Here's the issue with transubstantiation. By the power of the Word, the things referred to as the body and blood of Christ, are actually the body and blood of Christ, because that is what they are called the body and blood of Christ. But this is only true by Faith in the power of the Word. — Metaphysician Undercover

Let me stop you there. I agree that it's a matter of faith. However, nothing is true by faith, whether you capitalise the first letter of the word or not.

"Faith" means the will to avoid knowing what is true.

Faith, indeed, has up to the present not been able to move real mountains, although I do not know who assumed that it could. But it can put mountains where there are none.

But the “deep“ thought can nevertheless be very far from the truth, as, for instance, every metaphysical one; if one takes away from the deep feeling the commingled elements of thought, then the strong feeling remains- and this guarantees nothing for knowledge but itself- just as strong faith proves only its strength and not the truth of what is believed in.

The fact that faith, under certain circumstances, may work for blessedness, but that this blessedness produced by an idee fixe by no means makes the idea itself true, and the fact that faith actually moves no mountains, but instead raises them up where there were none before: all this is made sufficiently clear by a walk through a lunatic asylum. — Nietzsche

But way more than one person has had a mystical experience. (Hey there! Now I'm back to making real arguments). — Noble Dust

Hey you! In all seriousness, though, I agree but each of those mystical experiences are individual and they do not share the same experience.

Right, but he's not considered to be the One True God come amongst mortals to save us from sin. — Agustino

Right, but that doesn't mean that Jesus Christ is unique to Christianity and unique amongst the religions, which is what you said. That only means that his full status is, which is something I never denied. So, you didn't word your claim properly, and you should therefore be more careful in future.

Muhammad is not of absolute importance. Allah is. Muhammad is merely the messanger and the prophet.

Yep, the centre of Islam is the One God Allah. — Agustino

Yes, Muhammad, in accordance with Islam, as I understand it, is only secondary in importance to Allah. Islam doesn't have that Trinity nonsense peculiar to Christianity. Although Muhammad is, nevertheless, and undeniably, a central figure in that religion, with a similar, albeit not identical, status as that of Jesus in accordance with Christianity.

Sure, Buddhism is a set of techniques. Has nothing to do with a particular historical figure - maybe Buddha never even was a historical figure. — Agustino

No, that's taking it way too far, and is very misleading. The tales of Buddha, whether he was a historical figure or not, and the underlying messages, are of great significance to Buddhism. Buddhism is named after the Buddha. Statues of the Buddha are so plentiful and recognisable that they're akin to the cross of Christianity or that image of Ché Guevara.

You can't know if it's unfalsifiable if you cannot even bring yourself to specify what predictions it makes. That's your own failing though. I've asked you multiple times already. — Agustino

No, I've addressed that. At first, I refused to humour you, and I explained why. Then, eventually, because you were so persistent, I answered you in a more engaging way here. So, the real question is: why aren't you addressing my response? And why should I persist in tolerating what seems to amount to nothing other than game playing from you?

Yeah so what? Emotions are also unfalsifiable, therefore they're unscientific. So that means they're mythical? Give me a break from first-grade reasoning. — Agustino

It's funny that you should mention emotions, because emotions are what I suspect leads you to jump to conclusions regarding what you interpret as mystical experiences.

I acknowledge emotions because I've experienced emotions. I have never, to the best of my knowledge, experienced the magical transformation that we're discussing. It's misleading of you to create the impression that science is all that matters to me. I mentioned elsewhere that without science, you'd still need good enough reason. You haven't provided good enough reason. I've explained why in response to the reasons you've given thus far.

That's not true that a mystical experience wouldn't leave physical traces behind. Such could be detected in the brains of those undergoing them. — Agustino

:-}

Really, Agustino? That's not what I meant. Do you think that I'd deny that? I wasn't talking about the experience, I was talking about the ghost. There wouldn't be any physical trace of the ghost that I experienced. So you'd only have my word to go by that the experience I had was indeed an experience of a ghost and nothing else. But my word is not enough. I could have misinterpreted what it was that I experienced as a ghost, meaning that, in fact, it might've been something else. That it was something other than a ghost is much more plausible.

