Thought Experiment

[ding]

Very selective.
It's one of the methods used to archive stories, to retell them.
But other cultures did this too. You insinuate the word "important", attached to the methodology of mythopoeism.
Were the "important" stories told in ancient Asia, ancient Africa, or ancient America any less valid than your personal favorite?

There were critics then as now.
So the stories that were shot down by critics are forgotten.
It's the stories that withstood superficial scrutiny that endured, until Galileo, etc.

You may not be aware of it d #94, but you are flailing.
You might find it more refined to pick a side based on science rather than emotion. Reinforcing prejudice is rarely covert.

Define the topic.
Consider the facts. Or in your case, consider the absence of facts.

No. Objective. Selective would be reading allegorical accounts literally to dismiss them.

Here is what the allegorical account of Genesis is saying?

1. God created existence
2. Everything he created is good
3. What he created was done in steps
4. Man is a product of that creation
5. Man is unlike any other creature in creation; only man has knowledge of good and evil
6. Man is made in God’s image in that he is a being which knows and creates
7. Man was told to go forth and be fruitful
8. Man was told to do as the original creator; to create for 6 days and then rest
9. Man knows right from wrong
10. Rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong when man does wrong, he rationalizes he didn’t do wrong
11. Successful behaviors naturally lead to success
12. Failed behaviors naturally lead to failure
13. Pass it down to the next generation

What is selective about this?

 

[JohnDB]

All dictionaries are pretty similar. Thousands of years of language studies and documentation of usages are impossible to fake so as to invent new and different definitions for words that have been used for centuries

Welcome to this line of discussion....

Just so that I'm clear on what you are saying...
You are claiming that over the centuries a similarly minded group of individuals tested and verified that the vast majority of people in a region found a similar result when using the words described in this dictionary...they used a similar formula for verifying the definitions and spellings as people in the past and came to the conclusions that everyone recognized as true.
Correct?

 

[sear]

Here is what the allegorical account of Genesis is saying?
2. Everything he created is good

If "everything he created is good" what did he need Noah & the ark for? Saddam & Gemutlich? (you're welcome za)

god created nuns, but not bank robbers?

d #101
I understand why one might wish there to be only one accepted method for reading our Holy Bible.
But first of all, unless YOU are god, you lack the authority to declare any specific approach the only acceptable approach.

Rather than bickering abstractions, YOU quote a brief scriptural passage YOU find meaningful, relevant here. Then YOU offer your interpretation. Then we can see if my approach is inferior. OK?

“Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?” ― Epicurus (341-270BC)

 

[sear]

So you believe that the group of people who make and publish certain dictionaries to be more truthful in their writings.
How did you come to that conclusion?

All dictionaries are pretty similar. Thousands of years of language studies and documentation of usages are impossible to fake so as to invent new and different definitions for words that have been used for centuries

My sincere thanks to you both.
Not sure where you're headed JB.
I wouldn't have chosen the word "truthful". I'd have chosen words such as "articulate", "concise", "precise", "informative", etc. I doubt there's much fraud awash in dictionary publishing. But English is a powerful but potentially user hostile tool. I strive to make best use of it that I can.

Example of ill-chosen words:
Everybody doesn't strangle the aardvark, (or whatever). What is often meant with such usage is: Not everybody does strangle the aardvark, (or whatever).

In formal debate, following introductions & reprising the debate resolve, defining terms is the routine protocol.
In law courts crimes are defined by words.

I used to use Winston's unabridged as a child, a useful if bulky reference. I consider the OED the gold standard. BUT !! As Sir Winston Churchill so aptly put it, the U.S. & the U.K. are separated by a common language. There are differences. And though I have been criticized for using numerical counter-examples in these fora, I'll cite one here as well.
In the U.K. there's a word: "trillion". We have the same word, same spelling in the Americas. BUT !!
- In the U.K. one trillion is: 1,000,000,000,000,000,000
- In the U.S. one trillion is: 1,000,000,000,000
That's a difference of six orders of magnitude.
SO !! "When in Rome ...". When in the U.S. I keep the OED close by, but I rely daily on AHD, my personal preference.

