What is a fact?

LOOK READERS: Here is the quote of Giftedone stating that the symbols of the alphabet are arbitrary. Not my words, and nothing I have made up... but his and too late for him to edit the content or misapply html code. See here:
http://www.politicalforum.com/1060898767-post338.html

So here he is now trying to say that I am making things up when the mountain is pulled down on top of him by his own words.

As to your further comments below... Clean up each mess as they are made. You have made a mess with your claims spoken of above so clean that up first and then we can move on.

 

I have never denied stating that the symbols of the alphabet are arbitrary.
What is your issue here and what are you claiming that I did.

Now quit trying to run away from the question

If the freezing point of water is arbitrary why do you get the same results when using the same measuring stick under the same experimental conditions ?

 

In one of your absurd off-topic examples you suggested using the letter "c",, I followed up by saying why not use any of several other letters,, you responded by saying that it would not make any difference because all the letters are arbitrary anyway....

Now do you get the point? It was you who claimed the letters were arbitrary anyway. Follow the thread back and you should be able to figure it out.

The issue below are still on hold, waiting for you to admit that you were in error using a rationalization regarding the letters of the alphabet when we were previously speaking about numbers on a measuring scale. That is called a strawman argument that you presented. So, the below remain on hold till you admit your guilt of presenting a strawman argument.

 

LOL .. you would not know a straw man if it hit you in the face.

You are the one making up a straw man. There was nothing wrong with the logic in any of my arguments.

If you think there was then stop the ad hom .. accusing me without even saying what you think it is that I have done.

What is this straw man .. and does he have a brain ?

 

And you are the one in denial of your own words. Words that have been quoted and words that a link referred to. Therefore, you are delusional. Good nite. You have nothing of interest or importance to add to this thread. Back to the ignore list for you.... again....

 

I love it when you take your ball and go home because your claim, "the freezing point of water is arbitrary" is refuted

This is two times now on the same topic .. A nutter one bites the dust !

 

Wrong: I wait in the shadows and wait for stupid people to make stupid remarks. Like declaring yourself the winner in a debate that is not finished and likely will never be finished as long as there are stupid people like you around to keep the thread off-topic with BS claims of your own: with denials of socially accepted definitions; with endless examples that prove nothing but the fact that you are indeed the one that is so stupid that you cannot accept that socially accepted definition.

Now, can you refute that 2.c. definition? Yes or No. Your examples so far have proven NOTHING.

 

Of course the debate is finished .. you have no response to the question:

If the freezing point of water is arbitrary why do you get the same results when using the same measuring stick under the same experimental conditions ?


A nutter one bites the dust ..

 

Because the 'freezing point of water' is not the topic of discussion in this thread. Can you or can you not successfully refute the 2.c. definition of 'fact' in such a way as to cause that definition to be removed from the dictionary? Yes or No.

 

Of course the freezing point of water is the topic. You just want to switch the topic because you know your argument is lost.

2c was refuted long ago as it contradicts 2.

 

What was the question again?

 

If the question of "What is a fact" wasn't based upon rationalizations for religious beliefs then the question would not have been addressed in the Religion Forum.

For example, if the purpose was to establish what a "scientific fact" is, as defined below, then the question would have been presented in the Science and Technology forum.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scientific+fact

The intent of the discussion is easily established by the where the question was asked. It is an attempt to rationalize religious beliefs based upon the question being presented in the Religion Forum.

 

Another great example Shiva_TD. The same logic could be used in regard to people opening discussions on scientific material within this religious section of the PF. Therefore, I can only conclude that you agree with me, that those who introduce scientific material (discussion) in the Religion section are actually declaring that science is a religion. It can also be concluded that any discussion on this Religion section of PF that introduces the discussion of a 'fact' should be properly placed in the Science and Technology section.

Well, if you believe that the question had/has religious intent, then I suppose you are entitled to that belief, and that belief of yours then would find the question being posed in the right section of the forum. Of course, that would mean that I could go to the science forum and more properly ask a question there pertaining to a religious means of cure for leprosy. Let me ask you this. Do you think that any question pertaining to 'fact' should be taken to the Science and Technology section of the PF? The link you provided above is differing from the 'fact' issue in question of this thread. Your link deals with a specific type of 'fact' called "scientific fact". Are you attempting to divert the discussion to another subject?

BTW: Mayan religious meaning of 'evidence'... still waiting for your production of documentation on that subject.

 

In answering the following let us first address the original OP. It asks the question of whether the belief "that the Bible is true and real" is a fact. Uless the statement "I believe" is a lie then the "belief" is a fact. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether "the Bible is true and real" as that is not the question being asked.

The only real question is whether the statement "I believe" is factual or not. What evidence is there the "I believe" is the truth because that would need to be presented to establish it as being factual.

