Calling out KellyJay

Originally posted by telerion
[b]If you want to say what you
cannot prove beyond all doubt is still a fact, do so but know
you are absolutely wrong in doing so.
Kelly

Can you prove that beyond all doubt? Man, you're so full inconsistencies.[/b]

"3. As far as my beliefs not constitute knowledge, I by faith walk out
my beliefs because I believe them to be true, I put my trust in them
and act accordingly as if they were proved to me and I have to say
that even there all of us have some level of skepticism about even
our own beliefs too, but our confidence levels may vary on the topics
we have beliefs about. We can as you seem to want to do try to find
the absurd level of examples to make a point, I do that as well. At
some level we have to stop and take things as they are because
almost with all things we can do that dance. If I ask you if a particular
rock has moved in a hundred years and we have photos that show it
in the same place not moving, and we know the size and the shape
making only huge earth moving equipment or a bomb could do it,
and all the eye witnesses for generations all tell the same story that
they have never seen the rock move, did it? If may we say no it
hasn’t, but if we acknowledge it has both could be true depending on
how far you wanted to look at it! The rock may not have moved from
that spot, but that spot on the earth has been moving with the earth
for as long as it has been there, so we can still argue the point,
adnausem (sp).
Kelly
"

I've put forward this in my first attempt to answer the question.
I'm sure no matter what I put forward there is going to be, what
if your dreaming, or what if X or Y. Fine, it is what it is, just like
my saying at some level what I'm holding in my hand is not a
matter of faith for me, I don't have to want it or desire it if I have
it. Yet, can we say the same thing about what we think is true when
it comes to things I don't have, such as missing piece of data that
helps define something? Unlike what I'm holding in my hand if it
is lacking something I may or may not be aware of it, if that
something is something I can look for an find, i can say I have
it or not, if it is something I cannot look for and find, well I will
not really know will I?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
1. I hold a belief about the age of the universe; it isn’t something I
can prove I also feel no one else can prove their beliefs about it as
well. With regard to the age of it, I was actually taught early in my
Christian walk by gap theorist who believe the earth and universe is
millions or billions of years old, that there were multiple floods that
de ...[text shortened]... earth
for as long as it has been there, so we can still argue the point,
adnausem (sp).
Kelly

KJ, thanks again for the response. Sorry, I have been so busy.

First, I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you talk about "proving" some belief to be true. This seems to be criterial to your notion of 'faith' -- the question of whether or not one can demonstrably "prove" the belief is true. But I'm not sure I understand that term in this context.

A fact is something I don’t have to
prove, for example I am holding X in my hand and a like, a belief
would be the results of the this test means that you have a month to
live, could be true, but not necessarily.

I think then we differ greatly in what we take to constitute a 'fact'. What you are describing as a fact I would describe as a basic belief -- one that is taken in the absence of any underlying support, such as beliefs about propositions that are self-evident or evident to the senses (such as in your example above), etc. To me, it's very clear that basic beliefs are not facts, so I think you are conflating two different notions. Again, I think beliefs, whether basic or non-basic, may correspond to facts if they are true; but true beliefs, even if basic, are not therefore facts. I think facts simply are: they consist of particulars, properties, relationships, etc., and they collectively form description of the world.

In the end, though, I think our difference here is really just semantic. I agree with you that we all hold basic beliefs. I'm more interested in just understanding what you mean when you talk about one's inability to "prove" or "show as factual" certain non-basic beliefs.

I would also still point out that at face value you're still being inconsistent. That you are holding X in your hand when you are being appeared to as such is not necessarily true, either.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"Are you actually claiming instead that anti-Christian bias is so strong among the majority of Earth scientists that they are willfully misinterpreting the evidence as supporting an old Earth (unlike you, who sagely suspends judgment)?"

You are full of it you know it? Where have seem me where say that
anyone here or else where was willfully misinterpret ...[text shortened]... . You need to pull your head out of
your ass and actually read the things posted here.
Kelly

I like you. Who the hell are these people to tell you what you "must accept as fact", or that you "have to defend your poeition" in a way that suits them? Last time I checked, there are no thought police out there, telling us rules we must adhere to in our belief systems. I could declare god to be a highly evolved bicycle, and that the earth MUST be only 1000 years old because human population growth rate so indicates. AND NONE OF THOSE A@$holes CAN STOP ME.
Live long and prosper, KellyJay.

