Life From Dirt?

[YoursTrue]

I get your point.

That's good.

 

[gnostic]

What events are "testable"? Even a very simple event like flipping a coin has multiple outcomes. And will in fact produce different outcomes every time the event is tested. And the more complex the event, the more different outcomes it will produce. Flip the coin 10 times and record the outcomes. Flip it 10 more times and see if you get the same outcome. You almost certainly won't. Keep flipping it 10 times and see how many times you get a different result. A LOT!

Also, who and how was it decided that the event we need to "test" is about which side of a coin faces up after it has been flipped and landed? Oh, wait, that would be that subjective "I do". Who decides how the coin is being flipped? And how it stops flipping? And how many times it must be flipped and stopped to produce "objective evidence". Oh, wait, that would be that subjective "I do", again. And on and on it goes, with that subjective "I do" determining what the question is, what event exemplifies the question, what the parameters of the event is and how to isolate it from everything leading up to it and following it. And then how to test it, and how to interpret the various results ... You get the idea.

The whole scenario is rife with subjective decision-making from start to finish and yet we're supposed to assume that what results is the "objective truth"?

Not hardly.

I am thinking that you are confusing what are objective and what subjective, as well as not understanding probability.

There are only TWO possible outcomes for flipping coin and letting it land with one face facing up, just head or tail, so you’d already know the odd is 50-50. That’s objective.

And if you are simply recording the frequencies of these 2 outcomes, then the frequency or the number of times it will land head and the number of times, will indeed vary, with one being more frequent than the other. That still being objective, because you are only “recording” the total numbers of each possible outcome...subjective don’t come into play...yet.

But if you were to turn this coin flipping into a game where a person is guessing the outcome of each toss, that would indeed be subjective.

You are confusing a person guessing the outcomes of each tosses with only the act of coin flipping. Only the person guessing is subjective.

Btw, a third possible outcome is for the coin landing and standing on its side. While this is possible, it’s highly unlikely. I have certainly not seen this happen.

Yes, when a person is guessing, that’s indeed subjective. But if there are no guessing involved, and only recording the frequency of the respective outcomes, as you would do, if you are using statistics, then that’s objective.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yeah, you are playing with words.

He is speaking words about that which are relevant and truthful.

 

[YoursTrue]

Jesus may have been an actual person. But the story is mythical. Some events depicted may have actually happened, but the story is mythical. Meaning that it's purpose is to represent a new spiritual ideology. Not present historical facts.

When people "believe in" the story, what they usually mean is that they believe in the spiritual ideology that the story presents to them. Sometimes that means they accept the story as fact, but of course they weren't there, and can't know that to be so. Any more than you were there and can't know that it isn't. Neither of which is the point of the story, or why it's been held to be so important for 2,000 years.

Things changed over the past centuries since Jesus was on the earth. Meaning that interpretations have been offered and contested and changed by many. I won't go into detail now but it is an interesting account. Meantime, however, the idea that Jesus had followers willing to give up their lives for him is backed up by history. The early followers are hardly like most today who claim to be Christians.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He is speaking words about that which are relevant and truthful.

Here's w

Things changed over the past centuries since Jesus was on the earth. Meaning that interpretations have been offered and contested and changed by many. I won't go into detail now but it is an interesting account. Meantime, however, the idea that Jesus had followers willing to give up their lives for him is backed up by history. The early followers are hardly like most today who claim to be Christians.

Many religions have followers ready to give up their lives for it. Sometimes we only find out when they try to prosecute those that are breaking various laws in their religions. Jim Jones and many of his followers committed mass suicide. Those that were not willing to suicide had death forced upon them. Many of the followers of David Koresh followed him to their death. The Heaven's Gate cult is another example. And those are all rather recent. Over the history of the Earth there probably have been thousands that did the same.

Worse yet we really do not know how and why the early followers died. There is no evidence of any of them willingly going to their death. Some of the original apostles died, but the evidence for their deaths is not that strong to all but nonexistent. There were victims that were killed. But there is no evidence at all that they were ever given a chance to recant their faith.

 

[gnostic]

Things changed over the past centuries since Jesus was on the earth. Meaning that interpretations have been offered and contested and changed by many. I won't go into detail now but it is an interesting account. Meantime, however, the idea that Jesus had followers willing to give up their lives for him is backed up by history. The early followers are hardly like most today who claim to be Christians.

How would you really know what early Christians believe and how they would behave any different from today?

You are making generalized assumptions.

As @PureX said, a lot of what were written were mainly stories and church traditions, not history that can be verified, including what were largely written in the NT gospels and epistles.

Paul for instance had written a lot of things that were contemporary to him, but what he had to say about Jesus are mostly based on hearsay, since he never met Jesus, nor listened directly what Jesus taught, especially when you considered that the four gospels were written after Paul’s death.

