Proof of the non-existence of God

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
….Your example of John's parents, their ages and their ages related to his does not mirror the situation with Pluto.
..…

That is right. And that is because it logically demonstrates an example of when your assertion that:

….….….An increase in knowledge renders previous knowledge obsolete, outdated and--- most importantly--- false.
d ( and this is not to mention the fact that I can give an unlimited number of such examples ).

That is right. And that is because it logically demonstrates an example of when your assertion that:
And now we're back to my original suggestion. Namely, apply the logic where it fits, not where it doesn't.

When I say "an increase in knowledge" or "previous knowledge" in the statement you quote, it was shorthand for the entire concepts, related to the topic at hand. Specifically, "an increase in knowledge" with respect to the contents of the solar system--- and, in this case, we are speaking of further discovery of celestial bodies found to be similar to Pluto--- rendered "previous knowledge" i.e., that which was known about the solar system as it pertained to said celestial bodies, obsolete.

To attempt as you did to claim as a general rule what was meant for a specific situation is not going to get anyone anywhere. You're simply arguing against something for which I am not standing.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Your example of John and the age of his parents is different from the topic at hand, as the topic at hand pertains to situations when new information makes the previously-held prespective obsolete by virtue of contradictory information.

But that is not your claim. Your claim was that new information always renders all previous knowledge false.
Again, if your claim is simply:
1. Nobody knows everything.
2. Some of what we think we know is wrong and will be shown to be wrong as new information comes to light.
Then I would not argue with you.

But that is not what you said.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
For instance, in the case of Pluto, the celestial body was considered a planet until such time as further information (increased discovery of similar bodies) and further consideration led to a revision of Pluto's importance and/or dominance within the solar system.

But as I think I pointed out before, Plutos so called 'dominance' was not considered a scientific fact by anyone anyway. No reasonable scientist then or now thinks that all celestial bodies have been discovered.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]That is right. And that is because it logically demonstrates an example of when your assertion that:
And now we're back to my original suggestion. Namely, apply the logic where it fits, not where it doesn't.

When I say "an increase in knowledge" or "previous knowledge" in the statement you quote, it was shorthand for the entire concepts, relate ...[text shortened]... nyone anywhere. You're simply arguing against something for which I am not standing.[/b]

….To attempt as you did to claim as a general rule what was meant for a specific situation is not going to get anyone anywhere
..…

Then, if it wasn’t meant as a general rule and was only meant for the specific situation regarding Pluto, why didn’t you mention the word “Pluto” in that statement?
-the absence of the word “Pluto” or any simular word would indicate that it is a general rule.

Also, what is so special about Pluto and the solar system that this ’logic’ of yours is specifically logically valid in THAT context but not logically valid generally?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
When I say "an increase in knowledge" or "previous knowledge" in the statement you quote, it was shorthand for the entire concepts, related to the topic at hand. Specifically, "an increase in knowledge" with respect to the contents of the solar system--- and, in this case, we are speaking of further discovery of celestial bodies found to be similar to Plu ...[text shortened]... ich was known about the solar system as it pertained to said celestial bodies, obsolete.

As pointed out by Andrew, if your argument is specific to the Solar system then why do you yourself generalize it to all scientific knowledge?
Secondly it is not even valid even for the specific topic under discussion. It is not true that all knowledge of the Solar system was rendered obsolete by the discovery of new planets. In fact, as far as I know no knowledge of the solar system whatsoever was rendered obsolete and certainly none was found to be false as you claimed.
It is relatively easy for you to prove me wrong in the above claim, simply provide one bit of knowledge that was considered scientifically accurate prior to the discovery of a celestial bodies after Pluto that is now known to be false.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But that is not your claim. Your claim was that new information always renders all previous knowledge false.
Again, if your claim is simply:
1. Nobody knows everything.
2. Some of what we think we know is wrong and will be shown to be wrong as new information comes to light.
Then I would not argue with you.

But that is not what you said.

But that is not your claim. Your claim was that new information always renders all previous knowledge false.
Try as you might to paint my claim as such, you aren't arguing with me but rather, with facts. Go back and read what I have posted on the subject. Not once did I ever write that new information always renders all previous knowledge false.

No matter what level your reading ability hits, my stance is unmistakably not what you are arguing against.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….To attempt as you did to claim as a general rule what was meant for a specific situation is not going to get anyone anywhere
..…

Then, if it wasn’t meant as a general rule and was only meant for the specific situation regarding Pluto, why didn’t you mention the word “Pluto” in that statement?
-the absence of the word “Pluto” or any s ...[text shortened]... gic’ of yours is specifically logically valid in THAT context but not logically valid generally?[/b]

As a specific rule, any correction to a perspective on any topic automatically renders--- at least in the mind of the person holding to the perspective--- the former view now obsolete, false.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]But that is not your claim. Your claim was that new information always renders all previous knowledge false.
Try as you might to paint my claim as such, you aren't arguing with me but rather, with facts. Go back and read what I have posted on the subject. Not once did I ever write that new information always renders all previous knowledge false. ...[text shortened]... l your reading ability hits, my stance is unmistakably not what you are arguing against.[/b]

Would you like to restate your claim then in clear precise English? Because when I read your claim:
An increase in knowledge renders previous knowledge obsolete, outdated and--- most importantly--- false.
It sure did sound like you were claiming that "new information always renders all previous knowledge false."
If it is not the case that "new information always renders all previous knowledge false" then could you state under what circumstances new information does render previous knowledge false and why in your opinion this means that all scientific knowledge is unreliable. Or was that not your claim either?

