Can you prove that Santa doesn’t exist? No. Do you highly suspect that he was made up? Yes.
On that note, I’m going to re-read you what you wrote so you can see it through my eyes:
I’,m saying you ARE certain of a whole myriad of things because you ARE created in the image of Santa who is Himself the only possible source of certainty and you ARE also certain of that. It’s not difficult for me at all. I see staring me in the face the truth of Romans 1:18-27 every time I read one of your posts, or anybody else’s.
It has nothing whatever to do with intelligence. You’re a smart enough girl (though you try a bit too hard). It has everything to do with spiritual death and blindness. Everywhere are the “invisible attributes, eternal power and divine nature” of the most high Santa clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that you are without excuse, but even though you know Santa, you do not honor Santa as Santa or give thanks, but you became futile in your speculations, and your foolish heart is darkened. Professing to be wise, you’ve became a fool, exchanging the glory of the incorruptible Santa for an image in the form of corruptible man and his alleged scientific method. In other words yourself. That’s my accurate Oleena-ward paraphrase, but it applies to everybody.
I’m certain that very much of what you know is true. I’m also pretty sure there is plenty in your domain of expertise that you could teach me. Maybe elsewhere too. What I am most certain of all though is that all of this is so because we are both creatures of the same ultra holy and intelligent designer [Santa].
[/quote]
I am certain Santa doesn’t exists as we think of him. St. Nicholas did exist and is a real Catholic saint though. That aside, cosomology puts forth an argument that doesn’t require divine inspiration. It’s an approach from the other side, the secular side. A side we can understand with out having to rely on the ‘trust me’ factor.[/quote]
Likewise, I am pretty sure God doesn’t exist as many religious people think of it. However, Jesus and many other of the figures MIGHT have been real (although if you look at the above link, there’s a lot of evidence that the stories were stolen from past religions. I’m not sure what evidence there is about the actual story of Jesus, though, so I’ll give you that one), just like there is a knight in a battle that the Knights of the Round Table can be traced back to. However, you can’t PROVE that Santa doesn’t exist- all you can do is point out where stories about him have been made up. That’s my EXACT situation with God as described by religion.
What does cosmology have to do with the post you were responding to?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’,m saying you ARE certain of a whole myriad of things because you ARE created in the image of the God who is Himself the only possible source of certainty and you ARE also certain of that. [/quote]
So let me get this straight: because I am sure of one thing, I am sure of something that is by definition impossible to know.[/quote]
I don’t know what you are think your sure of, but one thing I know for sure, you couldn’t even make a solid logical argument for your own existence. I can make a far better argument for the existence of God than you could make an argument for the existence of yourself. Try it. You cannot prove to anybody you exist. You could just be a figment of my imagination and you could not prove any different.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Religion needs science to progress, but science doesn’t need religion in the same way. .[/quote]
Religion doesn’t ‘need’ science. No more than it ‘needs’ silverware. Creating new industrial materials, or a nuclear/biological weapon, needs science. They answer different questions. Science is simply a tool for the atheist or the religious, much like the fork I use to eat my salad. Religion is more of a way of life.
[/quote]
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Of course, science needs leisure time for intellectual pursuits. Which needs societies. Which needs laws informed by common values. Which needs faith in moral laws written by an absolute authority. Which means needing faith in an unassailable law-giver. Pretty much the history of the west.[/quote]
Science seems to be re-writing many of these laws and discovering that these laws are NOT what wield humans into caring beings:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’,m saying you ARE certain of a whole myriad of things because you ARE created in the image of the God who is Himself the only possible source of certainty and you ARE also certain of that. [/quote]
So let me get this straight: because I am sure of one thing, I am sure of something that is by definition impossible to know.[/quote]
I don’t know what you are think your sure of, but one thing I know for sure, you couldn’t even make a solid logical argument for your own existence. I can make a far better argument for the existence of God than you could make an argument for the existence of yourself. Try it. You cannot prove to anybody you exist. You could just be a figment of my imagination and you could not prove any different.[/quote]
I am sure that when I jump off the roof, I will fall down. That doesn’t mean I know whether or not I exist or whether or not god exists. But I do know that.
