27 Jan 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadInstead you chose to imply that we had lost some knowledge of Pluto or found our former knowledge wanting neither of which is true in the slightest. Rather we discovered more objects orbiting the sun of similar size to Pluto or larger and decided to redo our classification system.
No. I just felt you were wrong and were trying to avoid admitting to it.
[b]It is this changing of ones mind that lends itself to my original contention, namely, the temporal nature of man's knowledge.
Then why not simply give an every day example of someone changing their mind? eg: I was going to have toast for breakfast today but changed my mind ...[text shortened]... at one point in time your current knowledge of the existence of God is guaranteed to be false.[/b]
Sounds like you answered your own complaint. Knowledge was found wanting in light of more recent discoveries, thus the change of mind.
After Pluto's discovery in 1930, other celestial bodies were discovered (one bigger, the thus-far rest smaller) which shared similar characteristics. In the time since then, these types of discoveries led some within the communities monitoring such activities to consider a re-definition to the ancient term "planet."
The examples I used are but two of myriad changes science has made over the years. Is change wrong? Absolutely not! Only an idiot wouldn't change his mind when better data and the ability to analyze the same are available.
But, that isn't the point, is it? When lambasting the temporal nature of man's scientific knowledge, it is with the express intent of exposing as silly any authoritative stance based upon evolving data and/or analytical abilities.
As the Bible says, the just shall live by faith. Your attempt to equate the spiritual with the mundane doesn't pass muster. Everything man needs to know with respect to the spiritual life, is already found in the completed canon of Scripture. There is no development required other than the daily intake of the same.
For some to claim that man can figure things out on his own without outside aid is ludicrous and absurd... with thousands of years of development to stand in witness of that fact.
27 Jan 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNot so at all. Knowledge was not found wanting in the sense of being incorrect. It was merely incomplete - an obvious and indisputable fact - that again your example was not particularly suitable for highlighting - and again I find that you were either deliberately trying to deceive or you are now deliberately trying to cover up your obvious mistake.
Sounds like you answered your own complaint. Knowledge was found wanting in light of more recent discoveries, thus the change of mind.
After Pluto's discovery in 1930, other celestial bodies were discovered (one bigger, the thus-far rest smaller) which shared similar characteristics. In the time since then, these types of discoveries led some within the communities monitoring such activities to consider a re-definition to the ancient term "planet."
If that is what you wanted to say then why did you simply not say "before 1930 Pluto was unknown, now it is known - hence scientific knowledge changes". Instead you carefully tried to make it look like scientists knowledge of the solar system was incorrect.
For some to claim that man can figure things out on his own without outside aid is ludicrous and absurd... with thousands of years of development to stand in witness of that fact.
What is ludicrous and absurd is the implication that you learnt everything you know from the Bible. You are quite happy to rely on a vast body of scientific knowledge which clearly did not come from the Bible yet you simultaneously deny the fact.
You may argue that certain things are unknowable without outside help - but that is not what you are arguing nor does your Pluto example support such an argument.
28 Jan 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNot true. Definitions change all the time. Essence is another story.
[b]Most people are wrong.....
Amen.
And definitions don't change just because X number of people have them wrong.....
Not true. Definitions change all the time. Essence is another story.
Solar: As in sun, as in sun centric if you will, as in orbiting.
Apparently you are behind the times, as the center of the solar system is wid ...[text shortened]... on clad" as you put it.[/b]
Not at all the argument, and you likely already know that.[/b]
I never said they didn't, what I said was "definitions don't change because X number of people have them wrong" as in just because people believe a definition is one thing doesn't make them correct.
Apparently you are behind the times, as the center of the solar system is widely held to be based on something other. That the sun is the principal player, there is no doubt. However, each planet's orbit is based in part on the sun's mass; the sun is not the geometric center of the same.
I never said the sun was the geometric center, your being pedantic and creating irrelevant straw men. I said sun CENTRIC.
Definition Centric: Situated at or near the center; central.
The sun is still the central body of our solar system. Because its the most massive body within our solar system it acts as the central controlling mass for the whole system.
