Abiogenesis

Originally posted by Churlant
I'm beginning to wonder if you consider it my job to somehow explain astrophysics to you in such a way that it doesn't collide with your preconceived limitations. Scientists do happen to know the right "figures" based on observation of the early universe and repeated testing here at home.

Scientifically speaking, the Big Bang occurred everywhere at once ...[text shortened]... he definitions of the word "theory". I agree that Creation is not science, however.

-JC

The idea he's trying to communicate (poorly) and which he continually tries to communicate is the idea that we don't "observe" anything in the past; people "observe" things like the cosmic background radiation and infer the state of the universe in the past from these observations. This process of inference he calls "faith". To KJ, it's no more likely that he existed yesterday, that any other people exist, that cats exist, etc, than that God exists or that the Big Bang happened billions of years ago. To him, it's all "faith" and all equally likely. You just pick the "faith" you like best since there's no way to make an informed decision about which is more likely. However he does not understand what this suggests; that it's impossible to make any decisions on anything but an arbritrary basis if everything is "faith" and his ridiculous lack of communication ability means he is not capable of absorbing this concept no matter who describes it to him. He likes it because he thinks it means his religion makes sense. The fact that he can live from day to day shows that his idea breaks down when he has to actually live life. It's "faith" that you will die if you don't eat, but he's still here...

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The idea he's trying to communicate (poorly) and which he continually tries to communicate is the idea that we don't "observe" anything in the past; people "observe" things like the cosmic background radiation and infer the state of the universe in the past from these observations. This process of inference he calls "faith". To KJ, it's no more likely ...[text shortened]... . It's "faith" that you will die if you don't eat, but he's still here...

Very close, I don't believe my memories of yesterday and
the data I may have collected then is a matter of faith in that
did it really occur. I do believe if someone looks at the universe
today, sees background radiation or something else, and
suggests that they can now tell us the state of the universe in the
distant past 'pre-mankind' may be called a matter of science in
that they are inferring it all based on data, but is without a doubt
a matter of faith as well, if they are getting it right.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJayI do believe if someone looks at the universe
today, sees background radiation or something else, and
suggests that they can now tell us the state of the universe in the
distant past 'pre-mankind' may be called a matter of science in
that they are inferring it all based on data, but is without a doubt
a matter of faith as well, if they are getting it right.
Kelly[/b]

Unfortunately this has less to do with a flaw in observation as it does a flaw in your understanding of science.

We can see the state of the universe in the past because of how light operates. We can in fact see what the universe looked like 300,000 years after the Big Bang.

This isn't a matter of faith, but one of physics.

-JC

Originally posted by Churlant
Unfortunately this has less to do with a flaw in observation as it does a flaw in your understanding of science.

We can see the state of the universe in the past because of how light operates. We can in fact see what the universe looked like 300,000 years after the Big Bang.

This isn't a matter of faith, but one of physics.

-JC

I'm quite sure you believe that.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Very close, I don't believe my memories of yesterday and
the data I may have collected then is a matter of faith in that
did it really occur. I do believe if someone looks at the universe
today, sees background radiation or something else, and
suggests that they can now tell us the state of the universe in the
distant past 'pre-mankind' may be called a ...[text shortened]... data, but is without a doubt
a matter of faith as well, if they are getting it right.
Kelly

Very close, I don't believe my memories of yesterday and
the data I may have collected then is a matter of faith in that
did it really occur.

That's because you are inconsistent. You talk about everything being "faith" when it's convenient for you, but then you abandon the idea when you feel like it.

I do believe if someone looks at the universe
today, sees background radiation or something else, and
suggests that they can now tell us the state of the universe in the
distant past...

But if you look at your memories today, see whatever it is you remember, and suggest you can now tell me something about the past, it's different? No...you're still making a "leap" from memory to your interpretation of what that memory means.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm quite sure you believe that.
Kelly

Not that it matters what I believe in this instance.