Originally posted by twhitehead
As pointed out by Andrew, if your argument is specific to the Solar system then why do you yourself generalize it to all scientific knowledge?
Secondly it is not even valid even for the specific topic under discussion. It is not true that all knowledge of the Solar system was rendered obsolete by the discovery of new planets. In fact, as far as I know no ...[text shortened]... accurate prior to the discovery of a celestial bodies after Pluto that is now known to be false.

Between 1936 and 2006: Pluto is considered unique enough to be counted as a planet. If a person answers the question "how many planets are there in the solar system?" with "nine," that person is considered correct, or accurate.

After 2006: Pluto is no longer considered unique enough to be counted as a planet. If a person answers that same question with "nine," they are considered incorrect.

Now: the perspective widely held in the years between 1936 and 2006 with regard to the celestial body known as Pluto is obsolete, false.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Between 1936 and 2006: Pluto is considered unique enough to be counted as a planet. If a person answers the question "how many planets are there in the solar system?" with "nine," that person is considered correct, or accurate.

And that is where you are wrong. The correct answer would have been "I don't know". A more reasonable question at that time would have been "how many known planets are there in the Solar system" - to which the correct answer was 9.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As a specific rule, any correction to a perspective on any topic automatically renders--- at least in the mind of the person holding to the perspective--- the former view now obsolete, false.

Only if we take as ones 'perspective' the totality of views held on the topic.
In reality the vast majority of views remain the same and remain correct.

But the argument can equally be applied to ones perspective of reality, so even if your perspective of the way an ant walks changes, your perspective of reality has changed and hence your previous perspective is now obsolete, false - including your perspective of the Bible, God or anything else. The only think is that your new perspective is nearly identical to the old one except for the details of ant walks.
See how silly your argument is? And how irrelevant it is to science and scientific knowledge? It doesn't in any way show that science or scientific knowledge are unreliable nor does it show the superiority of the Bible.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And that is where you are wrong. The correct answer would have been "I don't know". A more reasonable question at that time would have been "how many known planets are there in the Solar system" - to which the correct answer was 9.

You could not be more on the mark than this post. What I have been saying all along, you finally admit as true. When it comes to surety, science leaves the only correct response as "I don't know," more often than not.

Comically, you infer that things have now somehow changed--- that "at that time" is somehow different than, say, now. Do we have better vision? Of course! But has that vision really given us any type of edge with respect to knowing where it all came from, where it is all going, what it is all about?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Only if we take as ones 'perspective' the totality of views held on the topic.
In reality the vast majority of views remain the same and remain correct.

But the argument can equally be applied to ones perspective of reality, so even if your perspective of the way an ant walks changes, your perspective of reality has changed and hence your previous per ...[text shortened]... science or scientific knowledge are unreliable nor does it show the superiority of the Bible.

This is where your thinking is wrong.

A correct orientation to God is entirely possible, as evidenced by the life of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is a known surety. All of our gathering of the empirical, all of our analysis of the physical world--- these are all subject to change, as we have seen since man first started trying to figure things out for himself... and to which you have already admitted.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You could not be more on the mark than this post. What I have been saying all along, you finally admit as true. When it comes to surety, science leaves the only correct response as "I don't know," more often than not.

And I said it at the very beginning of the discussion. We cannot know everything and new information is being added to science all the time.
What I dispute is your ridiculous assertion that the addition of new information somehow taints the old information.
I think the problem is your kindergarten attitude towards science. You thought that because the teacher told you there were nine planets, you would memorize the fact and were highly offended to be told that the teacher was merely simplifying the situation for your benefit.

Comically, you infer that things have now somehow changed--- that "at that time" is somehow different than, say, now. Do we have better vision? Of course! But has that vision really given us any type of edge with respect to knowing where it all came from, where it is all going, what it is all about?
When did I infer such a thing? Yes we know more of the objects that orbit the Sun but at no point have I claimed that we know all of them. The only change is that we have tightened up our classification system thus enabling us to be fairly sure that we do now know about all the planets, as any object large enough to be currently classified as a planet would probably be visible.
But I would still expect anyone answering a question on planets to know that the implication is alway that we are talking about the known planets and that there could be others.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
All of our gathering of the empirical, all of our analysis of the physical world--- these are all subject to change, as we have seen since man first started trying to figure things out for himself... and to which you have already admitted.

And this is where you make your mistake. You first argue that we don't know everything (which we all agree) but then try to extend that to a claim that all that we know is 'subject to change'. That is false. And I have not admitted it. I have admitted that the totality of what we know is subject to change but that is in no way equivalent to the claim that everything that we know is subject to change. I know Pluto exists, that is not subject to change.