09 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sumydidWhat would it take for me to believe in the god Thor? Seriously? That's easy. A being matching the exact description of Thor would need to appear before me, wielding his magical hammer, and demonstrate all the powers as described in the Greek texts. If that happened I would believe in the god called Thor.
Apart from finnegans usual sanctimonious twaddle, I appreciate the responses I got above.
The whole point of the question is, and you have backed me up on this in your responses, (at least you currently think) you won't believe no matter what. Again, and with all due respect, I take this to mean that your disbelief is a direct result of stubborn c completely wasteful, hypothetical stuff that neither one of us has any stake or belief in.
Yeah, the question was so "easy" that you completely failed to address it or even, apparently, understand it.
Twhitehead just pwned you bad! He even pointed out to you beforehand, more or less explicitly, that there is a difference between outlining minimal conditions for X and simply giving an example of an obviously sufficient condition for X. And yet, somehow, you still completely failed to understand the distinction! Your posts are good entertainment!
09 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayhowever, not knowing how or when
I'm perfectly okay saying we can measure those things we see from
beginnig to end without issue; however, not knowing how or when
something like the universe began means that assumptions are now part of
your equation, and if they are wrong your equation's result falls apart. Since
you do not know how the universe began, you don't know what state of
dev ...[text shortened]... ry is all
there ever was to this place, you assume a great deal suggesting otherwise.
Kelly
something like the universe began means that assumptions are now part of
your equation, and if they are wrong your equation's result falls apart. Since
you do not know how the universe began, you don't know what state of
development it started in, you therefore cannot by looking at it know the
markers by which you can say from this point on we can it was this old or
that old.
Ouch, sorry, but you get a big fat FAIL here. You're supposed to make an actual argument for the conclusion that we do not (or, stronger, cannot) know details regarding cosmological origins. When constructing such an argument, you do not simply get to assume as a premise that we do not, or cannot, know such details. That's called begging the question.
Your argument here is rather laughable. It amounts to simply stating that because we don't (or cannot, it's not entirely clear which one you're simply assuming as a premise) know X, we cannot know X. That must be some sort of joke. The idea that we cannot know X because we don't know X is obviously silly; and the idea that we cannot know X because we cannot know X is simply vacuous. So, either your argument is obviously silly or simply vacuous. Neither is a good property for an argument to have.
For all you know it very could be that human recorded history is all
there ever was to this place, you assume a great deal suggesting otherwise.
No. You get another FAIL for even suggesting that. For all I know, the idea that human recorded history is the totality of the story is just outrageously absurd. It is implausible to an unbelievably extreme degree. Ever hear of geology? Cosmology? Radiometry? Paleontology? Evolutionary biology? We could go on and on with more -ologies, and they all attest to the fact that your statement is absurd. Your statement is not only irresponsible and outrageously implausible; it is also insulting to any number of persons who devote their time working toward some honest scientific understanding of our universe.
10 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJello[/b]The only way you can point to a lenght of time being an age is if you know the
[b]however, not knowing how or when
something like the universe began means that assumptions are now part of
your equation, and if they are wrong your equation's result falls apart. Since
you do not know how the universe began, you don't know what state of
development it started in, you therefore cannot by looking at it know the
markers by which you o devote their time working toward some honest scientific understanding of our universe.
start and end dates, without that you have nothing but assumptions. With the
candle example where I asked how long the light was on, no one could answer
that question just by looking at the amount of wax on the candle that was there,
the rate of burn, and what the starting point was when the candle was new. Reason
being the fire could have been started and stopped several times before that
question was asked, it was a question without a good answer which is what we
run into with the universe.
Not knowing how it all got here, or any of the causes leaves us with not knowing
what state the universe was in when it started. If you assume anything you've
moved from fact to faith. If you believe God did it, than any state you see the
universe would not tell you how old it is unless you knew when, how, and what
the conditions were when God did it.
If you assume any other event, I'm not sure what you do with that!? You can
make up the starting point to look like anything you want and go from there.
You cannot in either case look at it now and go counting backward it must be
this old since you don't know when to stop counting!
Kelly
10 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJello[/b]Yes, I've heard of those -ologies and each one when they assume leave
[b]however, not knowing how or when
something like the universe began means that assumptions are now part of
your equation, and if they are wrong your equation's result falls apart. Since
you do not know how the universe began, you don't know what state of
development it started in, you therefore cannot by looking at it know the
markers by which you o devote their time working toward some honest scientific understanding of our universe.
themselves open to error. It maybe that everyone you know who assumes never
does that, but it isn't true in the world I'm in. People are "the scientific" you are
refering to, science isn't more than those that drive it, and people error. They
will do all sorts of things, and not all of it good.
