Calling out KellyJay

Originally posted by twhitehead
And which would that be? And how can you be sure of its existence? Your eyes told you? Don't you realize that you are relying on something other than your eyes? You are making some major assumptions based on what your eyes see. Don't forget that in the past people thought the sun was a god or some other entity. For you to believe it is a star is pure fant ...[text shortened]... that stars ever existed is merely a conclusion based on assumptions that could well be wrong?

This is where we were before with the card trick, if you want to dismiss
everything that is as an Illusion do so, you might as well. I see the
light in the here and now of the stars, we call those bright lights stars,
if they are there now or not isn't the issue, it is what we call them.
Now the more I claim to know about those bright lights in the night the
more I open my self up to error. You argue both sides of this coin,
I notice that you don't like the perfect axis for life idea, even though
the axis helps support life by evidence that life is here, but hey...
we all build into what we see those things we think are true, but the
reality of the matter doesn't rest with us, it simply is what it is.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
This is where we were before with the card trick, if you want to dismiss
everything that is as an Illusion do so, you might as well. I see the
light in the here and now of the stars, we call those bright lights stars,
if they are there now or not isn't the issue, it is what we call them.
Now the more I claim to know about those bright lights in the night the
more I open my self up to error.

The real issue is not whether or not our observations and conclusions are open to error, but whether or not that error can ever be considered small enough that we might as well call something a fact (the existence of stars) and ridicule anyone who continues do doubt that it is factual (eg you and your ridiculous beliefs about the age of the earth).
If the Bible said that stars did not exist, would you believe that they do not exist? In other words do you consider the evidence you have (visible of points of light in the sky) sufficient evidence that you would change your belief system if it contradicted the evidence.

You argue both sides of this coin, I notice that you don't like the perfect axis for life idea, even though the axis helps support life by evidence that life is here, but hey...
No it doesn't. There is life on land and life in the sea. If you just looked at the sea and saw life you would be wrong to conclude that the sea was a 'perfect environment' for life. Similarly if the earths axis was slightly different life would still be here. The existence of life does not support the concept that the environment is perfect for it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The real issue is not whether or not our observations and conclusions are open to error, but whether or not that error can ever be considered small enough that we might as well call something a fact (the existence of stars) and ridicule anyone who continues do doubt that it is factual (eg you and your ridiculous beliefs about the age of the earth).
If th . The existence of life does not support the concept that the environment is perfect for it.

Facts in my opinion are not open to human beliefs neither do they
require human acceptance they are what they are. We can with our
opinions and beliefs rightly paint the universe as it is, but with our
presumptions of what we accept as true or factual we can color things
too, to suit our beliefs getting things wrong in the process. I think it is
a bit arrogant on our part (my self included) to think we understand
everything always to the point that we can always know when we are
only off by a small fraction. You I guess are good with that, I just
disagree.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Facts in my opinion are not open to human beliefs neither do they
require human acceptance they are what they are. We can with our
opinions and beliefs rightly paint the universe as it is, but with our
presumptions of what we accept as true or factual we can color things
too, to suit our beliefs getting things wrong in the process. I think it is
a bit ...[text shortened]... n we are
only off by a small fraction. You I guess are good with that, I just
disagree.
Kelly

We do not disagree about what fact are or are not. What we disagree about is whether it is reasonable to have serious doubts about certain some things in spite of the mountain of evidence. For example, I agree with you that we can never know for sure whether stars exist or what we believe about them is in any way factual. However I disagree with your stance that it is a reasonable position to doubt their existence. I am not arrogant enough to, as you imply, believe that I know everything. But I do believe that I know that stars exist. You on the other hand think their existence is merely a matter of faith and anyone who doubts their existence should be accorded some respect.

Originally posted by twhitehead
We do not disagree about what fact are or are not. What we disagree about is whether it is reasonable to have serious doubts about certain some things in spite of the mountain of evidence. For example, I agree with you that we can never know for sure whether stars exist or what we believe about them is in any way factual. However I disagree with your stan ...[text shortened]... merely a matter of faith and anyone who doubts their existence should be accorded some respect.

What I believe about the stars does not add to or take away from
what is real about them, what we know in the here and now is that
there are dots of light in the sky that we call stars. I don't think that
is a matter of faith, I think it is a reality, now the more we say about
them such as how they got there, when they got there, and so on we
leave facts and move into an area where we could be right or wrong
and at no time can we know which is true.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
What I believe about the stars does not add to or take away from
what is real about them, what we know in the here and now is that
there are dots of light in the sky that we call stars. I don't think that
is a matter of faith, I think it is a reality, now the more we say about
them such as how they got there, when they got there, and so on we
leave fac ...[text shortened]... into an area where we could be right or wrong
and at no time can we know which is true.
Kelly

As I said, you remain skeptical about the existence of stars. What about the existence of mars? No man has ever visited it. We may have photos, we may think we have sent spacecraft there to explore its surface, but no human being has physically been there to confirm it. Is the existence of the planet we call mars a matter of faith? Are you skeptical about its existence? Will we only know that it exits after we send an astronaut there?

Originally posted by twhitehead
As I said, you remain skeptical about the existence of stars. What about the existence of mars? No man has ever visited it. We may have photos, we may think we have sent spacecraft there to explore its surface, but no human being has physically been there to confirm it. Is the existence of the planet we call mars a matter of faith? Are you skeptical about its existence? Will we only know that it exits after we send an astronaut there?

I've gone through your questions on fossils and stars, you want to
go through the same line of questins now with mars, you can do the
next round of questions without me. We see the stars they are there
for us to look at in the here and now, beyond that we are now using
what we think is true our assumptions to fill in the blanks, the same
with fossils, and now mars for you. We can see mars from here, we
have sent craft there. I suggest you go back to thinking you have
facts, and believe you understand how old the universe is and be
happy. I think you are fooling yourself, but are welcome to it.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
I doubt it has 'consostent' anywhere in it. Yes, go ahead and be "inconsostent" if you desire. Pay no attention to any allegiance you may otherwise have toward your rational nature.

Quite correct--then please give Kelly Jay the same courtesy. Consistency is greatly overrated.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Quite correct--then please give Kelly Jay the same courtesy. Consistency is greatly overrated.

Oh stick a sock in it. KellyJay and I are on good terms, and he knows I was just trying to learn something more about his epistemological views, which often mystify me.

And good comeback (after 5+ months).

Originally posted by LemonJello
Oh stick a sock in it. KellyJay and I are on good terms, and he knows I was just trying to learn something more about his epistemological views, which often mystify me.

And good comeback (after 5+ months).

I saw this post and thought what did I do now? 🙂
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
Oh stick a sock in it. KellyJay and I are on good terms, and he knows I was just trying to learn something more about his epistemological views, which often mystify me.

And good comeback (after 5+ months).

Hey, there ain't no statuite of limitations of ignorance. If you don't want replies, don't post.