A path to faith with science
Imitator:
Quote:
The problem here is, once again, there is no fact that we exist, there is no fact that we are "thinking". All of us could very well be figments of your imagination, in which case, it isn't a fact that he exists, and its not a fact that he is thinking.
If you don't know you exist, how can you know anything else? I believe you're in denial. You use your mind to recognize yourself and say it's not for sure, and then you use your mind to come to some other conclusion that you believe is correct. How can recognizing any possibility come before recognizing your mind which recognizes?? It cannot. You can't and you're in denial. But I 've addressed this several times.
Quote:
We could all be a part of some great beings dream, in which case its not a fact that we exist, and its not a fact that we are truly thinking.
What evidence to you have to show that may be possible? You don't have any. How do you know what is possible or not? What we know as possible is dictated by what we observe in the outside world. Don't call your imagination a fact.
Quote:
Its very very very very very very very likely that we do exist, but its not a fact.
How do you know it's very likely that we exist if it supposedly can't be verified? How do you determine value? How do you know it's more likely without taking into equation the empirical evidence. So it's really only part empirical evidence, and part imagination.
Quote:
The only reason that the whole mental excercise of "Cognito ergo sum" exists, is because he took the liberty of excusing the possibility of him being a part of the Dreamers theory. He specifically stated that to assume that would mean that anything is possible, and he was going to assume that it was not possible, to allow for him to continue.
Don't compare me with Descartes. I'm arguing, not him. And he's flawed in that logic and I don't agree with it.
Quote:
A better, more modern example of something similar to the dreamers theory, is the movie "The Matrix". In that movie, they live in a world which is not real, living lives that are not real, and feeling and doing things which were not real. Something similar could be happening, and we would not know unless someone outside of that system was able to inform us. Otherwise, we would be oblivious.
Once again you contradict yourself. How do you know that the matrix is a possibility? You use your mind and the outside world which you say cannot be validated to help conclude (the other part being your total imagination) something you believe is validated. That is, the possibility for such and such. It's not valid. So you use your mind to build a conclusion and you deny your mind. Go with the evidence you do have. You can never deny your mind.
There's a good chance you just did it. that is, used your "unverifiable" mind to try to think of a "verifiable" refutation. You cannot escape your mind. You cannot escape reality.
A path to faith with science
Hardcore Newbie:
Quote:
Where did all the wood come from, anyways?.
Trees.
A path to faith with science
I think you are having a problem grasping the concept of possible vs actual.
Anything is possible. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
I can think anything I want, I can even believe specific things. It still doesnt mean that I am real, that my existance is a fact. Everything I think, everything I feel could possibly be constructed by someones dream, with the illusion of freewill.
And I have never once stated that I know for a fact anything at all. In fact, I think I have said the exact opposite in multiple occasions. I have beliefs that most things are how they seem, but I know that it is ignorant to assume that anything we know is actually truth and fact.
I recognize the possibility that I am real. Just as much as I recognize the possibility that I am not real. Those possibilities dont have to rely on fact, unless you have undeniable proof that one or the other is true, in which case the other one would have to be false. But there is no definitive proof, there can never be with the dreamer theory. Its why its not brought up in most discussions, because its like Hitlering an arguement, it stops it dead in most situations.
Look at it this way.. Me thinking about thinking about me thinking could all have been part of this persons dream. The dreamer can create anything he/she/it wants, in any way, and it would be possible, because it is a dream. And I cant prove it, and you cant prove it. And since it cant be disproven, you cant state for a fact that its not possible. The dreamer theory covers all of this, alot better then your two websites and flawed logic in some departments can, or myself, I recommend looking into it. Ill find the "official" name of it tonight.
Quote:
What evidence to you have to show that may be possible? You don't have any. How do you know what is possible or not? What we know as possible is dictated by what we observe in the outside world. Don't call your imagination a fact.
What evidence do you have to show that it isnt possible? Once again, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. A
And I never called my imagination a fact. The only person who has a problem with calling things facts that arent in this conversation, is you. I purposely avoid using that word, because to do so is incorrect, and tends to diminish the meaning of the word the more its misused.
Also, are you stating that total knowledge, and everything that happens around us is limited by human knowledge and understanding? That it cant be happening if we dont know it, and see it? Human observation is severely flawed. You can be tricked many different ways while you use your observation. Hell, its one of the first things you learn in an entry level philosophy class. A person who relies on their observation to determine the truth or fact of something, is someone who is relying on a flawed system, and a someone who will not be able to provide solid proof of anything.
Quote:
How do you know it's very likely that we exist if it supposedly can't be verified? How do you determine value? How do you know it's more likely without taking into equation the empirical evidence. So it's really only part empirical evidence, and part imagination.