And since these were written 2 to 3 generations after Jesus’ death and resurrection, it is highly doubtful that these authors were contemporary to Jesus, hence the story of Jesus is more traditions and hearsay, not contemporary records.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Okay, you found what you need. At most, you lifted a corner of the veil. With respect, I doubt you have glimpsed more than a fraction of the infinite mysteries of existence. I doubt any of us have.

Yeah, the question exists since 1,000 BCE in RigVeda: Why do things seem to exist rather than not?
However, this question is not going to be answered in my life-time.

"He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not."

Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

Rig Veda, tr. by Ralph T.H. Griffith, [1896], full text etext at sacred-texts.com

www.sacred-texts.com

 

[YoursTrue]

How would you really know what early Christians believe and how they would behave any different from today?

You are making generalized assumptions.

As @PureX said, a lot of what were written were mainly stories and church traditions, not history that can be verified, including what were largely written in the NT gospels and epistles.

Paul for instance had written a lot of things that were contemporary to him, but what he had to say about Jesus are mostly based on hearsay, since he never met Jesus, nor listened directly what Jesus taught, especially when you considered that the four gospels were written after Paul’s death.

And since these were written 2 to 3 generations after Jesus’ death and resurrection, it is highly doubtful that these authors were contemporary to Jesus, hence the story of Jesus is more traditions and hearsay, not contemporary records.

History shows what happened. Jesus died before Paul who was formerly known as Saul, saw Jesus in a vision. Paul knew what he saw. I believe that is what happened as written. There is no point in arguing this since I know what happened to me. And I believe now, heart, soul and mind, what the Bible says.

 

[YoursTrue]

How would you really know what early Christians believe and how they would behave any different from today?

You are making generalized assumptions.

As @PureX said, a lot of what were written were mainly stories and church traditions, not history that can be verified, including what were largely written in the NT gospels and epistles.

Paul for instance had written a lot of things that were contemporary to him, but what he had to say about Jesus are mostly based on hearsay, since he never met Jesus, nor listened directly what Jesus taught, especially when you considered that the four gospels were written after Paul’s death.

And since these were written 2 to 3 generations after Jesus’ death and resurrection, it is highly doubtful that these authors were contemporary to Jesus, hence the story of Jesus is more traditions and hearsay, not contemporary records.

There have been accounts, such as Nero burning Christians. There is nothing written in any historical documents that I know about that prior to the emperor Constantine, those who were called Christians went to war or engaged on mortal combat against their enemies.

How would you really know what early Christians believe and how they would behave any different from today?

You are making generalized assumptions.

As @PureX said, a lot of what were written were mainly stories and church traditions, not history that can be verified, including what were largely written in the NT gospels and epistles.

Paul for instance had written a lot of things that were contemporary to him, but what he had to say about Jesus are mostly based on hearsay, since he never met Jesus, nor listened directly what Jesus taught, especially when you considered that the four gospels were written after Paul’s death.

And since these were written 2 to 3 generations after Jesus’ death and resurrection, it is highly doubtful that these authors were contemporary to Jesus, hence the story of Jesus is more traditions and hearsay, not contemporary records.

"Nero himself blamed the fire on an obscure new Jewish religious sect called the Christians, whom he indiscriminately and mercilessly crucified. During gladiator matches he would feed Christians to lions, and he often lit his garden parties with the burning carcasses of Christian human torches." The Great Fire of Rome ~ Background | Secrets of the Dead | PBS.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

He is speaking words about that which are relevant and truthful.

Well, I would still like the definitions of objective and subjective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then tell us, why the universe seems to exist (real or virtual)? What thinks that it exists? Don't take it otherwise, but I think you have a brain. Is that not true - subjective?

What to listen? Religious blah-blah? Did that for more than 40 years, studied Bible and Quran. I understand the theist view perfectly.

The problem is that it leads to - I doubt, therefore I am doubting and that is all I am, namely doubting. That "I" is in an abstract analysis nothing but in effect an empty fact of something is going on, but from there doesn't follow anything else, even that I have a brain or for you, that you have one.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are blind to your own errors. As I said, sometimes evidence applies. Sometimes it does not. You are asking philosophical questions, not evidence based questions.

Evidence is a form of a philosophical system. But there is a reason it is connected to methodological naturalism and how it is methodological and not proven naturalism as for knowledge.

 

[PureX]

There are only TWO possible outcomes for flipping coin and letting it land with one face facing up, just head or tail, so you’d already know the odd is 50-50. That’s objective.

