- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
17 Oct 17
Originally posted by @wolfgang59Because you said you don't know and you don't care.
Why do you think that?
17 Oct 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerPerfect. It took you merely four days to understand that the Miller-Urey experiment demonstrated how some biological molecules, such as simple amino acids, could have arisen abiotically, under conditions thought to be similar to those of the early Earth. I don't know how many days it will take you to conceive why exactly Miller and Urey conducted the experiment, and I don't want to make speculations. We 'll see.
[b]Of course I repeatedly told you the experiment was proving that the first life forms could well have emerge spontaneously through naturally occurring chemical reactions.
No the only thing the experiment proves is that a few amino acids can be formed. The 'first life forms could well have emerge spontaneously' part is pure speculation and cannot be demonstrated or reproduced. 😵[/b]
So, the reason why Miller and Urey came up with their experiment is only because they wanted to test a specific aspect of the Oparin-Haldane model (a theoretical model for chemical evolution in the context of the origin of life). Miller and Urey wanted to see if some biological molecules, such as simple amino acids, could have arisen abiotically, under conditions thought to be similar to those of the early Earth; if the outcome of the experiment would be supportive or not to the theory proposed by Oparin-Haldane, were and remains completely irrelevant (irrelevant to them and to the scientific community, but quite relevant to the pseudoscientists who keep up preaching the "absolute truth" of Creationism and have, therefore, an agenta).
In fact, the outcome of the Miller-Urey experiment proved that some biological molecules, such as simple amino acids, can arise abiotically, under conditions thought to be similar to those of the early Earth. The experiment showed just one possible way by which the basic components necessary for the origin of life could have been created.
The experiment does not show how life came to be. The origin of life is the object of other scientific theories of reality, which they propose specific routes to bridge the gap between the organic basic components and life.
😵
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
17 Oct 17
Originally posted by @black-beetleSo do you or don't you think that the Miller-Urey experiment proves abiogenesis?
Perfect. It took you merely four days to understand that the Miller-Urey experiment demonstrated how some biological molecules, such as simple amino acids, could have arisen abiotically, under conditions thought to be similar to those of the early Earth. I don't know how many days it will take you to conceive why exactly Miller and Urey conducted the e ...[text shortened]... hey propose specific routes to bridge the gap between the organic basic components and life.
😵
17 Oct 17
Originally posted by @black-beetleIt is still trusting in something/someone you know have the ability to other than what you
Very good point Kellyjay, since "faith" is a quite broad term.
In the context of our discussion, I have in mind as a stepping stone for our further analysis the strong belief (and its consequences the way I presented about the equalization of Faith and Knowledge) in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction instead of proof the way ...[text shortened]... ly by G-d.
So, my question earlier is related to the definition of faith I just offered.
😵
are hoping they do. When you use your tools to measure and evaluate you are with the
use of the tools trusting that you are going to get the proper readings, even getting proper
readings doesn't mean that what you "think" it means is a true reflection of reality. I can
measure a rate of decay, get the reading, do the math, but in the end if the numbers I get
do not really reflect reality what does having an accurate reading with proper math do for
me?:
As I pointed out to you earlier too, trusting someone to do something they said they would
is a matter of faith, because they may not do what they say. It is still you doing your part
acting on faith in that is what I was talking about.
It applies to God too yes, is He there, is He true to His Word? Special knowledge, I guess
it is when applied to God since that what He is looking for, not our abilities, wealth, or
anything else we can bring to the table and put in front of the Lord of Lords.
17 Oct 17
Originally posted by @kellyjayI had the feeling you would come up with a "Special Knowledge equals Knowledge" theological argument. Anyway.
It is still trusting in something/someone you know have the ability to other than what you
are hoping they do. When you use your tools to measure and evaluate you are with the
use of the tools trusting that you are going to get the proper readings, even getting proper
readings doesn't mean that what you "think" it means is a true reflection of reality. ...[text shortened]... ties, wealth, or
anything else we can bring to the table and put in front of the Lord of Lords.
So OK, Kellyjay, since we already discussed this issue methinks we have to agree that we disagree. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Be well!
😵
17 Oct 17
Originally posted by @black-beetleYou brought up special knowledge not me, I was responding to you. If your tired of this discussion so be it.
I had the feeling you would come up with a "Special Knowledge equals Knowledge" theological argument. Anyway.
So OK, Kellyjay, since we already discussed this issue methinks we have to agree that we disagree. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Be well!
😵
17 Oct 17
Originally posted by @kellyjayBut it is impossible for me, and for every other person, to "bring up' special knowledge to you anyway!
You brought up special knowledge not me, I was responding to you. If your tired of this discussion so be it.
"Special Knowledge" in philosophy is a specific term as regards a model of faith. According to this model, "Faith" as takes place in the context of the Christian tradition is conceived as acting out one’s faith instead of being a part of faith per se. This is, for example, the standard Calvinist approach amongst else.
Often the believers act in, through or by faith, exactly as you appear to practice your view. However, according to the Special Knowledge model one's faith itself is the welcomed revealed knowledge on which they act.
So I was trying to find out if the gap between your view and mine as regards Faith and Knowledge could be analysed under the prism of Special Knowledge, since otherways our conversation ends up without a common place: You trust and follow a religious theory of reality out of Faith, while I do not trust even by means of Knowledge and I keep up evaluationg everything constantly. All in all, I wanted to see if Faith and Knowledge could be just the two sides of the same coin, that is; and, if this is indeed the case, to find out how and by what means this Faith/ Knowledge unison can be achieved.
😵
17 Oct 17
Originally posted by @black-beetleI wasn’t aware we were talking about special knowledge. I believe it is real, because of the spiritual and flesh nature. We were speaking about faith which I don’t limit to God and the supernatural, and I was actually attempting to show you the natural side of faith.
