Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 155 (8113 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-22-2014 9:35 PM
74 online now:
(74 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: a9.hard
Post Volume:
Total: 734,752 Year: 20,593/28,606 Month: 1,090/2,774 Week: 211/244 Day: 56/21 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1920
21
2223
...
26Next
Author Topic:   Scientific Knowledge
Straggler
Member
Posts: 9930
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 301 of 377 (635949)
10-03-2011 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by RAZD
10-03-2011 2:20 AM


Re: How about a new thread? (or two)
FFS RAZ you are utterly impossible. We still don't have an explicit answer to the question asked. Forget ANY Goddam scales for one cotton pickin minute.

Question: - Does the fact that a given proposition is untestable preclude a de-facto atheist stance (i.e. confident but tentative rejection) from being rationally taken towards that proposition?

RAZD writes:

Of course, if it is untestable then de facto there is no support for the concept and the true skeptic can only say that it is unsupported, that it is neither proven nor disproven, and that logic by itself leaves you in a default agnostic position.

I can only conclude that this is a YES. That you do consider an atheistic stance towards the Hogwarts Hypothesis irrational and logically invalid even if you are willing to take a 6.9999 stance yourself on a scale that you have now rather conveniently redefined to be "subjective". Your approach is just dishonest RAZ.

If we can't agree that the Hogwarts Hypothesis can be rationally rejected no mater how untestable it might be then I just have no faith at all in your sanity/honesty and have nothing more to say to you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by RAZD, posted 10-03-2011 2:20 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by RAZD, posted 10-03-2011 4:27 PM Straggler has responded

1.61803
Member
Posts: 2256
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 302 of 377 (635963)
10-03-2011 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Straggler
10-02-2011 6:21 PM


Re: A quick note to Zen (and Xong)
Question: - Does the fact that a given proposition is untestable preclude a de-facto atheist stance (i.e. 6 on the Dawkins scale) from being rationally taken towards that proposition?

1.61803 answers No.

It is not imo irrational to take such a stance. But such a position must be based on individual criteria case by case basis imo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Straggler, posted 10-02-2011 6:21 PM Straggler has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by xongsmith, posted 10-03-2011 5:51 PM 1.61803 has responded

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1373
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


(2)
Message 303 of 377 (635981)
10-03-2011 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by Straggler
10-03-2011 7:55 AM


Re: Is Science Logical?
Straggler:
Try again Xongsmith.

No - you asked, I answered. There is no wrong answer to your question as stated.

However: I do want to point out that I suspect your question was deceitful and an attempt to make people slip up and provide you with weaponry to be used against them later. Your question seemed sneaky, devious and low. By restricting answers to either "Yes" or "No", which are actually entrapments in this carefully constructed question, you seem to get upset when someone says "Sometimes Yes and sometimes No."

You got your answer. You didn't like it. Tough.

Not only is there no wrong answer as stated, there is no right answer either.

I think you need to decide whether unfalsifiability/untestability alone is a barrier to taking an atheistic stance towards any given proposition.

I don't need to decide anything.

Some Yes, some No, some I don't have an answer for yet.
I can wait on some. Some I don't have an answer for and I'm not going to go look for one - I just don't care.

Try again, Straggler.


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Straggler, posted 10-03-2011 7:55 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by RAZD, posted 10-03-2011 4:32 PM xongsmith has not yet responded
 Message 322 by Straggler, posted 10-04-2011 6:15 AM xongsmith has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12659
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 304 of 377 (635992)
10-03-2011 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Chuck77
10-03-2011 3:55 AM


Re: Is Science Logical?
And then use the answer in the future against us when necessary?

Well, why not?

There are times when you seem to resent being on a debate forum. Well, you come here of your own free will.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Chuck77, posted 10-03-2011 3:55 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 15823
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 305 of 377 (635995)
10-03-2011 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by Straggler
10-03-2011 8:31 AM


Re: How about a new thread? (or two)
Jeez Strags, you are so determined to make volcanic mountains out of antsyhills.

