30 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhen I hold an astronomy lecture, I usually ask to my students "How many planets are there in our planetary system?" Any answer will do if they only motivate their answer well.
It must be noted that the wise student will answer any Pluto questions based on what he thinks the examiner wants.
Correct answers are: 9 planets, 8 planets, 12 planets, hundred of planets, and certainly many more answers as well, depending of what the definition of 'planet' you use.
So instead of quarrel about if Pluto is a real planet or not, show the definition used, and it's easy to determine if Pluto is a planet or not.
Since this is the Spiritual Forum - what does the bible say about the issue? 😉
30 Jan 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasNow you mean what the ...science of theology suggests, or what the word of "god" says?
When I hold an astronomy lecture, I usually ask to my students "How many planets are there in our planetary system?" Any answer will do if they only motivate their answer well.
Correct answers are: 9 planets, 8 planets, 12 planets, hundred of planets, and certainly many more answers as well, depending of what the definition of 'planet' you use.
So i ...[text shortened]... or not.
Since this is the Spiritual Forum - what does the bible say about the issue? 😉
30 Jan 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasSo instead of quarrel about if Pluto is a real planet or not, show the definition used, and it's easy to determine if Pluto is a planet or not.
When I hold an astronomy lecture, I usually ask to my students "How many planets are there in our planetary system?" Any answer will do if they only motivate their answer well.
Correct answers are: 9 planets, 8 planets, 12 planets, hundred of planets, and certainly many more answers as well, depending of what the definition of 'planet' you use.
So i ...[text shortened]... or not.
Since this is the Spiritual Forum - what does the bible say about the issue? 😉
The question isn't about Pluto, it is about the vacillation of science.
30 Jan 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHVacillation is the strength of science. Dogmatism is not.
[b]So instead of quarrel about if Pluto is a real planet or not, show the definition used, and it's easy to determine if Pluto is a planet or not.
The question isn't about Pluto, it is about the vacillation of science.[/b]
If vacillation isn't anywhere in religion, we would still be jews all of us. But dogmatism rules, as in the religious creationism.
When we know something new that demands that we change definitions, the result might be that we change the status of Pluto. Else science would be utterly dogmatic. It isn't. Religion is.
If Pluto indeed would be a planet, then we have hundreds planets in our solar system, not only nine. If we don't want to have anything other than nine, then it would be a dogmatic science. It isn't. Religion is.
30 Jan 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasOn we sweep with
Vacillation is the strength of science. Dogmatism is not.
If vacillation isn't anywhere in religion, we would still be jews all of us. But dogmatism rules, as in the religious creationism.
When we know something new that demands that we change definitions, the result might be that we change the status of Pluto. Else science would be utterly dogmatic ...[text shortened]... o have anything other than nine, then it would be a dogmatic science. It isn't. Religion is.
threshing oar
our only goal will be the western shore
😵
30 Jan 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasVacillation is the strength of science. Dogmatism is not.
Vacillation is the strength of science. Dogmatism is not.
If vacillation isn't anywhere in religion, we would still be jews all of us. But dogmatism rules, as in the religious creationism.
When we know something new that demands that we change definitions, the result might be that we change the status of Pluto. Else science would be utterly dogmatic ...[text shortened]... o have anything other than nine, then it would be a dogmatic science. It isn't. Religion is.
That sounds uncannily like, I dunno, a dogmatic statement. Unless, of course, that dictum is subject to change.
But dogmatism rules, as in the religious creationism.
And, as in certain scientific circles. Do not challenge the status quo.
30 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo what are you saying? You keep contradicting yourself whilst never really explaining your actual position.
So what are you saying? You keep contradicting yourself whilst never really explaining your actual position.
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 a cripture when the definition of what scripture is was essentially settled long after his death.
My position has been stated clearly and often.
Do you or do you not believe that the existence of Pluto is an incontrovertible fact?
I'm okay with it. Maybe ambivalent is a better term.
Do you believe that any knowledge obtained in future can change that fact?
Absolutely.
Which information about Pluto do you believe was found to be incorrect?
Its classification as a planet, apparently, for one.
1. When you claim to have found a reliable method there is no independent method of verifying that your claim is accurate.
I guess I don't understand. A method to verfiy methods? Would that not demand a method to determine that the verifying method is sound (and so on and etc.)?