[quote]Oleena wrote:<<< Can you prove that Santa doesn’t exist? No. Do you highly suspect that he was made up? Yes. >>>[/quote]As soon as you can tell me why YOU are certain that 2+2=4, something else you say may actually have some meaningful content. I really miss Elder Forlife. WHERE ARE YA MAN?!?!?!?! These people need yer help. Even I didn’t realize how good he really is. He should found an international school for skeptics. Nobody I’ve ever known has been more right while being more wrong than him. I honestly do not mean this as an insult my sweet, but you are waaay behind.
[/quote]
Men smarter than us have looked at the logical underpinning of numbers. You refuse to look at their work, you claim to have an answer that you cling to to assuage your fear of the unknown. And your arrogance and presumption is overwhelming.[/quote]
What, he has a point.
Mathematics is a lot like religion in that it is axiomatic and that a lot of surprising things can be deducted from those axioms.
Where it falls flat on its face though is that we know that we flat out made up mathematics, I doubt that he would draw the necessary conclusion. [/quote]
True. However, mathematic’s roots are based on counting things, hence where the numbers and symbols received their definition. All else that’s arisen aside, we know the basic 2+2=4 because we can count two apples twice, put them in a row, and count to four. Two write this, we made up the conventions. That happened long before mathematicians came along who could write a “proof” for it. If 2+2 did not equal 4, one of the descriptors wouldn’t be useful.
Math has obviously gone far past being a descriptor of the physical world, but that was it’s original use and if it didn’t satisfactorily work for that, it wouldn’t exist in the form it does.
I know that’s a far simpler definition than what this conversation was going for, but there is not need to take it farther than that.
Can you prove that Santa doesn’t exist? No. Do you highly suspect that he was made up? Yes.
On that note, I’m going to re-read you what you wrote so you can see it through my eyes:
I’,m saying you ARE certain of a whole myriad of things because you ARE created in the image of Santa who is Himself the only possible source of certainty and you ARE also certain of that. It’s not difficult for me at all. I see staring me in the face the truth of Romans 1:18-27 every time I read one of your posts, or anybody else’s.
It has nothing whatever to do with intelligence. You’re a smart enough girl (though you try a bit too hard). It has everything to do with spiritual death and blindness. Everywhere are the “invisible attributes, eternal power and divine nature” of the most high Santa clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that you are without excuse, but even though you know Santa, you do not honor Santa as Santa or give thanks, but you became futile in your speculations, and your foolish heart is darkened. Professing to be wise, you’ve became a fool, exchanging the glory of the incorruptible Santa for an image in the form of corruptible man and his alleged scientific method. In other words yourself. That’s my accurate Oleena-ward paraphrase, but it applies to everybody.
I’m certain that very much of what you know is true. I’m also pretty sure there is plenty in your domain of expertise that you could teach me. Maybe elsewhere too. What I am most certain of all though is that all of this is so because we are both creatures of the same ultra holy and intelligent designer [Santa].
[/quote]
I am certain Santa doesn’t exists as we think of him. St. Nicholas did exist and is a real Catholic saint though. That aside, cosomology puts forth an argument that doesn’t require divine inspiration. It’s an approach from the other side, the secular side. A side we can understand with out having to rely on the ‘trust me’ factor.[/quote]
Likewise, I am pretty sure God doesn’t exist as many religious people think of it. However, Jesus and many other of the figures MIGHT have been real (although if you look at the above link, there’s a lot of evidence that the stories were stolen from past religions. I’m not sure what evidence there is about the actual story of Jesus, though, so I’ll give you that one), just like there is a knight in a battle that the Knights of the Round Table can be traced back to. However, you can’t PROVE that Santa doesn’t exist- all you can do is point out where stories about him have been made up. That’s my EXACT situation with God as described by religion.
What does cosmology have to do with the post you were responding to?
[/quote]
Cosmology has everything to do with it… It’s the way to prove what I am talking about with out having to refer to divine inspiration or heresay.
It’s how you can know there is a God and doubt there is a Santa with out confusing the to beliefs as one in the same cosmology necessitates one, while the other wouldn’t be considered. It’s why your analogy is little more than a red herring and another false belief based on misunderstanding.
This is an easy read and should give you a high level understanding. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
It even has counter arguments so it’s one stop shopping.