FFS RAZ you are utterly impossible. We still don't have an explicit answer to the question asked. Forget ANY Goddam scales for one cotton pickin minute.

Curiously, you already have (and you have already replied previously to) Message 296:

Question: - Does the fact that a given proposition is untestable preclude a de-facto atheist stance (i.e. 6 on the Dawkins scale) from being rationally taken towards that proposition?

No, it doesn't preclude you from taking whatever "unevidenced," subjective opinion belief position you want to take. There are no real barriers to what you can have for an opinion or a belief. Pick a position according to your personal beliefs and live your life accordingly -- heck we all do that anyway, big whap.

NO, IT DOESN"T PRECLUDE (you from taking a "6" position)
THERE ARE NO BARRIERS (to taking a "6" position)

Is that clear enough for you? Or do I need large blinking letters?

Color in the original for emphasis, bold added for further emphasis: you wanted a yes or a no, and I do not see any way this can be ignored as a NO ... except possibly due to cognitive dissonance?

To use Panda's misrepresentation analogy correctly:

Straggler: Is there any reason not to like this cheese?
RAZD: No, there is no reason not to like that cheese, what cheese you like is a subjective decision, there are no barriers to you (or anyone) choosing what kind of cheese you like. You like Cheddar and I like Stilton. Big whap.

Now, please note, I have added to my reply by edit earlier this morning (the original reply being made during a bout of insomnia, not a best time to post, but not much else to do) to be even more clear, so there are some changes but NOT to the yellow statement above NOR to the overall intent of the reply. This was done before I saw your or anyone else's replies (and thus was not influenced by them).

RAZD writes:

Of course, if it is untestable then de facto there is no support for the concept and the true skeptic can only say that it is unsupported, that it is neither proven nor disproven, and that logic by itself leaves you in a default agnostic position.

I can only conclude that this is a YES. ... Your approach is just dishonest RAZ.

Then you are, once again, making the wrong conclusion, because this does not change nor qualify the statement in yellow in any way. You leap to conclusions all the time, and most of the time they are wrong, and this is just another example.

What you have quoted here is the opening statement in a discussion of what conclusions a person can hypothetically reach as a true skeptic, as described by Truzzi, and you are not reading what I say AFTER that, but leap all over the place in another apoplectic fit and conclude something that is dishonest.

Your question was NOT what position I (RAZD)← would take, nor what position YOU (or anyone) would HAVE to take, but what you (or anyone) could theoretically, hypothetically take ... (without committing yourself to actually taking it categorically, which would of course be silly). If someone happens to choose any other ranking, then that does not contradict the ranking you (or anyone) could theoretically, hypothetically take in any way. They could take a 1 or a 7, and again, big whap.


Now, IF your question is really whether your position of taking a subjective "6" position is rational (and not whether you can take a subjective scale "6" on hypothetical concepts that are untestable), then you should not play word games like hide-the-verbal-pea -- as that is a dishonest ploy, and a logical fallacy called the "Complex Question" fallacy(1): was I supposed to be tricked into a different conclusion by this deception? You do this constantly.

That question of rationality is properly treated independently of the question of untested concepts.

You certainly have not shown or supported any contention that taking a subjective "6" position without having any substantial evidence to support the conclusion is rational. Plugging that in to a question on taking a subjective "6" position on untested concepts would be you assuming (or begging the question) that any subjective (6) position without supporting evidence can be rational, again a typical approach of yours.

Can you show me how a (D) conclusion below can be rationally derived?

                 question
|
is there sufficient valid
information available to decide
| |
yes no
| |
decide based is a decision
on empirical (1) necessary or
valid evidence (2) can it be ignored?
=logical / \
conclusion (1) (2) ... but ... ?
(A) / | |
decide ignore make a
based on rather decision
inadequate than make anyway
evidence a decision based on
=guess =wait =opinion
(B) (C) (D)

(yes that is a new refined more specific clarified version - like it?)