And for any of those that want AHD to be your personal preference too, it's simple.
a) Pick 5 words whose definition might be tricky, words such as hiccup, or friction.
b) Obtain their definitions as listed in any other U.S. English dictionary, YOUR choice. Then
c) Contrast those definitions to those listed in AHD.
For purpose of this discussion I've done this, and chose AHD. After you've completed the exercise, your choice will be yours.

 

[Grumblenuts]

- In the U.K. one trillion is: 1,000,000,000,000,000,000

Originally, the United Kingdom used the long scale trillion but since 1974, official UK statistics have used the short scale. Since the 1950s, the short scale has been increasingly used in technical writing and journalism, although the long scale definition still has some limited usage.[1]

 

[daveman]

Well, there's this whole personal relationship thing.
I have a relationship with my wife...
I have a relationship with my son
Parents, in-laws, cousins, Aunt's, Uncle's and etc.
I have many friendships as well...
I behave in a fashion of relationship with them and they reciprocate in a similar fashion...

And that includes my relationship with God.
Not that it's really all that comfortable when I gain a bit more of His attention than normal...
Its a bit scary to have focus from the One who can do anything and is beyond perfect.

I agree. But our experience is not what anyone else would consider evidence. These are usually the people who have little understanding of faith. They demand evidence for God's existence, not understanding that faith precludes evidence.

 

[daveman]

How can you prove it?

I can't...just as science can't prove the prevailing theory of the origin of the universe.

 

[daveman]

I don't think I could disprove that. I have a unicorn stuffed up my ass that tells me the future. No one else can see it. Now... how could you disprove this?

Outside of a rectal exam, I probably couldn't. But...being unable to see your prophetic, ass-dwelling unicorn is not sufficient proof that it doesn't exist. Does it leave a unicorn-shaped cavity in your colon? Could said cavity be observed with an endoscope?

 

[JohnDB]

My sincere thanks to you both.
Not sure where you're headed JB.
I wouldn't have chosen the word "truthful". I'd have chosen words such as "articulate", "concise", "precise", "informative", etc. I doubt there's much fraud awash in dictionary publishing. But English is a powerful but potentially user hostile tool. I strive to make best use of it that I can

Well, like I said....it isn't a trick question...
When I asked about truthfulness I meant just that...you believe in it's truthfulness based on what evidence?

You don't believe that anyone would commit fraud when creating a dictionary.

That's what I'm talking about.

 

[dblack]

Outside of a rectal exam, I probably couldn't. But...being unable to see your prophetic, ass-dwelling unicorn is not sufficient proof that it doesn't exist. Does it leave a unicorn-shaped cavity in your colon? Could said cavity be observed with an endoscope?

Nope. It defies all evidence.

 

[Blues Man]

Welcome to this line of discussion....

Just so that I'm clear on what you are saying...
You are claiming that over the centuries a similarly minded group of individuals tested and verified that the vast majority of people in a region found a similar result when using the words described in this dictionary...they used a similar formula for verifying the definitions and spellings as people in the past and came to the conclusions that everyone recognized as true.
Correct?

I wouldn't say true I would say agreed upon definitions based on the study of hundreds of years of a language, it's evolution and usage.

We all know that usage can change over time thus the definitions can change.

The word gay is a prime example of that.

 

[Blues Man]

I can't...just as science can't prove the prevailing theory of the origin of the universe.

So the thought experiment is just a hypothetical question with no answer.

 

[emilynghiem]

In this experiment, there was no universe and therefore nothing existed 11 minutes ago. No matter, no energy, no physical space.

Then God created the universe 10 minutes ago, exactly as it is right now, with all the evidence it's billions of years old built-in, with the light from distant stars created in transit, and us with all our memories of a lifetime in place.

