing about the possibility that a god exists.
That is a question of is ''the notion of a God unreasonable or illogical''
Is the answer to that a Known Known, an unknown unknown or a known unknown for you?
-
Except “goddodging” is a piece of mindless fuckwittery for reasons that have been explained to you countless times.
But that is all undone by the positing of the unknown known.
-
Vlad,
That is a question of is ''the notion of a God unreasonable or illogical''
Is the answer to that a Known Known, an unknown unknown or a known unknown for you?
Dear god but you struggle. The “notion of a God” is unreasonable/illogical in that it fails to cohere the tests we have for either reason or loigic. It’s magic land stuff. That’s a known known.
That though has nothing whatever to do with the discussion - namely that someone can’t claim absolute, epistemic certainty for the statement “god is” because they cannot eliminate the possibility of information that might falsify the claim (unless that is they can demonstrate too their omniscience).
But that is all undone by the positing of the unknown known.
No it isn’t – see above.
-
Vlad,
Dear god but you struggle. The “notion of a God” is unreasonable/illogical in that it fails to cohere the tests we have for either reason or loigic. It’s magic land stuff. That’s a known known.
That contradicts your previous arguments on this thread about reason and logic and unknown unknowns.
Your contribution to this thread has merely been to Gaslight.
-
But that is all undone by the positing of the unknown known.
Can you give us an example of an 'unknown known'?
-
Vlad,
That contradicts your previous arguments on this thread about reason and logic and unknown unknowns.
Your contribution to this thread has merely been to Gaslight.
Except it does no such thing. Reason and logic are fine as they are (you should try them one day), but only provided you don't overreach into absolutes. Why? Because, like everything else, they rest on axioms. Why is that that hard for you to grasp?
Perhaps if I try even shorter words for you: human understanding is bounded by the limits of our ability to understand.
Have you got it now?
-
Vlad,
Except it does no such thing. Reason and logic are fine as they are (you should try them one day), but only provided you don't overreach into absolutes. Why? Because, like everything else, they rest on axioms. Why is that that hard for you to grasp?
Perhaps if I try even shorter words for you: human understanding is bounded by the limits of our ability to understand.
Have you got it now?
Vlad,
Except it does no such thing. Reason and logic are fine as they are (you should try them one day), but only provided you don't overreach into absolutes. Why? Because, like everything else, they rest on axioms. Why is that that hard for you to grasp?
Perhaps if I try even shorter words for you: human understanding is bounded by the limits of our ability to understand.
Have you got it now?
You have undone yourself with regards appealing to Logic and reason with your theory of unknown unknowns.
You have undone your argument previous to that by finding De Grasse Tyson simulated universe theory logically sound.
Nobody seems to be joining in your argument, a testament I would imagine of not wanting be as far up one's own fundament as your argumentation seems to be at this point.
It would be wrong of me to continue with you.
-
Vlad,
You have undone yourself with regards appealing to Logic and reason with your theory of unknown unknowns.
I don’t know what’s wrong with you, I really don’t. There’s nothing wrong with logic – it’s hugely valuable in fact – just as long as you don’t rely on it to overreach beyond its remit. I’ve told you why that is several times now – if you still lack the wit or decency to address that, that’s a matter for you.
You have undone your argument previous to that by finding De Grasse Tyson simulated universe theory logically sound.
FFS. Lots of arguments are logically sound. How does that change anything?
Nobody seems to be joining in your argument, a testament I would imagine of not wanting be as far up one's own fundament as your argumentation seems to be at this point.
More a testament to people knowing you have no interest in engaging with anything openly or honestly.
It would be wrong of me to continue with you.
It’s wrong of you to continue with anyone when you have absolutely fuck all to contribute here.
For the last time: human understanding is bounded by the limits of our ability to understand.
Finally try to address that or don’t – it’s not my job to educate you.
-
Can you give us an example of an 'unknown known'?
Whose us?
Certainly, Any behaviour or attitude which can be observed, recorded and that we refuse to acknowledge and are in denial of. E.g. when someone on this forum is outed for having homophobic behaviour but does not acknowledge said behaviour. Since the unknown unknown schtick was invented by Donald Rumsfeld the terms known knowns, and known unknowns and unknown knowns emerged.