Now I believe that we can agree that an (A) conclusion is a logically derived position, that a (B) conclusion is not a logically derived position but a practical one under adverse conditions, and that a (C) conclusion is not an irrational position (whether you agree with the position or not), but what can be said about a (D) conclusion? Let me know eh?

Do you agree that taking a (6) position on untestable concepts is a (D) conclusion? If not, then what conclusion category is it?

That you do consider an atheistic stance towards the Hogwarts Hypothesis irrational and logically invalid even if you are willing to take a 6.9999 stance yourself ...

No Strags, that's you leaping tall buildings to reach false conclusions.

Curiously, it seems that I need to repeat myself, again: I consider a skeptical stance of 1 (or 1.0001 if you will :rolleyes at slicing the pea) to the fantasy stories and characters are and were intended to be fictional, substantially supported by substantial evidence of them being acknowledged by the author to be such, and from being treated by every reader know (some 450 million plus readers) as pure fiction. This is NOT an unsupported position, do you not agree? Would you not agree that this is as close as we can get to concluding that this is a FACT beyond any reasonable doubt?

Now I consider that the available evidence is all positive evidence for the concept that these books & characters are in actuality fictional: that is what the evidence at hand supports, and thus that is the appropriate concept to rank.

And I agree that the positive ranking for this specific concept inverts to a negative ranking for any concept contradicted by this specific concept, and this same evidence supports those inverse concepts being contradicted. But these are secondary rankings, derived from the specific concept ranking, rather than directly from the evidence, and thus they are not primary ranked concepts. Do you agree?

Contradicting a contrary concept does not prove a concept is valid (disproving evolution would not prove creationism), and thus extreme care needs to be taken on what concept is, and what concept is not, appropriate to give the primary ranking here (proving creationism true would invalidate large chunks of evolution theory).

Now if you consider your own principle of inversion (of positive rating for a concept to also be an equivalent negative rating for any concept contradicted by the original concept) means the inverse rating is not supported by the same substantial evidence, then you would seem to have a problem with your own principle, yes?

If we can't agree that the Hogwarts Hypothesis can be rationally rejected no mater how untestable it might be then I just have no faith at all in your sanity/honesty and have nothing more to say to you.

If your are NOW asking me what MY position would be on this specific concept, rather than what YOUR hypothetical stance could theoretically, hypothetically be on any hypothetical untestable concept, then that is a NEW question that you should ask and not assume. This answer has already been given, and my reason for approaching it the way I have, is now more fully clarified. If you still have trouble understanding this, then ask again.

Perhaps we should have this discussion in relation to refining the RAZD\Straggler Concept Confidence Scale, yes? We can then explore the details at that time eh?


The real question posed by you here, was whether or not the untestable concept can be placed in a (6) category so you can then reject it in order to ignore it. You seem to feel that you first need to classify it in order, and then reject it, before you can ignore it, while I don't.

If a concept is untestable, and therefore is necessarily not supported by any conclusive valid evidence, then I can rationally arrive at a (C) conclusion, and ignore the concept, and live my life secure in the knowledge that I have made the best evaluation and judgment possible from the available evidence.

However, if you feel that you must reach a decision, then you are putting yourself in the (B) conclusion category, and I wonder what makes you feel you need to make a decision.

Enjoy


Notes:

(1) - Complex Question Fallacy from http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/cq.htm

quote:
Two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single proposition. The reader is expected to accept or reject both together, when in reality one is acceptable while the other is not. A complex question is an illegitimate use of the "and" operator.

Examples:

  1. You should support home education and the God-given right of parents to raise their children according to their own beliefs.
  2. Do you support freedom and the right to bear arms?
  3. Have you stopped using illegal sales practises? (This asks two questions: did you use illegal practises, and did you stop?)

