I will answer some question in this post, one is why do I believe in Jesus well because I believe is because when I ask him into my heart I will be in heaven one day. Next is aren't you afraid of being some what pursacuted (I spelled pursacuted wrong twice) over the internet and the answer is no why is because what they say doesn't matter only God's opinion matters because he created us and loves all even though some of you don't believe in him . To end this well I guess I should proof read my stuff before posting it.
I will answer some question in this post, one is why do I believe in Jesus well because I believe is because when I ask him into my heart I will be in heaven one day.
...You believe that's what will happen.
Next is aren't you afraid of being some what pursacuted (I spelled pursacuted wrong twice) over the internet and the answer is no why is because what they say doesn't matter only God's opinion matters because he created us and loves all even though some of you don't believe in him .
Err...you kind of wandered off topic there. But fair enough.
To end this well I guess I should proof read my stuff before posting it.
Is English your second language?
I have a question from the first thread that you still have not answered in this one, which I think is pretty basic: what religion are you, actually? Christian? Mormon? Jewish? Muslim? Protestant? Lutheran? Episcopalian? Specifically, what denomination of faith do you classify yourself as?
Second of all, why do you believe in Jesus? Not the whole "because if I believe in him I'll go to heaven" spiel, I mean why do you believe that any of this is true? Why do you believe there is a heaven? Why do you believe that the Bible is accurate? Why do you believe Jesus was the messiah? Stuff like that.
If we all were to accept theories as fact the scientific world would be a very stagnant place.
Well, what we consider as facts can and does change over time so I don't see what is wrong with calling anything which has much evidence backing it up as fact.
Just wondering - how do you come up with your statistics and percentages for "certainty" so I can calculate them.
I am not trying to quantify certainty, just agreeing that we cannot be absolutely certain. And when I say high certainty, I don't try to give some kind of number like 98% certain or such, because that would just be making up numbers, only that it is much more likely true than not, which is subjective. Why would you wan't to calculate them? I said that abstract concepts that we hold like x=x is certainly true, but everything we have observed in the universe could have been just a concidence no matter how small the chance of that is. I won't try to give you numbers because that would be impossible. I hold the position that despite this, it is stupid to try to use lack of absolute certainty as a reason to deny theories.
I hold the position that despite this, it is stupid to try to use lack of absolute certainty as a reason to deny theories.
I don't deny the theory.
Well, what we consider as facts can and does change over time so I don't see what is wrong with calling anything which has much evidence backing it up as fact.
Often if we are tenacious enough to call something a fact it's difficult to understand that it may not be a fact, by refraining from calling it a fact I'm keeping my mind open to the possibility (no matter how small) that it may not be true.
And when I say high certainty, I don't try to give some kind of number like 98% certain or such, because that would just be making up numbers, only that it is much more likely true than not, which is subjective.
What I want to know, driejen, is how you can say that one thing is "almost 100% certain" while another thing is not as certain, but still quite certain. How do you create the hierarchy of certainty that defines the theory and the postulate? Where's the fine line?
All I wanted to share was that no theory is 100% certain but this doesn't mean they should all be deemed false. Why are you asking me how to measure certainty? There is no fine line, just that something which is almost certain has large amounts of evidence and takes into account everything we have observed and has great predictive capabilities while less certain is that which cannot explain everything we can observe and has less evidence backing it up. And what hierarchy are you talking about? I only differentiated between something which we can never be absolutely 100% certain about(observations) and things we can be certain about(abstract concepts like 1+1=2).
I'd like to know what exactly distinguishes postulate from theory.
if im not mistaken, a postulate doesnt require proof but is assumed to be true.. and a theory has been thoroughly tested so that a majority of people believe it to be true
if im not mistaken, a postulate doesnt require proof but is assumed to be true.. and a theory has been thoroughly tested so that a majority of people believe it to be true
Yeah true, but I interpret his usage of postulate as absolute truth so that we can continue the conversation.
things we can be certain about(abstract concepts like 1+1=2.
I'd like to ask you a very simple yet tricky question - can you prove beyond the shadow of a doubt the commutative property of addition? I will be very impressed if you do.
<into doubtful-of-commutative-property mode>OK driejen, tell me exactly why I should believe that if you add up things different ways you'll come up with the same answer</mode>
I'm not qualified to accept your challenge. But I still don't get your purpose for asking me about levels of certainty to begin with or what you were trying to prove.
ok first off... i dont think you can just cancel the 6s out of numbers? ive never done that (im also heavily dependent on calculators.. so i could be wrong :P) but 4/1=4.. every time... because if you try to put 1 into 4.. you can do it 4 times