This is analogous with testimony about transubstantiation or the resurrection of Christ.

Well, for one, I can conclude that mystical experiences do leave physical traces behind, and are scientific to that extent (we can judge whether or not someone really had a mystical experience). — Agustino

That's an irrelevant conclusion: an informal fallacy.

We cannot, however, scientifically study the inner meaning or significance of mystical experiences. That's not a failure either of science or of mystical experiences. It doesn't tell us mystical experiences are "mythical", or "unscientific" in a prejudiced sense. It just tells us that you're trying to cut a tree with a hammer. ;) — Agustino

No, I'm not. You're just not paying close enough attention. If I was trying to cut a tree with a hammer, I would be trying to misapply science. That's not what I'm trying to do. I'm making the point that if science cannot apply, which it cannot, given that it is unfalsifiable, then what else do we have to go by? You've attempted to provide good enough reason, but you have failed to do so, and some of your replies have been laughable.

Right, but that doesn't mean that Jesus Christ is unique to Christianity and unique amongst the religions, which is what you said. That only means that his status is. So you didn't word your claim properly, and you should therefore be more careful in future. — Sapientia

Okay, I see.

Yes, Muhammad, in accordance with Islam, as I understand it, is only second in importance to Allah. Although he is nevertheless, and undeniably, a central figure in that religion, with a similar, albeit not identical, status as that of Jesus in accordance with Christianity. — Sapientia

Glad you agree.

The tales of Buddha, whether he was a historical figure or not, and the underlying messages, are of great significance to Buddhism. Buddhism is named after the Buddha. Statues of the Buddha are so plentiful and recognisable that they're akin to the cross of Christianity or that image of Ché Guevara. — Sapientia

No, Buddha isn't important. What is important is salvation. That's why Bodhidharma says "if you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha". You really do have very little understanding of these matters, and that doesn't surprise me, since I don't suppose you've invested years of your life, as I have, studying the religions. So it's something to be expected, you cannot be good at something if you never engage with it. And I don't hold that against you, but you should be aware of it.

No, I've addressed that. At first, I refused to humour you, and I explained why. Then, eventually, because you were so persistent, I answered you in a more engaging way here. So, the real question is: why aren't you addressing my response? And why should I persist in tolerating what seems to amount to nothing other than game playing from you? — Sapientia

Because it was a red herring. I illustrate how below.

I'm not trying to argue that it's wrong internally, based on its own presuppositions. I wouldn't expect it to happen at all, because it is without precedent to the best of my knowledge. — Sapientia

What is the "it" that you wouldn't expect to happen? And please don't say transubstantiation, I want you to explain to me clearly what transubstantiation is, so that you can decide if it happens or not. So we're back to my original question. What would you expect to happen if transubstantiation were true? Even if you reject is because you don't agree with its presuppositions, you're supposed to be able to tell me what you would expect to happen if it were true.

I acknowledge emotions because I've experienced emotions. I have never, to the best of my knowledge, experienced the magical transformation that we're discussing — Sapientia

Yes you have - you've experienced horniness. That is a magical transformation. One time a girl means nothing to you, the next second she means everything. Something magical happened there. You don't call it magical only because you're so used to it, you've come to expect it.

Really, Agustino? That's not what I meant. Do you think that I'd deny that? I wasn't talking about the experience, I was talking about the ghost. There wouldn't be any physical trace of the ghost that I experienced. So you'd only have my word to go by that the experience I had was indeed an experience of a ghost and nothing else. But my word is not enough. I could have misinterpreted what it was that I experienced as a ghost, meaning that, in fact, it might've been something else. That is was something other than a ghost is much more plausible. — Sapientia

It's not analogous to the Christian revelation. The Christian revelation wasn't experienced by one or two people, but by literarily hundreads. One person's testimony, depending on circumstances, context, etc. may be worth nothing.