There can certainly be overlap but generally I'd agree. For example starting a discussion based upon science that establishes that creationism and intelligent design are pure rubbish would logically be in the Science and Technology Forum. Now if someone created a thread on Creationism and Intelligent Design in the Religion forum then a scientific response could be relevant in rebuttal. Who created the thread and did they select the correct forum would be the determining factor.

As I noted in the response to the original OP the question is not whether the Bible is true and real but instead whether the belief is true and real.

I don't recall ever mentioning the Mayan religious meaning of evidence so perhaps a link to that post would be helpful. I'd like to know what I might have said before responding.

 

Shiva and Inc,

you guys are assuming that these religious and science/tech forums are (or should be) insulated topics. but the name of the site is 'politicalforums.com', therefore it should be assumed that all topics on this site will have a political subtext and will inevitably overlap in many places.

 

"I" is the subject; "believe" is the verb; What is it that I believe? "that the Bible is true and real". According to the definition "Something believed to be true or real", the Bible is that 'something'. The descriptive nature of that Bible being "true and real" describes what it is about the Bible that I believe. Therefore, to me the Bible is 'true and real' therefore the Bible and its contents is a 'fact'.

Your suggestion regarding whether or not I am telling the truth about such a belief, is just another 'rationalization to discredit the person that made the statement'. Now, if you cannot prove that my statement was not being made truthfully, then your question is irrelevant and verging on being a personal attack.

Now where is there a TOS statement regarding 'who created a thread' as being one of the determining factors as to whether or not a thread is relocated to another area of the PF? Your statement is suggesting that a personal bias on the part of the administration of this forum plays an active role in how this forum is administered.

To suggest a persons statement of 'belief' is a lie, requires proof that the belief is a lie. Do you have such a proof regarding the author of this thread. Can you prove that my belief is a lie?

Located here: http://www.politicalforum.com/4974524-post331.html


You have suggested that the Mayans have such a religious definition and as a result "Few of us would accept their definition of evidence."

 

First of all no personal attack was intended.

The question presented was "Does the statement above constitute a fact?" and, assuming that trickery is not involved it does establish a fact. It establishes the "fact" that you "believe that the Bible is true and real" but it does not establish that the Bible is, in fact, true or real.

Perhaps the problem is merely one of incorrectly wording the question. If the question was, "Does my belief that the Bible is true and real establish that the Bible is true and real as a fact?" then the obvious answer would be no.

The Forum Rule for thread creation specifically states "Threads should not be posted in the wrong forum, or be duplicates of other threads and/or topics (creating multiple threads with fundamentally the same topic is not allowed)." It is the member's responsibility to determine the correct forum for the thread but if they fail to do that then, and only then, do the moderators move the thread to the correct forum. I haven't checked but has this thread been moved from a different forum to this forum?

I would not imply that anyone's belief is a lie nor have I done that. I can question whether a statement made by someone is a form of trickery where they might "lie" for nefarious reasons. I don't doubt that the statement made, "I believe that the Bible is true and real." is honest and true but I wouldn't bet money on it. I have no evidence of the truth of the statement but I believe it. That doesn't establish a "factual" basis for the statement because, as I mentioned, some people are known to lie for many reasons. I simply don't "believe" the statement is a lie and no evidence has been presented that it is a lie.

Wow, a whole different discussion but I'll address it nontheless.

Obviously I my assumption of what the Mayan's considered to be evidence is based upon a common knowledge of how religions rationalize beliefs. Blood sacrifices are not uncommon in ancient religions and the "evidence" was always a rationalization for the blood sacrifice. This was even true in the Jewish religion that practiced blood sacrifices although they didn't engage in human sacrifices to my knowledge.

Of note many Christians believe that God sacrified his son Jesus but according to the Bible that was not the case. Jesus was not sacrificed but instead was executed for alleged crimes. I doubt he was guilty but even today we execute innocent people in the United States by accident. But the fact remains that Jesus was not sacrificed but was instead executed if we believe the Biblical story of his death.

 

Cool. Then you are not in question pertaining to my 'belief'.

Are you CERTAIN? 100% CERTAIN?

Perhaps the problem is merely one owed to your perception of the question. The question I presented was obviously hinged on the 2.c. definition of fact, otherwise, I might have worded the question differently. However the wording of the definition clearly shows that the 'something' which is believed to be true or real is the fact. Not the 'belief'.

No! This thread has not been moved, but you suggested that it might have been placed in a wrong location. Now, in that TOS segment you quoted, where is there language that says anything about 'who' the creator is? 'Who' the creator is, is irrelevant to the remainder of the language in that TOS section. Yet, you stated that the 'Who' was a determining factor.