2. Most methods claimed to be reliable when actually tried by other people usually yield differing results.
Couldn't agree more. However, most methods are in near complete agreement on the same basic concepts. All of us are fond of our pet ruminations, feeding them and stroking them into idols.
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.
Ask and it will be given to you. Seek and you will find. Knock and the door will be opened for you.
30 Jan 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf it was clear to me then I wouldn't be asking. Indulge me.
My position has been stated clearly and often.
Absolutely.
So you are not actually sure that Pluto exists? Do you believe that I exist or the computer in front of you exist?
Its classification as a planet, apparently, for one.
And that is where you misunderstand what classification is. The classification of Pluto as a planet or not is not information about Pluto. The fact that you list it as such is clear evidence that you still do not realize this hence the reason for the whole discussion. Classification is to a large degree little different from 'definitions' in logic. Changing your definitions will not affect whether or not your logic is right or wrong. Changing a classification system does not change the amount of knowledge you have about the things being classified.
I guess I don't understand. A method to verfiy methods? Would that not demand a method to determine that the verifying method is sound (and so on and etc.)?
Exactly. Ultimately we must simply take your word for it (not the Bible). And I see no reason to do that - especially considering that you have yourself assured us that mans knowledge is unreliable.
Couldn't agree more. However, most methods are in near complete agreement on the same basic concepts. All of us are fond of our pet ruminations, feeding them and stroking them into idols.
I wonder what those basic concepts are. I know of practically nothing in common with all the religions that have descended from the Old and New Testaments. Even within one branch (Christianity) there is so much disagreement that people will not pray together. In my home town there are over 150 different Christian denominations and those are the ones big enough to hold services. Then we have the Jews, the Muslims, the Rastas and so on.
Ask and it will be given to you. Seek and you will find. Knock and the door will be opened for you.
I have heard that before. Sadly I don't believe you. I am not given to self delusion and by observing others that have claimed to try that method I have little reason to doubt that self delusion is what it is.
02 Feb 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf it was clear to me then I wouldn't be asking. Indulge me.
If it was clear to me then I wouldn't be asking. Indulge me.
[b]Absolutely.
So you are not actually sure that Pluto exists? Do you believe that I exist or the computer in front of you exist?
Its classification as a planet, apparently, for one.
And that is where you misunderstand what classification is. The classification of Pluto as a p ...[text shortened]... claimed to try that method I have little reason to doubt that self delusion is what it is.[/b]
My first and second posts on the previous page pretty much sum things up.
So you are not actually sure that Pluto exists? Do you believe that I exist or the computer in front of you exist?
As stated, I don't really consider the matter all that important, one way or another. Whether or not Pluto exists has zero impact on what passes for life here on this planet.
I am fairly confident that both you and the computer in front of me are actually there.
The classification of Pluto as a planet or not is not information about Pluto.
No one is disputing anything about the known information regarding Pluto. Nothing about that information changed its classification. Rather, it was the information which was gathered post-discovery which led to the change. One way or another, however, there was a change.
Classification is to a large degree little different from 'definitions' in logic.
Philosophy is not what is in mind when considering whether or not Pluto is a planet.
I have heard that before. Sadly I don't believe you.
Then I guess I'm just a fool for believing the Lord Jesus Christ.
02 Feb 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAs I pointed out before, the fact that scientists gain new knowledge over time would hardly be disputed by anyone. I am sure you know that. Your choice of example however, as much as you now want to cover up the fact, was deliberately chosen with the express intention of trying to deceive by implying that knowledge about Pluto was incorrect.
No one is disputing anything about the known information regarding Pluto. Nothing about that information changed its classification. Rather, it was the information which was gathered post-discovery which led to the change. One way or another, however, there was a change.
In fact you said:
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.
Clearly you were trying to argue that all incomplete knowledge is false by definition. You seem now to by trying to shy away from that ridiculous assertion.
If you had simply started by saying: we discovered Pluto on such and such a date therefore our knowledge of the members of the Solar system changed - I would not have questioned you.
02 Feb 09
3 edits
twhitehead wrote:
===================================
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.
======================================
That's not true that all question as to what constituted Scripture was only settled after the death and resurrection of Jesus.
In His eartly ministry there was much of the Old Testament which was Scripture. And after His resurrection He convinced His followers that His life, death, and resurrection were all according to their Scriptures.
