What is a fact?

The something which I believe to be 'true' and 'real' is the Bible and its contents. Therefore, the Bible and its contents are a matter of 'FACT'.

 

No, the Bible is a matter of faith. If faith is fact then it defeats faith because that's what the purpose of faith is, to believe in a higher purpose that no one can prove exists.

In any way shape or form.

A fact is a certainty, because it can be observed and have an observable effect upon the world or the universe. It can not be faith.

While one can be certain of one's faith, there is absolutely no certainty other than belief that a higher being exists.

And if it were a fact that a higher being existed, then a lot more people would be saved.

 

You need to check out the 2.c. definition of 'fact'. See here:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fact

 

None of those contradict my previous statement at all.

Faith is belief in something that cannot be proven, and can not be a fact.

A fact is something that can be proven. A fact is something that has an observable effect upon the real world.

For example, pumice floats. We can put it on water and we can see it floating.

There is absolutely no way to prove or disprove the existence of God. That is why it is faith.

All one can do is make claims and arguments, when it comes to the existence or non-existence about God, and claims and arguments in and of themselves are not facts, because they can not truly be observed to have an effect upon the world.

 

Instead of going into all of your rationalizations (making excuses), simply concentrate on the 2.c. definition and attempt to refute that definition. You cannot refute that definition, and that is why you attempt to obfuscate that definition by burying it under a lot of rationalizations set forth as examples.

The discussion is not about 'faith', the discussion is about the definition of 'fact'. Prove the 2.c definition to be in error.

 

First of all, you make a lot of rationalizations yourself.

Secondly, 2c cannot be a good definition of what a fact is.

Because if was a good definition, then that means every single belief in the world is a fact.

And that means that all religions are the one true religion that people must adhere to and all others are false.

And that it truly is okay to be a racist and that some races are superior to others.

That phrenology and astrology works.

And all kinds of things are true that shouldn't be.

Do you really want to use that definitions?

It's a very poor definition of what a fact is.

Because it means every single claim and argument is a fact, including atheism, Satanism, and all other nasty beliefs out there. Every single one of them will be a fact according to that definition. Every single one.

And with all those contradictions, how can so many contradictions be true and a fact?

 

Wrong. I am not using rationalizations. I am using definitions. If you cannot refute that definition and prove that definition wrong, is that a fault of mine or is it a shortcoming of your abilities?

Now who is using rationalizations? None of those conditions mean anything as what is believed by one is not necessarily believed by another. All those rationalizations that you have itemized, are merely showing how sacred a belief can be. (notice the use of that word 'sacred'). Thus the need to respect the beliefs of one another instead of trying to trample upon the beliefs of others. It is just as easy to have your own beliefs trampled upon.

As to your last question: Simply because each and every individual will believe as he/she pleases, thus making the individual belief 'true' and 'real', according to the individual person.... just like the definition says.

 

What is a fact? Scientific contributions are either experimental data (facts) or interpretations (theories).

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.
.

 

Rationalizing ones way out of not rationalizing is pretty amusing.

 

Wrong, you are using your interpretations of a definition to support your belief. That is a rationalization. Furthermore, you are cherry picking in order to support your belief that your belief is a fact, which it is not. We can argue definitions all day, it's just semantic crap.

It's nice to know that you don't want a rational discussion. Unless you value logic, there is nothing wrong with rationalizations. Only people who value logic and reason do not value rationalizations. And according to people who value logic and reason rationalizations are no good, but the truth of the matter is there is no difference between logic and rationalization. People will claim otherwise though, because being right is serious business and people just can't help themselves.

And you are not a logical person.

Because you are a religious person, and religion can not hold up to logic.

And all you are doing is trying to turn the argument back onto me because you can't accept the truth that if mere belief is fact then every single belief out there is fact.

And yes, if you go by belief is fact then every single belief that is out there is a fact. Every single one, no matter how contradictory they are and no matter what they claim,which is a very poor definition of what a fact is.

And I'm sure I can find other dictionaries that will contradict you.

For instance, the Merriam Webster dictionary does not include that definition and supports my reasoning:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact

Dictionary.com doesn't include your definition either:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact

If mere belief is a fact, why aren't these dictionaries including your definition of what a fact really is? I'm sure I can find a lot more online dictionaries that does not have your poor definition of it.

A fact is not mere belief. A fact is something that can be observed and measured.

The existence of God is not a fact because there is no way to observe and measure him.

If mere belief is fact, then that means every single belief system that is out there is a fact. That is not just any old rationalization, it is a truth.

You made the claim. If you can't accept it then you must retract your statement that belief is fact.

Note:: this does not mean that you must renounce your belief in God. You wanted to argue 2c, that is what I am doing. You should jsut understand how poor of a definition of what a fact is.

