Evidence! How did you come to know reality?

by zannahdoll 120 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

zannahdoll

Terry:
We agree here :
You come to know reality with your 5 senses.
Your mind sets us a workshop.
You separate the sensory bite into categories of your own making: concepts.
Differentiate, integrate=form conclusions.
Here I only agree with you in part:
Now, at this point, we separate the stupid people from the intelligent ones.
Smart people take a skeptical view of their conclusions and constantly put those conclusions to the test.
Stupid people settle back and defend their conclusions no matter what counter-proof is offered.
I agree with you that smarter people are more skeptical. However, where you may disagree with me, you can be skeptical to a fault. Due to being burned in the past people can stop trusting trustworthy people. A person can be skeptical of new information, no matter how factual it is, if it differs from their own way of thinking. Are "Stupid People" the only ones who defend their conclusions? What if there is not sufficient "counter-proof"? What comes to mind to me are debaters and attorneys on opposing sides: does this mean that there is always one side that is the smart side while the other side is the stupid side because both will defend their conclusions no matter what counter-proof is offered?
No one constantly puts their conclusions to the test or they would never act on their conclusions. That would be impossible. You may revisit a conclusion and test it repeatedly, but you (you in the general sense; all people) do give the testing a rest and accept their conclusions or we would not function. We accept facts that are presented to us and use them. If we constantly questions facts then we could not use them. For example: you accept facts such as the reality of your computer to type on, your means of transportation, that the food you eat exists and isn't a figment of your imagination. You do not constantly question it or you would not use a computer, you wouldn't go anywhere, you wouldn't eat anything... It is true for more abstract thinking as well:
Terry: do you question that you feel God doesn't exist? Haven't you grown to accept that He does not exist, and if he does it is incredibly unlikely? I believe God exists. I do not constantly test this conclusion. But from time to time I do. When I was a pre-teen I questioned God's existence. When I was 17/18 I questioned God's existence. I questioned God a few times in my 20s and most recently when I first visited this site. And I seek out and speak to such wise souls as yourself, people who think entirely contradictorily to myself. It is my opinion, that there has not been sufficient "counter-proof" (as you suggest) to show God does not exist. And then I recall my own personal experiences, miracles and experiences of others I trust and I see evidence, in my life and in the lives of many people I know and many people's lives throughout history, that God does exist. It is a leap of faith, because I'm trusting my senses and I'm trusting what other people have told me. However: so it is with everything else. Knowing any kind of reality takes a leap of faith in your senses and in what other people tell you. Knowing I still defend a position of God and then you stating "Stupid people settle back and defend their conclusions no matter what counter-proof is offered." feels as though you are insinuating I am stupid.
Terry: you're known to say things like "theists don't think". Here you speak of "stupid people". However, I've also have said that it is a great disservice to human kind to separate people into "us" and "them" and to say one is right and the other wrong. Here are your words from another thread:
The first thing that happens when people start talking about God is that a wall goes up between them called I'M RIGHT/YOU'RE WRONG.
And that is just a hop and skip away from disrespecting the humanity of our species.
It sounds like you don't like to disrespect the humanity of our species, and I genuinely enjoy many of your thoughtful and provoking posts, you have challenged me and I like that. However the thing that you critique in others is something I feel you are a little bit guilty of yourself.
notverylikely

