Originally posted by whiteroseAbsolutely, I agree. But what if you continued flipping that coin, 1000 times, 10,000 times, 100,000 times, 1,000,000 times, a billion times. Every time, heads. At what point do you decide that it's safe to call it a fact that it's a double headed coin? What about gravity? A fact? Atoms? Fact? That humans require oxygen to live? Fact? Maybe it's just co-incidence that every time you stop someone from breathing that they die.
Ah, but now we get into science as the be-all and end-all of the universe. If science says it, then it must be a fact. How did we get the current laws of physics, chemistry, and biology? By observation of the world around us. They are very useful laws, but probably not perfect. Therefore, to say that something is a "fact" because the laws of physics, which ...[text shortened]... headed. In all likelyhood it is, but there is always the remote possibility that it is not.
It comes down to this sort of pedantics, I'm afraid. If you seriously analyse the world, there is nothing that could really be called a "fact", if you are the world's most anally retentive person. I, however, am not.
Originally posted by scottishinnzAre you sure about that? 😛 It could be that it only seems like you're not
...if you are the world's most anally retentive person. I, however, am not.
the world's most anally retentive person. Even if we pick a million incidents
in your life and none of them suggests you're not the world's most anally
retentive person, it may still be too early to consider it a fact. 🙄😀
Originally posted by stockenha ha, lol. 😀
Are you sure about that? 😛 It could be that it only seems like you're not
the world's most anally retentive person. Even if we pick a million incidents
in your life and none of them suggests you're not the world's most anally
retentive person, it may still be too early to consider it a fact. 🙄😀
What you saying, like? ðŸ˜
Originally posted by scottishinnzIMO demanding certainty as a standard for human knowledge over the external world is pointless. There will always be some doubt (even in your coin flipping example), and therefore there will always be woefully few facts about the world around us (perhaps the only one being that there are few facts about the world us).
Absolutely, I agree. But what if you continued flipping that coin, 1000 times, 10,000 times, 100,000 times, 1,000,000 times, a billion times. Every time, heads. At what point do you decide that it's safe to call it a fact that it's a double headed coin? What about gravity? A fact? Atoms? Fact? That humans require oxygen to live? Fact? Maybe it ...[text shortened]... alled a "fact", if you are the world's most anally retentive person. I, however, am not.
I think this certainty game apologists throw out is just a red herring to distract people away from the woefully poor physical evidence for their position.
Originally posted by scottishinnzTrue, but what if you go back the other way, and flip the coin 50 times, or 10 times, or 2 times? It is all a scale of probability. So at what point does probability become fact? That is a very difficult question to answer, and the answer is probably different for everyone. All I am saying is that, to me, calling something a fact means that there is no room for dispute, which as any scientist should know is usually not the case. I mean, look at science through history. It was a "fact" that the earth was flat at one stage. Today it is a fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Perhaps in 100 years there will be new evidence that contradicts this fact, and if you are welded to it the way that people were welded to the flat earth theory, then science can never move forward. From a scientific perspective, nothing really ever can be called a fact, as the whole point of science is to challenge and question everything. Very anal retentive, I know, but maybe that's why I never wanted to be a scientist.
Absolutely, I agree. But what if you continued flipping that coin, 1000 times, 10,000 times, 100,000 times, 1,000,000 times, a billion times. Every time, heads. At what point do you decide that it's safe to call it a fact that it's a double headed coin? What about gravity? A fact? Atoms? Fact? That humans require oxygen to live? Fact? Maybe it ...[text shortened]... alled a "fact", if you are the world's most anally retentive person. I, however, am not.
Originally posted by whiteroseIndeed. Of course, you are right. However, the evidence for scientific theories, which by very definition must explain huge amounts of data, each a significant observation individually, is totally overwhelming. For example, age of the earth. We can date the earth using multiple samples from different geographical areas using multiple techniques, 6 or 7 different measurements, which have differing assumptions, different strengths, different weaknesses, and we still get the same figure of 4.53 billion years give of take 2%. Then we have isochrons, where we test the same sample by three or more methods, and using the simplest of mathematics using only one known value for each method (itself derived from a huge body of experimental evidence), the decay constant, we can track back and show the actual age of the sample.
True, but what if you go back the other way, and flip the coin 50 times, or 10 times, or 2 times? It is all a scale of probability. So at what point does probability become fact? That is a very difficult question to answer, and the answer is probably different for everyone. All I am saying is that, to me, calling something a fact means that there is no ro ...[text shortened]... erything. Very anal retentive, I know, but maybe that's why I never wanted to be a scientist.
Technically, you are correct. Of course, there is no other way it can be Rose, but practically, when the evidence is so powerful and wide ranging I don't think it's going to be refuted any time soon.
Originally posted by scottishinnzIn all likelyhood the age of the earth will not be refuted anytime soon. All I am saying is don't forget to keep an open mind.
Indeed. Of course, you are right. However, the evidence for scientific theories, which by very definition must explain huge amounts of data, each a significant observation individually, is totally overwhelming. For example, age of the earth. We can date the earth using multiple samples from different geographical areas using multiple techniqu ...[text shortened]... evidence is so powerful and wide ranging I don't think it's going to be refuted any time soon.
Originally posted by Clean CutI have yet to see that you have offered up any FACTS.
I do not know which side of the fence you sit on but no matter, I’ll give you a few examples. It may be lengthy so please bear with me.
I had grown accustomed to hearing the Lords voice, if one could ever grow accustomed to it………none the less. One Friday night around 21h00, while watching television, I heard the voice of the Lord say to me to get up an ...[text shortened]... . It’s a little difficult to describe what it feels like. You probably won’t believe me any way.
You offer up what you believe you saw or experienced. Is any of this verifiable by anyone else? A fact is something that is evidentially supported. You have no hard evidence of anything you have stated.
I still say: Prove it. Show me it is fact.
1 edit
Originally posted by KnightWulfeFACT: According to the Bible, God created the universe in six days. Before that, Chuck Norris created God by snapping his fingers.
I have yet to see that you have offered up any FACTS.
You offer up what you believe you saw or experienced. Is any of this verifiable by anyone else? A fact is something that is evidentially supported. You have no hard evidence of anything you have stated.
I still say: Prove it. Show me it is fact.
FACT: When God said, "let there be light", Chuck Norris said, "say 'please'."