Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, your point? Did all these people tell you when it was going to end?
If he keeps changing the day, then their beliefs keep changing, with their previous belief proven wrong but not their current belief. They may be silly to continue to believe someone who has been proven wrong in the past but his current claim has not been proven wrong. It is merely unlikely to be right based on past experience.
Interestingly I have been told by various Christians throughout my life that the world is about to end.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'll say it is the general rule, even what you and where you ate lunch
So, since you agree it is not a general rule or law, it cannot be applied indiscriminately. So before you can use it as an argument against dating techniques you must show that it does in fact apply to them. Your usual vague statements to the effect that "things enter into greater obscurity" over time show nothing whatsoever.
at yesterday unless you make it a point to record and keep it known
will with the passage of time become unknown even to you.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI didn't intend to have much point, just thought it was interesting.
Yes, your point? Did all these people tell you when it was going to end?
Kelly
Many of them were rather vague, but strongly implied that it would be within a few years and some did actually specify that it would be within a few years. There was a thread on this forum about the National Sunday Law that someone believes will come into effect 'soon'. However I couldn't get him to put his money on it or give an exact time frame. He seemed very sure of himself and very insistent about trying to persuade others that it would take place soon, but got very evasive when asked for an exact time frame.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt is something that does come up from time to time, I think it is just
I didn't intend to have much point, just thought it was interesting.
Many of them were rather vague, but strongly implied that it would be within a few years and some did actually specify that it would be within a few years. There was a thread on this forum about the National Sunday Law that someone believes will come into effect 'soon'. However I couldn hers that it would take place soon, but got very evasive when asked for an exact time frame.
people's need to predict comes into play. The scripture has a lot to say
about it, but as far as any of us knowing the time God set, no.
According to scripture we are just told to get ready since it is coming,
the time God has set for Himself to know.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaySo, keeping in mind the following scale:
If it is it is going to end each day and each day that belief is proven
wrong, yet they do not change their point of view, 'silly' would be
polite.
Reasonable belief.
Silly.
'Silly' would be polite.
How would you categorize the belief that the sun does not exist?
How would you categorize the belief that stars do not exist?
How would you categorize the belief that galaxies do not exist?
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou have a point? Are you simply trying to catch me in words, simply
So, keeping in mind the following scale:
Reasonable belief.
Silly.
'Silly' would be polite.
How would you categorize the belief that the sun does not exist?
How would you categorize the belief that stars do not exist?
How would you categorize the belief that galaxies do not exist?
say what you want to say.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay
Well, since you are making this up as you go....
I'm not making this up. Examining your belief in order to draw a conclusion. I'm still not
entirely clear on the way you form belief, so I need to ask questions.
If it is it is going to end each day and each day that belief is proven
wrong, yet they do not change their point of view, 'silly' would be
polite.
Okay. Again, I agree with you. Now, imagine a person who holds a number of 'silly' beliefs.
For example: Person 'S' has the following beliefs:
B1. The moon is made of cheese.
B2. The sun will not rise tomorrow.
B3. The government is ruled by evil aliens from another planet.
B4. The termites in his shed inform him of the weather conditions on Mars.
B5. The water in the public reservoir is being poisoned by a bunch of rebel antelope.
And so on in this fashion.
I'm going to assume that you think that are very confident that these beliefs are not fact,
and that you think B1-5 are silly beliefs. If S holds enough beliefs of this fashion, wouldn't
you say that he himself is silly for holding enough silly beliefs?
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesio[/b]Yea, yea you can come up with some silly beliefs you have a point
Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]Well, since you are making this up as you go....
I'm not making this up. Examining your belief in order to draw a conclusion. I'm still not
entirely clear on the way you form belief, so I need to ask questions.
If it is it is going to end each day and each day that belief is proven
wrong, yet they do ouldn't
you say that he himself is silly for holding enough silly beliefs?
Nemesio
please get to it. With respect to my saying you were making it up
as you go, it was to your examples not your over all point, which I'm
waiting for still.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI am trying to find out what your stance is and you are making it extremely difficult by refusing to answer questions.