Edited by Zen Deist, : adjusted spacing


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Straggler, posted 10-03-2011 8:31 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by Straggler, posted 10-04-2011 6:20 AM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 15823
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 306 of 377 (635997)
10-03-2011 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by xongsmith
10-03-2011 2:50 PM


Deceitful? Straggler? I'm shocked!
Hi xongsmith

However: I do want to point out that I suspect your question was deceitful and an attempt to make people slip up .... Your question seemed sneaky, devious and low. By restricting answers to either "Yes" or "No", which are actually entrapments in this carefully constructed question, ...

Congrats, you saw that too.

See my footnote in Message 305

I don't need to decide anything.

Welcome to the (C) crowd.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by xongsmith, posted 10-03-2011 2:50 PM xongsmith has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 15823
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 307 of 377 (636003)
10-03-2011 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Chuck77
10-03-2011 3:55 AM


Appropriate Questions?
Hi Chuck77

And then use the answer in the future against us when necessary? Dang yer good dude. I gotta come up with some questions to bank for myself. RAZD, any suggestions?

Of course, playing "gotcha" is one of Straggler's favorite games.

Another one is to play verbal-hide-the-pea games using the Complex Question Fallacy(1).

One question I would have is:

Do you think the "RAZD\Straggler Concept Scale"(2) provides for a better evaluation of the value of concepts, based on objective measurable criteria, than the "Dawkins Scale"?

Now, if I say that im a #1 on the scale concerning the worldwide flood then you can call me delusional because of the "evidence" that says otherwise....

Do you see my point? How appropriate is it to call me delusional about something that can't be tested as opposed to something that CAN be?

Well I would certainly agree with you there.

Enjoy


Notes:

(1) - see footnote to Message 305
(2) - from Message 264:

The RAZD\Straggler(a) Concept Scale (with proposed revisions incorporated)
  1. No Confidence Concepts
    1. No evidence, or the evidence is contradictory, conjecture involved, hypothetical arguments,
    2. No logical conclusions possible, but opinion possible

  2. Low Confidence Concepts
    1. Unconfirmed or subjective supporting evidence, opinion also involved, untested and possibly untestable, but no known objective empirical evidence pro or con, nothing shows the concept per se to be invalid
    2. Conclusions regarding possibilities for further investigation, and opinions can be based on this level of evidence,

  3. Medium Confidence Concepts
    1. Based on some objective empirical evidence, but may also have contradictory or anomalous (unreconciled) evidence, known to be testable or testable in theory, a scientific hypothesis where testing is incomplete, or that has not (yet) provided any new predicted evidence or information, or that is still in development,
    2. Conclusions regarding possible reality can be made tentatively, methods to test and falsify such concepts can be developed to measure the possibility of their being true\false.

  4. High Confidence Concepts
    1. Validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, empirically tested, and no known contradictory evidence
    2. Conclusions regarding probable reality can be made, repeated attempts to falsify such concepts can lead to high confidence in their being true.

  5. Extreme Confidence Concepts
    1. Well established as a scientific law or scientific fact, or concepts proven or accepted to be true.
    2. It is considered, or widely accepted, to be a fact(b).

This table shows how we can have different levels of positive confidence in concepts. We are also able to have equally negative confidence regarding inverse or alternative concepts that are contradicted by the same information and evidence.

(a) - Straggler has not accepted all revisions yet.
(b) - using the scientific definition of "fact" with scientific tentativity included.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Chuck77, posted 10-03-2011 3:55 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1373
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


(2)
Message 308 of 377 (636017)
10-03-2011 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by 1.61803
10-03-2011 10:49 AM


Re: Straggler's trick question
Golden Ratio writes:
It is not imo irrational to take such a stance......
a de-facto atheist stance (i.e. 6 on the Dawkins scale)
But such a position must be based on individual criteria case by case basis imo.