You do know, btw, that history itself is all hearsay? We know what we know based on consensus. We hope that people who wrote things down and passed things along weren’t wrong and weren’t lying. We have no real, actual way of knowing what really happened at a given time in a given place. You should scrutinize everything thing with same mind you scrutinize religion and God with. You’ll find that much of what you think is really very shaky. In truth, you can know very little.
I am interested in this proof. Prove to me that the Flying Spagetti Monster isn’t god.
[quote]
Everything. Science can disprove it’s own ideas? Seems you must be unfamiliar with the deductive nomonoligcal method that science uses.
Science is based on inductive reasoning, mere correlation and from it infers causal relationships to a degree. [/quote]
Actually, that’s only the first step of science. What you just described is a hypothesis. If you really think that’s the beginning and end of the story, you’ve missed mark by a long shot.
I’ve already posted MANY examples of science disproving itself (check out the history of science and religion and the evolution website to see just a few of the millions of times it’s done this). Can you find examples of religion doing the same thing?
[quote]
There is nothing to compare. They are all together different disciplines. They do not explore or study the same things and they do not use the same methodology. Sure they intersect, everything does at some point, but they are not the same thing, at all. To replace one with the other is hopelessly misguided. Religion isn’t really all that interested in discoveries of the physical world. Those things are just tools for relgions to make moral/ spiritual points.
You really don’t know anything about relgion at all do you? So far everything you’ve said about it is wrong.[/quote]
They have tried to study and explain the same things at many points in history. At this point, you’re right, but that’s only after many century’s worth of struggling. Had you been born 200 years ago, you might very well be arguing against your own point here. You’re more a product of your time than your religion concerning the topic of science and religion.
[quote]
Oh no doubt, there are some amusing stories in the Bible. The story of Noah, wasn’t one of them, though. I was thinking more along the lines of the fact that God has to repeatedly tell the Hebrews not to fuck goats. That to me is funny.
You know what else is really funny? Atheists seem to be the only demographic that is a-ok with ripping on a book they did not read. I mean, that’s hysterical.
“Nope, never read it, but I just know it’s wrong, cause like it is!”
So, how much of the Bible have you read?
[/quote] I was an extremely devote Christian until about 14 years of age when I started asking questions because I wanted to know more about God. At that point I’d been in Bible quizzing since I was in 4th grade (so about 6 years), during which I memorized entire chapters of the New Testament. I attended Church two to three times a week, including youth group and Bible quizzing meetings. Before starting Bible quizzing, I tried to read the whole Bible many times. To date, only book I haven’t read thoroughly is Numbers.
I thought the Song of Solomon was the naughtiest thing ever before I broke away from Christianity, loved the story of Ruth (now I see it as rather kinky), and thought King David was a bit of a jerk. Solomon was always my favorite old king and I secretly wanted to be like him.
I spent 14 years trying to convert everyone I knew to Christianity and my best friend’s family’s mother was the daughter of a missionary from Africa. Both her (the mother) and her husband had degrees in theology, so when I asked questions, I normally received a history lesson as well.
I still read the bible and I know every usual reference to verses people on here and in real life make. I actually know more about the Bible and Christianity than 75% of the Christians I meet in real life (probably more than that. Most people don’t take their religion very seriously).
What about the evidence suggesting that those scriptures received a lot of influence from other religions at the time (once again, go back and look at the link I posted about religion and science)
Once again, there is a lot of evidence pointing to the fact that much of what’s been written about the Catholic god has been stolen from other religions and changed, even before the text’s you’re referring to were written (look back again at the link I posted and feel free to research it yourself).
Therefore, I am pretty convinced that the Catholic god is a man-made construction. I make fun of it as such. However, if there is an actual god while the Catholic religion is made up, then this God doesn’t have much to do with the catholic version of god, and I’m not saying anything about this non-catholic creation.
Therefore, I am pretty convinced that the Catholic god is a man-made construction. I make fun of it as such. However, if there is an actual god while the Catholic religion is made up, then this God doesn’t have much to do with the catholic version of god, and I’m not saying anything about this non-catholic creation.
[/quote]
Why are you talking about the “Catholic God” as opposed to God? Were you an Orthodox Christian?
Therefore, I am pretty convinced that the Catholic god is a man-made construction. I make fun of it as such. However, if there is an actual god while the Catholic religion is made up, then this God doesn’t have much to do with the catholic version of god, and I’m not saying anything about this non-catholic creation.
