I regularly hear people question our ability to "know' something, and see demands for "proof" of whatever is being discussed. The ultimate questions being raised are really about how we "know" things and is it really possible to "know" things. This is a small excerpt from a good answer to the questions of "knowing".
"Third, being less than 100% certain doesn’t mean we can’t truly know. We can have
highly plausible or probable knowledge, even if it’s not 100%
certain. We can know confidently and truly, even if not absolutely or exhaustively.
The problem with global skeptics is they have set the standard for knowledge way too high, which ironically leads to the very skepticism they are engaging in! There is no compelling reason to embrace the skeptic’s dubious assumptions"
http://www.paulcopan.com/articles/pdf/How_do_you_know_you%27re_not_wrong.pdf
31 comments:
So, my point has been all along that I hold my positions is because I know with sufficient confidence that the positions are right. I distinguish that between saying I know it as a fact and no one else can make a counterclaim because mine is a fact and the other claims are false. Instead I say I know with the sufficient confidence that I am correct.
So, if you say, "I know the opposite with sufficient confidence," then on what basis would you claim that yours is the correct "sufficient confidence" knowledge?
That has been my point all along. You have no basis to say that, "because I think I know with sufficient confidence that I'm right, then everyone else is factually wrong." You can't make that claim.
Are we agreeing?
Given the likelihood that you haven’t read the entire piece, your endless demands that others provide a higher standard of proof than you do, and your vehement disagreement whenever anyone claims to know something, I’m not sure.
As long as you insist that psychology trumps biology, I sincerely doubt it.
In other words, it's not that I am skeptical of the nature of things as they appear abundantly clear to me. I'm skeptical in YOUR understanding of things. What you think is abundantly clear, I would say is clearly mistaken. I'm skeptical of you and your tribe. As you all are skeptical of Me and My Tribe.
And neither of us can prove demonstrably or authoritatively to the other that our position is correct. Do you agree with that reality? In other words, you are the skeptic as well.
I’m always open to you providing some level of objective proof for your claims. But, just like your “500bc-500ad”, claim you’ve made over and over I’ve seen no evidence. Recently you’ve admitted that you actually can’t produce evidence beyond “I read it somewhere, at some point.”.
The issue is twofold.
1. Is it possible to “know” things?
2. What level of evidence is necessary?
You claim to believe #1, but somehow rarely admit that anyone but you can “know” anything.
You’re standard of evidence is so mysterious, inconstant, and unevenly applies that your “agreement” with #2 is meaningless.
I’ll give you two opportunities to demonstrate the basis of your claims of knowledge.
1. Provide unbiased 3rd party evidence that your “500bc-500ad” claim is accurate, and be prepared to refute evidence to the contrary.
2. Provide scientific proof that psychology trumps biology, and be prepared to refute evidence to the contrary.
Pick one and go to town. Prove that you have an evidentiary basis for the things you know, and that you can defend them.
I agree with the reality that you’ve never actually proven one of your claims to be “reality”, in an objective measurable sense, and that you’ve never proven that anyone else’s claims aren’t “reality”.
But I’m always hoping you will.
On points that are not provable, I have never claimed to be able to prove them. The difference between me and you, is that I admit that some things are not provable.
You want to pretend that if you think you "know" something, that it is a fact. That is, you conflate your opinions with facts as if they are demonstrable are provable. But your opinions on these points are not proven facts. They are just your opinions, nothing else. Nothing else.
You are factually mistaken as you cannot prove it is a fact. You have confidence in your opinion and that's fine but that does not make it a fact. Do you recognize that reality?
As to your, the issue was twofold... That is not the issue. But you are suggesting is nonsense. Is irrational and just without any common sense.
1. Is it possible to know things? The answer is yes. Of course it is. That is not a question that anybody is asking, not seriously. We know that the blue car is blue, that it has four wheels if it does, that has a steering wheel if it does. There are an endless number of things that we know and can know as a fact. Of course we know things.
Do you recognize that reality?
No, the question is, are there some things that are not provable that we can say we know as a proven fact?
The answer is no.
Do you recognize that reality?
To your 2... What level of evidence is necessary? The answer is it depends on if one is making a fact claim.
for instance, that we know as a fact that God opposes gay marriage... Then the level of evidence needed for that is something demonstrably provable.
Understand that reality?
So you aren’t going to prove your claims or admit that your opinions aren’t reality.
The difference is, numerous people are claiming that many of the things you dismiss our provable. The problem is it lack of evidence, the problem is your lack of a standard of proof, and your whimsical dismissal of things because they don’t sound right to you.
I also recognize the reality that you, when asked, more often than not provide excuses rather than evidence.
I’m going to point out the reality that since this is my blog, my poster, and my topic, you have no standing to declare what is or is not the issue at hand.
If the claim that God opposes “gay marriage”, needs to be demonstrably proven, then certainly the claim that God “blesses gay marriage”, should be held to the same standard of proof.
Of course, I’ve never made any claims about God’s views on “gay marriage”, so it would clearly be unreasonable, insane really, to expect me to prove a claim I haven’t made.