you quote me out of context when I say that I agree reality doesn't change, or maybe I wasn't clear in what I was saying. What I meant was that reality doesn't change due to perception. I thought you understood that I thought this by now. We agree, reality changes, and we also agree: what you or I think of reality (our perceptions) doesn't change the fact that you wear a pink shirt (pink is my favorite color by the way) ;) Let's not continue to debate what we agree and have common ground on. We are going in circles.
You'll have to show me where I quoted out of context. The only clear out of context misconstruction on this thread was the one you got caught in, as far as I know. With respect to the rest, it seems that you routinely use reality to describe experience, so I have to be extremely specific. I have been VERY specific with what I know and am saying. We are not going around in circles, we are making sure we are using the same words to describe the same things and agreeing on specific meanings. You are correct that I perfectly and clearly understand that and I am glad now that you do as well.
What we disagree about is that I think only way to come to know reality is through our perceptions.
I don't know that I debated that particular point. I would just add, as you did, that our perceptions fail us. Hence the instruments, tools, repeatable tests to confirm things. Often it's not even that our senses fail us, they simply are incapable of detecting things.
How do we use the tools and how do we use science? In order to make use of tools don't we use our senses? I don't see how you proved what I said wrong: we know something based on our senses and based on what others tell us.
The point is that the tools, tests, etc., are useable by many and can prove reliable where our senses do not. Three people can disagree on whether or not it's hot (using our senses), but all can agree it's 28 Celcius based on the reading from a tool. Science isn't based on whether someone thinks it's "hot".
This event in my life is a one time occurrence. There is no evidence as to how it came about after tests. It is not repeatable. It is a fact and it is reality.
Wow, it's just like my pink shirt example. It only serves to prove the point that I was making is that reality is not limited to local observation as you were suggesting or implying earlier.
I cannot say all the Marian Apparitions are repeatable, although some are. Yes!
Ah, just like "falsifiable" you also muisunderstand what repeatable means in testing and science. Different apparitions called mary appearing under different circumstances doesn't quite make the cut. Mary appearing in toast != mary appearing in a water stain on a wall. Besides which, how is there any proof it was Mary since no one knows what she looked like?
I can show you documentation of their validity: sometimes a few witnesses
Ah, sing your criteria, UFOs, alien abductions, Elvis sightings, unicorns, fairies, JFK sightings, Bat Boy and chupacapbras all must be real as well.
who you trust as experts you would not accept the documentation
Ah, you are trying to blame me. I would just ask that since thousands of people have seen Elvis or been abducted by aliens, or so they claim, you also accept their claims the same as you would the claims of people that have seen Mary?
The reason I brought up Pavlov's Dog previously (which is something else either I didn't explain clearly or you took me out of context)
If you want to continue accusing me of taking you out of context, please cite where I did so since the only clear case of that that I have seen in this thread was clearly done by you.
repetition does not always prove cause and effect
I did not make the argument that it did. Why are you arguing against a point no one was trying to make?
It wasn't that it was something naturally repeatable, it was repetition that forced a change in the nature of the dog.
What point were you trying to prove? I have repeatedly said that reality could change and it was testable and repeatable. You just proved all of my points so....thanks.
Ice Cream causes drowning = bad correlation, however statistically when it is hot outside more there is a higher demand for ice cream, more ice cream is produced and consumed. Also when it is hot outside more people go swimming, and due to a greater amount of swimmers the statistics of drowning goes up as well. Just because something is repeated or happens more then one occasion does not mean it is factual evidence.
You seem to be confusing correlation with causation. Ice cream, heat and downing DO have correlation, but NOT causation. This is why it sometimes seems like I am teaching you basic science and scientific method. For instance, you wanted to argue about the scientific method and testing but had no idea of one of the core tenets of the method.
Math and Science are not the only way we get our information on reality. Why I had a fluke intestinal problem is not explained by these things, and it doesn't take away the reality of it. Check out what Albert says:
I never said they were. Once again you are arguing about things no one said.
I agree, they are not. All the more fascinating to me how they are similar. My point was that, in my thinking, they are different perceptions of the same reality.
You have yet to show how they are similiar. Hinduims has a lot of god, Catholicism has a lot of saints. Since saints are not gods, you haven't demonstrated a similarity yet.
notverylikely

What comes to mind to me are debaters and attorneys on opposing sides
Attorneys are often not arguing facts.
It is my opinion, that there has not been sufficient "counter-proof" (as you suggest) to show God does not exist.
Well there's your problem. You are trying to test negative proof, something that is not falisifiable and untestable. You might as well try to prove that pink unicorns don't exist.
zannahdoll