Originally posted by LemonJello
KJ, thanks again for the response. Sorry, I have been so busy.

First, I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you talk about "proving" some belief to be true. This seems to be criterial to your notion of 'faith' -- the question of whether or not one can demonstrably "prove" the belief is true. But I'm not sure I understand that term in this con ...[text shortened]... when you are being appeared to as such is not necessarily true, either.

And where is it stated in our Constitution that "one must be consostent" in anything, hmmmm??

)Originally posted by twhitehead
In other words you refuse to defend your position because you know that you do not have a valid argument. Its a pity that we do not live near each other because I could show you a card trick where you believe that you are holding the 2 of spades in your hand but when you turn it over, you find out that you were mistaken. As another example, you are quite ...[text shortened]... never I bring it up you avoid the question. That is how I know that you know that you are wrong.

and who says KJ doesn't have the right to "dismiss one (thing) and accept (an)other as fact"? You?? Who died and made you god?

Originally posted by LemonJello
KJ, thanks again for the response. Sorry, I have been so busy.

First, I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you talk about "proving" some belief to be true. This seems to be criterial to your notion of 'faith' -- the question of whether or not one can demonstrably "prove" the belief is true. But I'm not sure I understand that term in this con ...[text shortened]... when you are being appeared to as such is not necessarily true, either.

If you want to debate I'm holding a rock in my hand when I'm holding
a rock in my hand as a matter of if is real or not, if it is a matter of
faith, belief, or a fact, I do not think any thoughts about what various
and sundry readings mean about the past can ever be thought of as
anything other than a belief or a matter of faith. The facts are the
readings, if they are telling us what we think that is another thing all
together. Can we test and verify, up to a certain point, beyond that we
assume what works in the here and now also translates into the past
the way we think it does.

I do think we agree with one another, I don't believe I'm being
inconsistent. I have others here telling me what I'm holding in my
hand may not be real and if I can be wrong about what I'm holding in
my hand my by their arguments I'm still supposed to agree that what
I'm being told about billion years ago are factual to them, to me that
is inconsistent.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
"3. As far as my beliefs not constitute knowledge, I by faith walk out
my beliefs because I believe them to be true, I put my trust in them
and act accordingly as if they were proved to me and I have to say
that even there all of us have some level of skepticism about even
our own beliefs too, but our confidence levels may vary on the topics
we ha ...[text shortened]... it is something I cannot look for and find, well I will
not really know will I?
Kelly

I don't care for making up fanciful what if's. You made the following statement as if it were fact:

"If you want to say what you
cannot prove beyond all doubt is still fact, do so but know
you are absolutely wrong in doing so."

Now from your own admission, it appears that it should have read as follows:

If you want to say what you
cannot prove beyond all doubt is still a fact, do so but know
that KellyJay thinks you are absolutely wrong in doing so.
Kelly

To which the appropriate response is "Who cares what KellyJay thinks?" Without the force of reason to back you up, your statement has about as much importance as "KellyJay thinks vanilla ice cream is better than strawberry ice cream."

If instead you meant for us to take you seriously then you run into the problem that your statement is self-defeating. You rebuke him by claiming that nothing can be called a fact unless it can be proven, and yet, you cannot prove your own claim. So again, I ask, "Who cares?"

Originally posted by telerion
I don't care for making up fanciful what if's. You made the following statement as if it were fact:

"If you want to say what you
cannot prove beyond all doubt is still fact, do so but know
you are absolutely wrong in doing so."

Now from your own admission, it appears that it should have read as follows:

If you want to say what you
cannot pr ...[text shortened]... an be proven, and yet, you cannot prove your own claim. So again, I ask, "Who cares?"

You do debate better when you put your words in other people's
mouth.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You do debate better when you put your words in other people's
mouth.
Kelly

It's a sign of respect when another paraphrases what you say. It's a well established principle of friendly communication. Why are you so tied down to your words instead of the meaning?

Words are important to me too, but only because they convey information. Your words do not convey useful information because they are vague, illogical and have poor grammar. For example, telerion just proved that you don't mean exactly what you say - but you insist on avoiding discussion of your meaning and just keep pointing at your words - which you don't even mean!

