That you said this is hilarious considering how you quote me about what I said concerning cutting and pasting and how you quote me on other things. Further it's funny because I've never read any literature by WT writers. You are presumptuous...
It's only funny if you can show where I misquoted you or took something out of context. I never said you HAD read any literature by the WT. Attempting to discredit my point by refuting something I never claimed is clever, but futile. I did in fact claimed you sounded sounded like them by using part of a sentence out of context and claiming it meant something it didn't. That's not presumptuous at all, it's demonstrable.
In any event, when you quote me in the future, please be sure to include the entire quote and context.
A leap of faith is trusting something... (which you say you don't deny; am I being honest here?)
You are.
Trust means you don't know for yourself, you're expecting/hoping/believing something... so in not knowing, in having trust or a leap of faith, that would mean you do not know if it is true or false.
True. I don't know if the sun will rise tomorrow but based on millions of years of evidence I can trust that it will and make plans for tomorrow. I can throw a ball to my son trusting that gravity will work the same way on earth it did two minutes ago. It doesn't mean blindly not knowing, you can have confidence, faith, if you prefer that word, based on evidence, proof and experience.
To basically say you don't make leaps of faith on falsifiability (paraphrasing, not trying to be dishonest, this is how I understand what you are saying) would take away the need for faith: you would * know * it is not false, you would not need trust or faith because you would know. You take a leap of faith when you don't know if it is true or false. If you know it is false you are not taking the leap. So: you contradict yourself.
Ah, no, I do not contradict myself because you do not under falsifiability. Falsifiability in science means that in order to prove something is true, there also have to be conditions under which it will NOT be true. It's a core component of testing a hypothesis, developing software, etc. A test that always proves "true" is not a reliable test. For instance, you can't scientifically prove "No human can live forever" because you would have to observe a human living for all time. You CAN test "all humans live forever". See this wiki link
Are you saying: Leaps of faith are a constant?
No.
When specifically addressing leaps of faith you say that there is demonstrable and repeatable evidence.
Yes, see my example about the sun and gravity.
What I think and ask: Don't things change concerning faith?
Sure they can. If the reality underlying reality for the basis for the faith changes, then the faith should change. For instance, Old Faithful, the geyser, erupts because of a certain set of conditions, so reliable you can set your watch by it almost. However, geology changes and eventually the tectonic plate will move away from the magma pocket that fuels it and it will erupt less and less relaibly and then not at all.
That does't mean that it will unwise to beleive (have faith) it would erupt reliably when conditions were right for it. Reality will have changed.
You can have faith in new things, loose faith in others. Not necessarily a constant. Repeatable evidence may vary at a given point and time...
I agree, see my example above. Of course, I wasn't suggesting faith was a constant. With regard to repeatable evidence changing, the key is understanding WHY the evidence changed, such as with Old Faithful.
To me this means that you are saying that reality is there if you have faith in it or not.
Absolutely. You could completely not beleive I am wearing a pink shirt right now, but that in no way changes the fact that I am.
All I'm saying is that to know reality you make leaps of faith
Why? In what way? To live your life you make leaps of faith that reality is the same as it was yesterday or that you know what it different about it based on past experience. When i go to the kitchen I have faith that it is there just like it was yesterday or five minutes ago, but the first time I ever went into the kitchen i wasn't taking a leap of faith, i look around until I found it, I looked for a room that matched the criteria that a kitchen has, a stove, microwave, sink, refrigerator. I don't just have faith that the room with the toilet is the kitchen because it doesn't pass the test for "what is a kitchen". You know reality through observation, tests and critera whether you are in a lab or have to go to the bathroom or get a beer.
and, in reality, due to our different perspectives: none of us may know for certain what is reality except on faith.
Only if you choose to limit your perpspective to what your own five senses can immediately detect. For instance, I have personally never tested that gravitional acceleration at sea level on earth is 32 feet per second squared, but so many other people have and it's so well documented and it works so well for so many calculations I have faith in it. I also have never seen old faithful but I have seen videos, documentaries, talked to people that have seen it. In other words, there is ample verfiable evidence.
And we all have different perspectives of the same reality. So whose is correct? What is correct reality? How do you know what is fact? How do you know it is evidence?
They all are. Just because you can't see my shirt doesn't make it less real.
Really notverylikely, I am not following you. And I don't think you follow what I'm saying either.
I'm following you just fine, thanks.