Then, for what reason would you have placed such a set of comments (questioning the integrity of the statement) on the thread regarding whether or not it was a 'lie', if you also now state "I simply don't "believe" the statement is a lie and no evidence has been presented that it is a lie."?

It was just a reminder. You seem to have overlooked it every time I bumped the question back to the top of that thread.

'Assumption' "The act of taking possession or asserting a claim". Because you stated a claim, I am merely asking you to substantiate your claim with the normal routine proof of claim. Even in your statements below, you still are merely expressing opinions and have not substantiated the claim regarding what you previously stated was existing, "Their definition was self-serving which is what we see with religions in general.", and still remains a practice among religions. With you stating what their 'definition was', means that you had to have read that definition in order to establish the fact that you know what that definition was. So where is that definition?

Many "Christians" believe many different things. So the remainder of that paragraph is irrelevant to this discussion on 'what is a fact'. Such a statement could compare to the many different views of the Atheists with regard to atheism. There have been many such variations of views among the atheists on this forum.

 

There could be problems with what i thick of as a fact i figure a fact is an accurate description about something

But now that i thick about it im not sure if an accurate description is a fact unless you can show it is an acute description

and you can have facts about the subjective things as long as it’s an accurate despairing of those subjective things

 

That accurate description is a result of your subjective mind forming into words or graphics or numbers, a means of conveying to someone else of what is existing in your mind. So what you are essentially saying, is that the subjective description is accurate, then the thing being described is a 'fact'? Interesting.

Now you are refuting your last statement and are saying that an accurate description is not a fact and only an item or thing that can be shown to be accurate is a fact. Sounds like you are confused on what is a fact.

'an accurate desparing'? Are you attempting to say "an accurate description"? Your change in terminology is perplexing, as it renders your statements incomprehensible.

 

my mind can know something about the images in itself so ya i can be accurate about what i perceive though there may be more facts involved that I don’t know

ya i am thinking i was wrong the 1st post i could say your brushing your teeth right now, and even if you were if i don’t know that you were I don’t think I could call that a fact even if it was accurate

Sorry have to use spell check a lot so i don’t always pay enough attention to what word suggests description is probably what I’m going for

 

Then we have gone full circle with your admission that there may be facts that you don't know. Therefore, your description cannot attain 'accuracy' that is completely fulfilling. Thus the description of 'God' or 'gods' are also lacking in sufficient information that would enable us to completely understand the mind of God or even 'God' Himself. You cannot place God in a box formed of definitions and descriptions when there "may be more facts involved than what we know".

The 2.c. definition of 'fact' requires a 'belief' in that something. Merely saying something is not necessarily a 'belief' in that something. Because you did not express a 'belief' in the suggested comment, the comment had/has no force and effect. You were almost viewing a portion of the scenario that exists at this point. I actually (perhaps 5 minutes prior to this posting) just finished a steak sandwich and am now requiring a brushing of my teeth, but have not undertaken that task just yet.

I thought as much, but wanted to be certain. Now for a response to that last paragraph of your former posting:

The response would be already recognized by you in your statement above regarding the notion "there may be more facts involved than what we know".

Subsequently you and the rest of us are barred by your restriction from providing such an 'accurate description'.

 

there can be facts i dont know but i can’t offer something up a s a fact if i don’t no it is

i guess i don’t have facts about gods just facts about story’s about gods and i don’t know if there accurate about actual gods

Maybe we can never know how some things are

 

How does one 'know' something?

"know (n)
v. knew (n, ny), known (nn), know·ing, knows
v.tr.
1. To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty.
2. To regard as true beyond doubt: I know she won't fail.
3. To have a practical understanding of, as through experience; be skilled in: knows how to cook.
4. To have fixed in the mind: knows her Latin verbs.
5. To have experience of: "a black stubble that had known no razor" (William Faulkner).
6.
a. To perceive as familiar; recognize: I know that face.
b. To be acquainted with: He doesn't know his neighbors.
7. To be able to distinguish; recognize as distinct: knows right from wrong.
8. To discern the character or nature of: knew him for a liar.
9. Archaic To have sexual intercourse with.
v.intr.
1. To possess knowledge, understanding, or information.
2. To be cognizant or aware."

In those definitions of the word "know" there is no mention of learning, school, college. In view of that little nuance, it could be said that the education system(s) of the world are "Special Education" and is provided to 'Special Education Students'. Those that require special training. The overall tone of the definitions of 'know' is the ability to 'recognize'.... or 're-cognize'...

Very well stated. I agree and further state that most people are in that same category, because they are content with the words they have heard else because they are too lazy to inquire, or finally that the whole issue of God is of no personal consequence to them.

Then again, maybe we can.

 

Do you know how you enquire about gods to know about them and not just know about your own feelings or the stories of others? When you say most people can’t I gather that you’re saying some can?