What is a fact?

Folks believe all kinds of things that they have not experienced.

Some people believe the world is flat. Obviously they have never experienced this.

When a person says "they believe something", this means they believe it to be true.

 

But we are speaking specifically about you and me... not "folks" in general. So, staying with the specifics (me and you) what sort of things would meet with the dictates of your statement above?

Can you name a few of those folks who hold such a belief? Is there proof available that some people hold that belief? If you cannot or do not list some of those people, then you are attempting to introduce a claim and at the same time, block the access to evidence to validate that claim.

If a person says 'they believe something'; the person making such a statement is referencing other people that 'believe something', and subsequently the person who makes such a statement is in no position to be a judge of what those other people believe to be true.

 

Really .. since when ?

If you cant figure it out I can not help you further.

George Ringo and Paul

Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds

 

Since this point: http://www.politicalforum.com/1060888461-post299.html where you questioned my understanding. You did not question the understanding of the general membership of this forum. That is when (at least in one occasion) where the subject matter became personal between you and me.

Even in the above statement, you continue the personal aspect of this discussion. Therefore, your opening comments above discount and nullify on the grounds of personal bias, any further consideration due to the fact that you are not even aware of this now being a personal discussion. The remainder of your comments are irrelevant, based on your ignorance of this conversation having been converted into a personal discussion by your choice.

 

If one does not understand the difference between "believing the moon is made of green cheese" and "personally experiencing the taste of green cheese from the moon" .. then there is little point in debating anything further.

Belief is not necessarily Fact.

 

Then prove your claim, instead of being redundant and continually repeating the same claim absent any PROOF of claim.

 

No, YOU made the claim, the onus is on you to prove that mere belief is a fact.

Which is something you can not do.

All you're doing is semantic bull(*)(*)(*)(*), and that's not proof of anything.

It's been shown to you many times over that mere belief is not fact and can never be, regardless of what one dictionary, out of lots of dictionary says, and that same dictionary even contradicts itself.

Stop with the dishonesty. It's very dishonest to try to turn the argument against the other guy when YOU made the claim.

 

Silly fellow. The 'claim' is made by the dictionary. Now you be a good lil boy and go tell the publishers of the dictionary that "the onus is on" them "to prove that mere belief is a fact." I have proven my point. My point being, that the definition has been accepted by society as being one of the official definitions of 'fact'. It is not my problem that you are suffering from an ignorance of the terms that you and others so frequently elect to use in your daily running of the mouth drivel.

 

Believe me .. it does not stop there.

Incorp tried to claim that the freezing point of water was subjective/arbitrary.

When I proved that it was not (repeating the same facts in different ways over 10 or more posts always ending with "the freezing point of water is not arbitrary) ....

he quickly changed sides and started claiming that I was the one claiming the freezing point of water was arbitrary.

Completely disingenuine and trollish.

I make points to show others reading the flaws .. not to try and get anything through to Incorp.

 

No, you made the claim first then used the Diction. Gorram, you're really an ignorant fellow on what a fact is.

This is nothing more than confirmation bias.

 

Let us go back to the OP and take another look. In that OP, I stated "I believe that the Bible is true and real", then I proceeded to ask questions pertaining to the statement above. Asking why the statement could be considered either a 'fact' or not a 'fact'.

In answering those questions, another poster FIRST submitted a set of definitions of 'fact', and then I offered the one of my preference, in opposition to that which the other poster offered. Now what claim has been made by me? Please be specific.

 

Yes, you cherry picked one definition out of a lot of them, and one that could be found in only ONE dictionary.

And in doing so, you are indeed making the claim that mere belief is fact.

And I have already told you the inherent problems with why that is a poor definition, which you failed to address and will never directly address because you know you can not prove it wrong nor can you prove that you definition of what a fact really is.

Mere belief is not a fact.

And since you made the claim that the bible is true and real, you have to PROVE it, not merely argue it

.

