- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 18 2011,14:18) Quote (TimothyVI @ Aug. 21 2011,08:01) I never quite know what this means.
”
“
Tim
You can interpret it using the Rosetta Stone.
lol.. what is Mrs,(tiffany, Iren's, Name now?need a laugh, its been a hard week t8
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 18 2011,14:21) Hey Stu, you still back the Nothing Horse or the Something with no IQ Horse.
Nuff said.
When I hear hooves in the night I think of horses.I don't think you even stop at imagining zebras.
To you it's a herd of unicorns.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 23 2011,05:35) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 18 2011,14:21) Hey Stu, you still back the Nothing Horse or the Something with no IQ Horse.
Nuff said.
When I hear hooves in the night I think of horses.I don't think you even stop at imagining zebras.
To you it's a herd of unicorns.
Stuart
stuthat's funny
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 22 2011,22:35) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 18 2011,14:21) Hey Stu, you still back the Nothing Horse or the Something with no IQ Horse.
Nuff said.
When I hear hooves in the night I think of horses.I don't think you even stop at imagining zebras.
To you it's a herd of unicorns.
Stuart
Stu, your belief is that like saying horses don't exist because you have never seen a horse.There was a time when men on horses were confused as one single being. Your denial of God is similar. You either ignore his existence or try and turn him into something that we all know doesn't exist.
Yet you have been given compelling logical evidence that there are only 3 options and God is the only one that makes sense.
So your rants are meaningless until you can give some kind of explanation.
Since you have failed to do so, it means you have failed.
And because you have failed, then why continue failing for all to see?Quote (Stu @ Oct. 22 2011,05:35) When I hear hooves in the night I think of horses. I don't think you even stop at imagining zebras.
To you it's a herd of unicorns.
Stu doesn't even realize that he was in Africa when he heard the hooves in the night, and therefore the noise WAS made by zebras, and not horses.So as it turns out, what we were “imagining” was also the truth of the matter.
It was actually HE who was wrong by thinking of horses when in fact he was hearing zebras.
As far as unicorns, who are you to say they don't, or didn't, exist? Do you base your understanding on only what your flawed human eyes can see – or on what your puny human brain can comprehend?
Have you ever actually ever seen a Cro-Magnon man, Stu? How about a dinosaur? Some scientists think they had skin like lizards; others think they had feathers like birds. If you can't even be sure about such a SIMPLE matter such as this, then how can you be so sure about anything else science declares to be the “undeniable truth”?
Quote (t8 @ Nov. 25 2011,07:22) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 22 2011,22:35) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 18 2011,14:21) Hey Stu, you still back the Nothing Horse or the Something with no IQ Horse.
Nuff said.
When I hear hooves in the night I think of horses.I don't think you even stop at imagining zebras.
To you it's a herd of unicorns.
Stuart
Stu, your belief is that like saying horses don't exist because you have never seen a horse.There was a time when men on horses were confused as one single being. Your denial of God is similar. You either ignore his existence or try and turn him into something that we all know doesn't exist.
Yet you have been given compelling logical evidence that there are only 3 options and God is the only one that makes sense.
So your rants are meaningless until you can give some kind of explanation.
Since you have failed to do so, it means you have failed.
And because you have failed, then why continue failing for all to see?
If no one had ever seen a horse, there would be no such thing as that concept. Of course you could invent the word horse then make up all sorts of properties of a horse, and try to convince people there is such a thing even though no one had ever seen one. Then those who came to believe in this horse concept could make up all sorts of different and contradictory properties of horses, free from the limitations that would come if you could actually observe imaginary things.But that would not be an analogy of my belief system, would it. It is not me that has imaginary beings in mind.
Stuart
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 26 2011,04:39) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 22 2011,05:35) When I hear hooves in the night I think of horses. I don't think you even stop at imagining zebras.
To you it's a herd of unicorns.
Stu doesn't even realize that he was in Africa when he heard the hooves in the night, and therefore the noise WAS made by zebras, and not horses.So as it turns out, what we were “imagining” was also the truth of the matter.