I'm not saying, suggesting, hinting, that our "-ologies" are worthless, but I am
saying when assume upon the unknown we leave ourselves open to great error.
Kelly
10 Oct 12
Originally posted by KellyJayit was a question without a good answer which is what we
The only way you can point to a lenght of time being an age is if you know the
start and end dates, without that you have nothing but assumptions. With the
candle example where I asked how long the light was on, no one could answer
that question just by looking at the amount of wax on the candle that was there,
the rate of burn, and what the startin ...[text shortened]... go counting backward it must be
this old since you don't know when to stop counting!
Kelly[/b]
run into with the universe.
Well, there are at least two very obvious problems with your stance.
For one, if you really think there are no good answers to the question of the cosmological origins, then you should of course simply withhold judgment on the matter, pending further analysis. But no, that's apparently not how KJ likes to roll. Instead, KJ holds BOTH (1) the answer to the question of cosmological origins is some variant of "Goddunnit" and (2) there are no good answers to the question of cosmological origins. Well, that's quite irresponsible of you, no? I mean, I would think it's a no-brainer that one ought not endorse an answer to a question that he thinks has no good answers. I can already hear your reply, which will be that it is just a "matter of faith" for you when you endorse the answer Goddunnit. Sorry, but that doesn't help your cause any. You're still committed to the idea that your article of faith doesn't constitute a good answer. So, more's the pity for your position.
For two, even supposing we currently have no good answers, you have no good reason to just blanketly assume that knowledge of cosmological origins is outside the scope of scientific endeavor. In fact, given the track record of scientific endeavor when it comes to ferreting and chasing out facts, you have, if anything, reasons to think just the opposite. Let's face it: you're either just being unimaginative or lazy. You've turned your brain off; you've stuck your head in the sand.
Originally posted by KellyJaySorry, but I have explained to you numerous times already why this doesn't constitute a good argument for the conclusion that we cannot know details concerning cosmological origins. Your argument here is, basically, that we cannot know such things through science because the scientific process is not infallible. What a crazy argument! Nobody is his right mind thinks that a process must be infallible to produce correct results in some, or even a preponderance, of cases.
Yes, I've heard of those -ologies and each one when they assume leave
themselves open to error. It maybe that everyone you know who assumes never
does that, but it isn't true in the world I'm in. People are "the scientific" you are
refering to, science isn't more than those that drive it, and people error. They
will do all sorts of things, and not am
saying when assume upon the unknown we leave ourselves open to great error.
Kelly[/b]
Secondly, as I have also explained numerous times to you, you're not being consistent. There is a huge cognitive terrain in your life where you do not demand infallibility to have sufficient credence or knowledge. All of a sudden, though, when the discussion bears on the subject of God, you trot out all of this infallibility nonsense as if it is a very general concern. Perhaps you are just incapable of divorcing yourself or standing back far enough to see how inconsistent and hypocritical your stance is.
10 Oct 12
Originally posted by LemonJello... divorcing yourself or standing back far enough to see how inconsistent and hypocritical your stance is.
Sorry, but I have explained to you numerous times already why this doesn't constitute a good argument for the conclusion that we cannot know details concerning cosmological origins. Your argument here is, basically, that we cannot know such things through science because the scientific process is not infallible. What a crazy argument! Nobody is his rig ...[text shortened]... yourself or standing back far enough to see how inconsistent and hypocritical your stance is.
I'm not really following the thread, but..
God, what a beautiful call to arms for self-inspection these sixteen words are.
Thanks, bro.
10 Oct 12
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIs that cryptic talk for "Physician, heal thyself"?
[b]... divorcing yourself or standing back far enough to see how inconsistent and hypocritical your stance is.
I'm not really following the thread, but..
God, what a beautiful call to arms for self-inspection these sixteen words are.
Thanks, bro.[/b]
11 Oct 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou atheists and evolutionists ASS U ME things all the time. 😀
[b]however, not knowing how or when
something like the universe began means that assumptions are now part of
your equation, and if they are wrong your equation's result falls apart. Since
you do not know how the universe began, you don't know what state of
development it started in, you therefore cannot by looking at it know the
markers by which you ...[text shortened]... o devote their time working toward some honest scientific understanding of our universe.