Community >> View Post
·
Post By
Deborah

In Reply To
Would be Watcher

Location: Canada
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Subj: Re: I think, if we are to continue this, we will have to make sure we mean the same things when we use some words...
Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 03:26:15 pm EDT
Reply Subj: I think, if we are to continue this, we will have to make sure we mean the same things when we use some words...
Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 05:58:03 pm EDT (Viewed 799 times)

Previous Post


> \:D Sorry, but I gotta disagree with you there. First, as a rule, I disagree with anyone who tries to tell someone else what/how that other person thinks. \:\-P Everything to you might revolve around faith, and that is fine, but not everyone works that way.
>

...but first, I'm sorry if you felt I was telling people what they think. It was not my intention. I also agree we have different beleifs and it's also perfectly fine with me. However, I suggest those not comfortable with what I say, says so and stop replying after OR stop replying period because I won't yield a point because I made people unhappy. I'll stop the debate if it cause too much trouble but I won't change my mind because people ask for it. If they want that, they'll have to work for it like I do. My goal is not to convert people. Considering the topic it might be hard to draw a line because making your point as different consequences but if thats the case it would be collateral dammage and not my aim.

> Second, and more to the topic, I disagree with the line you are trying to blurr between faith and fact. Faith by definition is believing in the unseen and/or the unprovable.
>

Then why do you disagree with me fair lady since it's exactly what I say? The problem I can foresee is we don't share the same definition of what a FACT is. That indeed can be very problematic if we continue this discussion because we will never agree.

So just to eliminate some potential obstacles I'll clarify my position on what is a fact for *ME*. What your 5 senses reports you is not a fact. It's a reasonably good enought fact but it's definitly not unchallengeable. Why do I say so? Because you have as much proof of the validity of the info your brain receive as you have there is a GOD. So by definition reality, in it's purest sense, is indeed unprovable and everything build on it, science included, is not an absolute fact. We accept it as a fact because we would go crazy not doing so but *I* think we have no way of knowing. Therefore, living is indeed believing in the unseen and/or the unprovable. You can chose not to follow me and thats perfectly acceptable but *I* think you have no way of proving my suspision are unfounded just like an atheist can't prove god inexistance or a theist god existance.

Is it clearer said like that?


> In everyday life, there are plenty of things that *are* facts. Such as what time it is. If someone's watch is wrong doesn't change the fact that it is still a specific time. Owning a house is a fact. Having a job is a fact. Sipping a glass of water is a fact.
>

Again the definition of what a fact constitute is of a primordial importance. What to you is a fact? Your existance? OK sure. But what else?

> Furthermore, science deals with trying to learn and verify facts. That doesn't mean questions and theories do not exist or that science has the answers to everything, but taking something on faith, or presenting guesses or theories as fact isn't part of science.

Science use what is observable to build itself. But we have 0 garantee what is true today isn't a minor cosmic coincidence or will still be true tomorow. Science will never be sturdier that the bases on whitch it lies. I REALLY like the scientific approach but I'm force to admit that I have to trust what I observe for it to have any value. Science demonstrate fact if we don't challenge what we observe. After all science always refine itself endlessly to better reflect the new understanding we think we have of things. What we 'know' today might well be tomorows laughting stock and so on and so forth.


:-) Ok, as to the question of "what is a fact?", I'd say that the five senses definitely consitute legitimate means of verifying facts. They are indeed the whole basis of science. If you want to distrust them that's your right of course, but aspects of your post seemed to have much more to do with existential philosophy than with science. Then of course humans have also created all kinds of scientific instruments that are even more sensitive, and that can go beyond our senses (such as detecting magnetism, etc.).




Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software