"And He said to them, These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and Psalms concerning Me must be fulfilled. Then He opened their minds to understand the SCRIPTURES." (Luke 24:44,45 my emphasis)
Similarly verse 26,27 Jesus says after His resurrection:
"Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and enter into His glory? And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, He explained to them clearly in all the SCRIPTURES the things concerning Himself." (vs.26,27 my empasis)
I suppose that a perculiar blindness in believing has led some to assume that no Scriptures existed during Jesus' earthly ministry.
03 Feb 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadAs I pointed out before, the fact that scientists gain new knowledge over time would hardly be disputed by anyone.
As I pointed out before, the fact that scientists gain new knowledge over time would hardly be disputed by anyone. I am sure you know that. Your choice of example however, as much as you now want to cover up the fact, was deliberately chosen with the express intention of trying to deceive by implying that knowledge about Pluto was incorrect.
In fact yo ...[text shortened]... ore our knowledge of the members of the Solar system changed - I would not have questioned you.
It is precisely this evolutionary nature of scientific advancement--- there is always something more than we know now--- which renders it worthless as a safe guard for our faith.
Those who adopt their world views based on the most current and chic scientific perspective are doomed to be considered tomorrow's bell-bottom wearing disco rejects.
The word of God, on the other hand, is unchanging.
...was deliberately chosen with the express intention of trying to deceive by implying that knowledge about Pluto was incorrect.
Our knowledge about how Pluto fits into the scheme of all things solar sytem related was (and, as it currently stands, is)--- emphatically--- incorrect by virtue of its incompleteness.
Clearly you were trying to argue that all incomplete knowledge is false by definition. You seem now to by trying to shy away from that ridiculous assertion.
Let's examine that.
If a perspective is based upon a premise which itself is based upon facts inconsistent with reality, what does that make the persective: true or false?
My contention has been (and remains) that science is constantly correcting itself, most often times as a result of man's inability to accurately gather all the pertinent information. However, even when all the pertinent information is available--- as in, say, that period prior to 1854 when the cholrea break out in England was finally connected to a common water source, the Broad Street pump--- man has shown a bedazzingly ability to get maddingly obvious things completely and utterly wrong.
I don't now, nor have I ever, faulted science on how it makes advances. This is truly the only way things work on this planet. That isn't the issue, however. The issue is where we put our faith. To place our faith in our own abilities to both gather the right information as well as analyze the same is a guarantee for failure. Not because man never gets it right, but rather because even when he does, it isn't nearly satisfactory enough to answer life's most critical questions.
Honestly, who gives a rat's ass whether Pluto is a planet, not a planet or if it even exists? However, there isn't a self-conscious person on this planet who doesn't care and/or wonder whether or not there is a God.
The Bible, the word of God, not only answers that question in the positive, it blazes the trail to bring man to his Maker and to a life overflowing with contentment.
04 Feb 09
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillI made no such assumption. My point is that you take Jesus' statements about scripture to cover the set of books chosen for you by a group of Christians with strong political and theological motives long after Jesus' death.
I suppose that a perculiar blindness in believing has led some to assume that no Scriptures existed during Jesus' earthly ministry.
You quite happily 'put stock' in any book that was chosen and not in any book that wasn't chosen - on the basis that Jesus told you too.
Also, you don't even know for sure that Jesus said it anyway - all you have is books written well after his death making the claim that he did - that you only believe to be accurate because you think they are scripture.
04 Feb 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHClearly you do care about whether or not you can admit that you are wrong. Your example was badly chosen, did not illustrate your point and was intended to be deceptive. But you cant seem to simply admit that and move on.
Honestly, who gives a rat's ass whether Pluto is a planet, not a planet or if it even exists? However, there isn't a self-conscious person on this planet who doesn't care and/or wonder whether or not there is a God.
You have also totally failed to provide any convincing argument to back up your ridiculous claim that all scientific knowledge is essentially false due to its incompleteness. - yes that is what you are saying though you wont be so blunt as that highlights how silly it is.
Also any such argument could be equally applied to 'Gods word' but you probably cant see that (or wont admit it). Either your have complete knowledge of Gods word, or your knowledge is "--- emphatically--- incorrect by virtue of its incompleteness." See how silly it is now?
I am absolutely sure that there are plenty of conscious people on this planet who have never heard of nor thought of the concept of a God and plenty more who believe in multiple gods that would be rather different from the God you refer to. So once again you are wrong.