Originally posted by KellyJay
You do debate better when you put your words in other people's
mouth.
Kelly

Come on KJ quit playing games. I'm beginning to lose all respect for you. You can't honestly be reading what I write because your responses are completely off point. In fact, I'm beginning to think this disingenuousness on your part is just a cover for your own fear of the truth that your beliefs rest on nothing more than your own desperate need to believe them. You have used Christianity as a crutch to cover weaknesses in your life (the same weaknesses that made you succumb to the alter call in the first place). You don't know what you would do if you lost that belief. So instead of courageously pressing forward in truth, you cower in ambiguity and lazy spurious comments.

My point has been simple. You made a factual statement that is self-defeating. The only way to resolve this is to claim that you were not making a factual statement at all, but rather a baseless personal opinion. If you choose this route, then the relevance of your post is compromised.

I hope you have the honesty to respond in sincerity from here onward.

Originally posted by telerion
Come on KJ quit playing games. I'm beginning to lose all respect for you. You can't honestly be reading what I write because your responses are completely off point. In fact, I'm beginning to think this disingenuousness on your part is just a cover for your own fear of the truth that your beliefs rest on nothing more than your own desperate need to belie t is compromised.

I hope you have the honesty to respond in sincerity from here onward.

Speaking of desperatly holding on to something that you have no reason to believe in whatsoever, how about those Seahawks!! Let me see, who did they loose to? Was it the World Champion Colts? No, no that was'nt the team. Was it the soon to be World Champion Patriots? No, no it was'nt them either. Was it even a team that has ever won a Super Bowl? No, I don't think so. Oh, yea, I remember now, it was Clevland also known as the Clowns. (Mind you I can't "prove" it) 😛

Naturally I am ashamed of myself for this post. After all, you know who my team is. Whodey, whodey, whodey think gonna beat them Bungals? As a matter of fact I could prabably suite up and take on the entire team and beat them single handidly.

BTW: I think your getting to him. Now for the clincher, throw in the bit about the sphagetti flying monster. It gets them every time.

Originally posted by whodey
Speaking of desperatly holding on to something that you have no reason to believe in whatsoever, how about those Seahawks!! Let me see, who did they loose to? Was it the World Champion Colts? No, no that was'nt the team. Was it the soon to be World Champion Patriots? No, no it was'nt them either. Was it even a team that has ever won a Super Bowl? No, I ...[text shortened]... e clincher, throw in the bit about the sphagetti flying monster. It gets them every time.

OOOOOHHH that hits me where it hurts!!

Well, I've resigned myself to the fact that we will be just mediocre until we get a run game. Branch is coming back to the line up soon, and our excellent passing game will get even stronger, but hey if we can't get half a yard with the run game then we don't deserve to win. Hats off to the Browns. They played a good game (never thought I'd say that).

Originally posted by telerion
Come on KJ quit playing games. I'm beginning to lose all respect for you. You can't honestly be reading what I write because your responses are completely off point. In fact, I'm beginning to think this disingenuousness on your part is just a cover for your own fear of the truth that your beliefs rest on nothing more than your own desperate need to belie ...[text shortened]... t is compromised.

I hope you have the honesty to respond in sincerity from here onward.

If I felt I had your respect that might have worried me, I have not felt
that way in quite some time. You put a strait forward question to me
I'll answer if I can.
Kelly

Originally posted by telerion
OOOOOHHH that hits me where it hurts!!

Well, I've resigned myself to the fact that we will be just mediocre until we get a run game. Branch is coming back to the line up soon, and our excellent passing game will get even stronger, but hey if we can't get half a yard with the run game then we don't deserve to win. Hats off to the Browns. They played a good game (never thought I'd say that).

Poor soul, he is delusional, simply delusional. You have far to much faith than reason in your team. Unfortunatly, I don't have enough faith to be a fan I guess. :'(

Originally posted by KellyJay
.....I do not think any thoughts about what various and sundry readings mean about the past can ever be thought of as anything other than a belief or a matter of faith. The facts are the readings, if they are telling us what we think that is another thing all together.......

Yet when confronted with actual 'readings' such as a dinosaur fossil, your are quite ready to totally contradict your above post and accept that we can know for a fact:
1. The fossil is a result of the fossilization of a dinosaurs bone.
2. The shape of a dinosaurs bone.

So why do you not apply your rules consistently? Why does your above post not apply to dinosaur fossils? I have asked this over and over and you appear to be avoiding the question.