I'm making the point that if science cannot apply, which it cannot, given that it is unfalsifiable, then what else do we have to go by? — Sapientia

Science doesn't apply in many things that we do. It doesn't apply in economics for example, in sociology, in psychology, in history etc. etc.

unfalsifiable — Sapientia

It's not, I already showed that we can detect the effects of mystical experiences on the brain.

No, Buddha isn't important. What is important is salvation. That's why Bodhidharma says "if you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha". You really do have very little understanding of these matters, and that doesn't surprise me, since I don't suppose you've invested years of your life, as I have, studying the religions. So it's something to be expected, you cannot be good at something if you never engage with it. And I don't hold that against you, but you should be aware of it. — Agustino

I admit that I don't know a lot about Buddhism. But I could only take what you say with no more than a pinch of salt. I'd have to look into it further myself. For a start, this is what Wikipedia opens with on Buddhism:

Standing Buddha statue at the Tokyo National Museum. One of the earliest known representations of the Buddha, 1st–2nd century CE.

Buddhism is a religion and dharma that encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs and spiritual practices largely based on original teachings attributed to the Buddha and resulting interpreted philosophies.

Because it was a red herring. I illustrate how below. — Agustino

It wasn't.

What is the "it" that you wouldn't expect to happen? And please don't say transubstantiation, I want you to explain to me clearly what transubstantiation is, so that you can decide if it happens or not. So we're back to my original question. What would you expect to happen if transubstantiation were true? Even if you reject it because you don't agree with its presuppositions, you're supposed to be able to tell me what you would expect to happen if it were true. — Agustino

The answer to your first question is contained in the very comment from which you quoted! So you're still not paying close enough attention, and you still expect me to repeat myself:

If the doctrine rules out scientific evidence, and we're assuming that the doctrine is true, then obviously I wouldn't expect scientific evidence. — Sapientia

And the answer to the question of what I would expect ought to be obvious by implication. I shouldn't have to spell it out, especially not at this late stage of the discussion, and this is just one giant red herring in any case. But here goes: under the baseless assumption that what the doctrine says about transubstantiation is literally true, and under the assumption that the doctrine states or implies that there would be no observable difference, then, upon examination of the contents, after the ceremony, and after ingestion, I would expect to see digested - or partially digested - bread and wine.

Congratulations. What do you think that this has achieved? I bloody well expect you to answer that question. I think that you've achieved nothing other than wasting both of our time. And, if you dare to even suggest that this somehow proves me wrong and if it is because you've misunderstood my position, after all of the time that I've spent clarifying my position to you, then that will be the end of this discussion. So I urge you to carefully review what I've said in this discussion so far before prematurely reaching any conclusions.

Yes you have - you've experienced horniness. That is a magical transformation. — Agustino

>:O

One time a girl means nothing to you, the next second she means everything. Something magical happened there. You don't call it magical only because you're so used to it, you've come to expect it. — Agustino

That's not what I mean by magical, and I think that you know that, which would make this reply from you nothing more than sophistry. What you describe above is not supernatural, extraordinary, or miraculous. Again, the two are not comparable, and this is a red herring which I do not want to discuss any further. You should put your effort into defending transubstantiation rather than digressing about feeling horny over a girl. You have your work cut out for you as it is!

It's not analogous to the Christian revelation. The Christian revelation wasn't experienced by one or two people, but by literarily hundreads. One person's testimony, depending on circumstances, context, etc. may be worth nothing. — Agustino

It is analogous, and I think that you're being disingenuous, because I think that you're well aware that a lot more than one or two people claim to have experienced a ghost. If you're not aware, then look it up. According to one source, one in five American adults say they’ve seen or been in the presence of a ghost.

And, moreover, this sends us back in a circle to my response that that's a fallacious appeal to the masses.

Science doesn't apply in many things that we do. It doesn't apply in economics for example, in sociology, in psychology, in history etc. etc. — Agustino

That doesn't answer my question. I meant: what else have we got to go by in this case? You've cited testimony. In response, I've explained why anecdotal evidence is weak and insufficient. You've appealed to the masses. In response, I've identified that as an informal fallacy. Do you have anything else that I haven't already addressed?