If no one believes in mathematics, 1+1 still makes 2.
If no one believes in God, He ceases to exist.

The ultimate definition of science vs faith.

-JC

Originally posted by KellyJay
Very close, I don't believe my memories of yesterday and
the data I may have collected then is a matter of faith in that
did it really occur. I do believe if someone looks at the universe
today, sees background radiation or something else, and
suggests that they can now tell us the state of the universe in the
distant past 'pre-mankind' may be called a ...[text shortened]... data, but is without a doubt
a matter of faith as well, if they are getting it right.
Kelly

Have you ever thought about writing a "dictionary of Kelly"? I'd love to read your own unique definitions of other words too...

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm quite sure you believe that.
Kelly

I think you're making a leap of faith there, Kelly. How can you be sure he really does believe that? Stop connecting dots.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]Very close, I don't believe my memories of yesterday and
the data I may have collected then is a matter of faith in that
did it really occur.

That's because you are inconsistent. You talk about everything being "faith" when it's convenient for you, but then you abandon the idea when you feel like it.

I do believe if someone looks at 're still making a "leap" from memory to your interpretation of what that memory means.

That's because you are inconsistent. You talk about everything being "faith" when it's convenient for you, but then you abandon the idea when you feel like it.

[/b]Well where have I done that?

But if you look at your memories today, see whatever it is you remember, and suggest you can now tell me something about the past, it's different? No...you're still making a "leap" from memory to your interpretation of what that memory means.

[/b]You don't see the difference between recorded history, our memories,
and the distant past no one supposedly has ever experienced? If you
want to say all experience is a leap of faith, because we have to trust
that our experiences are real, okay, but that isn't what I'm talking
about.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]That's because you are inconsistent. You talk about everything being "faith" when it's convenient for you, but then you abandon the idea when you feel like it.

[/b]Well where have I done that?

But if you look at your memories today, see whatever it is you remember, and suggest you can now tell me something about the past, it's different? No.
that our experiences are real, okay, but that isn't what I'm talking
about.
Kelly

so if it's not written history, then it's unreliable?

[edit; and by abstraction, all written history is reliable?]

Originally posted by Churlant
Not that it matters what I believe in this instance.

If no one believes in mathematics, 1+1 still makes 2.
If no one believes in God, He ceases to exist.

The ultimate definition of science vs faith.

-JC

Not that it matters much, but who would be there to ascertain that 1+1=2? And what are you saying about the ontological argument?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Not that it matters much, but who would be there to ascertain that 1+1=2? And what are you saying about the ontological argument?

No one needs to be there. The tree falls and the noise is made, whether someone is in the woods to witness it or not.

-JC

Originally posted by Churlant
Not that it matters what I believe in this instance.

If no one believes in mathematics, 1+1 still makes 2.
If no one believes in God, He ceases to exist.

The ultimate definition of science vs faith.

-JC

If no one believes in mathematics, 1+1 still makes 2.
If no one believes in God, He ceases to exist.

Your first statement is loaded with as much assumption as the second. You presuppose that mathematics exists external to our reason while God is somehow confined to it. Do you seriously think you could sustain such an argument without revealing the inherent contradiction of such a stance?

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]If no one believes in mathematics, 1+1 still makes 2.
If no one believes in God, He ceases to exist.

Your first statement is loaded with as much assumption as the second. You presuppose that mathematics exists external to our reason while God is somehow confined to it. Do you seriously think you could sustain such an argument without revealing the inherent contradiction of such a stance?[/b]

I have little choice. The argument is self-sustaining. If you wish to argue that mathematical laws cease outside human perception, be my guest. I could use the entertainment.

-JC

Originally posted by Churlant
I have little choice. The argument is self-sustaining. If you wish to argue that mathematical laws cease outside human perception, be my guest. I could use the entertainment.

-JC

Most of the arguments you would use to sustain premise 2 could be applied to demolish premise 1. Think about it.