I cant. Thats why I didnt say it was a fact. But, current evidence leans towards that conclusion. So, currently, with the evidence we have available, its very very likely that we do actually exist. And thats about as far as it could ever get with that, if you include the dreamers theory. There would be no known way as of now to determine if that was the case, without something or someone from outside the dream exposing it to us.
Oh, and just to clarify, since there seems to be misunderstandings with what I post, none of this is a fact, or a truth, and I am not stating it as such. It is my interpretation of what has been laid available for us in the history that we know.
Quote:
Don't compare me with Descartes. I'm arguing, not him. And he's flawed in that logic and I don't agree with it.
Flawed how? Im not arguing, he is flawed in many many ways, as any person would be. But what specifically are you referring to when you say this?
Quote:
Once again you contradict yourself. How do you know that the matrix is a possibility? You use your mind and the outside world which you say cannot be validated to help conclude (the other part being your total imagination) something you believe is validated. That is, the possibility for such and such. It's not valid. So you use your mind to build a conclusion and you deny your mind. Go with the evidence you do have. You can never deny your mind.
Anything is a possibility, in the dreamers theory. :p
Seriously, how many damn times do I have to say it, and how many different ways, before you grasp the simple concept of it?
Yes, I use my mind to do everything you mentioned there, just as I stated before when you brought up the EXACT SAME ARGUEMENT. That doesnt mean that everything I have just done wasnt dreamed up by some unknown entity as a part of their dream. They right now, could be dreaming that I am typing this up about them dreaming about me typing this up, at this very moment, in which case none of this would be real, none of it would be fact, it would be a dream.
Quote:
There's a good chance you just did it. that is, used your "unverifiable" mind to try to think of a "verifiable" refutation. You cannot escape your mind. You cannot escape reality.
Did you seriously just bring in "reality" to the table? Jesus...
Reality is easily one of the MOST argued states in philosophy. How do you prove reality? How do you prove what you experience as reality is the same as someone else? How do you disprove it?
Exactly.
Reality is a joke if you are trying to bring this up in regards to truth and fact. AFAIK, no way has been found to determine and state THE reality, which in theory all would live in, and then through their perceptions, view. Its been a yr or so since I stayed up on that stuff, Ive been a lazy researcher, I know... but at that point, and back to the early dawn of man(creation, whatever, dont want to argue this point), it has been a philosophical question that has not been answered yet.
Anyways, Im sure it was just a slip on your part, or something similarly innocent, so no worries, but Id recommend refraining from bringing in the idea of "reality" into debates such as this, or any really. If you are talking with someone who has even the slightest background into Philosophy, you are fucked.
A path to faith with science
Quote:
Originally Posted by imitator
What about the fish? And the animals who float on water?
A huge fuckoff flood wouldnt have affected them at all. And the point was to start all over...
I mean, god didnt say, "Two of every kind on the ark, except the swimming ones, and the floating ones."
Granted I find parts of the entire ordeal a bit of a stretch, since good and bad are human creations, and animals have no concept of good and bad. I mean, are there bad giraffe's? And if so, how are they bad/evil?
Im sure you are in the middle of typing a response to someone here in this thread, but thought I would ask again... any answers to this?
Yes, it was slightly tongue in cheek, but I am interested how you... or should I say your website, explains things such as this?
Why did all the fish get a free ride without any worries, but the land creatures had to do a lottery to see which two out of the entire population of that species would survive?
A path to faith with science
Imitator, as far as the reality verifiable/unverifiable thing, I'm done with that. I don't think you got my point . "Anything is possible", statement of fact. prove it.
From here on, will you please just deal with the evidence we have around us.
As far as your question goes.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by imitator
What about the fish? And the animals who float on water?
A huge ******* flood wouldnt have affected them at all. And the point was to start all over...
I mean, god didnt say, "Two of every kind on the ark, except the swimming ones, and the floating ones."
Granted I find parts of the entire ordeal a bit of a stretch, since good and bad are human creations, and animals have no concept of good and bad. I mean, are there bad giraffe's? And if so, how are they bad/evil?
The animals weren't killed off because they were evil. The animals were killed off because God judged man, and animals were in the way. It was a cleansing of the whole earth. The flood itself was done both to judge the world and also as a sign to future generations. The flood was an allegory of the gospel. And it was man's fault the animals got hurt, just like it's mans fault that animals live in a world of death and torment. Many of the animals in the sea did die out. The fossil record shows that plainly.
Quote:
Yes, it was slightly tongue in cheek, but I am interested how you... or should I say your website, explains things such as this?
Why did all the fish get a free ride without any worries, but the land creatures had to do a lottery to see which two out of the entire population of that species would survive?