It's not, I already showed that we can detect the effects of mystical experiences on the brain. — Agustino

I wasn't talking about that! How many times am I going to have to clarify this point before it sinks in?

Mystical experience 101: argue vehemently with non-believers that it exists. — Noble Dust

I do not, and have not once in this discussion, denied that mystical experience exists. Many nonbelievers accept that it exists. It's just that we might not think of it in the same way that believers do, and we certainly do not jump to the conclusions that believers do.

I've read that several times now, and I'm still confused about what you're trying to say. For a start, bread and wine don't express meanings. That makes no sense. I feel like I need a translator when conversing with you. — Sapientia

I mean there are different meanings of "literal." Catholics don't literally expect to see their bread turn into Jesus' flesh or wine run into blood.

They don't think Jesus is locked in a room, sitting ready to have a finger lobbed off and blood run at a whim, to be teleported to the appropriate location every time some takes a piece of bread and sip of wine.

And the testimony was of the nature "I think she was a witch". It wasn't of the form "I've seen the Risen Christ". — Agustino

In the case of Christians the testimony was of the nature of personal experience - seeing the risen Christ. In the case of witches, the testimony was of the nature "I think she's a witch". — Agustino

This is false and misleading, and this is not the first time that your historical ignorance has shown itself. Again, look it up. I just looked it up myself, and I found testimony of seeing witches flying through the winter mist. The allegation is, "She's a witch!". The testimony consists in "observations", like the "observations" regarding the supposed resurrection of Christ.

Let me stop you there. I agree that it's a matter of faith. However, nothing is true by faith, whether you capitalise the first letter of the word or not. — Sapientia

Sorry to have to shatter your illusion, but without faith, nothing is true. Without faith words have no meaning. And without meaning there can be no truth to the words. Truth and faith are fundamentally tied, such that all truth is dependent on faith. Have you not noticed that "trust" and "true" are of the same root?

Perhaps what you meant to say is "nothing is true by faith alone", and that would be debatable. However, "nothing is true by faith" is clearly false, because every truth requires faith, so in reality (which is far from where you live your life of illusion) everything is true by faith.

I mean there are different meanings of "literal." — TheWillowOfDarkness

I don't think that you're adding anything worthwhile to the discussion.

In accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical. Taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or exaggeration.

That's what "literal" means, in the relevant sense. That's what I mean.

An example would be calling someone a weasel. To take that literally would be to interpret it as saying that someone is a small, slender carnivorous mammal related to, but smaller than, the stoat, rather than a a deceitful or treacherous person.

Catholics don't literally expect to see their bread turn into Jesus' flesh or wine run into blood. — TheWillowOfDarkness

They don't expect to see it, but they do expect it to happen. If you think otherwise, then don't just assert it. Back it up. I find what T. Clark says about his wife, who he says is a thoughtful Catholic, more convincing than what you're saying about Catholics. Are you Catholic? Do you have a Catholic wife? Where are you getting your views about what Catholics think from?

They don't think Jesus is locked in a room, sitting ready to have a finger lobbed off and blood run at a whim, to be teleported to the appropriate location every time some takes a piece of bread and sip of wine. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I think it's just you. I don't think that you've got a good grasp of the discussion and the respective positions of those involved. No one here thinks that. Take away the exaggeration, and take away the explanation. It is taken literally, meaning that the bread and wine really do become the body and blood of Christ, and, from what I gather, it is considered to be mystical, which suggests that it is inexplicable, except as an act of God.

Sorry to have to shatter your illusion, but without faith, nothing is true. Without faith words have no meaning. And without meaning there can be no truth to the words. Truth and faith are fundamentally tied, such that all truth is dependent on faith. Have you not noticed that "trust" and "true" are of the same root?

