Message from @Beemann
Discord ID: 508800301843873792
predictive models should be repeatable
"you will have a lot of followers" isnt a repeatable standard
in fact, I'm hard pressed to think of one single biblical event that matches a repeatable standard, or forms a predictive model
If we're gauging the truth of the Abrahamic faith by the metric he proposed, what you suggested is that we'd need more instances of God naming Abraham the father of many nations and that religion accomplishing that. So if you're asking how many planets in which that person was told by God that, then I'm afraid we only have 1 that we know of
no, thats not what I suggested
I'm saying for something to be a predictive model, you need to be able to replicate the results and have the same thing happen
so I drop a rock, I predict it will fall, it falls. As long as I'm dropping that rock on earth, it will fall
Like revivals happening?
I have a model that states exactly how fast the rock will fall
sure, if you have a process to revive people that is repeatable and observable, let me know
you'll upend the medical community overnight
You just assume a model doesn’t exist because you don’t have the means to test it.
no, I'm asking you to prove a model exists, because otherwise you cant disbelieve anything
Revivals also refer to people coming back faith. Should have clarified
this gets back to the "how do you know it wasnt just Zeus"
That's the problem with induction, if we're being logically consistent. We can't actually prove that the experiment happened exactly the way you described. Materially it probably did, but if we're making a claim about objective reality, it's impossible (and irrelevant)
Even following this logic, you're making a transcendental argument
"If we're making a claim about objective reality"
The model predicts regardless of belief
@Beemann because Greek mythology died.
people did not initially believe Quantum Physics worked
so because traditional family values died and we have a postmodern shithole society, the latter is good and the former is bad?
It depends on a lot more than those attributes, I'd agree
Like the notion that something is untrue because people stopped believing it in large enough numbers sets you up for a lot of awkward positions
Its the pre stream not working for anyone else?
@Beemann being raised in a traditional family doesn’t automatically make a better person. Predicting people isn’t like dropping a rock.
And Islamists often make the case that their religion is growing greater than Christianity, thus Islam is true. So I'm not lost on that
@RoadtoDawn how does that work?
no, but clearly it's a "less true" system, on the level of the Greek pantheon no?
Truth of that is, islamists force their women to stay home. they have nothing to do, so they make babies. lots of babies
and when Greece was doing well, was it temporarily true?
or is truth just something we find out retroactively?
so many babies that are forced to believe the same religion
that too
if Islam overtakes Christianity, was it true all along? Will you renounce your faith?
That gets back to what I was saying about number of adherents. Not everyone converts, but the numbers for conversions are astounding.
doesnt equate to proof
Logically, of course
@Commissar_Farari which part?
Math works regardless of how many people believe or disbelieve
And Islamists often make the case that their religion is growing greater than Christianity, thus Islam is true. So I'm not lost on that
This one