[/quote]
Why are you talking about the “Catholic God” as opposed to God? Were you an Orthodox Christian?[/quote]
I was free methodist Christian. They believed that the Virgin Mary was an abomination of what actually took place and many other Catholic practices were everything from incorrect (accepting the idea of evolution) to sinful (praying to the Virgin). They lived up to the methodist part of their name in that true members of the Church were expected to refrain from many things that might lead to ungodly behaviors, such as drinking and dancing. I didn’t know people danced at their weddings until I was in my
The funny thing was, unlike the Catholic religion, which apparently has a huge halo of guilt surrounding just about any form of intercourse, the free methodist church encouraged husbands and wives to enjoy sex and supported birth control.
As this is a thread specifically about Christianity, I’ve been starting all of my dialog with the assumption that we’re talking about Christians, not Catholics. I don’t see them as the same thing.
…I was an extremely devote Christian until about 14 years of age…I spent 14 years trying to convert everyone I knew to Christianity…
[/quote]
Did you now?[/quote]
From the time I could talk I did. My mother tells a story of a time she took me to Church an hour early on mistake, due to not setting her clock back for daylight saving. Apparently I threw myself on the ground when I was told we were going to have to leave and pitched a fit. The pastor looked at me and goes “I wish everyone was that enthusiastic about Church”.
[quote]Oleena wrote:<<< Can you prove that Santa doesn’t exist? No. Do you highly suspect that he was made up? Yes. >>>[/quote]As soon as you can tell me why YOU are certain that 2+2=4, something else you say may actually have some meaningful content. I really miss Elder Forlife. WHERE ARE YA MAN?!?!?!?! These people need yer help. Even I didn’t realize how good he really is. He should found an international school for skeptics. Nobody I’ve ever known has been more right while being more wrong than him. I honestly do not mean this as an insult my sweet, but you are waaay behind.
[/quote]
I can easily tell you why 2+2=4 → because if it didn’t the meaning of 2 and 4 would be different.
I think it’s funny that you didn’t even respond to my post “So let me get this straight: because I am sure of one thing, I am sure of something that is by definition impossible to know.” with regards to your [quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’,m saying you ARE certain of a whole myriad of things because you ARE created in the image of the God who is Himself the only possible source of certainty and you ARE also certain of that. [/quote] That would be a good start for sorting out which of us has even a basic understanding of logic.[/quote]It is impossible NOT to know the God I serve. You do and that is where your certainty of something as elementary as 2 sets of 2 adding up to 4 is actuated from.
“I can easily tell you why 2+2=4 → because if it didn’t the meaning of 2 and 4 would be different.”. You really don’t see this as blind unprovable faith filled circular logic do you? The sum MUST emerge from the addends or else the addends would be different? That is question begging at it’s purest.
Can you prove that Santa doesn’t exist? No. Do you highly suspect that he was made up? Yes.
On that note, I’m going to re-read you what you wrote so you can see it through my eyes:
I’,m saying you ARE certain of a whole myriad of things because you ARE created in the image of Santa who is Himself the only possible source of certainty and you ARE also certain of that. It’s not difficult for me at all. I see staring me in the face the truth of Romans 1:18-27 every time I read one of your posts, or anybody else’s.
It has nothing whatever to do with intelligence. You’re a smart enough girl (though you try a bit too hard). It has everything to do with spiritual death and blindness. Everywhere are the “invisible attributes, eternal power and divine nature” of the most high Santa clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that you are without excuse, but even though you know Santa, you do not honor Santa as Santa or give thanks, but you became futile in your speculations, and your foolish heart is darkened. Professing to be wise, you’ve became a fool, exchanging the glory of the incorruptible Santa for an image in the form of corruptible man and his alleged scientific method. In other words yourself. That’s my accurate Oleena-ward paraphrase, but it applies to everybody.
I’m certain that very much of what you know is true. I’m also pretty sure there is plenty in your domain of expertise that you could teach me. Maybe elsewhere too. What I am most certain of all though is that all of this is so because we are both creatures of the same ultra holy and intelligent designer [Santa].