Perhaps what you meant to say is "nothing is true by faith alone", and that would be debatable. However, "nothing is true by faith" is clearly false, because every truth requires faith, so in reality (which is far from where you live your life of illusion) everything is true by faith. — Metaphysician Undercover

The only illusion that you'd be shattering is the illusion that you would see sense, but I was never under that illusion to begin with.

I agree that a sentence requires words, and that its composition must be such as to render it meaningful, and that this is a prerequisite for it to be true. Meaning is rule based, and has nothing to do with faith. If X means Y, then X means Y, whether I have faith that it does or not.

But anyway, that is an aside. It is beside the point. Yes, truth depends on meaning, but my point was that truth also depends on fact, and faith and fact are two quite different things which are not always in sync, as the quotes of Nietzsche effectively illustrate.

Sorry to have to shatter your illusion, but without faith, nothing is true. Without faith words have no meaning. And without meaning there can be no truth to the words. — Metaphysician Undercover

If a child somehow depends upon "faith" to understand "clean your room" means clean your room, and a Catholic relies upon "faith" to believe in transubstantiation, surely "faith" has two different meanings.

If not, are you suggesting I have as legitimate a right to believe in unicorns as I do transubstantiation as I do rocks?

Take away the exaggeration, and take away the explanation. It is taken literally, meaning that the bread and wine really do become the body and blood of Christ, and, from what I gather, it is considered to be mystical, which suggests that it is inexplicable, except as an act of God. — Sapientia

I'm not exaggerating. My example was what would have to be true if people believed bread and wine were "literally" flesh and blood, under the definition you were using. That would be our test for confirmation/falsification: have the bread and wine been replaced by flesh and blood from the person of Jesus.

If this replacement it not held to occur, then no empirical claim of "bread and wine turn into the flesh and blood of Jesus" has been make. Without holding this exaggerated position, the Catholic is not making an empirical claim, so we would have nothing to dismiss on those grounds.

Actually yes, for your child to clean his room when he is told to "clean your room" he must have faith that those words correspond to the actions that you expect him to undertake. There are psychological conditions (including schizophrenia) which can develop out of double-binds of the form of the parent saying one thing, but really meaning another as illustrated through his action - that confuses the child and makes him lose his/her faith in language and the possibility of communication, including communication with one's self. And a child's faith is not difficult to shake.

If this replacement it not held to occur, then there is claim of "bread and wine turn into the flesh and blood of Jesus" which is empirical and subject to testing. — TheWillowOfDarkness

The Catholic position is that the replacement is actual and literal. That it is empirically unverifiable is part of the supposed mystery of it. Your ridiculing of the idea that somehow Jesus' actual blood finds it way to every mass is the actual Catholic position.

The Catholic position is that the replacement is actual and literal. — Hanover

No, that's not what the Catholic understands by actual and literal. If you go from looking at a girl and not being horny to looking at a girl and being horny, the girl for you literally and actually changes - what she means for you has changed - of course we don't mean by that that the girl physically has changed in any way.

This isn't entirely responsive. Is the child's faith the same faith as the Catholic's and why doesn't my faith in unicorns establish the existence of unicorns to the same extent rocks exist?

This isn't entirely responsive. Is the child's faith the same faith as the Catholic's and why doesn't my faith in unicorns establish the existence of unicorns to the same extent rocks exist? — Hanover

Why do you think faith can establish existence by itself?

Faith may help you discover the existence of something, but it cannot establish it. For example, you have faith that this woman won't cheat on you if you marry her. You need the faith to commit to marrying her, otherwise you wouldn't marry her and would never find out that she won't cheat on you. But faith doesn't by itself make it true that she won't cheat on you either. It's just a condition for the possibility of it.

I'm not exaggerating. — TheWillowOfDarkness

If you weren't exaggerating, then I have no reason to take you seriously, and I see little reason in reading any further. I'm not going to take talk of Jesus being locked in a room, waiting to have his finger lobbed off, teleportation, and the like, seriously.

If, on the other hand, you concede that that was merely exaggeration, seemingly for comic effect, and does not accurately portray the position of anyone in this discussion, then we might be able to move on and have a serious discussion.