notverylikely
my question from the beginning and throughout is how we know evidence. How we know reality. My take, from the beginning is that it is based on our senses and what others tell us. Which, is our perception. Now you say that we haven't debated that. I did not only barely now come to the conclusion that reality changes... I held that from the beginning. --- yes, we go in circles and you do take me out of context answering one line at a time rather then a concept I present. * sigh *
It is that you say that reality changes, yet you need repeatable situations to prove something to be true (evidence). What I am showing is that because reality changes that because something repeats does not always make it true. Tools are helpful, but for us to agree on the temperature it still takes our human eyes to see how the thermostat reads.
The Marian Apparitions that I am speaking of are not her face in toast or water stains on walls. They are of people seeing a physical woman in the sky who gives them a message to love others, build a church, follow Jesus and the effects and cures people have witnessed and felt as a result. Sometimes viewed by thousands. They know her and who she is because it is a supernatural event that an ordinary woman could not do and because of her messages.
The Marian Apparitions I speak of would not be repeatable or testable the way my surgery was not and the way your wearing a pink shirt was not. Doesn't mean that my surgery wasn't a reality and your pink shirt was not a reality. It also doesn't mean that these Apparitions are not a reality.
We do not always come to know evidence/reality based on repeated events. We do not always know reality based on what is tested. There are some real events (my surgery, your pink shirt) that are not testable and not repeated. It doesn't take away from their reality. And now the circle continues...
The descriptions and purposes of the many gods in Hindu is similar to the description of the many saints and their purposes in Catholicism. And that there is a higher god(s) in Hindu that are more important then the other god(s) is similar to the God in Catholicism being 3 Persons in One God above all else. I didn't make up this concept: it was in a college course and in a text book that these comparisons were first made to me. The other comparisons I made are also there.
zannahdoll

notverylikely
I said: "It is my opinion, that there has not been sufficient "counter-proof" (as you suggest) to show God does not exist."
You said:
Well there's your problem. You are trying to test negative proof, something that is not falisifiable and untestable. You might as well try to prove that pink unicorns don't exist.
As lovely as it would be to believe in a pink unicorn I have never had a personal experience with a pink unicorn. I have not known anyone who has had an experience with a pink unicorn. I have not read any history about a pink unicorn or about important people who believe in a pink unicorn.
I have had personal experiences with God. I have known many, many people who have had personal experiences, often more spectacular then my own. I have read about many, many cultures in history that expressed belief in a higher being. There have been many important people who have had reason to believe in a higher being.
It is through these things: my senses and trust in other people and their senses: that I believe: yes, God exists. I take a leap of faith. Just as we do for anything else that we believe.
notverylikely

my question from the beginning and throughout is how we know evidence. How we know reality.
True. You then processed to call evidence an atheist buzzword and suggested that atheists take things on just as much faith as people who beleive in god and equated the two. I've demonstrated amply that your assertion was untrue.
My take, from the beginning is that it is based on our senses and what others tell us. Which, is our perception.
You consistenly tried to equate "reality" with "personal experience". It's good to see that you have moved beyond that limited understanding.
Now you say that we haven't debated that.
We didn't. We spend a lot of time helping you to understand basic science, scientific method, agreeing on definitions, etc.
yes, we go in circles and you do take me out of context answering one line at a time rather then a concept I present. * sigh *
Please demonstrate where I did that. The only demonstrable case of that in this thread was you taking, not ONE line at a time, but PART of a sentence, presenting it to make it seem that it said something other than it did and arguing against your made up misrepresentation of what I wrote. If you have an example of me being dishonest like that, I will be happy to address it with you.
It is that you say that reality changes, yet you need repeatable situations to prove something to be true (evidence).
I know it tough to grasp, but it can be perfectly true that I say that I am NOT hungry and it be real and true. You can ask me 10 times and it will be true each time. Ask me again in three hours and I will give you a different answer. They were different AND both true. Things change over time. Time is part of the tests. I know science is hard. Feel free to ask if you have any questions.
What I am showing is that because reality changes that because something repeats does not always make it true.
I can't think of a single example you have used to show causation to prove that to be so. Present one succintly and we can discuss.
Tools are helpful, but for us to agree on the temperature it still takes our eyes to look at it to see how it reads.
Cool. I guess that proves that voice synthesized thermometers are a myth or that blind people can't read. Those are both logical conclusions of needing eyes to see how a thermometer reads. Of course, if that's NOT what you meant then you shoudl clarify and be both accurate AND precise.
The Marian Apparitions that I am speaking of are not her face in toast or water stains on walls. They are of people seeing a physical woman in the sky who gives them a message to love others, build a church, follow Jesus and the effects and cures people have witnessed and felt as a result. Sometimes viewed by thousands.
So common mass hysteria? that happens often.
We do not always come to know evidence based on repeated events. We do not always know reality based on what is tested. There are some real events (my surgery, your pink shirt) that are not testable and not repeated. It doesn't take away from their reality. And now the circle continues...
Again you argue my own point as if you make it. I never said all of reality had to be tested. If you think that is what I was saying you need to re-read what I wrote.
The descriptions and purposes of the many gods in Hindu is similar to the description of the many saints and their purposes in Catholicism.
So Catholicism copied Hinduism? Hinduism is much older that Catholicism and their saints. And, of course, example please :)
As lovely as it would be to believe in a pink unicorn I have never had a personal experience with a pink unicorn. I have not known anyone who has had an experience with a pink unicorn. I have not read any history about a pink unicorn or about important people who believe in a pink unicorn.
So?
I have had personal experiences with God.
Many people they have seen Elvis. Must be real then.
I have known many, many people who have had personal experiences, often more spectacular then my own.
Ditto Elvis.
I have read about many, many cultures in history that expressed belief in a higher being.
Believing something to be true does not make it so.
It is through these things: my senses and trust in other people and their senses: that I believe: yes, God exists.
So there is a mythical "God Sense"?
Just as we do for anything else that we believe.
Which we already proved isn't true.
So, either you just proved that Elvis is still alive or that God is unprovable or that you are closet Hindu.
tec