It was actually HE who was wrong by thinking of horses when in fact he was hearing zebras.
As far as unicorns, who are you to say they don't, or didn't, exist? Do you base your understanding on only what your flawed human eyes can see – or on what your puny human brain can comprehend?
Have you ever actually ever seen a Cro-Magnon man, Stu? How about a dinosaur? Some scientists think they had skin like lizards; others think they had feathers like birds. If you can't even be sure about such a SIMPLE matter such as this, then how can you be so sure about anything else science declares to be the “undeniable truth”?
It is a fact that I do not live in Africa. For you to stretch this analogy in this way would be to indulge in special pleading, a logical fallacy. The idea of hooves is the skeptical ideal: attribute your observations to that which is most likely first, keeping an open mind to the possibility that you were wrong, but requiring unambiguous evidence before you switch to a less likely option.No one can disprove the existence of unicorns. That does not give you a good reason to think there is any such thing, and it is a reasonable conclusion to draw that there is no such thing. Of course, as always, we should be open to new evidence.
Do you have photographs of unicorns?
Essentially, and with only trivial differences, every time I look in the mirror I see a Cro-Magnon man.
Yes I have seen the fossilised skeletons of several dinosaurs, although as they have been extinct for 65 million years, that is all I expect to see of them. Those fossil remains include the imprints of feathers, and if you compare the DNA of extant descendents of dinosaurs, the birds, and the DNA of modern reptiles, you can come up with a plausible conclusion about the nature of dinosaur skin.
When have I ever claimed to have “undeniable truth”? Please show me the post where I said that. Please show me a peer-reviewed scientific paper that claims to reveal “undeniable truth”.
Do you have any more than overstretched analogies and strawman arguments?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 26 2011,05:56) If no one had ever seen a horse, there would be no such thing as that concept. Of course you could invent the word horse then make up all sorts of properties of a horse, and try to convince people there is such a thing even though no one had ever seen one. Then those who came to believe in this horse concept could make up all sorts of different and contradictory properties of horses, free from the limitations that would come if you could actually observe imaginary things.
OR………………………..What if no one had ever seen a horse, but God Himself had described such a beast in scripture? Then it wouldn't be that we “invented” this species and “made up all sorts of properties” concerning it. Instead, it would be a matter of some of us BELIEVING what we've been told, and others of us DENYING it because they think it couldn't really be unless they've seen it with their own eyes.
Which group of people will have egg on their face when we are allowed to actually see that horse for the first time?
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 26 2011,06:07) It is a fact that I do not live in Africa.
Ah, but you are assuming there is not a single herd of zebras in the U.S., or wherever you live. I live in the U.S., and have seen acres where herds of zebras roam.So it seems to me that if you hear hooves in the night, and automatically KNOW it is horses, then you're not even open to the possibility of it being zebras that escaped from one of these farms I mentioned.
In your mind, you KNOW it was horses, and therefore won't even entertain the possibility that it could have been zebras.
And when you wake the next morning to the newspaper article explaining how a herd of zebras escaped the farm, and stampeded right past your house in the middle of the night, then you will know that making concrete assessments based only on our human minds and senses leaves us open to mistakes. You will realize that, while the brain God gave us is the most wonderful computer on earth, we'd still do well to remember that things aren't always what they seem to be according to our puny intellects.
See Stu? You KNEW from the wonderful tools God gave you that it was HORSES you heard. It was only when another human being – who was relying on his own purely human senses – told you it was zebras, that you realized your first understanding was flawed.
I used to be like that. I wouldn't believe until another human – relying on purely human senses – told me it was so. I used to have so much faith in the discoveries made by flawed human minds – as if it couldn't be true unless a human scientist told me it was. But now I just think back to all the things humans have KNOWN to be true at one point in time, only to discover they were not true after all.
Quote ……..attribute your observations to that which is most likely first, keeping an open mind to the possibility that you were wrong, but requiring unambiguous evidence before you switch to a less likely option.