You have a point? Are you simply trying to catch me in words, simply
say what you want to say.
Kelly
I am trying to establish whether or not you find particular types of "faith" or "belief" reasonable or stupid or "stupid" is too polite.
For example:
We know that a star has never been visited, cannot be visited, and the light we observe left the start a long time ago. Therefore, according to your previous posts, the existence of the star is a matter of faith. However most people would consider anyone who does not believe in stars to be stupid or worse. Do you agree?
My final point is:
Whenever someone says that the earth is over 1 million years old you say "thats a matter of faith". Would you say the same thing whenever someone talks about stars? If not, why not?
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, I find some faith better than others, not everything everyone
I am trying to find out what your stance is and you are making it extremely difficult by refusing to answer questions.
I am trying to establish whether or not you find particular types of "faith" or "belief" reasonable or stupid or "stupid" is too polite.
For example:
We know that a star has never been visited, cannot be visited, and the light we obser aith". Would you say the same thing whenever someone talks about stars? If not, why not?
believes in reflects reality, or in my opinion is our faith always placed
in something worthy of human trust in my opinion. Please, you again
have me confused with another poster (yourself) in that I have not
called stars matter of faith, belief, or fact I don’t believe I even
addressed your point on stars when you brought it up, I do not recall
doing it and went back if I did I missed it. So I believe any inference
you are drawing on comes from what you think not in something I
said.
What I will say about stars in this post you are mixing observation
what we can see, and your beliefs about them calling your beliefs in
this mixing of observation and beliefs facts. We observe the stars and
you assume the light left a long time ago is a factual statement! Your
example assumes a great deal to come up with the time frame; you
assume you have some inkling how it all began which is foundational
to all your assumptions, you believe you know where the light
currently being observed striking the earth right now was millions or
billions of years ago to make such a statement as if it were a factual
statement. You are applying a great deal of faith in your views on the
universe and it rests on a lot of things you only assume to be true.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly, I find the way you hold your position mystifying. I'm sorry you think the questions are
Yea, yea you can come up with some silly beliefs you have a point
please get to it. With respect to my saying you were making it up
as you go, it was to your examples not your over all point, which I'm
waiting for still.
Kelly[/b]
stupid, but since you haven't given a straightforward statement describing your epistemological
framework, the only way I can think of is to ask seemingly odd questions. So, since you didn't
answer the last one:
I'm going to assume that you think that are very confident that these beliefs are not fact,
and that you think B1-5 are silly beliefs. If S holds enough beliefs of this fashion, wouldn't
you say that he himself is silly for holding enough silly beliefs?
Originally posted by NemesioI've stated my beliefs about facts several times: There is the universe
Kelly, I find the way you hold your position mystifying. I'm sorry you think the questions are
stupid, but since you haven't given a straightforward statement describing your epistemological
framework, the only way I can think of is to ask seemingly odd questions. So, since you didn't
answer the last one:
I'm going to assume that you think that a ...[text shortened]... fashion, wouldn't
you say that he himself is silly for holding enough silly beliefs?
we live in and our thoughts about it. Our thoughts may or may not
be right about anything we are currently dwelling on. As such we
cannot with observation conclude we are ‘getting it right’ when
we make our thoughts about our observations known. With in science
there are laws and there are theories, we do this all the time that is
make a distinction between what we know, and what we think we
know. I seem to get questioned about it, mainly because I do not accept
the herd’s point of view’ on how it all began and dislike the notion
that what people think about the distant past are factual statements
when they are really only giving me their point of view.
Like the star light, you see the light and with that observation you
are leaping to conclusions about a great deal of things, and your
leap is either an accurate representation of reality or it isn't. We have
our five senses as sight, hearing, smell, taste, or touch with which
we interact with the universe, can they be fooled thereby fooling us,
yes. They are still our only means to interact the way we do, we are
either rightly or wrongly gathering up all the proper data points and
rightly deciphering them to get a correct representation of the
universe we are currently living in.
