Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Interpretation of Evidence Colored by "GodSenseless" worldview
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 2 of 74 (149757)
10-13-2004 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
10-13-2004 12:14 PM


This topic is to allow Willowtree to support his conjecture that evidence is interpreted based on "worldview" and that this cause utterly different interpretations of the evidence.
IOW, atheists, evolutionists, and those who believe that scientific methodologies are the only avenue to determine truth, are persons whose worldview does not affect their conclusions or interpretation of evidence.
Let me interpret what Ned is really saying if it is not clear already:
Ned is saying that the above entities should be viewed as objective - that their worldview does not affect their conclusions or interpretation of evidence and anyone who dares to imply otherwise is out of line.
What silences the criticism that conclusions/interpretations are ultimately based upon worldview ?
The specific issue which sparked this topic was evolutionists claiming their position based upon scientific evidence is the only rational position to take, AND anyone who does not fall into line with the said evidence AND its interpretation is irrational/crazy/insane.
RAZD writes:
http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth -->EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth
My belief is that what can be known can only be known by rational methods. That is the wrapping paper of Deism. There are other things that cannot be known, and for those things whether you keep to rational methods or not does not make knowledge any more or less accessible.
RAZD writes:
http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth -->EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth
No I don't assume, I am stating a fact: the earth is older than any possilbe YEC model would allow. This is no different than stating that the evidence is overwhelming that the earth is not the center of the solar system nor the universe. This is accepted fact by rational people.
Now here is my point:
Examine Razd's quotes.
Here we have an admitted old Earth evo/probably atheist/rejects Genesis/scientific methodologies are the only way to determine truth, YET according to his quotes the scientific evidence which he bases his conclusions and interpretations on is DEPENDANT ON BEING RATIONAL AND "RATIONAL METHODS"
I enter the picture at this point and say, "Hey, looks like scientific methodologies depend on a subjective definition of rational - a philosophic argument - just like religion does."
Who defines rational ?
That is one of my two major points.
The other point is that no matter how you slice it, science is no different than religion because it relies on a subjective definition of rational. Therefore, this unceasing assertion that science is based only upon scientific evidence is nonsense because according to Razd/Ned you must be rational in their view = a philosophic argument.
According to my worldview, anyone who does not believe that God is the Creator is irrational/insane. But my worldview admits that philosophy is king unlike the scientific methodologies pushed by Razd/Ned which also rely on persons being rational. The issue is their refusal to admit this which makes their claim about their conclusions being based only upon evidence absurdly false.
Dr Scott: "Everyone has an ax to grind - objective persons declare their bias up-front so their audience knows when it creeps into their conclusions."
Atheo-evos would have everyone believe that they are exempt from bias.
The specific issue is: How does any evidence disprove Genesis ?
Answer: Only when the filter of your worldview says so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 10-13-2004 12:14 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 10-13-2004 10:12 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 10-13-2004 11:28 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 10 by paisano, posted 10-14-2004 9:18 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 16 of 74 (150175)
10-15-2004 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by AdminNosy
10-13-2004 10:19 PM


I just discovered the topic here in this Forum.
I owe responses.
ASAP.
WT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AdminNosy, posted 10-13-2004 10:19 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 19 of 74 (150364)
10-16-2004 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by NosyNed
10-13-2004 10:12 PM


