Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (9011 total)
54 online now:
dwise1, frako, jar, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (5 members, 49 visitors)
Newest Member: Burrawang
Upcoming Birthdays: Coragyps
Happy Birthday: DrJones*
Post Volume: Total: 881,649 Year: 13,397/23,288 Month: 327/795 Week: 28/95 Day: 9/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Nature of Scepticism
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2481 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 12 of 271 (690841)
02-16-2013 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
02-15-2013 1:54 PM


of the various kinds of skeptism...
I assume you want to discuss Genesis in the realm of one kind of skepticism, the scientific which refers to the critical analysis of claims lacking empirical evidence.

The issue then requires that each verse in genesis be supported with a correspondence to what science tells us in regard to the cosmic evolution that Genesis describes unfolding in seven steps.

Right???/


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 02-15-2013 1:54 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Straggler, posted 02-17-2013 5:19 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2481 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 13 of 271 (690842)
02-16-2013 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Coyote
02-16-2013 1:44 PM


Re: Evidence

Skepticism is merely a request for evidence, and evidence is one of the cornerstones of science.

Exactly.
Otherwise what one calls skeptism is doubt that resists change regards of the facts.

People doubted Gen 1:1 was either supported by fact or ever woukd be, until Hubbke gathered the eviidence for a Big Bang beginning.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Coyote, posted 02-16-2013 1:44 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Coyote, posted 02-16-2013 8:19 PM kofh2u has responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2481 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 15 of 271 (690848)
02-16-2013 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Coyote
02-16-2013 8:19 PM


Re: Evidence

I am really skeptical that Iron Age sheep herders had the big bang in mind when those particular tracts were written down.

Me too.

I have no evidence that they did interpret what is written in the way we can see it does correspond to the scientific facts.

That is what makes this writing appear on face value as divinely revealed.

Who could have known?
Who could have made such a clear and unequivical and definitive first statement as to base everything that would follow one a speculation of a Cosmic beginning?

Since the coin flip of a Cosmos, one that was always there, agaisnt one which had an initial beginning would have been pure luck, it is at least an example of great confidence to have taken a position right off the bat.

But then to say that no Light appeared with that Big Bang, and a delay was experienced when we just discovered the Cosmic Dark Age, the coincidental possibilities are pretty scant, imo.

Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Coyote, posted 02-16-2013 8:19 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Eli, posted 02-17-2013 2:18 AM kofh2u has responded
 Message 60 by DBlevins, posted 02-19-2013 12:36 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2481 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 23 of 271 (690876)
02-17-2013 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by RAZD
02-16-2013 11:12 PM


Re: dead end? ... how far do you go?

Well, I would say that taken to the absurd ultimate extreme final conclusion, nothing could be trusted, not even your own senses, and that you end up not believing anything.

Therefore you take some things on trust, such as the trust that reality exists, or that empirical evidence represents that reality.

Rene Descartes in 1620 ad established the rules for obercoming an initial State of Skeptism concerning the sum of all existence.

First he founded reality upon the observation that he MUST exist de facto he was "talking" to himself about the very subject of existence.
He, in thinking, evidenced himself as existing.

That is still all we got.

WAe are only certain because of Hard Evidence, that we exist because iy is this thinking that is really "us."
As infants, we explore sensations that come to out attention as thoughts about pain and pleasure which we did not think up or initiate.
Hence we are not alone, but in the company of some "other" thing that is sending thoughts to us call sensations.
Having most recently encountered these message coming into our mind, in contrast to nine months of solitary and sensationalist deprivation inside the womb, it is clear we now have some Other entity in our company.

We soon realize this "other" is almighty, and holds the power of both our survival and nurture in the balance.
This is that God the bible speaks of, the Reality whose image can form inside our mind if we accumulate The Truth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 02-16-2013 11:12 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2481 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 24 of 271 (690878)
02-17-2013 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Eli
02-17-2013 2:18 AM


Re: Evidence

It says the earth was made "in the beginning."
The earth came 10 billion years after the big bang.

If genesis is divinely inspired, whatever "the beginning" is describing is not the big bang.

Your reading comprehension is poor there, since the verse says things happened in The beginning.

One thing was the Heavens appeared, and the unformed matter that would become valid as a spherical ball had already been part of thos heavens.