Quick: what is nine minus one?
Very clever, make the other debater look foolish diverting attention away from your poor logic and worse ability to actually understand what I meant.
As far as I was aware, the Greek term "wandering star" is where we got our word for planet, thus an ancient definition. Hardly a first for us, I would think.
Irrelevant straw man again. I said define what we mean by planet, as in within a standardized system of definitions. Not where the word stems from please pay attention.
Not at all the argument, and you likely already know that.
Your argument is this
"I am not implying it: I am certain of the uncertainty of man's so-called iron-clad knowledge. "
"In any book--- including that employed by those scientists suggesting that Pluto be "reclassified as a planet" --- relegation to anything less than a planet of the solar system qualifies as subtraction, nothing more, nothing less."
"Scientific knowledge isn't knowledge, per se; it is our loose approximation of what temporarily passes as fact, or information. Again, temporary is the key concept when it comes to our advances in science--- that which is observed and/or reasoned."
"So it is a “loose APPROXIMATION” that Saturn has moons?
So far, yes. It wasn’t that long ago that man was unswervingly of the mind that the earth stood still. "
Now from this I understand that you seem to think that science can never give anything definite only "Loose approximations". Which is incontrovertibly wrong.
Staying with the theme of celestial bodies it is not a loose approximation that saturn has moons. Its fact, I've personally looked at them as have millions of others, using various different forms of observation apparatus.
Now if your arguing that we cannot trust own own eyes that's fine but what your saying is in essence same as saying "Just because I drop something 100 times under the same conditions and it falls to the ground doesn't mean it will fall to the ground the 101st time".
29 Jan 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadNot so at all. Knowledge was not found wanting in the sense of being incorrect. It was merely incomplete...
Not so at all. Knowledge was not found wanting in the sense of being incorrect. It was merely incomplete - an obvious and indisputable fact - that again your example was not particularly suitable for highlighting - and again I find that you were either deliberately trying to deceive or you are now deliberately trying to cover up your obvious mistake.
[ ...[text shortened]... but that is not what you are arguing nor does your Pluto example support such an argument.
Are you serious? This is your argument? By its very nature, the term "found wanting" screams incorrect. Said knowledge is incorrect by virtue of later discovered data. By your own assertion, you agree that the previous solid ground was eventually revealed as incomplete. You cannot be found more wanting than that!
and again I find that you were either deliberately trying to deceive or you are now deliberately trying to cover up your obvious mistake.
Sure. And in your bizzaro land where "merely incomplete" is anything less than "found wanting" things do tend to look a bit hazy.
Instead you carefully tried to make it look like scientists knowledge of the solar system was incorrect.
Carefully, sloppily or otherwise stated, an overly keen intellect isn't required to see the plethora of changes science has made in light of new discoveries, dating back to the beginning of its discipline. Your silly arguments notwithstanding, a conscious change of thinking from one line of thinking to anything different automatically confers upon the former the mantle of incorrect, whether the distinction between the two be great or small.
What is ludicrous and absurd is the implication that you learnt everything you know from the Bible.
There has been no such implication, and you are fully aware of the same.
You are quite happy to rely on a vast body of scientific knowledge which clearly did not come from the Bible yet you simultaneously deny the fact.
Put up or shut up. Show were I deny any reliance on scientific advancements and/or discoveries.
You may argue that certain things are unknowable without outside help - but that is not what you are arguing nor does your Pluto example support such an argument.
You're misapplying my statements. What I said was this (and it's pretty straightforward, so there shouldn't be any confusion about it).
To place one's faith in man's ability to observe and/or rationalize the natural world is to doom one's self to the constantly shifting view as science has offered over the years.
From its nexus, science has suffered from a complete lack of objectivity, instead cloaking itself in whatever agenda seemed most expedient at the time. When the church was in power, the natural world was--- in the eyes of the scientists--- a panoramic witness of God's glory. Since atheists have been in power, the natural world is a thing unto itself. And, as always, the view is constantly shifting.