Now the thing is about the above is that if you say that these have existed before Donald Rumsfeld then that in itself would be an example of an unknown known.
Philosopher Slavoj Žižek says of the unknown known, It is that which one intentionally refuses to acknowledge that one knows: "If Rumsfeld thinks that the main dangers in the confrontation with Iraq were the 'unknown unknowns', that is, the threats from Saddam whose nature we cannot even suspect, then the Abu Ghraib scandal shows that the main dangers lie in the "unknown knowns"—the disavowed beliefs, suppositions and obscene practices we pretend not to know about, even though they form the background of our public values.''
There is also the concept of tacit knowledge, knowledge which we may act on, but not be aware of or able to articulate.
Can you give an example of an unknown unknown?
-
Whose us?
Your adoring readership here.
Certainly, Any behaviour or attitude which can be observed, recorded and that we refuse to acknowledge and are in denial of. E.g. when someone on this forum is outed for having homophobic behaviour but does not acknowledge said behaviour. Since the unknown unknown schtick was invented by Donald Rumsfeld the terms known knowns, and known unknowns and unknown knowns emerged.
That sounds more like Freudian mental defence mechanisms than anything to do with intersubjective knowledge. Since you seem keen on the term 'unknown known' perhaps you should unpack how you interpret it since it does appear that its use could result in a contradiction, a bit like an 'open door that is closed'.
Now the thing is about the above is that if you say that these have existed before Donald Rumsfeld then that in itself would be an example of an unknown known.
I haven't said any such thing: I'd just like you to outline how something can be both 'unknown' and 'known', in that order, at the same time.
Philosopher Slavoj Žižek says of the unknown known, It is that which one intentionally refuses to acknowledge that one knows: "If Rumsfeld thinks that the main dangers in the confrontation with Iraq were the 'unknown unknowns', that is, the threats from Saddam whose nature we cannot even suspect, then the Abu Ghraib scandal shows that the main dangers lie in the "unknown knowns"—the disavowed beliefs, suppositions and obscene practices we pretend not to know about, even though they form the background of our public values.''
Again this definition seems to be more about the limitations of people to acknowledge, understand or have insight regarding certain matters.
There is also the concept of tacit knowledge, knowledge which we may act on, but not be aware of or able to articulate.
You mean like lucky guesses, instinctive reactions and subconscious activity - you seem to be using these terms to refer exclusively to aspects of human nature.
Can you give an example of an unknown unknown?
No - since I lack specific knowledge of what is currently unknown (else whatever it was would be known). The best I can do is acknowledge that, since people don't seem to be omniscient, there may be aspects of the universe that we (our species) at this point in history are not even aware are aspects of the universe.
-
Your adoring readership here.
That sounds more like Freudian mental defence mechanisms than anything to do with intersubjective knowledge.
Yes but surely you can deny behaviour or knowledge to yourself which others know about you intersubjectively.
This might help
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johari_window
-
Yes but surely you can deny behaviour or knowledge to yourself which others know about you intersubjectively.
This might help
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johari_window
I'm puzzled that you seem to want to confine discussions of the 'unknown/known' permutations to mental states, and we already do know that people can lack insight into themselves in various ways that may be apparent to others: my earlier mention of Freudian mental defence mechanisms is an example of this.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/defense-mechanisms.html
The issue of 'unknown unknowns' is simply an acknowledgement that since we (our species) doesn't already know 'everything about everything' then there may be aspects that we are simply unaware of currently whereas 'known unknowns' imply that we have an awareness of a 'something', via methods to confirm that there is indeed a 'something', but that we don't yet have a full understanding of that 'something': for example we know that homing pigeons 'home' but the precise mechanisms they use to do so isn't yet fully understood.