I would hardly say the fish had a free ride. There was massive earthquakes, underground water resevoirs breaking open, lava eruptions, water enviroment going crazy, swirling streams of thousands of tons of sediment and rock etc.
I explained myself and used websites and there's nothing wrong with that.
A path to faith with science
Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
Imitator, as far as the reality verifiable/unverifiable thing, I'm done with that. I don't think you got my point . "Anything is possible", statement of fact. prove it.
From here on, will you please just deal with the evidence we have around us.
As far as your question goes.
The animals weren't killed off because they were evil. The animals were killed off because God judged man, and animals were in the way. It was a cleansing of the whole earth. The flood itself was done both to judge the world and also as a sign to future generations. The flood was an allegory of the gospel. And it was man's fault the animals got hurt, just like it's mans fault that animals live in a world of death and torment. Many of the animals in the sea did die out. The fossil record shows that plainly.
I would hardly say the fish had a free ride. There was massive earthquakes, underground water resevoirs breaking open, lava eruptions, water enviroment going crazy, swirling streams of thousands of tons of sediment and rock etc.
I explained myself and used websites and there's nothing wrong with that.
Its a general rule of thumb I guess from where I am from, that if someone calls into question your source, and you cant find anything outside of those few sources to prove what you are saying, that you dont have an arguement.
Seriously man, Im not discrediting you due to your sources.. I am saying, when you cant provide me anything outside of those sources which show what you are saying, then you dont have anything in my book. I dont care what sources they are.
And didnt God request two of EVERY creature? I mean, it has been awhile since I read through the bible, so please correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe it was something along those lines.
And what of the floating birds?
A path to faith with science
In regards to the anything is possible... How about you disprove it?
The abscence of evidence is not the evidence of abscence.
I am willing to wager that there are a shitload of things out there that we dont know about yet, that exist. Just because we dont know about it, just because we dont have evidence at this moment in time for or against it, doesnt mean it doesnt exist. It just means we dont know.
The evidence we have around us isnt perfect. It has been interpretted by an imperfect being, and as such, is imperfect. We can choose to take the evidence as truth, but that would leave us to such possible follies as the belief that the world was flat, or that the sun revolved around the earth.
With what we know now, yes, some things seem apparent. But so did they back then. Science is forever expanding, and as such, we will discover more that in time may very well make the things we view today as sure and fact to be just as silly as the earth being flat.
A path to faith with science
snowblind
Quote:
ok well, the majority of evidence supports that dinosaurs and human only coexisted for a small amount of time and that dinosaurs inhabited the earth alot longer before man.
There's no way for the for the scientists to determine how long dinosaurs lived with man. There's really no way to determine how long dinosaurs have been around themselves. The fossils are dated by the layers, and the layers are dated by the fossils. All dating methods are based on assumptions and are by themselves insufficient.
Quote:
if dinosaurs became carnivorus because of the downfall of man ie sin then why didnt all become carnivorus and wouldnt this mean there was a change in their thinking, in that they decided not to eat meat, then didnt care that they did.
from the evidence, it looks like some became carniverous and some didn't. A change in the thinking of animals? I suppose so, in a sense. If an animal became carniverous yes he would have different mindset. But they don't have the same level of free will that we do. God changed them to become carniverous. He could have done this directly or perhaps through some genetic information placed in the animal based on foreknoledge.
Quote:
considereing the brain power of most dinosaurs was small this is highly unlikely
It wasn't their choice. It was God that did it.
Quote:
the ark. ok. rite. a ship. containg 2 of every animal in the world. 2. the logistics of this are laughable. the fact one man or a handful of people made this is retarded. but mainly where is the ark ? and if this is true then we are all inbreds from a very very very very small gene pool of people left over after the floods culling. but i am also asuming that on the ark where a pair of people from all ethnic backgrounds. to allow for the localised skin pigment mutations of humans around the world
It's not retarted that one man made it at all. This is another case of judging without looking at the calculations. Review the site I posted earlier before you say it's laughable. Like I said, he had a long time to build the ark. Where is the ark you ask. It's been 5000 years and you're asking where is the ark? Where are the 6 missing wonders of the world? " we can't find them so that must mean they never existed." That's not right.
As far as being inbreds, we would be a lot closer to being inbreds than they were. As time goes on, genetic information is lost, not gained. They would have had a much larger gene pool which would have diminished through genetic drift and mutations.
As for the skin pigment, we all have the same color skin. Everyone. Itâ??s a protein called melanin. We all have the same basic skin color, just different amounts of it.
Quote:
but finally i ask if the ark was real, floated saved us all. wouldnt it have been herald. preserved. saved.
where is it
It either disintegrated like all other organic material before long. Or if not, then it is frozen or preserved somewhere in some location. Doesn't matter though.