My example was what would have to be true if people believed bread and wine were "literally" flesh and blood, under the definition you were using. That would be our test for confirmation/falsification: have the bread and wine been replaced by flesh and blood from the person of Jesus. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, because, as I explained, and as others have explained, they believe that the transformation is mystical and cannot be verified or falsified by science.

Your understanding of transubstantion is simply incorrect. Your analogy offers no change at all in the girl, but a change of opinion in guy. If all you're saying is that you feel differently about the wafer but the wafer is the same old wafer, you're not talking about transubstantiation.

That's a different sort of faith. In religious contexts, faith is an absolute trust in a foundational belief that permits an entire worldview to develop.

All I'm doing is pointing out what would be required to have a testable claim of Jesus's flesh and blood appearing. Since the Catholic doesn't make this claim, your objection doesn't make sense. They aren't even supposing the bread and wine are empirically Jesus's flesh and blood in the first place. You don't have an empirical claim of "flesh and blood" to falsify when only bread and wine are empirically present.

My point is you are getting the science wrong. You are treating a claim without empirical claim like it is one-- much like how the very silly Russell treats the "unfalsifiable God" in his teapot madness.

All I'm doing is pointing out what would be required to have a testable claim of Jesus's flesh and blood appearing. Since the Catholic doesn't make this claim, your objection doesn't make sense. They aren't even supposing the bread and wine are empirically Jesus's flesh and blood in the first place. You don't have an empirical claim of "flesh and blood" to falsify when only bread and wine are empirically present.

My point is you are getting the science wrong. You are treating a claim without empirical claim like it is one. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, you just don't understand my position, which is more your problem than it is mine. How much of what I've said have you actually read? I've explained it enough times now. Enough is enough! I'm too tired to deal with straw men. You need to put more effort in.

I understood you position perfectly. You keep saying the Catholic has made a dubious/falsified claim claim about the blood and wine:

Yes I do, in the sense that some evidence is much weaker than others, which is the sense in which I meant what I said. That's why I said that it's not real evidence, as in, it's so weak as to be effectively discounted. Think of a court of law as a point of comparison. Some evidence is inadmissible. Some evidence falls far short, such that winning a case becomes highly unlikely. Some evidence is like a smoking gun or being caught red handed — Sapientia

My point is an account like this doesn't make sense because transubstantiation doesn't make any claim for which there is evidence. It rejects there is empirical the presence of flesh and blood, and the possibility of any evidence goes with it. In literal terms, the Catholic is holding: "This is not (empirically) the flesh and blood of Jesus, it's not the empirical state of his body which would appear to us."

No, Willow, you really have not understood. If you had've understood, then you wouldn't be attributing to me the opposite of what I've been saying, and what I've been clarifying recently and repeatedly.

For that reason, and because you are so adamant, I am not going to discuss this with you any further. I stand by my earlier statement that you have not added anything worthwhile to this discussion.

...but you haven't been arguing the opposite to me. When I responded about the issue with treating it as a matter of evidence, you insisted a claim to which evidence was supposedly relevant.

They don't expect to see it, but they do expect it to happen. If you think otherwise, then don't just assert it. Back it up. I find what T. Clark says about his wife, who he says is a thoughtful Catholic, more convincing than what you're saying about Catholics. Are you Catholic? Do you have a Catholic wife? Where are you getting your views about what Catholics think from? — Sapientia

Catholics cannot expect it to happen empirically. There is no separation between the empirical and how an empirical state appears to us.

The underlying question here is: what does it even mean for it to happen? Since it is not empirical, what is even at stake in transubstantiation? What would it mean for it to be true? What would an expectation it was true entail? What does it even mean to say its true or false?

These seem to be the questions you aren't asking and answering. Even as you accept Agustino's account that its unfalsifiable (which I missed, being in one of many quote trees), you keep talking in terms of some contingent event which would be true or false by some sort of evidence-- such that we would have to have "faith" it was or was not so, due to evidence not arbiting either way.