-
I'm puzzled that you seem to want to confine discussions of the 'unknown/known' permutations to mental states, and we already do know that people can lack insight into themselves in various ways that may be apparent to others: my earlier mention of Freudian mental defence mechanisms is an example of this.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/defense-mechanisms.html
The issue of 'unknown unknowns' is simply an acknowledgement that since we (our species) doesn't already know 'everything about everything' then there may be aspects that we are simply unaware of currently whereas 'known unknowns' imply that we have an awareness of a 'something', via methods to confirm that there is indeed a 'something', but that we don't yet have a full understanding of that 'something': for example we know that homing pigeons 'home' but the precise mechanisms they use to do so isn't yet fully understood.
No one is saying there aren't unknown unknowns, just that the question of God's existence is a known unknown i.e. we know we collectively don't know.
So even if you can make a dispute against the existence of unknown knowns stick it has no bearing on the issue of the existence of God being a known unknown.
Since you were interested in Unknown Knowns the idea is used in business management to describe knowledge within an organisation which is unused and or ignored.
-
Vlad,
Certainly, Any behaviour or attitude which can be observed, recorded and that we refuse to acknowledge and are in denial of...
Or...
1. When you said to me "But that is all undone by the positing of the unknown known" you intended the standard "known unknown" but accidentally swapped the terms.
2. Gordon then asked you what you meant by it.
3. Panicked, you googled "unknown known" and to your considerable relief you found that someone had come up with that formulation.
4. Quick as a flash you then copied and pasted from the reference you found. Phew! Job done right? Except...
5. As with many a heist, you left behind a loose thread that we only have to tug at to find that "unknown known" meaning "Any behaviour or attitude which can be observed, recorded and that we refuse to acknowledge and are in denial of" isn't something I've ever done at all. There is no "behaviour or attitude" regarding my (supposed) belief on god "which can be observed, recorded".
(At this point Vlad is led away in 'cuffs, head bowed while yours truly does the Jack Warner homily - "You know, young Vlad though he'd committed the perfect crime there and he'd have got away with it too if only...." etc).
Nice try though.
-
Vlad,
No one is saying there aren't unknown unknowns, just that the question of God's existence is a known unknown i.e. we know we collectively don't know.
So even if you can make a dispute against the existence of unknown knowns stick it has no bearing on the issue of the existence of God being a known unknown.
And still you don’t or won’t get it. It’s the positive claim “god absolutely is” that fails because of the principle of unknown unknowns – the person making it cannot know that something he’s never thought of could undo his statement.
Since you were interested in Unknown Knowns the idea is used in business management to describe knowledge within an organisation which is unused and or ignored.
Keep googling…
-
Vlad,
And still you don’t or won’t get it. It’s the positive claim “god absolutely is” that fails because of the principle of unknown unknowns – the person making it cannot know that something he’s never thought of could undo his statement.
Keep googling…
Unknown unknowns are not Known unknowns. The existence of God is a known unknown in other words He either absolutely is or isn't Be Rational has pointed this out.
Like the inability to be ''a little bit pregnant'' Something cannot be ''a little bit'' God.
On the other hand the statement the existence of God is a known unknown is hardly the same as a positive claim of certainty.......don't suggest such silly things in future, thank you.
-
Vlad,
Unknown unknowns are not Known unknowns. The existence of God is a known unknown in other words He either absolutely is or isn't Be Rational has pointed this out.
But the statement “god absolutely is” fails because of the risk of unknown unknowns, which was the argument was actually about. Keep trying though – you’ll get it eventually…
…or perhaps not.
Like the inability to be ''a little bit pregnant'' Something cannot be ''a little bit'' God.
You don’t say.
On the other hand the statement the existence of God is a known unknown is hardly the same as a positive claim of certainty....
But that is the claim we were discussing before you wrenched us off the road remember?
...don't suggest such silly things in future, thank you.
That's another irony meter in pieces all over the floor then...
-
Why would it be moved? It's primarily about Easter.
Humble?
Yes, you and Rees Mogg. Peas in a pod.
Thanks, TV! I have been without a computer internet - I live in an area that, at times, is a dead zone - since my last post here.
What Vlad carefully ignores is that Ostara pre-dates Jesus Christ, if he ever actually existed, as a Pagan Festival by many years.
Owlswing
)O(