 

Yeppir that is pretty much what the non-theists on this forum do. However,,,, facts are facts now aren't they. Believe whatever you want to believe.

 

He's talking about you.

And yes, facts are facts, but it's the religious who lie about facts far more than the non religious does.

 

Cognitive functions (such as analyzing input, interpreting that input and reaching conclusion based on that input) can be a witch now can't they. Cherry picking? Well, what do you suppose you and others have done when electing to overlook that particular definition? Cherry picking the ones to ignore. You may very well view definitions as just semantic crap, but there are an awful lot of attention on this forum being placed on the definition of 'atheism' and 'atheists'... but like you said, it is just a bunch of "semantic crap."

Perhaps you might want to reconsider the dynamics of what you have stated in the above paragraph. You might see a need to change a few things about the structure of what has been said.

That is correct, I am not a logical person. I am a human person.

Wrong again. Human person, not religious person. Where is your scientific data to support your claim that is highlighted in red text above?

Did I write (create) that definition? No? It would seem that your use of 'logic' is finding the definition a bit too difficult to ingest. Oh my.. what a dilemma that could prove to be. I don't find it difficult to accept at all. You seem to be the one having such difficulty.

Well, here is the problem. Neither you nor me wrote that dictionary, but it is and has been accepted by society as a standard. Whether you 'believe' in the validity or value of that definition is irrelevant, because to someone else, that definition might possibly be more important (true and real) than the persons in-laws.

Well, probably you can, however, as a matter of 'belief',, I believe this current definition to be true and real. Even Wiki agrees with this definition (at least in part).

Well good for you and those other dictionaries. Such is the world of commerce and free enterprise. They have the right to publish whatever they 'believe' will make the most amount of profit for them.

Perhaps because their major clientele would not purchase their version if this definition was included.

If that is what you want to 'believe' to be true and real, then that is your right to believe it.

Again, if that is what you want to 'believe' to be 'true or real' then that is your right to 'believe' it.

Precisely what is being inferred by such definition.

On the contrary. I merely advocate the principle that is inferred by the definition. You are the one who laid out in such specificity what that/those inferences could be. Therefore, it is you who must accept what you have stated.

Well, you could not provide enough rationalizations to convince me to abandon my belief in God. Furthermore, who are you to tell me what I should or should not do or what I should or should not understand? What authority do you have in your possession that would obligate me to adhere to your suggestions? None!!! BTW: I am not arguing 2.c. I am advocating the 2.c. definition you are the one arguing it. And you are failing at that endeavor.

 

Still there is no-one who can refute the 2.c. definition in such a way as to make the definition disappear from the dictionaries.

All anyone has provided so far seems to be personal opinions and a supposed logic that has proven itself to be ineffective at removing that definition from the dictionary. Even in attempts at using other dictionaries does not resolve the issue.

 

It's already been refuted many times over. You just can not admit you're wrong, mere belief is not a fact and can never be a fact.

Because if mere belief is a fact then that means all beliefs, each and every single belief that is out there, is a fact.

But I guess that you're happy with that.

Me, I am not.

Facts must be something that can be confirmed in some way. I can claim that eating Twinkies gives you the ability to ignore gravity all day. See, that is a claim, and that is a belief. By your definition, it is a fact because you claim mere belief is fact.

Now if anybody who suddenly ate a Twinkle was able to ignore gravity and fly, then that would be a fact. Because it was something that can be observed and can be confirmed.

 

To simply refute something also has the meaning that someone is 'denying' the accuracy or truth of that something. Which is all you have done. You have not PROVEN that definition to be erroneous. In that regard, all you have done is state your opinion, absent any PROOF.

That is precisely what the definition is inferring. Now PROVE that definition and the inference to be in error. In other words, PROVE that "all beliefs, each and every single belief that is out there,,,, " is wrong.

My emotional state is not an issue in this thread, even though you seemingly would like to see an emotional state of mine being expressed.

Yet another attempt to turn this discussion toward 'emotions'... to cause this discussion to become emotional. Why do you desire such a thing?

Not according to the 2.c. definition. Therefore, PROVE that definition to be in error and quit leaning on personal opinions.

Yes! You can make that claim. Are you making that claim?

So you actually 'believe' that "eating twinkies gives you the ability to ignore gravity all day"? Well, it is not my belief nor my claim. That claim and obviously, that belief are yours. So, to you, it is true, it is real, and therefore, it is truth. Good luck with that one.

Whether someone else did as you did, would make no difference to you, as it is your belief, it is your claim, it is your 'fact'.

Seeing someone else do that flying thing, would only be an observation of what someone else did, and that the observation revealed someone else flying in the manner you described would only justify your 'belief'.

Now where is your PROOF that the 2.c. definition is in error?