Now...how could you disprove this? NOTE: Emotions are not proof. Hostility to God and insistence He's not real is not proof.

Like any other theory or belief about God:
Neither could this be proven or disproven.

What we can achieve is agreement if this is the case or not.

We could reach an agreed understanding, meaning or definition of what God represents, and yet never prove or disprove it.

Same with your proposal, daveman.

The question is WHICH definition(s) or meaning(s) will people AGREE to use God to represent?

Will they pick your theory or something else?

What will bring us to consensus?

 

[ding]

If "everything he created is good" what did he need Noah & the ark for? Saddam & Gemutlich? (you're welcome za)

god created nuns, but not bank robbers?

d #101
I understand why one might wish there to be only one accepted method for reading our Holy Bible.
But first of all, unless YOU are god, you lack the authority to declare any specific approach the only acceptable approach.

Rather than bickering abstractions, YOU quote a brief scriptural passage YOU find meaningful, relevant here. Then YOU offer your interpretation. Then we can see if my approach is inferior. OK?

“Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?” ― Epicurus (341-270BC)

If you keep reading allegorical accounts literally I’m going to start questioning your intelligence.

 

[JohnDB]

I wouldn't say true I would say agreed upon definitions based on the study of hundreds of years of a language, it's evolution and usage.

We all know that usage can change over time thus the definitions can change.

The word gay is a prime example of that.

What?
Are You claiming that a modern American dictionary is full of spelling errors and wrong definitions?

 

[daveman]

Nope. It defies all evidence.

Okay. Then I can't think of any method to disprove it.

 

[daveman]

So the thought experiment is just a hypothetical question with no answer.

Kinda like astrophysics, innit?

 

[daveman]

Like any other theory or belief about God:
Neither could this be proven or disproven.

What we can achieve is agreement if this is the case or not.

We could reach an agreed understanding, meaning or definition of what God represents, and yet never prove or disprove it.

Same with your proposal, daveman.

The question is WHICH definition(s) or meaning(s) will people AGREE to use God to represent?

Will they pick your theory or something else?

What will bring us to consensus?

I have no idea. People are deeply attached to their beliefs; not many will want to change them, no matter what's presented -- especially where God is involved.

 

[emilynghiem]

I have no idea. People are deeply attached to their beliefs; not many will want to change them, no matter what's presented -- especially where God is involved.

^ That's what I'm saying daveman
LET each person keep their natural beliefs.
Like having a Native Language.
Why not just translate between systems and learn what other people/lamguages use to describe the same principles, relations or equivalent/parallel concepts.

Idaho faith: Keeping open heart, mind to other religions, cultures enriches your life

Statesman religion columnist Said Ahmed-Zaid reflects on just a little of the interfaith work and learning he has done in Boise.

news.yahoo.com

Fort Fun Indiana

Someone just posted an article/op ed about appreciating different religions.

Maybe we are getting closer to getting over ourselves and not fearing that different approaches have to be adverse or in conflict with each other.

In these pandemic times, if we can finally accept that people have different beliefs and ways, and quit trying to FORCE everyone to comply by imposing by dominance, we could lay off the political pressure and focus on how to coordinate between people and groups regardless of differences in policies and approach.

I hope that something better comes from all this chaos, conflict and confusion.

Just pure acceptance is a start.
Recognizing we cannot expect anyone to change their belief system, much less force them to by attacking, bullying or insults. Much less by coercing and oppressing people through govt.

When these ways come to an end, maybe we can try listening to each other and finding ways that work and build solutions that way. Not imposing by collective force by groups trying to dominate each other. But really respecting individual ways and quit expecting or trying to force everyone to believe the same way.

When has that ever worked???

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Just pure acceptance is a start.
Recognizing we cannot expect anyone to change their belief system, much less force them to by attacking, bullying or insults. Much less by coercing and oppressing people through govt.

Tell that to the leftist Democrats in America Please.