So you also are agreeing with me that a few Straggling cases could be a Yes instead of a blanket No on all cases? And who knows what they might be either, before Straggler asks any of us which ones?


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by 1.61803, posted 10-03-2011 10:49 AM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by RAZD, posted 10-03-2011 5:59 PM xongsmith has responded
 Message 330 by 1.61803, posted 10-05-2011 10:34 AM xongsmith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15823
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 309 of 377 (636021)
10-03-2011 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by xongsmith
10-03-2011 5:51 PM


Re: Straggler's tricky dick question
Hi xongsmith

So you also are agreeing with me that a few Straggling cases could be a Yes instead of a blanket No on all cases? And who knows what they might be either, before Straggler asks any of us which ones?

Of course we need to understand what question the yes or no pertain to, but I kinda doubt that any atheist here would automatically take a "6" position on the untestable concept that there are no gods ...

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by xongsmith, posted 10-03-2011 5:51 PM xongsmith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by Panda, posted 10-03-2011 6:24 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 311 by xongsmith, posted 10-03-2011 6:26 PM RAZD has responded

Panda
Member (Idle past 117 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 310 of 377 (636023)
10-03-2011 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by RAZD
10-03-2011 5:59 PM


Re: Straggler's tricky dick question
Zen Deist writes:

I kinda doubt that any atheist here would automatically take a "6" position on the untestable concept that there are no gods ...


You doubt that atheists would take the de-facto atheist position on the existence of gods?

Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR

Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by RAZD, posted 10-03-2011 5:59 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by RAZD, posted 10-03-2011 9:08 PM Panda has responded

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1373
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 311 of 377 (636024)
10-03-2011 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by RAZD
10-03-2011 5:59 PM


Re: Straggler's tricky dick question
My brother writes:
Of course we need to understand what question the yes or no pertain to, but I kinda doubt that any atheist here would automatically take a "6" position on the untestable concept that there are no gods ...

Is that ALL gods? Or just the ones that are convenient? And what is an "Atheist", when we are considering Dawkins Scales or RAZD scales? Who might they be here?


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by RAZD, posted 10-03-2011 5:59 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by RAZD, posted 10-03-2011 9:35 PM xongsmith has not yet responded

  
Catholic Scientist
Member
Posts: 9349
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 312 of 377 (636031)
10-03-2011 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Straggler
10-02-2011 6:19 PM


Re: Scientific Explanations
Hello. I am going to ask all of the participants of any consequence in this thread the same question.
Question: - Does the fact that a given proposition is untestable preclude a de-facto atheist stance (i.e. 6 on the Dawkins scale) from being rationally taken towards that proposition?

No, not necessarily... but it helps!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Straggler, posted 10-02-2011 6:19 PM Straggler has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Member (Idle past 336 days)
Posts: 9158
From: new york usa
Joined: 03-14-2003


Message 313 of 377 (636066)
10-03-2011 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Taq
09-13-2011 12:40 PM


Re: Scientific Knowledge In The Necessary Absence of Certainty
Tag writes:

I think this is what it all boils down to. If you want to be a nit picker, RAZD is correct. Absolute knowledge does require absolute certainty. However, we don't live in a world that affords absolute certainty. What we have instead is practical knowledge that works for our day to day lives.

My own feelings are that practical knowledge is different from faith based beliefs. While we may not have absolute certainty, we do have previous experiences and independent verification through inference that an idea seems to work. This is in stark contrast to faith based beliefs where there is no verification or inference from independent data.

I beg to differ, Tag.

Faith based beliefs should not be blind. The Biblical record, being about one third prophetic/predictive, bears that out. The Bible is the only holy book affording a substantial amount of practical verifying knowledge.

I have, in my effects an early pamphlet dated 1828, entitled FUTURE RESTORATION OF THE JEWS by James Wilson, A.M, pastor of the Second Congregational Church in Providence, printed in Providence by H. H. Brown.