Tec, using that logic, God also CAN'T exist because otherwise people couldn't conceive of a universe where he doesn't. Aliens also MUST exist because we can conceive of them. And they must also NOT exist for the reason I state above about god. Mermaids, ditto. Sasquatch, ditto.
Actually, its not the same thing. Once we know of something, we can choose to accept or deny it. Once we come to a fork in the road, we can choose to turn left or right (or even stay put or go in reverse, I suppose) - but we can't make a choice at all unless that fork existed in the first place.
(Okay, I hope that wasn't a strawman comparison. I just meant it as a very simple explanation for what I'm trying to say that I believe.)
As for aliens, as soon as we knew, (through science) that other planets existed, that other solar systems existed, then we could conceive of the idea that planets exist with the same life-sustaining properties as our own - and therefore, aliens could exist. That is more along the lines of discovery and progression of that discovery.
Tammy
zannahdoll

notverylikely
I've demonstrated amply that your assertion was untrue.
When? I have not seen this done ONCE yet.
I guess that proves that voice synthesized thermometers are a myth or that blind people can't read.
Would still take your ears... still takes one of your 5 senses. My point about eyes was that in order for us to use tools we need our senses to depend on them. You bringing up a voice synthesized thermometer doesn't discredit my point, it only confirms it.
So, either you just proved that Elvis is still alive or that God is unprovable or that you are closet Hindu.
None of the above. I showed that I trust my senses and take a leap of faith. I didn't say it was provable. What I am saying it is like anything else: what is considered provable is based on our senses and what others tell us. AND things that have been proven true have also, later, been unproven when we have more knowledge. We are limited to what we know. In light of new knowledge we sometimes learn what we once knew to be incorrect.
AND I am not saying anything new. Same points. We are going in circles.
zannahdoll

tec
How was your trip?
tec

I don't know about that one Tammy. We've conceived of all sorts of things that hadn't existed previously and/or that don't exist now. Inventions fall under that category and so do cartoons.
I don't know of anything we have conceived of that hasn't been based on something that came before. Cartoons is a good example though - and I had to give it some thought. But we do draw things, and we do have toys, and I know that as a kid I had those paper cut-out barbies that I used to move around the room. Someone could have just started to wonder about making their drawings come to 'life', and then thought of a way to do that. Such as those little 'flip-the-pages-fast' books. . The thing is, I can conceive of a progression and reason to get to these things. Inventions fall under the same category. But how did a purely natural species conceive of a spiritual realm? . Tammy

Evidence! How did you come to know reality?

Share this