No such shift is found in the spiritual life, as delineated in the Bible. Since the completion of the canon of Scripture, EVERYTHING man needs to know regarding the spiritual life is found therein.
29 Jan 09
3 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBH…Not so at all. Knowledge was not found wanting in the sense of being incorrect. It was merely incomplete...
[b]Not so at all. Knowledge was not found wanting in the sense of being incorrect. It was merely incomplete...
Are you serious? This is your argument? By its very nature, the term "found wanting" screams incorrect. Said knowledge is incorrect by virtue of later discovered data. By your own assertion, you agree that the previous solid ground was ev pture, EVERYTHING man needs to know regarding the spiritual life is found therein.[/b]
Are you serious? This is your argument? By its very nature, the term "found wanting" SCREAMS incorrect.
...… (my emphasis)
Nope -suppose I saw gold in a valley while I was lost and now I am trying to find that gold again after I somehow muddled my way home and got a good map. -I know there is gold in the valley because I saw it but the problem is I don’t know WHERE I saw it -so my knowledge is “incomplete” and “found wanting” -so does this “SCREAMS” of being incorrect? 😛 -I mean, does this mean I saw no gold? 😛
Explain to us how it logically follows from our knowledge of something being “incomplete” that what we DO know about it must be “incorrect”?
29 Jan 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAnd you call my arguments silly? Here you are essentially saying that if you learn one new thing then all your past knowledge becomes obsolete. My curtains are brown. There! All your knowledge was 'found wanting'! Said knowledge is incorrect by virtue of later discovered data!
Are you serious? This is your argument? By its very nature, the term "found wanting" screams incorrect. Said knowledge is incorrect by virtue of later discovered data. By your own assertion, you agree that the previous solid ground was eventually revealed as incomplete. You cannot be found more wanting than that!
There has been no such implication, and you are fully aware of the same.
You have made it quite clear that you believe all knowledge other than that gained from the Bible is incorrect. Hence my conclusion.
Put up or shut up. Show were I deny any reliance on scientific advancements and/or discoveries.
But why would you rely on something you know to be incorrect?
You're misapplying my statements. What I said was this (and it's pretty straightforward, so there shouldn't be any confusion about it).
To place one's faith in man's ability to observe and/or rationalize the natural world is to doom one's self to the constantly shifting view as science has offered over the years.
Come on! You have only two choices here. Either you "deny any reliance on scientific advancements and/or discoveries" or you "place one's faith in man's ability to observe and/or rationalize the natural world". You seem to think that there is a third option. What is it?
Note that nobody is claiming that all information purporting to be scientific knowledge is necessarily correct but some knowledge obtained through "man's ability to observe and/or rationalize the natural world" must be relied upon.
No such shift is found in the spiritual life, as delineated in the Bible. Since the completion of the canon of Scripture, EVERYTHING man needs to know regarding the spiritual life is found therein.
Sadly said information cannot be extracted reliably - hence the net effect is to render it no different from the pattern you are describing amongst scientists. The difference is that although scientists are over time finding ways to get closer to finding out what the true unchanging facts are, I see no such evidence of progress in interpreting scripture. As far as I can tell interpretation of scripture is as random today as it was a thousand years ago.
30 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonExplain to us...
…Not so at all. Knowledge was not found wanting in the sense of being incorrect. It was merely incomplete...
Are you serious? This is your argument? By its very nature, the term "found wanting" SCREAMS incorrect.
...… (my emphasis)
Nope -suppose I saw gold in a valley while I was lost and now I am trying to find that gold again after I some ...[text shortened]... r knowledge of something being “incomplete” that what we DO know about it must be “incorrect”?[/b]
What: you have a mouse in your pocket? Are you the spokesman for some hidden panel somewhere?
...our knowledge of something being “incomplete” that what we DO know about it must be “incorrect”?
Much of your confusion can be cleared up by properly applying my statements. Better for you to walk the path yourself than for me to hand it over without any effort on your part, so perhaps you'll indulge me to submit to a few questions yourself.
Before 1930, did Pluto exist?
Between 1930 and 2006, did Pluto change?