If the claim that God opposes “gay marriage”, needs to be demonstrably proven, then certainly the claim that God “blesses gay marriage”, should be held to the same standard of proof.
IF someone saying that it is a KNOWN and DEMONSTRABLE FACT that God blesses marriage for gay folk, then the burden of proof is on them to support the claim AS a fact. I don't know that anyone serious is saying that.
IF someone is saying that it is a known and demonstrable fact that God opposes marriage between gay folk, then the burden of proof is on them to support the claim as a fact.
There ARE people out there who make this fact claim and, as a point of fact, they CAN'T support that claim as a fact.
Do you recognize that reality?
Are you going to admit the reality of any of the questions being asked of you?
1. As long as you persist in trying to force me to defend an argument I haven’t made I’m not going to take you seriously.
2. You’re the one who claimed “God blesses gay marriage.”. Either you made a serious claim that should be able to be defended or you misspoke and need to correct yourself.
Can you understand the reality that I’m not going to defend statements that other people have allegedly made?
In both of these threads, you seem to be struggling with the problem that when you make reckless claims, that you’ll be expected to demonstrate the accuracy of the claims and to acknowledge the reality of your claims being demonstrated as false, instead of changing the claim or redefining the terms to bail yourself out.
So no. You're not understanding reality. Got it. Good luck.
I think it’s cute that you’re response to being asked to prove your claims, is to pretend you weren’t asked and to go off on tangents.
It’s also cute that you think you can define reality to suit yourself.
Again, I'm sorry you don't understand reality. Given that you're demonstrating a profound break from reality on the least these points, it's not surprising that nothing I'm saying makes sense to you. But all I can do is point you to reality , from there you're on your own. Good luck.
The reality that “I didn’t mean what I said” is essentially all you have is kind of amusing. The fact that you’ve decided to play essentially tje “your mentally ill card”, speaks volumes about your inability to provide proof of your claims.
But it’s a cute excuse for you to leave.
No, rather it's, You're not understanding the reality of what I said. So, given that, good luck, good day and merry holidays.
In spite of what you said about my comments here and on the previous post, what I said was precise and specific and factually accurate. As a simple matter of fact.
Whether or not you understand that reality, that's on you, but I've explained it (as I have in the past) and you do not appear to understand the simple reality of what I said. Not saying you're delusional, just that, at least these points, you're not understanding reality. Good luck.
Here's a simple test. Take any things I've said here and show me that I mistaken with hard data. You can't do it because I'm just stating facts about reality that are observable and clear. The closest you can come to it is that it appears to you that when the pope said what he said that he meant that Jesus was always homeless or something. When certainly the reality is that this was just the Pope's way of noting the reality that when he came to Bethlehem he was not welcome and without a home. That is the reality of the story. You may not like the way you phrase it, but it doesn't make what he said incorrect. Like that, on every Point, you're just not understanding the reality of it all. But again, if you look at what I said, you can't disprove it, just as a simple matter of fact. Let your impotency and proving your point serve as a cue to you to lead to understanding the reality of it.
I did show that you were mistaken. It wasn’t that hard. You chose to ignore that reality. If you can’t admit such a clear and obvious instance of your making a false claim, and you won’t prove the accuracy of the claims you do make, why should I have even the tiniest amount of hope that you’ll respond any differently when I provide evidence that your other claims are false?
Again, I know you think you showed me I was mistaken, but in reality, you didn't. Rather, you just misunderstood what you thought you understood. You just not understanding reality and I can't help you any further than I have. Again, good luck in life. Hopefully you're not as confused about reality and other areas.
Yes, of course, demonstrating that your clear emphatic statement was factually wrong is an example of my failing to understand. Unless you were using the words in some non standard way, you were quite clear the first time.
Honestly, you trying to pretend that you didn’t say what you said, and that you didn’t mean what you said when you said it is way more convoluted that’s the claim I disproved. Oh, and you even confirmed that you meant what you originally said, before you changed your mind.
Anyway, it’s cute watching you try to avoid simply accepting reality.
The thing is, you have not demonstrated that my clear point was factually wrong. Do you understand that reality?
You have not demonstrated that my point was wrong.
Now your answer to this is "uh-huh, yes I have!" But that's just factually mistaken.
And again I know you don't understand this probably but that's reality. Maybe ask somebody to explain it to you besides me. Clearly I'm not getting through to you.
“No one serious is arguing that baby Jesus was homeless, in that Mary and Joseph did not have a home.”
And yet the pope, who you’d have to agree is serious was very specific that Jesus’ family was “homeless”.
I’d say that providing one example of a serious person contradicting your claim of “No one”, is sufficient.
But I provided 2 others.
I understand what your trying to do. Your trying to equate the reality of “all the hotel rooms being sold out”, with the politically loaded term “homeless” as its used in our current lexicon. The goal, is to misrepresent the situation of Jesus’ family as “homeless” when they weren’t, and “poor” when we have no textural evidence to make that definitive claim.
