Originally posted by KellyJayI would like to hear your view if you actually had something substantive; but you just told me that your view is [...], where [...] just seems to amount to nothing more than tautology.
I'm not forcing you to continue in this, if you don't want my views on this
or any matter stop asking for them.
Kelly
At any rate, I do enjoy these types of discussions with you, and I do think you are a very genuine guy. But, I still do not think the typical issues you raise in, say, discussions about the age of the earth/universe are actually relevant to such discussions.
Originally posted by LemonJelloI have no doubt that my views seem to be tautology since half the time
I would like to hear your view if you actually had something substantive; but you just told me that your view is [...], where [...] just seems to amount to nothing more than tautology.
At any rate, I do enjoy these types of discussions with you, and I do think you are a very genuine guy. But, I still do not think the typical issues you raise in, say, discussions about the age of the earth/universe are actually relevant to such discussions.
I have to say the same thing three or four ways to get people to see
my "single" point on a topic. Its as if you read it yet don't believe it, and try
to get me to say it another way hoping I move off point.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWe can take an example of what I am talking about. You said before that your view is that the tests show us what the tests show us. But isn't that just trivially true? You tell me: what is the actual substance of this view as you expressed it?
I have no doubt that my views seem to be tautology since half the time
I have to say the same thing three or four ways to get people to see
my "single" point on a topic. Its as if you read it yet don't believe it, and try
to get me to say it another way hoping I move off point.
Kelly
You then went on to point out that when we perform such tests, it is possible that we miss something or that we fail to get all the facts right. As I said, I agree. But so what?
At the end of the day, I do think I know what you are saying. It's just that, like I said, I do not think what you are saying is actually either interesting or relevant to the types of discussions involved. As I mentioned, I think what you say could reasonably function as some sort of cautionary tale about one's being too confident in his conclusions. But beyond that, what you say cannot lend itself to constructive debate. Like I tried to say before, this is not a comment on you the person: I really like you as a person! And I do think you contribute greatly to many discussions on here.
Originally posted by LemonJelloThe test does show us what the test show us, those are the facts, now
We can take an example of what I am talking about. You said before that your view is that the tests show us what the tests show us. But isn't that just trivially true? You tell me: what is the actual substance of this view as you expressed it?
You then went on to point out that when we perform such tests, it is possible that we miss something or th ...[text shortened]... lly like you as a person! And I do think you contribute greatly to many discussions on here.
what that "MEANS" what the DATA is telling us comes from between our
ears! We know and understand in part, as I have been pointing out that
we take facts and apply them to what we think is true, right or wrong.
When tests are done to devises to understand the life cycle of those
devises the data is collected, those looking at it with their understanding
will come to conclusions that suggest the (devises under test) *DUT* have
a normal operating life span of so much time. The numbers can be spot on
in the tests, all the math is correct, that does not mean what they think is
true will be, but they believe it enough to put their company brand name on
the line. It is an act of faith, a belief that they have covered all of the bases,
and have taken into account all possible factors, failing to do so could mean
recalls or all sorts of grief.
So let’s look at what you are telling me with the age of the earth, you are
suggesting millions, billions of years. Unlike our DUT we will never hit the
shelf life of that universal DUT to confirm our dating methods are spot on,
but many here take the results of tests as something quite beyond a mere
belief. To them it is a factual statement that the universe is as old as they
say. Going back again to the statement that if it the universe isn't that old
than God setup the universe to appear that old to trick people. That however
is not what is going on, what is going on is that people are claiming
knowledge and understanding they may not really have and in doing so they
deceive themselves it isn’t God doing it.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAt this point, I can only reiterate that I agree with your tautological view that tests show us what tests show us. I can only reiterate that I agree with your further diagnosis that there is no guarantee, no certainty in the epistemic sense, that our interpretations and explanations thereof will get all the facts straight. I can only reiterate that I agree with you that this consideration fully transfers to the subject of radiometric dating (or any scientific test for that matter). And, in the end, I can only reiterate that none of this is actually interesting or relevant to a debate on, say, the age of the earth/universe. It simply has nothing of interest to say on what views are in the end most plausible; or what explanations are best; or etc. That analysis plays out over the give and take of evidential reasons for/against competing views, and absolutely nothing you talk about here has anything to do with it.
The test does show us what the test show us, those are the facts, now
what that "MEANS" what the DATA is telling us comes from between our
ears! We know and understand in part, as I have been pointing out that
we take facts and apply them to what we think is true, right or wrong.
When tests are done to devises to understand the life cycle of those
de ...[text shortened]... ey may not really have and in doing so they
deceive themselves it isn’t God doing it.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou are allowed to see science as a religion that cannot be trusted. You can believe this because we are in the Spiritual Forum, and this is a part of your spiritual dogma. It's okay.
The test does show us what the test show us, those are the facts, now
what that "MEANS" what the DATA is telling us comes from between our
ears! We know and understand in part, as I have been pointing out that
we take facts and apply them to what we think is true, right or wrong.