Kelly
An example I have given before on how I view facts and beliefs.
I was stationed on Adak Alaska several years ago while in the Navy.
During that time I worked and lived at a transmitter site on a
mountain. My room mate and I thought we would walk up to
the top or as near as we could get to it one weekend we both had off.
So Benny and I started walking up the mountain over the tundra
checking out the sights as we go until we saw this hole in the
ground in front of us. So we observed the hole, the hole was a
fact not a matter of belief it was there we saw it, I could have told
Benny to walk around that hole, because if you step there you will
fall into the hole. My observation is still the hole, my assumption
or belief was that if stepped on the hole he would have fallen into
the hole, so that we needed to walk around it to avoid falling
into the hole. Our knowledge of the universe made that conversation
quite meaningless, we both saw the hole, we both made our
own judgments on what would happen if we stepped on the hole.
Now, did one of us step on the hole and walk across thin air to
prove our beliefs wrong? No, that did not happen we didn’t test
the belief that if you step on nothing you’d fall till you hit the bottom
or something, that we needed to walk around it! What did happen was
that Benny started walking around the hole on one side, and I started
walking around the hole on the other; however, I still fell into the
hole! It wasn’t that I stepped on thin air, what happened was that we
didn’t know how wide the hole really was! Tundra had started to cover
the top of the hole so when I stepped on what I believed to be solid
ground I was really only stepping on a few inches of tundra that had
grown over the top of the hole and covered it up. I just barely
managed to grab the side to stop myself from falling all the way in.
We concluded it was to dangerous to continue our trip and called it a
day.
The facts or the universe is one thing what we thought when we were
walking up the mountain was quite another even though we had lived
there for quite some time. There were still things about that place we
didn’t grasp or understand and it nearly cost me. We were educated,
but assumptions and beliefs verses what it really going on isn’t always
the way we picture it.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayCorrect. The fact that stars are not known (or knowable) facts but merely a matter of faith is a direct logical conclusion based on what you have said. (and I thought my post made that clear, but maybe it didn't).
Please, you again have me confused with another poster (yourself) in that I have not called stars matter of faith, belief, or fact I don’t believe I even addressed your point on stars when you brought it up, I do not recall doing it and went back if I did I missed it. So I believe any inference you are drawing on comes from what you think not in something I said.
What I will say about stars in this post you are mixing observation
what we can see, and your beliefs about them calling your beliefs in
this mixing of observation and beliefs facts. We observe the stars and
you assume the light left a long time ago is a factual statement! Your
example assumes a great deal to come up with the time frame; you
assume you have some inkling how it all began which is foundational
to all your assumptions, you believe you know where the light
currently being observed striking the earth right now was millions or
billions of years ago to make such a statement as if it were a factual
statement. You are applying a great deal of faith in your views on the
universe and it rests on a lot of things you only assume to be true.
Kelly
In my recent post I did not specify any time-frame but merely pointed out that it was not instantaneous. However, the very fact that we do not know how long the light took, satisfies my point that we cannot know (according to you) whether stars exist or not. So, do you agree that the existence of stars is a matter of faith?
Do you agree with me that 'silly' would be a polite way to describe anyone who denys the existence of stars?
Are you going to keep avoiding my questions in the hope that I give up?
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]There are a lot about the stars that are faith in my opinion, I believe
Correct. The fact that stars are not known (or knowable) facts but merely a matter of faith is a direct logical conclusion based on what you have said. (and I thought my post made that clear, but maybe it didn't).
[b]What I will say about stars in this post you are mixing observation
what we can see, and your beliefs about them calling your beliefs in existence of stars?
Are you going to keep avoiding my questions in the hope that I give up?
they are real as I do the sun with the limited conctact we have with it.
If you think that is enough to disqualify all the stars according to the
way I look at things fine by me, you it seems do not require me to
tell you what I think you seem to be able to make that up as you go.
Kelly