In the ensuing time since 2006, has Pluto changed fundamentally?
Before we called Pluto a planet, were we wrong to not know of its existence--- or was our knowledge just incomplete?
From 1930 through 2006, were we wrong to call Pluto a planet--- or, again, was our knowledge just incomplete?
Suppose a student in 1929 taking a test is asked the number of planets in our solar system. He responds eight. Is he right or wrong?
Suppose a student in 1954 taking a test is asked the number of planets in our solar system. He responds eight. Is his response wrong, or just incomplete?
Suppose a student in 2009 taking a test is asked the number of planets in our solar system. He responds nine. Is his response wrong, or just incomplete?
30 Jan 09
5 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton=========================================
…… Whose more likely to survive as a species - one with knowledge enough to destroy all life on earth with the push of a few buttons or one without? .…
Are you actually implying that intelligence is GENERALLY a bad thing for survival?[/b]
Are you actually implying that intelligence is GENERALLY a bad thing for survival?
==========================================
Are you actually implying that intelligence is the only factor needed for survival of a species in your Evolutionary belief?
Of course if you believe in Natural Selction strong enough, even if every living thing were to be killed in a nuclear war, still the next evolutionary cycle would adapt man (or whatever intelligent animal replaces him on the next go round) to be a little less aggressive. In that belief that might take a few cycles of the history of life, carrying us into the trillions of years future.
Throw in enough time and Natural Selection will correct all mistakes I suppose. As C.S. Lewis remarked that in Evolution "Goodness is what comes next."
30 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadHere you are essentially saying that if you learn one new thing then all your past knowledge becomes obsolete.
And you call my arguments silly? Here you are essentially saying that if you learn one new thing then all your past knowledge becomes obsolete. My curtains are brown. There! All your knowledge was 'found wanting'! Said knowledge is incorrect by virtue of later discovered data!
There has been no such implication, and you are fully aware of the same.[ interpretation of scripture is as random today as it was a thousand years ago.
No, I am not.
You have made it quite clear that you believe all knowledge other than that gained from the Bible is incorrect.
Instead, I have made a distinction between knowledge that is based upon truth and that which is called knowledge but is merely based upon our best guesses. Additionally, I have pointed out that the latter is good for limited applications, whereas the former is profitable for that which has intrinsic value.
By my own words--- which, for reasons only you know, you choose to edit out--- I have made very clear that man's advancements have served some usefulness. However, my stance is that said usefulness is much less impactful than asserted by a few of its wild-eyed adherents.
You seem to think that there is a third option. What is it?
As stated, faith in God and skeptical employment of man's advances.
Sadly said information cannot be extracted reliably - hence the net effect is to render it no different from the pattern you are describing amongst scientists.
I agree in part and disagree in part. The knowledge imparted by Scripture can be extracted reliably, otherwise the Lord Jesus Christ would have never told us to put all of our stock in it. The part with which I agree, however, is that--- for the overwhelming majority--- sadly, the science of theology is becoming extinct. But that doesn't reflect on the Scripture; rather it is an indictment on the hearts of man... believers first and foremost.
30 Jan 09
3 edits
Technology is a real trip, a real advancement. Look at the telephone. Now it was invented before I was born and I appreciate it.
But what happened to the good old busy signal?
Today you call a company and you get a recording politely asking you to wait. While you wait they play music and advertizements. Occasionally the recording will tell you how important your call is to the company. Then you wait and listen to more music and more advertizements. Ah technological advancement.
Yet there is a further development. Now your phone rings you. You pick it up and a recording asks you to either hold or actually call another number. If you listen to the recording and call the other number another recording then asks you to please wait. And you listen to music and maybe some advertizements.
I don't know how many people this puts out of work. I know it does employ some. But the effeciency of it is a marvel (especially in rudeness) - a recording calling and asking you to call back and then another recording asking you to wait.
Ocassionally I stop and ask "Exactly what is the net advancement here?"
30 Jan 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe "science" of Theology!
[b]Here you are essentially saying that if you learn one new thing then all your past knowledge becomes obsolete.
No, I am not.