But, your determination is cute.
Again, and for the final time, that YOU MISUNDERSTAND his position is not evidence that your opinion of his position is what you think it is.
It's just another sign of you not understanding people's positions and words and stuff.
"IF someone is saying that it is a known and demonstrable fact that God opposes marriage between gay folk, then the burden of proof is on them to support the claim as a fact."
This has been done in the manner described by the post. We DO know that this is the case based on all Scripture DOES say on the matter, as well as what it doesn't. That is to say, the evidence of Scripture in no way provides no other legitimate, rational or honest alternative to the FACT that God opposes ANY union between two of the same sex. It is a lie and a heresy to claim that there is even the thinnest slit of an opening through which progressive "Christians" can cram their pro-SSM position. Even if such a "Christian" wishes to provide for himself cover for such a position by saying it is "opinion", evidence must still exist to justify holding that position. There is none. There has never been any given. EVER. Thus, this stands as something we most definitely know, even without any discussion in Scripture specific to the concept of same-sex marriage.
Like so much, you simply repeating something with more emphasis doesn’t make it true. It’s not my fault that your so scared of being wrong that you go to such lengths.
But Art, Dan disagrees with those scriptures and not all of them are accurate, and the writers just didn’t know about the kind of (rare) loving, stable, lifetime committed, monogamous, gay relationships we (mostly don’t) see today.
But it doesn’t matter, just like Dan has managed to get the topic of this post headed toward his obsession with “gay marriage”, instead of the topic, he uses the “gay marriage” term to skip over the underlying question. If he can focus on a “topic” on which the Bible is silent, so he can impose his own opinions, instead of something where the Bible is clear it’s a win for him.
I’ve asked over and over for one citation from any of the following (Bible, Torah, Talmud, Apocrypha, Koran, or any writings from the early Church), that treats homosexual sex in a positive or even neutral manner or “gay marriage” in a positive manner and haven’t gotten anything.
No. I don't disagree with those scriptures, Craig.
No. Dan does not disagree with those scriptures.
Repeat that, Craig.
No. Dan does not disagree with those scriptures.
Right here, right now, out loud. Repeat that, Craig.
Dan does not have a problem with those scriptures. Dan loves those scriptures. Dan thinks those scriptures are fine, super. Peachy.
Have you repeated that over to yourself? Have you done it a hundred times? If not, do it. That loud. Right now. Repeat.
I'll wait.....
....
....
....
Done?
Are you beginning to grasp the concept that Dan does not disagree with those scriptures? Once you have graphs that and understood the meaning of those words, can you begin to wrap your mind around this... Dan disagrees with Marshalls and the conservative fundamentalists' interpretation of those scriptures..?
Do you understand? Do you see the difference?
Probably not.
Ok, maybe disagree doesn’t quite capture the specific semantic nuance that you’re trying to hide behind.
Maybe it’s closer to...
Ignores
Interpreted differently
Classified as myth or legend, or revenge fantasy
Don’t fit his worldview and/or narrative
Feels like the writer was mistaken, wrong, or confused.
Reads meanings into scriptures tat the text doesn’t support.
Takes Biblical silence as license to fill in the blanks.
Ultimately the semantics don’t matter, when you functionally ignore/dismiss/disagree with Biblicsl teachings that don’t fit your progressive narrative.
Because clearly, taking Jesus clear and direct teaching about the intent/definition of marriage from the creation of humanity and adding things to it is an indication of “love” for those scriptures.
The problem with your “disagree with XYZ interpretation” argument is that you’d have to prove that your interpretation is correct, and that the other is incorrect. ( or more/less correct). So, by all means, bring on the proof.
Unless you want to reduce this to mere disagreement over interpretation, in which case you’ll have to stop referring to your interpretations as “reality” or to other’s as not “reality”. You’ll also have to rephrase all your claims about meanings of scripture to reflect this new status.
Will you, most likely not.
And again, I'm sorry you're not understanding almost anything that I'm saying. I tried.
Your best bet will just be to not say "so this is what you think..." Cuz nearly every time you try that you get it wrong.
Couldn’t have anything to do with your inability to make clear, straightforward statement and stick to the plain meaning.
Cuz, it’s more about trying to disengage at this point.
Again, Dan, disagree all you like with my accurate and long supported understanding of unambiguous Scripture. That's absolutely fine. What isn't fine is your refusal to bring forth solid, "hard data" that supports your heretical position...on pretty much anything. In your corruption of "the poor" at your blog, you dare to cite church history. Well, on the issue of SSM, church history is absolutely on the side of one man/one woman in marriage as the ONLY legitimate expression of erotic desire. All else...even between the same man and woman before they unite in marriage...is forbidden and considered sinful. Period. It is not "interpretation", as if the words on the pages are in any way mysterious or confusing. It's simply what it says.
Thus, by refusing to accept this reality, this fact, this absolute certainty, you disagree, reject, have a problem with Scripture. Right here, right now, repeat it out loud and you'll at least in this instance actually be saying something truthful and honest.
Post a Comment