 

No, you made the claim first, the onus is on you to prove that a mere belief is a fact. Just because it's a definition in a dictionary doesn't make it a fact, just a mere definition.

Mere belief is not fact, you can't prove that I am not correct, only dismiss in favor of what you're emotionally invested in.

It's YOU who have to prove that mere belief is a fact, which is something you cannot do.

 

2c is obviously not defintion of a fact. It is a possible usage of the word fact (something that is believed to be true) meaning that person thinks its a fact.

You are confusing colloquial language usage .. with what is actually a fact.

Just like the term "with child" meaning a woman is pregnant. The term does not mean that a child actually exists.


This definition which is also given in your link contradicts your usage of 2c.
2. a truth verifiable from experience or observation

 

Does that definition exist? Yes? Then there is your proof.

The very nature of you not providing any PROOF of any error in the definition of 'fact' is also evidence of you not having any evidence that the definition is in error. Until you can prove the definition is in error, then your claim regarding the definition being in error is a most egregious error.

See my opening comment of this post.

 

Sophistry, not proof, just argumentation.

It's a common tactic of people to try to turn the argument against another person when they can't prove their point.

Sophistry, just argumentation, not proof. provide real evidence that a mere belief is a fact.

You. The onus is on YOU.

YOU made the claim, you ahve to PROVE IT, and stop trying to turn the argument back onto me. That is a very dishonest form of argumentation.

 

Is the 2.c. definition a 'fact'? Yes! It exists; it has form within a dictionary; it occupies space and has weight. It is 'real' and it is 'evidence' "that a mere belief is a fact."

evidence:n.
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
tr.v. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es
1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
2. To support by testimony; attest."

The 2.c. definition of 'fact' meets all the highlighted criteria of 'evidence'.

 

2c is obviously not literal defintion of a fact. It is a possible usage of the word fact (something that is believed to be true) meaning that person thinks its a fact. This does not mean something that is believed to be true "is" a fact.

You are confusing colloquial language usage .. with what is actually a fact.

Just like the term "with child" meaning a woman is pregnant. The term does not mean that a child actually exists.


This definition which is also given in your link contradicts your usage of 2c.

2. a truth verifiable from experience or observation

 

Look further at the definition 2.c. It give an example wherein, the issue of 'fact' is expanded by placing an adjective in front of that word 'fact' and makes reference to "mistaken facts". Such as what you imply above. Because those facts are now recognized as 'mistaken facts', and still maintain the title of 'facts', then it is easy to see that those facts, though they are now recognized as 'mistaken facts', are still facts.

You are intentionally attempting to be dishonest with regard to a socially accepted definition of a word. That is very disingenuous.

Irrelevant and off topic. "with child" has no bearing on "fact".

No contradiction. See that word highlighted in red? That word is not 'experiment', but rather 'experience'; meaning the personal experience of an individual. Are you now going to attempt to disprove the various experience I have had during my lifetime?

 

You just do not understand how dictionaries work in that you do not understand the difference between what is considered colloquial language usage and what is a literal defiinition.

A "belief" is not "experience" necessarily.

I can believe the moon is made of green cheese but this does not make it a fact.

If I have experienced the taste of cheese mined from the moon it is a fact.

 

Are you now suggesting that 'colloquial' means of communication are not a reasonable means of communication?
"col·lo·qui·al (k-lkw-l)
adj.
1. Characteristic of or appropriate to the spoken language or to writing that seeks the effect of speech; informal.
2. Relating to conversation; conversational."

Perhaps you don't understand the words that you elect to use.

As for your imagining a moon made of green cheese.... You missed the key ingredients of the definition. "true" and "real". To merely 'believe' in something without 'believing' that something to be 'true' or 'real' does not make that something factual. Now had you stated "I believe that the moon is made of green cheese and is true and real.", then I would have stated that you have an interesting 'fact' floating around in your head. But because you do not hold that 'belief' that also contains the element of 'true' or 'real', then all I can say is that you are imagining things.

Please demonstrate a 'belief' that is 'not' "experience necessarily". In order to form a belief, there must of necessity (necessarily) be some form of 'experience' with that proposed 'belief'.

"ex·pe·ri·ence (k-spîr-ns)
n.
1. The apprehension of an object, thought, or emotion through the senses or mind: a child's first experience of snow.
2.
a. Active participation in events or activities, leading to the accumulation of knowledge or skill: a lesson taught by experience; a carpenter with experience in roof repair.
b. The knowledge or skill so derived.
3.
a. An event or a series of events participated in or lived through.
b. The totality of such events in the past of an individual or group."

IMHO, you really should get into studying the English language more so than you do ancient foreign languages that are no longer spoken in the same dialect that they were spoken ages ago.

have you tasted the cheese mined from the moon?