[/quote]
I am certain Santa doesn’t exists as we think of him. St. Nicholas did exist and is a real Catholic saint though. That aside, cosomology puts forth an argument that doesn’t require divine inspiration. It’s an approach from the other side, the secular side. A side we can understand with out having to rely on the ‘trust me’ factor.[/quote]
Likewise, I am pretty sure God doesn’t exist as many religious people think of it. However, Jesus and many other of the figures MIGHT have been real (although if you look at the above link, there’s a lot of evidence that the stories were stolen from past religions. I’m not sure what evidence there is about the actual story of Jesus, though, so I’ll give you that one), just like there is a knight in a battle that the Knights of the Round Table can be traced back to. However, you can’t PROVE that Santa doesn’t exist- all you can do is point out where stories about him have been made up. That’s my EXACT situation with God as described by religion.
What does cosmology have to do with the post you were responding to?
[/quote]
Cosmology has everything to do with it… It’s the way to prove what I am talking about with out having to refer to divine inspiration or heresay.
It’s how you can know there is a God and doubt there is a Santa with out confusing the to beliefs as one in the same cosmology necessitates one, while the other wouldn’t be considered. It’s why your analogy is little more than a red herring and another false belief based on misunderstanding.
This is an easy read and should give you a high level understanding. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
It even has counter arguments so it’s one stop shopping.
You do know, btw, that history itself is all hearsay? We know what we know based on consensus. We hope that people who wrote things down and passed things along weren’t wrong and weren’t lying. We have no real, actual way of knowing what really happened at a given time in a given place. You should scrutinize everything thing with same mind you scrutinize religion and God with. You’ll find that much of what you think is really very shaky. In truth, you can know very little.
[/quote]
It just stated that “Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.” Then it stated “Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.”
Wait a sec. Did the contingent being just provide an adequate causal explanation? Let’s see 1. God, who doesn’t have to depend on time or cause, exists 2. Therefore I exist. That’s causal and an explanation and the contingent being writing the piece provided it. If 5=a and 6=b, this would basically be saying that a does not equal b and then saying that a does equal b. Said another way “I don’t know the answer=I do know the answer”. No. You just don’t know the answer.
[quote]Oleena wrote:<<< Can you prove that Santa doesn’t exist? No. Do you highly suspect that he was made up? Yes. >>>[/quote]As soon as you can tell me why YOU are certain that 2+2=4, something else you say may actually have some meaningful content. I really miss Elder Forlife. WHERE ARE YA MAN?!?!?!?! These people need yer help. Even I didn’t realize how good he really is. He should found an international school for skeptics. Nobody I’ve ever known has been more right while being more wrong than him. I honestly do not mean this as an insult my sweet, but you are waaay behind.
[/quote]
I can easily tell you why 2+2=4 → because if it didn’t the meaning of 2 and 4 would be different.
I think it’s funny that you didn’t even respond to my post “So let me get this straight: because I am sure of one thing, I am sure of something that is by definition impossible to know.” with regards to your [quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’,m saying you ARE certain of a whole myriad of things because you ARE created in the image of the God who is Himself the only possible source of certainty and you ARE also certain of that. [/quote] That would be a good start for sorting out which of us has even a basic understanding of logic.[/quote]It is impossible NOT to know the God I serve. You do and that is where your certainty of something as elementary as 2 sets of 2 adding up to 4 is actuated from.
“I can easily tell you why 2+2=4 → because if it didn’t the meaning of 2 and 4 would be different.”. You really don’t see this as blind unprovable faith filled circular logic do you? The sum MUST emerge from the addends or else the addends would be different? That is question begging at it’s purest. [/quote]
You are reading way too much into math and if you think I use math as more than a language, that’s where you’re mistaken:
Mathematic’s roots are based on counting things, hence where the numbers and symbols received their definition. All else that’s arisen aside, we know the basic 2+2=4 because we can count two apples twice, put them in a row, and count to four. Two write this, we made up the conventions. That happened long before mathematicians came along who could write a “proof” for it. If 2+2 did not equal 4, one of the descriptors wouldn’t be useful.
Math has obviously gone far past being a descriptor of the physical world, but that was it’s original use and if it didn’t satisfactorily work for that, it wouldn’t exist in the form it does.
No, it requires a few leaps of faith though, which incidentally does not help very much.