And do you keep your mind open to the possibility of an all-powerful God who wonderfully orchestrated all your eyes can see?Or do you consider it “unambiguous evidence” that certain puny human brains – relying on purely human senses – have decided that all your eyes can see just happened out of the blue – driven by an unintelligent, uncaring force?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 27 2011,01:36) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 26 2011,05:56) If no one had ever seen a horse, there would be no such thing as that concept. Of course you could invent the word horse then make up all sorts of properties of a horse, and try to convince people there is such a thing even though no one had ever seen one. Then those who came to believe in this horse concept could make up all sorts of different and contradictory properties of horses, free from the limitations that would come if you could actually observe imaginary things.
OR………………………..What if no one had ever seen a horse, but God Himself had described such a beast in scripture? Then it wouldn't be that we “invented” this species and “made up all sorts of properties” concerning it. Instead, it would be a matter of some of us BELIEVING what we've been told, and others of us DENYING it because they think it couldn't really be unless they've seen it with their own eyes.
Which group of people will have egg on their face when we are allowed to actually see that horse for the first time?
So now we are not only discussing imaginary horses, but imaginary gods as well? Seriously you are proposing a nested analogy, one that has an imaginary god describing an imaginary horse?Good grief.
Stuart
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 27 2011,02:06) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 26 2011,06:07) It is a fact that I do not live in Africa.
Ah, but you are assuming there is not a single herd of zebras in the U.S., or wherever you live. I live in the U.S., and have seen acres where herds of zebras roam.So it seems to me that if you hear hooves in the night, and automatically KNOW it is horses, then you're not even open to the possibility of it being zebras that escaped from one of these farms I mentioned.
In your mind, you KNOW it was horses, and therefore won't even entertain the possibility that it could have been zebras.
And when you wake the next morning to the newspaper article explaining how a herd of zebras escaped the farm, and stampeded right past your house in the middle of the night, then you will know that making concrete assessments based only on our human minds and senses leaves us open to mistakes. You will realize that, while the brain God gave us is the most wonderful computer on earth, we'd still do well to remember that things aren't always what they seem to be according to our puny intellects.
See Stu? You KNEW from the wonderful tools God gave you that it was HORSES you heard. It was only when another human being – who was relying on his own purely human senses – told you it was zebras, that you realized your first understanding was flawed.
I used to be like that. I wouldn't believe until another human – relying on purely human senses – told me it was so. I used to have so much faith in the discoveries made by flawed human minds – as if it couldn't be true unless a human scientist told me it was. But now I just think back to all the things humans have KNOWN to be true at one point in time, only to discover they were not true after all.
Quote ……..attribute your observations to that which is most likely first, keeping an open mind to the possibility that you were wrong, but requiring unambiguous evidence before you switch to a less likely option.
And do you keep your mind open to the possibility of an all-powerful God who wonderfully orchestrated all your eyes can see?Or do you consider it “unambiguous evidence” that certain puny human brains – relying on purely human senses – have decided that all your eyes can see just happened out of the blue – driven by an unintelligent, uncaring force?
You are at least now discussing the concept of probability. Would you like me to help you workshop the idea, as they say?I live in New Zealand, so the probability of the hooves belonging to a herd of zebras is so low compared to the probability that the hooves belong to horses, that it would be perverse of me to think of zebras. I'm not saying that is true everywhere, you assess the probability according to your surroundings, collecting data to support that analysis.
Where I live, p(horses) > p(zebras) > p(unicorns)
On the question of what you can KNOW, all knowledge is provisional, and the photograph in the newspaper the next morning is unambiguous evidence that should cause you to reject your earlier provisional conclusion, and accept the less likely one, as I explained to you.
Regarding senses, you appear to be telling me you have some special way of knowing stuff that doesn't involve the senses. How does that work?
I am glad to see you are keeping your own mind open to the possibilities that there is no god of any kind, or that it is the Flying Spaghetti Monster (bhna) that has organised everything you can see.