 

You are wrong again. Later in the discussion, another poster attempted posting from yet another dictionary, and same intent of language was used in that dictionary. You are rationalizing (making excuses) and loosing ground. Wait a minute. That was you (another poster) who brought up those other dictionaries. See here: http://www.politicalforum.com/1060855485-post285.html : then following that was my rebuttal to those claims of yours. So, it is seen now, that you are simply being redundant: repeating the same ole prattle with no substantiating evidence to support your claims. No wonder you are trying to say that the onus is on me to prove a claim. Well, like I said earlier, the claim is not mine, but that of the dictionary. So be the good lil boy and take the issue you have to the publishers of that dictionary.

 

The fact remains that while the existence of your belief may be factual, that in itself has no bearing on the truth or otherwise of that belief.

 

On the contrary. Such a belief in the definition of the word 'fact' is based upon the definition itself. In that definition is the requirement that the believer must believe the matter (that something believed) to be 'true' or 'real'. To the one that is the believer, the expressions, opinions, thoughts of others is irrelevant, as it is the believer who will determine what his/her belief is. Therefore, to the believer, that something believed to be true and or real is in 'fact' true and or real, and therefore meets with the requirement of the 2.c. definition of 'fact'.

 

I am not yet dead. This is an example of a fact?

Ludwik

 

Your circularity is impenetrable in it's density of ridiculosity. It meets only itself recurring.

To quote the famous Father Jack Hackett. "Arse"

 

Is that the absolute best that you can conjure from your shallow well of a mind to use as a retort?

 

Wow! Such insight.

 

How do you know this existence is not some sort of unusual afterlife situation?

Souls have to come from somewhere, you know.

If they existed before this existence, then it's quite possible that somehow they died before they came to be in this one.

 

For that philosophical matter; How do any of us KNOW that this whole existence thing is not just some 'stage play' that is being conducted in the Mind of God?

 

We dont but it does not matter. In this planet earth stage play, regardless of who is playwright, there are rules and there are facts.

In this stage play it is a fact that water freezes at a non arbitrary temperature.

It is a fact that the earth moves around the sun.

It is a fact that living humans need oxygen and food to maintain homeostasis ..

and so on.

 

If this is to be viewed as a stage play (as I suggested), then the 'playwright' does make a difference, as the playwright is who determines how the play is conducted, while the conductor (whoever that may be) only oversees the execution of the desires of the playwright. Also, those rules would have been put in place by the playwright and possibly with the aid of the conductor but the conductors input may or may not interfere with what the playwright desires to see executed. The "facts" of the play are also set forth by the playwright. Because, as I suggested, this stage play is being conducted in the mind of God, then those 'facts' are only according to His subjective mind.

Unless you know the mind of the playwright, then you can only presume that "water freezes at a non-arbitrary temperature", as all temperature is a product of the playwright through His subjective mind.

Only from your perspective as one who does not know the mind of the playwright. Though I would tend to agree with that NOTION.

Same statement as above.

And so on,,, as long as we don't KNOW The mind of the Playwright, we can only guess with the thoughts that we entertain, which are also a part of the stage play.

Shall we entertain another 'stage play', but one that still originates in the mind of the Playwright?

 

We do know many things about the mind of the playwright.

We know that the playwright has the world function under certain rules, rules that we have to abide by. Based on those rules a number of facts fall out such as:

The freezing point of water being non arbitrary .. and so on.

 

We (Christians) also know that the playwright has particular rules which are subject to the individual will of the actors. In other words, the actors in this play can freely choose whether or not they will effectuate the manifestation of those selective rules.

Water freezes. Fact. At what point water freezes is determined in our perception only by the arbitrary use of arbitrary numbers. Man established an arbitrary placement of numbers to demonstrate such freezing ability of water, but to say that the numbers are not arbitrary and thus conclude that the freezing point is not arbitrary, is disingenuous.