Today, we say that the Universe BEGAN 13.5 billion years ago.
This corresponds directly with the first three words in genesis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Eli, posted 02-17-2013 2:18 AM Eli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Eli, posted 02-18-2013 3:15 AM kofh2u has responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2481 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 26 of 271 (690882)
02-17-2013 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by RAZD
02-17-2013 8:48 AM


Re: too far already?

Your opinion based on your worldview. You trust the scientific process and approach, and accept the accuracy of research papers based on these beliefs.

Descartes did NOT have a world view in his approach.

What he did was found his own existence first, based solely upon the evidence that he was thinking, which he relized he indeed was.

From that point on, he used the Scientific Method.

As a baby he had observed that something was wiggling, because the sight sensations could be confirmed by totally different evidence in Feeling his toes.
He recognized and accept that seven different kinds of thoughts came unbidden into his thinking, obviously from that "other" entity he would call Reality.

He continued in this process and found he could deduce an image of Truth that meiated between his thinking and what was corrsponding to that image of Truth in that "other" entity not him.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 02-17-2013 8:48 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2481 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


(1)
Message 48 of 271 (690988)
02-18-2013 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Eli
02-18-2013 3:15 AM


Re: Evidence

The first sentence plainly reads "In the beginning God created the heaven and earth."

It clearly and literally says that the earth was made "in the beginning."

Again, your reading comorehension is terrible here.
The Bibke does NOT say that the Earth was "made."

It says the Heavens and Earth were CREATED.

Every formless star and planet was void of a solid geometrical shapes, but all matter that is here today was CREATED then, in that instant.

To support the comprehension of this verse, were see that the Sun, itself, was "made" time keeper over the Solar Clock at some point in the story.
The Sun had always been there "from the beginning," it was "made" the authority iver earth time much later in the story.

The Sun and the Moon and all the Stars were "MADE the authority over the circadian Earth Time as soon as had life appeared in the late Archean or 3rd duration of the geological rock formation:

Gen. 1:14 And God, (The First Cause), said, Let there be (Sidereal Time), lights in the firmament of the heaven, (for the reason) to divide the (12 hour) day from the (12 hour) night; and let them be for (the purpose of) signs, (astronomical, symbolic references),\[B\] and for (the purpose to designate) times, (the four seasons), and for (the 24 hour period to be called) days, (the "day" of 24 hours as distinguished from the days of long Eras), and years (of 365 day):

Strong's Concordance
Transliteration:`asah = made [H6213] =
made: [asah = appoint, ordain, institute]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Eli, posted 02-18-2013 3:15 AM Eli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-19-2013 12:13 PM kofh2u has not yet responded
 Message 70 by Eli, posted 02-20-2013 8:44 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2481 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 65 of 271 (691067)
02-19-2013 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by DBlevins
02-19-2013 1:03 PM


Re: Too far already? Yep

'Proven' is a pretty loaded word. Our established 'knowledge' of the universe is never proven, something I am sure you've agreed with outside of your philosophical debates. We may be able to draw inferences based on what we think we know, but we can never be absolutely certain that we are absolutely correct.

Rene Descartes is called the father of modern philosophy because he started at the point where his own thinking proved to him that he existed and was real.
You can start there, too.

Once you have that foundation for existence, you canuse the Scientific Method to prove the wiggling toes are yours, or that your hands are doing exactly what you THINK you are telling them to do.

Step by step thereafter, Empiricism allows you to ask peers if they too sense the same observations and facts that you know to exit.
When all observers agree with one another, you have proven things, like putting our hand in the fire willl always get it burnt, etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by DBlevins, posted 02-19-2013 1:03 PM DBlevins has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by ringo, posted 02-22-2013 12:18 PM kofh2u has responded
 Message 79 by DBlevins, posted 02-22-2013 2:36 PM kofh2u has responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2481 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 66 of 271 (691069)
02-19-2013 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by DBlevins
02-19-2013 1:26 PM


skeptism can just be nilihism...

Skepticism isn't a belief, it is a way of discerning a path towards knowledge.

Maybe...

But we see the people who are skeptical of Evolution because it confronts their faith in the way they understand Genesis.
And, here, we see the other people who are skeptical of admitting the Big Bang was "In the beginning" because they would have to concede the first verse of Genesis actually is literally true.