You have made it quite clear that you believe all knowledge other than that gained from the Bible is incorrect.
Instead, I have made a distinction between knowledge that is based upon truth and that which is called ...[text shortened]... e Scripture; rather it is an indictment on the hearts of man... believers first and foremost.[/b]
😵
30 Jan 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo what are you saying? You keep contradicting yourself whilst never really explaining your actual position.
No, I am not.
Do you or do you not believe that the existence of Pluto is an incontrovertible fact? Do you believe that any knowledge obtained in future can change that fact?
Which information about Pluto do you believe was found to be incorrect?
I agree in part and disagree in part. The knowledge imparted by Scripture can be extracted reliably, otherwise the Lord Jesus Christ would have never told us to put all of our stock in it. The part with which I agree, however, is that--- for the overwhelming majority--- sadly, the science of theology is becoming extinct. But that doesn't reflect on the Scripture; rather it is an indictment on the hearts of man... believers first and foremost.
And our knowledge of Pluto can hardly be said to reflect on Pluto.
There are two basic problems with knowledge extraction from scripture.
1. When you claim to have found a reliable method there is no independent method of verifying that your claim is accurate.
2. Most methods claimed to be reliable when actually tried by other people usually yield differing results.
What I find interesting is how many people will blindly believe your claim that Jesus told us to put stock in scripture when the definition of what scripture is was essentially settled long after his death.
30 Jan 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBH…Before 1930, did Pluto exist? ...…
[b]Explain to us...
What: you have a mouse in your pocket? Are you the spokesman for some hidden panel somewhere?
...our knowledge of something being “incomplete” that what we DO know about it must be “incorrect”?
Much of your confusion can be cleared up by properly applying my statements. Better for you to walk the path yourself than fo ...[text shortened]... r of planets in our solar system. He responds nine. Is his response wrong, or just incomplete?[/b]
Yes -and if we didn’t know then that Pluto exist then that is an example of “incomplete” knowledge and NOT “incorrect” knowledge.
….Between 1930 and 2006, did Pluto change?
In the ensuing time since 2006, has Pluto changed fundamentally?
Before we called Pluto a planet, were we wrong to not know of its existence
….
No and no and no.
….--- or was our knowledge just incomplete? .…
No. And nor was it “incorrect” because we hadn’t yet given a precise formal definition of what we mean by the word “planet” in science and, remember, there is not such thing as a “correct” definition to a word because ALL definitions are arbitrary in logic.
….From 1930 through 2006, were we wrong to call Pluto a planet---
..…
No we weren’t! ALL definitions are arbitrary!
…or, again, was our knowledge just incomplete? ..…
No -and nor was it “incorrect”.
…. Suppose a student in 1929 taking a test is asked the number of planets in our solar system. He responds eight. Is he right or wrong?
Suppose a student in 1954 taking a test is asked the number of planets in our solar system. He responds eight. Is his response wrong, or just incomplete?
Suppose a student in 2009 taking a test is asked the number of planets in our solar system. He responds nine. Is his response wrong, or just incomplete?
.…
The answer to the above 3 questions depends on two things:
1, Using which definition of a planet? The modern one or the old one?
2, does “the number of planets” refer to “the number of KNOWN planets at the present time” or does it mean “the number of planets that physically exist BOTH the KNOWN ones AND any UNKNOWN ones at the present time”?
Once you make the exact meaning of the questions clear by answering my two questions above, then there cannot be any confusion between knowledge that is “incorrect” from that which is merely “incomplete” but which is not necessarily “incorrect”.
So my claim that “incomplete” knowledge is not necessarily “incorrect” knowledge still stands and thus it doesn’t logically follow from the fact that some knowledge is “incomplete” that it MUST be “incorrect”.
30 Jan 09
If Pluto is a planet, then there are numerous more planets than just nine if you count the other bodies resembling Pluto more than any other of the eight other ones.
If Pluto is not a planet, then the new definition of 'what a planet is' is much better than the previous one.
State a correct (by your opinion) definition of 'planet' or this discussion is not more than hollow words!