Re: Rational?
Your claim has been that the "rational" worldview that we espouse
By placing quote marks around 'rational' equates to the FIRST time "you guys" have not asserted/insisted/assumed that rational was your natural born-with birthright.
I am very pleased to see your post begin this way as the guts of my complaint centers on the fact that the self-description of rationality is subjective - a philosophic argument.
results in misinterpretations when compared to the "rational"-faithful worldview that you espouse. Let's call them Rational-A (RA) and Rational-F (RF)
Here is the remainder of your sentence.
How quickly things degenerate.
This last half of the sentence now secretly removes the quote marks off of 'rational' by a subtle distiction found in the attempted naming of a worldview to be based on "faith"ful. IOW, you have just subjectively asserted superiority by implying my worldview is based upon faith.
It is not.
We claim the faith to be based upon facts - just like yours.
EVERYONE has faith - the only issue is the object.
Scientific methodologies are the object of faith of naturalists.
Theistic methodology is the object of faith for supernaturalists.
We declare our methodology is superior based on the fact that God IS, and IF He is, then this is the basis of our superiority claim.
Scientific methodologies (SM) EXCLUDE the supernatural as untestable/irrational.
Theistic methodology (TM) fully supports SM except in their Divine exclusions.
TM/its source the Bible clearly explains WHY SM exclude the Divine, that this exclusion (which SM calls neutrality) is maintained because God has incapacitated their ability to embrace Him as a penalty for summarily rejecting Him.
TM only wars with SM when it is perceived that SM interprets and concludes evidence to disprove Biblical claims.
When this happens TM simply points out that rational is subjective to ones worldview.
Each methodology and its claim to rationality is whats called an invulnerable claim - a claim which cannot be falsified because no matter what is argued the other can simply dismiss it as irrational.
But TM, in my subjective opinion, trumps SM because of its terminally defective component of excluding the Divine under the pretense of neutrality.
Now listen close: IF God IS, (and He is based upon the evidence) THEN His subjective beliefs/word as found in the Bible BECOMES objective truth of which everything else becomes inferior and subordinate especially if they (SM) assert a silly objective/superiority that doesn't exist.
TM/we tolerate eveything and everyone EXCEPT when everything and everyone brands TM to be irrational, THEN the TM explanation of God sense removal/punishment applies.
Science and their methodologies are wonderful, EXCEPT when they intrude into faith and by faith, contrary to their methodology, subjectively assert superiority over a methodology (TM) which bases its entire methodology on the objective eternal truths as revealed by the eternal God in His word/the Bible.
Your claim is that the conclusions that use RA are misinterpretations
No.
They are philosophic conclusions IF they are perceived to be disproving RF/TM.
If RF/TM is not affected then there is no quarrel.
My argument is the deceptive nature of RA to operate under the disguise of being entirely based upon scientific evidence while worldview philosophy plays no part in the interpretation of the evidence.
However, as has been pointed out to you a number of times, about 40% of practicing scientists are not atheists.
Fine.
I will accept your claim as fact.
Thus the thought processes they bring to bare are not atheistic. Is there a third class of thought? Since they arrive at the same conclusions as the atheists you claim that the thought processes are wrong because they are atheistic is wrong.
What conclusions are these ?
Is RF/TM affected ?
You have yet to show the workings of the 'correct' method of rational thinking (RF) as applied to existing evidence and how, step by step, it arrives at a different conclusion. That will be necessary to show that there is a better way.
There is no better way than RA/SM pertaining to science.
Big problems arise when RA/SM assert that RA/SM is the ONLY way to determine truth which is implying that RF/TM is inferior/irrational.
IOW, RA/SM should stick to science and not intrude into TM. When this trespass occurrs we then must put you in your place and point out that RA/SM at its foundation relies on a subjective definition of rational just like RF/TM, only we admit it and you do not.
No matter how you slice it philosophy is king and not science and RF/TM explains atheism to be a penalty from God.
Let me have a go at making my own statment about what I think a rational way of coming to a conclusion is:
1) It uses evidence that I have some chance of knowing is not a mistake, delusion or fraud. I do this be expecting others to check out what I think I am seeing or measuring. And redoing the examination if necessary.
2) It considers as much evidence as is possible and is likely to help me arrive at the conclusion. This means that while I do not look at literally everything I try to be careful about leaving things out which do or may have an influence on the conclusion.
3) I make each step of the logic connecting the evidence to the conclusion as clear as I possibly can. I do this to allow others to check what I am doing.
4) (optional?) If I expect others to accept my conclusions without reproducing the entire set of work I subject everything I have done to a careful and, perhaps preferably, somewhat hostile review to see if others without my emotional attachment to the result can find a flaw.
I completely agree with your blue box above - well said.
Now, WillowTree, it is your turn to explain what your form of rational thought processes are.
I did so at the very beginning of this response.
BUT, according to my worldview, it is irrational to exclude God. To snub Him risks His wrath of which manifests itself by removing desire for Him. This state leaves the violator terminally defective and incapable of making correct conclusions concerning the most important issues of life.
Every God-damn fundamentalist be damned - GOD ONLY REQUIRES GENUINE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AS THE CREATOR AND A WORD OF THANKS - these TWO requirements make a person ineligible to receive the punishment of God-sense removal.
The irony is that it is Darwinism/atheism which have militantly refused to grant Him those TWO things, hence the punishment of God-sense removal which forever finalizes their decision to deny Him those two things. This paragraph SEEMS circular but it is not if you sequencially follow the argument.
But, according to the Bible, even God-sense removal can be revoked if one embraces the gospel/way of faith which results in a factual reality experience with God.
You have seen plenty of examples of the one I just gave being applied. Once you have defined yours I'd like an example of it being applied.
With all due respect your post does not contain a single example of evidence being interpreted under God-sense removal and with God-sense.
A specific example would be like human evolution, or how does any physical evidence disprove the claim that God is the ultimate Creator ? None of this was mentioned or anything like it.
Maybe I am misunderstanding your comment.
As noted above this is the method used by firmly believing Christians too. And the majority of Christians accept it as a way of finding things out about the material world while rejecting it as a way of finding things out about the immaterial world of their God.
Agreed.
I think I said this too in my own way.
The only issue is the reverse so to speak.
Materialists asserting RA/SM to be capable of determining the validity of RF/TM and their nasty ridiculous habit of routinely claiming a rationality with the sole intent of saying everyone else is not.
Atheo-evos use something like the method that I described above because they know full-well that they are not exempt from bias.
Great.
Rarely admitted to in general.
The individual humans involved in science be they believers or not are all biased in some way.
That is a objective fact.
The process used is the best that we have devised for avoiding the worst mistakes of that bias. It is the best we have for examining that which can be examined. That is the natural world but not more than that.
Agreed.
But when individual members of RA/SM assert that RA/SM trumps RF/TM then this is a philosophical argument usually done under the guise of an objectivity that does not exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 10-13-2004 10:12 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 10-16-2004 9:18 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 10-17-2004 11:29 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 22 by Loudmouth, posted 10-18-2004 2:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 23 of 74 (151192)
10-19-2004 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by RAZD
10-17-2004 11:29 AM