If you want to ask me how I think the universe came to have matter, energy and life in it, then you only have to ask.
But it appears you have already decided what I believe.
So I shan't bother explaining until you are ready to learn about it.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 26 2011,13:41) Regarding senses, you appear to be telling me you have some special way of knowing stuff that doesn't involve the senses. How does that work?
What “human sense” tells you that a being climbed out of the primordial soup ocean and on to land, and then evolved into beings that live on oxygen while simultaneously evolving into the plants that produce that oxygen?Face it Stu, both you and I are held hostage by FAITH. I have FAITH that an all-knowing Being created all things. You have FAITH in the conclusions men have made using only our faulty faculties – despite the fact that you KNOW how many times we've proved ourselves wrong throughout history.
I have FAITH that this universe was orchestrated by an intelligent Being who knew exactly what He was doing.
You have FAITH that the wonderfully orchestrated system of nature you see around you just somehow came to be – without any intelligent designer.
I think you are a prideful fool for believing such a thing, while I will remain humbled and in constant awe of the wonderous things my God created for us.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 27 2011,06:55) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 26 2011,13:41) Regarding senses, you appear to be telling me you have some special way of knowing stuff that doesn't involve the senses. How does that work?
What “human sense” tells you that a being climbed out of the primordial soup ocean and on to land, and then evolved into beings that live on oxygen while simultaneously evolving into the plants that produce that oxygen?Face it Stu, both you and I are held hostage by FAITH. I have FAITH that an all-knowing Being created all things. You have FAITH in the conclusions men have made using only our faulty faculties – despite the fact that you KNOW how many times we've proved ourselves wrong throughout history.
I have FAITH that this universe was orchestrated by an intelligent Being who knew exactly what He was doing.
You have FAITH that the wonderfully orchestrated system of nature you see around you just somehow came to be – without any intelligent designer.
I think you are a prideful fool for believing such a thing, while I will remain humbled and in constant awe of the wonderous things my God created for us.
We don't know how life started, although there are some very plausible models now. We do know how life diversified. The human senses that tell you that are mainly the eyes, looking at fossils or the colour of iron in sedimentary rocks or the readouts from Geiger counters. I guess smell might come into it occasionally, and touch and maybe hearing in some situations. Not sure about taste.The difference actually is in the word “provisional”. I hold things to be true provisionally, open to unambiguous evidence to the contrary which would change my belief. You don't, you have already committed to an absolute truth that has no flexibility, which is why you are sometimes forced to make the most absurd claims and pretend that there is some respect deserving for those who pig-heatedly stick to things that are clearly wrong. Like virgin birth and walking again after execution.
So, it is only you who is held hostage to faith. It looks like you locked yourself into that straightjacket and managed to throw away the key.
Think of the Dalai Lama: he is a man who leads a religious organisation that changes its dogmas if they are disproved by empirical observation.
Stuart
Stu,
Read your own post to see what I mean. You have FAITH in the senses and intellects of human beings. That FAITH in the abilities of these things you KNOW are flawed cause you to come to your “provisional truth”.
I don't rely that heavily on the flawed human brain. I rely on the unflawed Creator of all things.
I believe it was Aurthor Clarke who said that if our universe was expanding even one millionth of a millionth part faster, it would have dispersed by now. One millionth of a millionth part slower, and it would have collapsed on itself by now.
To me, that is an amazing feat of my God. To you – it's just one of a long list of “flukes” that caused life to be as we know it.
We both rely on FAITH, Stu. Don't kid yourself. It's just that mine is in a Creator much greater than us. Yours is in human beings, who you for some reason feel are on the top rung of the intelligence ladder.
Even that faith in his own intellect leads him to the most foolish of conclusions, that nothing caused everything.
There was a Big Bang and the universe unraveled.0 became 1 then 2 and so on.
Magic.
Show me the math Stu.
I just want to see a demonstration on how zero can become another number without using another number.
Or even an explanation on how nothing can become something.Still waiting…..until then, it is religious platitude.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