Skeptism is actuallyu the best way to make sure no one "proves" anything to you simply because for that to happen, ONLY you can say it was proven.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by DBlevins, posted 02-19-2013 1:26 PM DBlevins has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Dogmafood, posted 02-20-2013 8:34 AM kofh2u has responded
 Message 78 by DBlevins, posted 02-22-2013 1:31 PM kofh2u has responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2481 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 71 of 271 (691288)
02-21-2013 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Dogmafood
02-20-2013 8:34 AM


Re: skeptism can just be nilihism...

Well no not exactly kofh2u. The 'In the beginning' part is ok. It is the 'God created...' part that is unsupported. If the first verse of Genesis said something more like what Steven Weinberg said,

Yes, these people have refused to goas far as to agree that Genesis is correct about the Big Bang beginning, simply because they aare arguing there is no god.
But they are confused in their desire to deny God that even they must attribute the event to a First Cause which itself is the only supernatural event they, the scientists, nmake a belief or axiom about .

These scientists argue that for every observed aEffect, there is always a Cause.
But the First Cause they excuse from this rule.

They ask us to believe in some Force behind the Big Bang which is god like, in so many ways by their own definition.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Dogmafood, posted 02-20-2013 8:34 AM Dogmafood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Eli, posted 02-21-2013 10:01 PM kofh2u has not yet responded
 Message 73 by Dogmafood, posted 02-21-2013 11:57 PM kofh2u has not yet responded
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 02-22-2013 1:53 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2481 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 93 of 271 (691591)
02-23-2013 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by ringo
02-22-2013 12:18 PM


Re: Too far already? Yep

Nothing I say here depends on me being real. The "truth" of what I say (if any) doesn't depend on my existence.

For sure.
The Truth was before Abraham, before Jesus, and before you or I.

Truth is the grace of Reality as it unfolds the next frame it leaves as if a son, Truth in its wake.

John1:1
In the beginning was the Word, (i.e.; Truth: [John 14:6]), and the Word, (Truth, itself), was (synonymous) with God, (i.e.; Reality), and the Word, (Truth: [John 14:6]), was (indistinguishable from Reality), God, (the almighty for all men).

2 "He," (Truth, the symbolic Word to come: [Jud 1:3]) was with God, (i.e.; the ever unfolding Reality), in the beginning, (that is, the initial unfolding of material Reality in what was the actiual physical Creation).

Jn 1:3 ALL (real) THINGS, (phenomenally, i.e.; mentally), came into existence, (for man), through him, (i.e.; this concept of Truth), and apart from him, (this ideal of Truth), not even ONE (real) thing came into (actual) existence (for men).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by ringo, posted 02-22-2013 12:18 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by ringo, posted 02-23-2013 11:25 AM kofh2u has responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2481 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 95 of 271 (691595)
02-23-2013 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by DBlevins
02-22-2013 1:31 PM


Re: skeptism can just be nilihism...

1) There is nothing wrong with being skeptical of evolution or any other theory. Scientists codify 'skepticism' by limiting well supported ideas to the position of 'Theory.' While evolution is a Theory that is well-supported by evidence, has been tested a multitude of times, and makes correct predictions, there is still the chance, however slight, that someone could come about and turn it on it's head. Same thing with our "Theory" of Gravity. Scientists know our knowledge is not and will never be complete.

2) It's always good, imho, to have at least a little bit of skepticism about the extent of peoples knowledge and try to investigate it yourself by looking for reputable sources.

The point is that you may think that people are avoiding an admission of whether the Big Bang was "In the beginning" but it may be the case that they just don't know what "In the beginning" means in the context of the Big Bang.

3) My understanding of how things work could be flawed, and thus I should never assume that my view of how the universe works is complete or proven.

3) I conclude you make others suffer from your Cognitive Dissonance in that you consciously refuse to believe what you know, even when the Scientific Method demonstrates that facts exist which everyone can observe if they set up the same experiments.

2) You also seem to have poor reading comprehension when you do not understand that the "beginning of the heavens and the earth means the beginning of the Universe, i.e., the meaning of The Big Bang.

1) Theories inthe discipline of Science are akin to Theorem in the discipline of Geometry.
They support Truth as best humans can discern that entity.

If one denies that Truth exists, or that it is unknowable to men for sure, then one admits to living in the insanity of a Fantasy World he consequentally has been constructing.