Re: Rational?
First, I haven't forgotten about your post #5 - ASAP.
First off your post blatantly assumes that only your religion has the godsense to see the supernatural and incorporate it.
Not true at all - this is your deliberate misinterpretation.
You misrepresent my post to say something that it does not say.
Never once did I even mention my religion.
The fact that other religions have not problem reconciling science and faith, rational and superrational, would mean that yours must not be correct.
This comment intentionally evades what I actually wrote.
You fraudulently make it sound like I argued against science. The fact that you refused to quote me directly exposes your only interest in this discussion to be one of sabotage.
This approach is only done to confound and confuse things because my arguments effectively highlight the error of those who assert science and its methodologies to be the only avenue to determine truth.
The remainder of your post only repeats the non sequitor approach stated above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 10-17-2004 11:29 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by NosyNed, posted 10-19-2004 8:23 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 10-20-2004 11:37 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 25 of 74 (151198)
10-19-2004 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Loudmouth
10-18-2004 2:53 PM


Re: Rational?
So your methodology is superior because God MIGHT exist?
I said IF He does, THEN any methodology based upon this fact would be superior.
We theists know He exists so this is our basis to claim superior methodology.
Couldn't an atheist then claim that his/her views are better because God MIGHT NOT exist?
Sure they could.
But they then would need to explain how their views are bettered by God not existing.
This doesn't seem to be a strong enough basis to claim superiority.
What could be a better claim than the universal God ? (if He exists)
However, there is another realm of testing, the physical world.
Yes, it is called Methodological Naturalism and Rational Enquiry - these methodologies are superior for the natural world. Their only defects is the Divine neutrality claims which are really Divine exclusionary. It is this exclusion which triggers the wrath of God-sense removal.
If the theistic worldview is better then theistic theories dealing with the physical world should make better predictions than those based on a naturalistic worldview.
Completely irrelevant.
Theistic methodology does not intrude into scientific EXCEPT when the scientific interprets or concludes against a Biblical truth/claim.
By track record alone, methodological naturalism practiced by atheist and theist alike is the most accurate worldview when describing the natural world.
I completely agree.
But you god-damn naturalists should stay in your box and cease from attempting to transfer your expertise in science TO religious/theistic realms.
ONLY when science intrudes into the theistic arena are these problems confronted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Loudmouth, posted 10-18-2004 2:53 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Loudmouth, posted 10-20-2004 3:29 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 28 by pink sasquatch, posted 10-20-2004 5:26 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 26 of 74 (151201)
10-19-2004 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by NosyNed
10-16-2004 9:18 PM