But it is impossible for me, and for every other person, to "bring up' special knowledge to you anyway!
"Special Knowledge" in philosophy is a specific term as regards a model of faith. According to this model, "Faith" as takes place in the context of the Christian tradition is conceived as acting out one’s faith instead of being a part of faith per ...[text shortened]... ed the case, to find out how and by what means this Faith/ Knowledge unison can be achieved.
😵
I have not read your post yet as soon as I can I will.
17 Oct 17
Originally posted by @black-beetleNo, special knowledge would be what is decerned through the Spirit of God it has nothing to do with faith, as much as it does walking in the Spirit verses the flesh.
But it is impossible for me, and for every other person, to "bring up' special knowledge to you anyway!
"Special Knowledge" in philosophy is a specific term as regards a model of faith. According to this model, "Faith" as takes place in the context of the Christian tradition is conceived as acting out one’s faith instead of being a part of faith per ...[text shortened]... ed the case, to find out how and by what means this Faith/ Knowledge unison can be achieved.
😵
Acting on faith isn’t limited to even Christians when it comes to God.
17 Oct 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerIn response to: "Why is it better to believe in nothing than in the God of the Bible?"
Because you said you don't know and you don't care.
So - do you consider yourself ignorant and apathetic OR can you answer these questions?
1. Why is it better to believe in nothing than fairies at the bottom of your garden?
2. Why is it better to believe in nothing than Father Christmas?
3. Why is it better to believe in nothing than the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
18 Oct 17
Originally posted by @kellyjayThanks to our earlier conversation we both are aware of each other's view. If we want to go further instead of agreeing that we disagree, I think we must gear up by means of discussing the possibility that faith envelops validated herenow knowledge and vice versa. In this context, I came up with the Special Knowledge model, which is used broadly in the Christian tradition.
No, special knowledge would be what is decerned through the Spirit of God it has nothing to do with faith, as much as it does walking in the Spirit verses the flesh.
Acting on faith isn’t limited to even Christians when it comes to God.
I do not intend to talk in general about something I happen to evaluate as special knowledge. I want to establish, if possible, a philosophical conversation regarding the exact nature of faith as it is seen according to this specific model, because I want to see if Faith/ Knowledge are just the sides of the same coin. So I will rephrase in order to cast out any misunderstanding:
"Special Knowledge" is not something that you or I can describe according to our taste. It is the term of a specific faith model, which identifies Faith strictly as "Knowledge of specific truths, revealed by G-d". Platinga defends this model following the tradition of Calvin.
Calvin defines Faith as a "firm and certain knowledge of God’s benevolence towards us, founded upon the truth of the freely given promise in Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy Spirit".
So, I would like to see if this exact kind of awareness is a sort of validated or non-validated knowledge.
If it has specific properties and if it can be validated, I would like to know how and by what means this process takes actually place.
Also, I would like to see whether this knowledge has inherent substance and exists somewhere out of one's mind, or is strictly mind-depended.
😵
18 Oct 17
2 edits
I can believe you are an honest person who keeps his word, and as such trust to you to do
what you say even to the point of risking part of my wealth or honor in that belief. This is
me putting my faith in you, God doesn't have to be involved but we can do the same thing
with God as well. None of that requires special knowledge, since we choose to act that
way also with people we do not know when we buy things online, or in person with those
we interact with. Walking out on ice we are putting our lives at risk, trusting, believing that
the ice will hold us, we step out in faith. When we do that with God, can do amazing things
as well.
18 Oct 17
Originally posted by @black-beetleThink about this when Adam and Eve sinned, it was not a question of is God real they had walked with Him. It was not a matter of special knowledge. They sinned in disobedience and they did it by not taking God at His Word and believing a lie even while having been exposed to the truth. Nothing was hidden from them.
Thanks to our earlier conversation we both are aware of each other's view. If we want to go further instead of agreeing that we disagree, I think we must gear up by means of discussing the possibility that faith envelops validated herenow knowledge and vice versa. In this context, I came up with the Special Knowledge model, which is used broadly in the ...[text shortened]... has inherent substance and exists somewhere out of one's mind, or is strictly mind-depended.
😵
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
18 Oct 17
Originally posted by @kellyjay"Nothing was hidden from them."
Think about this when Adam and Eve sinned, it was not a question of is God real they had walked with Him. It was not a matter of special knowledge. They sinned in disobedience and they did it by not taking God at His Word and believing a lie even while having been exposed to the truth. Nothing was hidden from them.
How then do you explain God forbidding them from eating from "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil"?
18 Oct 17
Originally posted by @kellyjayVery clear.
I can believe you are an honest person who keeps his word, and as such trust to you to do
what you say even to the point of risking part of my wealth or honor in that belief. This is
me putting my faith in you, God doesn't have to be involved but we can do the same thing
with God as well. None of that requires special knowledge, since we choose to act t ...[text shortened]... ce will hold us, we step out in faith. When we do that with God, can do amazing things
as well.
As regards my stance, I do not cultivate faith. To assess that you are honest, you have to demonstrate the virtue of honesty. When I see that you demonstrate it here and now, I may or I may not decide that this demonstration of honesty is genuine. When I will get to know that I really see honesty, I will trust you, keeping in mind that my decision can well be accurate or false. Furthermore, when I will notice in the future that you are not honest anymore (or when I will get to know that my primal decision was false), I will trust you not anymore. I simply do not live by means of faith-depended decisions.
The same holds as regards your “walking on thin ice” example. I would never risk under the spell of wishful thinking or pure faith, but out of a pure evaluation of the mind. In order to trust, I have to check it out –and cross-check it constantly.
So if we stay here, we simply have to agree that we disagree😵