Well, no, not really. Who is deciding what possibility we are going to test? Who is deciding that this is the "test" we are going to employ to do that? And why? Who is deciding what the results mean, or that they mean anything when the results can be this or that? When the coin falls on a surface that holds it on edge who decides that this was a "failed" test and that we should disregard the result? None of these decisions are "objectively" derived. In fact, they are all based on a biased goal, and intended to validate or invalidate that biased conclusion. And there is nothing objective about any of it except the physical objects being used to actualize the test. And the bias is so overwhelming that we don't even see it. It's the bias of how we what and how we think, and especially of what we think we already know. And this bias is as subjective as it gets.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am thinking that you are confusing what are objective and what subjective, as well as not understanding probability.

There are only TWO possible outcomes for flipping coin and letting it land with one face facing up, just head or tail, so you’d already know the odd is 50-50. That’s objective.

...

No, a non-round coin with 4 sides can still subjectively be classed as a coin. Then you have to choose if you are doing it in gravity or not. Then you have to choose if the surface is flat or not. Sticky or not. And maybe I have left something out.
What you are in effect are saying is that any test that involves an objective part is objective for the objective part or if you like outcome can be objective.

So lets us nitpick all the subjective choices involved in regards to what objective reality is in itself.
We start with objective reality in itself for I know something. That is epistemology and unless you accept you can know something without knowing it, you know something for all 3 parts. But that is not that something in itself. It is your experience of it.
So here it the fist choice. You decide if you treat something in itself as real. But that is neutral and doesn't tell you if it is natural or supernatural.

Then there is cause and effect. You are the effect of the causation of in the end objective reality in itself. You then choose how you treat what an "I" is for different choices and the status of free will, rights, responsibility and accountability.

You then choose if you assume objective reality in itself as orderly and if so, how you actually treat orderly.
You then choose if you assume objective reality in itself as knowable and if so, how many forms of knowledge you accept.
You then choose how you treat all objective versus subjective outcomes and even if you allow for different versions of objective.

And here is the joke of objective. If you claim you can do all of that objectively, then I just test if I can get a different outcome be doing it subjectively.
So here it is in practice for the everyday world. It is not just subjective but it is neither universally rational, logic and only with objective outcomes.
And I was taught to check for subjectivity in any claim and not just assume it is objective just because somebody can claim so.
And that has nothing to do with the 2 sides of religion or not, because both sides are not just objective, but also subjective.

So yes, if I am subjective I will admit that it is the case, if I am aware of it. But if someone claims the objective matters, I will just point out that it is subjective, that it matters. In the brutal short sense, we are playing what the world really real is and how that matters. But all of that is not objective.

Regards.

 

[Audie]

Well, no, not really. Who is deciding what possibility we are going to test? Who is deciding that this is the "test" we are going to employ to do that? And why? Who is deciding what the results mean, or that they mean anything when the results can be this or that? When the coin falls on a surface that hold it on edge who decides that this was a "failed" test and that we should disregard the result? None of these decisions are "objectively" derived. In fact, they are all based on a biased goal, and intended to validate that biased conclusion. And there is nothing objective about any of it except the physical objects being used to actualize the test.

Oh-good-grief.

 

[blü 2]

I didn't say that nothing in a mythical story is factual. I said that factuality is not what myth is about. The myth of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection is not a recitation of historical facts. It was never intended to be. It is a story representation of an important religious/cultural ideology. People that argue about the factuality of a mythical story are completely missing the whole point and purpose of the myth. And that goes for both theists and atheists.

Well, yes and no.

There's a great difference between "Jesus died for our sins" and "It's as though Jesus died for our sins" ─ not that I understand why anyone has to die for our sins, and that goes double if there's an omnipotent God.

 

[Audie]

Well, yes and no.

There's a great difference between "Jesus died for our sins" and "It's as though Jesus died for our sins" ─ not that I understand why anyone has to die for our sins, and that goes double if there's an omnipotent God.

We all get the idea of myths

But bibl- people give the impression that
they take all awful serious for stuff that
could as well be Donald Duck if it's just
supposed to offer a lesson.

 

[PureX]

Well, yes and no.

There's a great difference between "Jesus died for our sins" and "It's as though Jesus died for our sins" ─ not that I understand why anyone has to die for our sins, and that goes double if there's an omnipotent God.

People interpret the story in different ways, each according to their needs and their natures. Yet it has remained a meaningful and significant story to a lot of people for a long time. I think that's because the core ideal in the story rings both as being true and as being a desirable goal for a lot of us.

 

[Audie]

People interpret the story in different ways, each according to their needs and their natures. Yet it has remained a meaningful and significant story to a lot of people for a long time. I think that's because the core ideal in the story rings both as being true and as being a desirable goal for a lot of us.

It's because of the carrot and stick of
heaven or hell people have been indoctrinated with.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What evidence can be there for something that does not exist. Only an idiot will ask for it.

Best one can do in such situations is to point out that there is nothing actually there.

Hopefully, the complete inability to find an object or being of one's imagination out in the real world will one day coincide and sink in with the reality of actually having nothing to speak for, except for what only lives within ones cerebellum where all of it is clearly sourced at.