Re: Close aren't we?
Close aren't we?
Yes.
Now if you feel that any of the currently accepted scientific conclusions are wrong because they are misapplying what we have called RA I would like to see your reworking of the conclusion using RF. Start with the same basic evidence and show the logic involved useing RF where appropriate.
Genesis says God created Adam.
How does science disprove this ?
If you allude to the scant fossil evidence then how rational is it to conclude such a mammoth claim based upon a paucity of disputed evidence ?
Lets assume these fossils do evidence hominid evolution - how does this disprove Genesis ?
Genesis says God created Adam, therefore both bodies of evidence COULD be true - no ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 10-16-2004 9:18 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by NosyNed, posted 10-20-2004 8:43 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 34 of 74 (151768)
10-21-2004 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by RAZD
10-20-2004 11:37 PM


Re: Rational?
You believe scientific methodologies are the ONLY avenue to determine truth.
This is error.
This is narrow minded fascist repressive medieval religion, known today as scientism, the same business on the other side of the street, and you are a rank and file brainwashed member.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 10-20-2004 11:37 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 10-21-2004 8:08 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 36 by coffee_addict, posted 10-21-2004 8:15 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 10-21-2004 9:08 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 42 by Loudmouth, posted 10-22-2004 2:29 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 10-22-2004 8:49 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 46 by jar, posted 10-22-2004 9:15 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 61 by RAZD, posted 10-28-2004 8:06 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 48 of 74 (153191)
10-26-2004 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by crashfrog
10-21-2004 8:08 PM


What other methods are there that are distinguishable from making shit up?
Darwinism.
Darwin actually stole his theory from some poor guy who was on a sick bed, this means the origins of Darwinism are fraud.
Darwinism was created because they wanted to rid God of being the Creator - the exact transgression which triggers God-sense removal in the book of Romans.
Show me the success of any methodology other than verifiable investigation of the natural world
I have already agreed that MN and RE are the best methodologies for determining natural materialistic issues.
My only complaint is when naturalists trespass out of their field of science and violate the alleged Divine neutrality clauses and assert Genesis/Bible to be untrue. What qualifications do you or any evo have in Divinity ?
The Bible itself says you are the products of God's wrath because you are atheists and all your purported scientific determinations are defective because of this fact IF they are offered against a Creator.
On the other hand, there was a time when religious methodology held sway in the West - that time period is called "The Dark Ages," and lasted a thousand years. Why do you think that might be? Why do you think that they did not have, for instance, telephones and airplanes in the Dark Ages, if the methodology they used was just as good as science?
The above blue box is almost unbelievable.
Atheists are responsible for the deaths and murder of 100's of millions of persons in the Soviet Union and Eastern bloc nations and China. In Albania, if you are not an atheist you are subject to death.
Nazi's fully embraced your ToE.
The Renaissance was produced by Protestant Reformation.
Of course, the retardation of the Dark Ages and the subsequent regaining of knowledge and progress competely supports the Biblical scenario unlike the evolutionary scenario which wants nothing to do with the genius of the ancients and their wonders.
Evolutionary scenario HAS to ignore and change history because its uninterupted ascent is smashed by the ultra intelligence of antiquity.
Lets remember the issue: Scientism - the BRANCH of science (atheistic) which has declared war on the God of the Bible. Scientism and its Darwinism will be a chapter in history books proving the truth of the Bible, that when persons reject the Creator they will embrace anything and everything to contradict Scripture in the name of truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 10-21-2004 8:08 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by jar, posted 10-26-2004 11:04 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 55 by crashfrog, posted 10-27-2004 12:03 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 10-28-2004 8:03 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 49 of 74 (153192)
10-26-2004 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by coffee_addict
10-21-2004 8:15 PM