Meaning is rule based, and has nothing to do with faith. If X means Y, then X means Y, whether I have faith that it does or not. — Sapientia

You sure have an odd set of rules. It allows you to equate two distinct things, "X means Y". Isn't that no different from saying "bread means body"? I see no reason to believe your rules are any better than the rules of transubstantiation.

If a child somehow depends upon "faith" to understand "clean your room" means clean your room, and a Catholic relies upon "faith" to believe in transubstantiation, surely "faith" has two different meanings.

If not, are you suggesting I have as legitimate a right to believe in unicorns as I do transubstantiation as I do rocks? — Hanover

The point I made, is that the items referred to as the body and blood of Christ are actually the body and blood of Christ, because this is what they are called. These are their names. Likewise, I am actually Metaphysician Undercover, because I am the object referred to by this name. And, the thing referred to as the child's "room" is actually the child's room because this is what it is called.

Faith is required, because if someone says no, that is not the body of Christ, which you are calling "the body of Christ", that is what I want to call a cracker, then for that person the thing referred to is not the body of Christ, it is the cracker. For the others, who have faith, then the thing called 'the body of Christ" is really the body of Christ, because that is what it is named, "the body of Christ".

I am only Metaphysician Undercover by means of the faith that those have who believe that this is the proper name to call me. If everyone started to think that they should call me something else, so they programed the computer to put my name in another way, then despite my insistence that you ought to call me by Metaphysician Undercover, I would be known by that other name.

Likewise, if the child has faith that the thing called "your room" is really its room, then the child will believe this, and know what is referred to by "your room". But if the child has no faith in this, and thinks that the thing referred to as "your room", really has a different name, and the child only knows that thing by the different name, for some reason not learning "your room", then it will not understand "clean your room" when told to clean its room.

That sounds like knowledge to me, someone knows the meaning of something, not "faith."

In this respect, people might well ought to call you Metaphysician Undercover in the situation you describe. People can fail to understanding meanings/ascribe the wrong one.

I honestly don't see anything patently absurd. — Agustino

That's the problem.

What would be sufficient then? — Agustino

I don't know if you have any recourse left to you that would be sufficient. Testimony, as I said, is not enough. Appealing to the masses is invalid. It isn't an a priori truth. The claim, by its nature, rules out empirical evidence. It is unfalsifiable. The best that you can do in that regard is point to evidence that you've had a mystical experience, which is still not enough, since that is just to say that you've had an experience, or a funny feeling, or a brain fart, that you feel like you can't properly explain, meaning that you feel like you can't do so without begging the question by appealing to dubious supernatural elements which in turn carry with them a burden of proof which I doubt you can satisfy.

Right, it's based on historical documents. I grant that Alexander went to India and fought there, etc. based on very few historical references - much fewer than when it comes to the death and resurrection of Christ. So why don't you go up in arms about granting factual or historical status to Alexander's conquests, but you're so upset when it comes to Jesus? The Bible does say that the Cross will be a scandal for unbelievers. — Agustino

For the reasons I've given. You're comparing apples and oranges. Both are fruit, yes. But that's beside the point.

Sure, and I think we do have extraordinary evidence. — Agustino

>:O

Again, that's the problem.

St. Paul said that if Christ has not Risen, then the faith is in vain. He was right about that. — Agustino

No, he wasn't. The ethics is what matters. Living by example is what matters. The metaphysics can, and should, be scrapped. That aspect of it should be treated as an interesting historical work, and nothing more.

That sounds like knowledge to me, someone knows the meaning of something, not "faith."

In this respect, people might well ought to call you Metaphysician Undercover in the situation you describe. People can fail to understanding meanings/ascribe the wrong one. — TheWillowOfDarkness

When the issue is the naming of objects with words, as is the case with "Metaphysician Undercover", "the body of Christ", "the blood of Christ", and "the child's room", then understanding and knowledge consists of being able to establish the appropriate relationships between the words and the objects. No understanding of "meaning" is required. What is required is faith, or trust, that these words ought to be related to these objects.