Pastor Wilson quotes the following scripture in Ezekiel after declaring that we are authorized by scripture prophecy to expect that "at some future period, the Jews, as a nation, will be reinstated forever in Canaan, the land of their forefathers."

quote:
EZEKIEL 37
21 And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land:

22 and I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:

23 neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwelling places, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.

24 And David my servant shall be king over them; Ezekiel. 34.24 and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.

25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.

26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.

27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 2 Cor. 6.16 Rev. 21.3

28 And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore."


He goes on in the pamphlet to corroborate the Ezekiel with numerous other prophets, all attesting to Ezekiel's prophecy. He also cites Amos who pre-dated Ezekiel by two centuries.

I've submitted the above to say that we are living in a time, nearly two centuries subsequent to pastor Wilson's time, able to observe the partial fulfillment of the prophecies which Wilson cited.

But we now have more practical knowledge corroborating the OT prophets.

We have an emerging world government, i.e. the UN and calls for a NEW World Order at a time when marks and numbers are being used as currency, as predicted in Revelation 13, affecting "all nations tribes and tongues."

All nation are now able to observe an event happening in one location, as per Revelation 11: 10,11

quote:
For three and a half days members of the peoples and tribes and languages and nations will gaze at their dead bodies and refuse to let them be placed in a tomb; 10 And the inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and celebrate and exchange presents, because these two prophets had been a torment to the inhabitants of the earth.

11 But after the three and a half days, the breath* of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and those who saw them were terrified.


Thus we now have practical knowledge of the fulfillment of supernaturally prophesied events.

The above all corroborate the credibility of the cited scientific practical knowledge, being (ABE: archeological research, preserved museum specimens pertaining to to history, culture, etc.
I was reading where it has been discovered that our Solar System is unique from others observed, in that it is orderly, having more circular stable orbits. The consensus is that our planets were not drawn in by the sun star.

This is another example of practical knowledge supportive to the Genesis one account which depicts the earth in place before the sun was created.)

Edited by Buzsaw, : Emphasise date by color

Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Taq, posted 09-13-2011 12:40 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Panda, posted 10-03-2011 9:00 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Panda
Member (Idle past 117 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 314 of 377 (636070)
10-03-2011 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by Buzsaw
10-03-2011 8:48 PM


Re: Scientific Knowledge In The Necessary Absence of Certainty
Buz writes:

the UN and calls for a NEW World Order at a time when marks and numbers are being used as currency


When did we start using marks and numbers as currency?
(Please supply the decade (e.g. 1940's) - I don't need an exact date.)

{abe}It's off-topic.
Maybe you would be so kind as to PM me the answer?

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR

Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Buzsaw, posted 10-03-2011 8:48 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 15823
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 315 of 377 (636072)
10-03-2011 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by Panda
10-03-2011 6:24 PM


english 101
Hi Panda

the untestable concept is "there are not gods"

taking a 6 and rejecting the untestable concept then means rejecting the concept that "there are no gods" as representing reality

capiche?

You doubt that atheists would take the de-facto atheist position ...

yes, on the untestable concept that "there are no gods"?

and ending up with "there are not (no gods)" and parsing out the double negative you would get "there are gods"

wouldn't that de facto make you a ⟨2⟩ (or ~⟨1⟩?)then on gods existing?

always taking a ⟨6⟩ on any untestable concept means taking a ⟨6⟩ on a ⟨6⟩ untestable concept ... how does that work out for you?

Obviously the position you take is dependent on the concept (and your personal beliefs) rather than some arbitrary criteria applied by rote.

Of course this kind of silliness is (a) why forcing the Dawkins scale outside it original intent is questionable, and (b) why one should not make absolute declarations.

Enjoy

Edited by Zen Deist, : it makes me laugh

Edited by Zen Deist, : more lol


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Panda, posted 10-03-2011 6:24 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by Panda, posted 10-03-2011 9:55 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

RewPrev1
...
1920
21
2223
...
26Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014