Re: Rational?
I'd like to see you use your faith or whatever that you think is a better than science to figure out how to solve the problem.
I never said theistic methodolgy is best to determine individual scientific issues.
I said science, when it intrudes and concludes against a Biblical claim is philosophising in the name of objective scientific interpretations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by coffee_addict, posted 10-21-2004 8:15 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by crashfrog, posted 10-27-2004 12:06 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 50 of 74 (153195)
10-26-2004 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by coffee_addict
10-21-2004 8:26 PM


Re: Different kinds of truth???
Lam is a stereotypical naturalist who thinks he is qualified to transfer his defective naturalist philosophy into theology.
Theology explains this to be what persons say who have had their God-sense stripped for rejecting God as the Creator - thus they prove the Bible true regardless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by coffee_addict, posted 10-21-2004 8:26 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 52 of 74 (153199)
10-26-2004 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by AdminNosy
10-21-2004 8:29 PM


Re: Crack pot ideas
Willowtree, you were asked at the beginning of this thread and have been since asked to show how a different result could be achieved with your worldview.
Darwinism is the explanation of life minus the Creator.
Theistic evos are extremely short on theism which proves their position is to hijack a perceived endorsement of the Bible for the sole intent of supporting Darwinism.
THE ONLY ISSUE IS:
Is the God of the Bible the Creator or not ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by AdminNosy, posted 10-21-2004 8:29 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 53 of 74 (153207)
10-26-2004 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Loudmouth
10-22-2004 2:29 PM


Re: Rational?
but I agree with you Willow. We all need philosophy or theology to answer those bigger questions about life and existence.
Great Loudmouth - I agree.
However, the more narrowly defined "truth" of how the natural world works and has worked is best answered by science and not religion.
I agree as this has been my position.
I only protest when science types who know nothing about the Bible intrude therein and cause havoc with their gross ignorance OR offer a scientific interpretation which is made to disprove a Biblical claim.
Until the last 250 years religion had free reign over scientific truth and it went nowhere. It wasn't until religious bias was removed from science that real discoveries were made.
That so called removal of religious bias is an ambiguous hatchett job on truth which oversimplifies the issue.
The only issue is God as Creator.
When God is not given a seat at the creation table this exclusion triggers the wrath of God-sense removal. Hence the explanation of the lopsided influence of atheism in science, law, media, and education.
These four areas have experienced massive endorsement of atheistic ideology and have forced them on to society.
Why ?
Romans says God punishes persons by removing any desire for Him as a penalty for resisting His perceived encroachments as the Creator.
This tunnell of atheism as labeled by Professor Huston Smith was identified by Dr. Scott as the wrath of God as recorded in Romans 1.
This entire scenario of atheistic success in the aforementioned 4 areas of society ALSO proves the Biblical scenario and claim that the world is fast moving toward Anti-Christ and the End Time events of the book of Revelation.
IOW, God is responsible for this atheistic success because He is punishing persons who reject Him as Creator. Which is a reaction to the works of Satan and his freedom to ensure destruction of as many people as possible.
1Samuel 2:25 NIV:
If a man sins against another man, God may mediate for him; but if a man sins against the LORD , who will intercede for him?" His sons, however, did not listen to their father's rebuke, for it was the LORD's will to put them to death.
NewKJV:
If one man sins against another, God will judge him. But if a man sins against the LORD, who will intercede for him?" Nevertheless they did not heed the voice of their father, because the LORD desired to kill them.
The above verses prove that the MERE unwillingness to listen to the truth/correction WAS BECAUSE God would not let them BECAUSE He wanted to kill them.
The point is that there is a time when the love of God ceases and He turns into an enemy.
Persons who have no God-sense have crossed the line. Their common denominator is that they don't care about God = the truth referenced above.
All this because Darwinists refuse to let God be the Creator - the only issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Loudmouth, posted 10-22-2004 2:29 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Loudmouth, posted 10-27-2004 1:28 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 54 of 74 (153211)
10-27-2004 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by jar
10-22-2004 9:15 PM