Here what you say would seem to support my guess that you make the people around you suffer because of your illness, Cognitive Dissonance. i.e.; you don't believe anything at all, not for sure.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by DBlevins, posted 02-22-2013 1:31 PM DBlevins has not yet responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2481 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 96 of 271 (691599)
02-23-2013 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by DBlevins
02-22-2013 2:36 PM


Re: Too far already? Yep

We employ something like the scientific method when we determine that putting our hands in the fire will burn our hands and we draw the conclusion that putting our hands in the fire is dangerous. While this conclusion is related to the scientific method of determining why it is dangerous, it isn't an explanation. For an explanation of why things burn, we draw upon our knowledge of physics and chemistry. Our understanding of these processes is not truly complete. Our assumptions may be flawed. We don't have a complete understanding of physics and chemistry, and thus we can not say with 100% certainty that every time we put our hand in the fire it will burn. We can be reasonably assured that this will happen and wouldn't recommend testing it out by placing our hand in the fire. We can continue testing our theory and refining it and draw conclusions from it but there may come a time when something happens that we don't expect and the physical and chemical process
of fire doesn't act the way we think it should. It may be a complete shock and wonder but that is the process of science.

By the way, just because something doesn't act the way we think it should doesn't mean we just drop our theory of how we thought it should work. We remain skeptical of our assumptions and look for flaws in the new observations. If the new observations hold up to further testing then we update or change our theory. But even so, it can never be complete. Our perception and understanding of the world is limited and thus my skepticism.

The short of it is: We can have an observation that fire will burn and a theory on how or why and draw valid conclusions from it, but we should remain skeptical and be prepared to change our understanding when appropriate.

I rest my case in concluding that you are living in a fantasy world and refuse to acept Reality based upon concrete experimentally demonstrated evidence.

The very purpose of the Scientific Method is the establish the facts-of-life which are the planks by which we build a model inside our head of the real world that exists external to our thinking.

If you do not accept this method for establishing not only what you, yourself, can fix in your mind as factually true about the external "thingee" within which you are both trapped and dependent upon, you essentially deny your own Sensory Perceptions as reliable, and you understand everything as a dream or fantasy that may not be real, but just figments of your mind.

That is the definition of madness, of course, living outside of Reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by DBlevins, posted 02-22-2013 2:36 PM DBlevins has not yet responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2481 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 97 of 271 (691608)
02-23-2013 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Coyote
02-22-2013 9:31 PM


Re: On Proof

proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make.

All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

Is Science different in this admission that it will change its views if evidence is brought to its attention that corrects it?

Is Mathematics not similar, as Fermat's Last Theorem tells us?
Until evidence was brought to support the Theorem, the matter remained open.

But this is not an excuse for dismissing every theory in Science on the mere argument that it COULD or MIGHT be changed.

If one does as Rene Descartes, and rejects everything, he must also do as did Rene, in admitting that he can think about the evidence of his senses and piece together ideas about the external world that are for the most part correct. He can even conclude that when some element of that Reality is found untrue in the model he has been constructing, mentally, it changes only a small part of the whole general perception of Reality he has held to.

It improves his understanding, but does not eliminate it, nor start over except in cases of madness to begin with.

When Dalton was corrected about solid little Atoms when the Bohr Atom was discovered, Atomism did not disappear, but new insights where added.

When the Law of Conservation of Matter was revised, adding that it necessarily required the same conservation of Energy, we added to our understanding.

Heliocentrism replaced Geocentricism, but neither had said planets did not orbit.

What we really have observed over time is baseless ideas disappeared as the Scientific Method gradually established the facts of Reality.

What we really ought emphasize is the rarity in Science, when the use of facts available lead to false assumptions as discovered only when Science, itself, discovered more facts.
It is rather more akin to saying saying that th discipline of science, within itself, is Self Correcting, a rather unusual trait, one very rare to man whose ego opposes Truth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Coyote, posted 02-22-2013 9:31 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Eli, posted 02-23-2013 10:58 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2481 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 104 of 271 (691700)
02-24-2013 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Coyote
02-16-2013 8:19 PM


Re: Evidence

People doubted Gen 1:1 was either supported by fact or ever woukd be, until Hubbke gathered the eviidence for a Big Bang beginning.

I am really skeptical that Iron Age sheep herders had the big bang in mind when those particular tracts were written down.

I doubt that you are skeptical.

You are confirmed in the decision you have already made in stone against Genesis and no argument or evidence to the contrary will sway your position.

This is NOT skeptism.

skep·ti·cal

/ˈskeptikəl/

Adjective
Not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Coyote, posted 02-16-2013 8:19 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020