I will stick with meh, above my paygrade. [/quote]
It requires an understanding of logic, faith has is not required at that level. Geez, you ought to know that as many times as you have been involved in these discussions. There is a side that, yes requires faith. But you live on faith everyday anyway, so I really don’t see a leap. [/quote]
Well the leap occurs when you apply it to matters that you cannot possibly test empirically.
And draw a lot of assumption from it, because even if I accepted your premises, which I dont, I would be left with some sort of a prime mover and little else.
Might be a fluke, whatever that would look like outside a time/space continuum.
As I said, totally above my paygrade. [/quote]
The problem with empiricism is it’s far from exact. It’s correlational and based on best proabaility. Deductive truths are absolute, solid and irrefutable once established.[/quote]
They are true in the sense that they logically follow from established premises.
That however says nothing about objective TRUTH per se.
The whole thing about science is that we try to describe phenomena in a very exact language that we invented, i.e. mathematics, for the very reason that we know that it is most likely to be hogwash.
At least that way you can easily point out that and why something is nonsense.
In so far science is not so much a belief system but a disbelief system, though it is admittedly rarely treated as such.
However, not even it its brightest moments does religion live up to that and why would it. Religion is about tradition, ritual, community and magic, there would only be a point in trying to justify it rationally if we were rational creatures, which we are most decidedly not.
I would prefer if religious people would just point out that religion is something to be felt and experienced instead of being understood and leave it at that instead of trying to force a square peg through a round hole.
[quote]Oleena wrote:<<< Can you prove that Santa doesn’t exist? No. Do you highly suspect that he was made up? Yes. >>>[/quote]As soon as you can tell me why YOU are certain that 2+2=4, something else you say may actually have some meaningful content. I really miss Elder Forlife. WHERE ARE YA MAN?!?!?!?! These people need yer help. Even I didn’t realize how good he really is. He should found an international school for skeptics. Nobody I’ve ever known has been more right while being more wrong than him. I honestly do not mean this as an insult my sweet, but you are waaay behind.
[/quote]
Men smarter than us have looked at the logical underpinning of numbers. You refuse to look at their work, you claim to have an answer that you cling to to assuage your fear of the unknown. And your arrogance and presumption is overwhelming.[/quote]
What, he has a point.
Mathematics is a lot like religion in that it is axiomatic and that a lot of surprising things can be deducted from those axioms.
Where it falls flat on its face though is that we know that we flat out made up mathematics, I doubt that he would draw the necessary conclusion. [/quote]
True. However, mathematic’s roots are based on counting things, hence where the numbers and symbols received their definition. All else that’s arisen aside, we know the basic 2+2=4 because we can count two apples twice, put them in a row, and count to four. Two write this, we made up the conventions. That happened long before mathematicians came along who could write a “proof” for it. If 2+2 did not equal 4, one of the descriptors wouldn’t be useful.
Math has obviously gone far past being a descriptor of the physical world, but that was it’s original use and if it didn’t satisfactorily work for that, it wouldn’t exist in the form it does.
I know that’s a far simpler definition than what this conversation was going for, but there is not need to take it farther than that.[/quote]
Counting things.
You mean the “things” that we experience as things with a limited sensory equipment and bundle arbitrarily into “things”?
Those “things”.
That you could say “two apples” and I would know what you mean is swell, but it does say more about you and me than about objective reality.
What mathematics does is supplying us with a very precise terminology, not unrelated to everyday experience, the same can be said about theology.
You do know, btw, that history itself is all hearsay? We know what we know based on consensus. We hope that people who wrote things down and passed things along weren’t wrong and weren’t lying. We have no real, actual way of knowing what really happened at a given time in a given place. You should scrutinize everything thing with same mind you scrutinize religion and God with. You’ll find that much of what you think is really very shaky. In truth, you can know very little.
[/quote]
Oh really? Let’s put this to the test.
You know that when you drop a ball it will hit the ground.
When an egg is fertilized by a sperm, a series of events will take place that will result in offspring
If you cut your head off, you will die.
If you hug your healthy children, they will produce more “happy chemicals”.
Fire will burn you.
Chemicals create reactions in your body
If you eat certain radioactive materials, you’ll die
etc. etc. etc.
Stop pretending like you don’t know anything for sure. You’ve survived this long because you know thousands of things for sure as do those around you. What you may not be clear about is what “knowing something for sure” means.