Quote:
natureisawesome. please for the love of god watch the planet of the apes, especially the tribuanl scene.
Is that where you learned about evolution?
A path to faith with science
Imitator:
Quote:
I think you are having a problem grasping the concept of possible vs actual.
Anything is possible. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
Here we go again. You state anything can happen as a fact. How do you not know that there are certain laws in existence (which there are) which disallow some things? We know some things are not possible. That's based on evidence. ANd that is actually proof that not anything can happen . But anything is possible? How to you verify that is true? What evidence do you have to support it.
Quote:
I can think anything I want, I can even believe specific things. It still doesn't mean that I am real, that my existence is a fact. Everything I think, everything I feel could possibly be constructed by someones dream, with the illusion of freewill.
You just made an assertion. Now you have to back it up with evidence. How do you know it could possibly constructed by someones dream? Possibilities aren't a given. If you say that it is, then show me the universal law that shows that.
Quote:
And I have never once stated that I know for a fact anything at all. In fact, I think I have said the exact opposite in multiple occasions. I have beliefs that most things are how they seem, but I know that it is ignorant to assume that anything we know is actually truth and fact.
whenever you state a possibility you state a fact that it's a possibility. You've done it several times now. And you still ignore the fact that you're using your "invalid" mind to argue with me. How can you assert anything when you cannot verify anything as fact?? It's not right.
Quote:
What evidence to you have to show that may be possible? You don't have any. How do you know what is possible or not? What we know as possible is dictated by what we observe in the outside world. Don't call your imagination a fact.
Imitator:
Quote:
What evidence do you have to show that it isn't possible? Once again, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
That's not how it works! You assume that all things are given as possible to begin with. You can't do that. You have to start with what you do know.
Quote:
Also, are you stating that total knowledge, and everything that happens around us is limited by human knowledge and understanding? That it cant be happening if we don't know it, and see it? Human observation is severely flawed. You can be tricked many different ways while you use your observation. Hell, its one of the first things you learn in an entry level philosophy class.
I'm not stating that at all. What I'm saying is that your assertion of all possibility is without evidence. We know some things are possible in this universe, but not all things. This is determined by observation. If I say, "my dog can fly", I have made an assertion and I must show the evidence to support that. If I cannot, then It cannot be claimed as a fact. The above argument has a premise which is that your mind/consciousness is a valid tool to begin with so that doesn't help you any.
Quote:
A person who relies on their observation to determine the truth or fact of something, is someone who is relying on a flawed system, and a someone who will not be able to provide solid proof of anything.
The only way to determine Truth is by observation!
Quote:
Quote:
How do you know it's very likely that we exist if it supposedly can't be verified? How do you determine value? How do you know it's more likely without taking into equation the empirical evidence. So it's really only part empirical evidence, and part imagination.
Quote:
I cant. Thats why I didn't say it was a fact. But, current evidence leans to wards that conclusion.
How do you verify value towards or against without recognizing facts? You can't.
I'm not going to talk about descartes. I go from the evidence. If you say there's a possibility, then you have to back it up. Otherwise it's out of the issue, it's undetermined, and has no place in determining anything.
Quote:
Once again you contradict yourself. How do you know that the matrix is a possibility? You use your mind and the outside world which you say cannot be validated to help conclude (the other part being your total imagination) something you believe is validated. That is, the possibility for such and such. It's not valid. So you use your mind to build a conclusion and you deny your mind. Go with the evidence you do have. You can never deny your mind.
Quote:
Anything is a possibility, in the dreamers theory.
Anything is possible in your imagination. But not in real life. The evidence supports that.
Quote:
There's a good chance you just did it. that is, used your "unverifiable" mind to try to think of a "verifiable" refutation. You cannot escape your mind. You cannot escape reality.
Did you seriously just bring in "reality" to the table? Jesus...
Quote:
Reality is easily one of the MOST argued states in philosophy. How do you prove reality? How do you prove what you experience as reality is the same as someone else? How do you disprove it?
With evidence.
You are wrong that the burden of proof is on me Imitator. You stated the fact of possibilities, and when you make an assertion, it has to be backed up with evidence. The onus is on you.
A path to faith with science
hey nature is awesome, i dont agree with you but i got respect for you.
the planet of the apes reference is to show the idiosyncracities that become apparent when you present the idea of evolution against religon in the context of the film. the trial scene in particular just really highlights this for me.
as for the ark, i did a little bit of research and this site was really really informative. but seems ultimately to show that what is thought to be the ark isn't due to the use of iron work in the wood and the size.
anyway have a looksee
Noah's Ark
i think the most interesting thing is the recitale of noahs ark in many many different cultures and tribes.
i dunno man, i like to believe there is more to life, i just see so much pain associated with religon.