Re: WILLOWTREE
Unless you can define what you mean by truth, that is a meaningless statement.
John 18:38, Pilate speaking to Jesus:
Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.
Jesus is truth and there is no fault in Him at all.
You do not seem to outline what it is YOU are addressing when you mention things such as truth. Before anyone can even debate such issues it will be necessary for you to define your terms.
I completely agree that terms should be defined.
My only issue is the Bible and scientific interpretions that are offered to assert a claim therein to be false.
When this happens I point out that the interpretation is based on the worldview of the person and not the evidence. IOW, philosophy is king.
Can you pick, as a beginning point, one specific case?
Darwinism and its claim that the evidence thereof means there is no Creator/God of the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by jar, posted 10-22-2004 9:15 PM jar has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 57 of 74 (153221)
10-27-2004 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by crashfrog
10-27-2004 12:03 AM


WT writes:
unlike the evolutionary scenario which wants nothing to do with the genius of the ancients and their wonders.
Evolutionary scenario HAS to ignore and change history because its uninterupted ascent is smashed by the ultra intelligence of antiquity.
responding Crashfrog writes:
What wonders?
What in the past could possibly compare to Einstein's relativity, or Godel's incompleteness theorem? Or Norman Borlaug's unparalleled beneficence?
Your replies to my blue boxes completely confirm the accusations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by crashfrog, posted 10-27-2004 12:03 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 10-27-2004 12:22 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 62 of 74 (154306)
10-29-2004 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by RAZD
10-22-2004 4:10 PM


Re: and the answer is ... 42?
RAZD writes:
The Philosophy of Pragmatism:
The mind is such that it deals only with ideas. It is not possible for the mind to relate to anything other than ideas. Therefore it is not correct to think that the mind actually can ponder reality. All that the mind can ponder is its ideas about reality. (Whether or not that is the way reality actually is, is a metaphysical issue.) Therefore, whether or not something is true is not a matter of how closely it corresponds to the absolute truth, but of how consistent it is with our experience.
The above philosophical creed is also known as "idealism" and it is the antithesis of "realism".
Idealism says nothing can be proven to exist because only relationships exist, that is our relationship with any given reality.
Realism says that is nonsense. Whether you or I have a relationship or not natural reality exists - regardless.
Now for the real difference between the two:
Idealism: No such thing as eternal truths. What is true is only what I have relationship with. If I have no relationship with it then it does not and cannot be proven to exist.
Realism: Eternal truth exists. My relationship with anything, whether there is one or not does not affect the existence of reality.
The classic question posed in these agruments is: When a tree falls in the forest and if no one is around to hear it does it still make a sound ?
Idealists say you cannot prove it.
Realists say nonsense - obviously it does.
Gary Zukav writes:
The mind can only deal with ideas. For it to deal with an idea it must first either (a) be presented with the idea from an outside source, (b) deduce the idea from observation of the (individual's) perceived reality, or (c) combine previous ideas (including the ideas of observations) into a new idea.
(a) Is the essence of education.
(b) Is the essence of rational thought.
(c) Is the essence of creating theories.
For any of these ideas to be perceived by an individual as true, they must be consistent with the experiences of that individual. But each experience is recalled as an idea of what occurred, so the experiences of an individual are the all the previous ideas of that individual. The individual combines all previous ideas into a reality map against which new ideas are tested.
Where there is a conflict between two ideas, then either one or the other or both must be incorrect (or incomplete) and it is time for a new idea. The new idea can either be a test to see which old idea is correct (or more complete), or it can be a new way of structuring the old ideas so that the conflict is resolved.
Because it is de facto impossible for the {experiences / ideas} of one person to match the {experiences / ideas} of another person, it follows that perceived truth for one person is necessarily different from perceived truth for another person.
Where there is a conflict between two perceived truths, then either one or the other or both must be incorrect (or incomplete) and it is time for a new idea. The new idea can either be a test to see which perceived truth is correct (or more complete), or it can be a new way of structuring the old ideas so that the conflict is resolved.
The entire blue box says:
Truth is what works for you = the Bible and its unseen eternal truths are nonsense.
Romans tells us why it is nonsense to some people.
Please respond RADZ and I will also.
sincerely,
WT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 10-22-2004 4:10 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by AdminNosy, posted 10-30-2004 3:07 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 64 by RAZD, posted 10-30-2004 1:46 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024