When tests are done to devises to understand the life cycle of those
de ...[text shortened]... ey may not really have and in doing so they
deceive themselves it isn’t God doing it.
Kelly
But as this is only your spiritual opinion, then you have to respect others who has the belief that Science explains the natural phenomena that the bible cannot do. You have to repsect and accept that others has not the same opinion that you have.
Originally posted by KellyJayMy problem with your claims is that whenever I actually take you up on it, you change the claim to one of 'accuracy decays over time'. You then fail to back it up with any actual argument.
To them it is a factual statement that the universe is as old as they say.
My claim is that although I can never be certain of the age of the universe I consider it just as factual and just as well supported by the evidence available to me as the existence of the Eiffel tower. Now you can perfectly well argue along the line of your discussion with LemonJello that even the existence of the Eiffel tower is a matter of faith and I would agree with you. I have not seen it myself, and probably never will, and even if I did see it, I still could not be absolutely certain of its existence.
But what you cannot do with your argument is show that my understanding of the age of the universe is more a matter of faith (and somehow less worthy of recognition) than my belief in the existence of the Eiffel tower.
3 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead13.7 Billion years was what I read is the age of the universe.
My problem with your claims is that whenever I actually take you up on it, you change the claim to one of 'accuracy decays over time'. You then fail to back it up with any actual argument.
My claim is that although I can never be certain of the age of the universe I consider it just as factual and just as well supported by the evidence available to me ...[text shortened]... (and somehow less worthy of recognition) than my belief in the existence of the Eiffel tower.
If a debate is going in circles, maybe it would help to try a different tack. Assuming there is a desire to progress at all of course. And that is the problem in the first place.
Early Christians failed to convert the Greek philosophers. Then they tried to use Greek philosophy to sort out their own beliefs. The doctrine of the Trinity owed a lot to Plotinus who supplied the terminology required to tackle this problem. But the philosophers always had the better of it.
Truth was that Christianity had been articulated in all sorts of ways by different groups, struggling to articulate anything coherent. The reason so many different versions were possible was that the basis on which Christianity rested was itself incoherent and inconsistent. Christians hated pagans but what they really hated was other Christians.
To some degree, consistency was enforced by the Roman Emperors from Constantine onwards. He got the great idea of tolerating Christians, and offered patronage and tax exemption to Christian clergy. Trouble was, all sorts of different sects wanted the benefits. Worse, they hated each other and attacked each other in vitriolic terms. So he tried to impose some coherence at Nicea, but failed and provoked new theological schisms accompanied by more vitriol. They were a truly unpleasant bunch of opinionated bastards to deal with.
There were perhaps 80 major heresies in a few hundred years. This could demonstrate the active work of demons. Alternatively and more likely, it could illustrate how many perfectly legitimate and sincere ways a pious and thoughtful human could interpret Christianity. It was a mess.
Ultimately, Augustine of Hippo reached the conclusion that it was impossible to resolve theological questions by Reason and anyway, Reason was not required. What we needed was Faith. This was elaborated to the argument that nothing mattered except Faith and Reason was tempting us into hell. Everyone loved this.
This was a great solution to making the Church all powerful and without opposition. The priority was order and control. Anyone outside "orthodox" Christianity was deemed a Heretic. The Church kept its wealth. Reason in the forms of philosophy, science, or any critical thinking was outlawed for nearly a thousand years.
Then Thomas Aquinas reintroduced Aristotle and all hell broke loose - notably Galileo. Thomas Aquinas died suddenly before he could be excommunicated. Then having been made a Saint, he somehow won the argument. And that was the end of Christianity. Not all Christians have noticed this yet.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI believe you, you feel that the Eiffel tower is just as real and true as
My problem with your claims is that whenever I actually take you up on it, you change the claim to one of 'accuracy decays over time'. You then fail to back it up with any actual argument.
My claim is that although I can never be certain of the age of the universe I consider it just as factual and just as well supported by the evidence available to me ...[text shortened]... (and somehow less worthy of recognition) than my belief in the existence of the Eiffel tower.
billions of years.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYet you act as if one of my beliefs is reasonable (the Eiffel tower) whereas you treat the other (the age of the earth) as unsubstantiated faith equivalent to belief in fairies, and you take great pains to point this out every time the topic comes up.
I believe you, you feel that the Eiffel tower is just as real and true as
billions of years.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI act as though I can go see the Eiffel tower and accept it as real it is in the
Yet you act as if one of my beliefs is reasonable (the Eiffel tower) whereas you treat the other (the age of the earth) as unsubstantiated faith equivalent to belief in fairies, and you take great pains to point this out every time the topic comes up.
here and now, while I cannot go billions of years into the past to see if
anything at all is there let alone if some item is a billion years old. Didn't
you also say you could go see it and still not believe? Reasonable I guess
is in the eyes of the beholder if you can go see something and not accept
it as real.
Kelly