getting dates about a young earth

[Dan_473]

I am hardly advocating solipsism, I am saying that the best we can do is offer tentative hypotheses to explain the world we experience. Starting from the assumption that "all knowledge is inherently uncertain to some degree," which is also not absolutely certain, and that there exists an "objective reality we experience" are axioms that I am willing to take on faith. If it turns out after continuing along this line of reasoning that I discover that absolute certainty is possible somehow, then that axiom can be disregarded, so far I have not been convinced this is the case.

We can then distinguish between different types of knowledge and decide which kinds of knowledge we are most certain of. I would submit that the most certain kind of knowledge is sensory experience, which is a continuation of the argument that we live in an objective reality we experience. At that point I am willing to take another assumption on faith, for the purposes of moving forward towards an understanding of this objective reality, that of sense certainty which amounts to I can be reasonably certain that my senses can be trusted. If I later come across evidence that this is not true then this axiom also can be dismissed, but it seems to me a justified position. I don't seriously believe that you are doubting this either, but that is another assumption I am taking on faith I suppose.

[video=youtube;X8aWBcPVPMo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo[/video]

(unfortunately, I can't access youtube videos on the computer I'm using. If you'd like to summarize it, that'd be great.)

why are you not advocating solipsism? is there a standard by which you say it is wrong?


if the statement "all knowledge is inherently uncertain to some degree," is also not absolutely certain, then there exists the possibility of certain knowledge.


why are you willing to take on faith the axiom that there exists an "objective reality we experience"?

what evidence could you possibly come across that sense data can't be trusted... conversely, that it can be trusted?

 

[William86]

(unfortunately, I can't access youtube videos on the computer I'm using. If you'd like to summarize it, that'd be great.)

why are you not advocating solipsism? is there a standard by which you say it is wrong?

if the statement "all knowledge is inherently uncertain to some degree," is also not absolutely certain, then there exists the possibility of certain knowledge.

why are you willing to take on faith the axiom that there exists an "objective reality we experience"?

what evidence could you possibly come across that sense data can't be trusted... conversely, that it can be trusted?

I'd be happy to clarify. I don't think solipsism is interesting, enlightening or worth discussing. I see it as a sort of boring argument consisting of word games that never leads anywhere important and exists to sow doubt in people's mind for no practical reason.

Here is a transcript of the video:

"The question of whether or not when you see something, you see only the light or you see the thing you’re looking at, is one of those dopey philosophical things that an ordinary person has no difficulty with. Even the most profound philosopher, sitting eating his dinner, has many difficulties making out that what he looks at perhaps might only be the light from the steak but it still implies the existence of the steak which he is able to lift by the fork to his mouth. The philosophers that were unable to make that analysis and that idea have fallen by the wayside from hunger."

I'm therefore not really "appealing to solipsism" because I'm not concerned in the least with problems like am I a brain in a vat or is this all really an illusion. All I am interested in doing is finding out more about the world and I think we can be more certain of some things than others. I think this is intuitively obvious to everyone and not worth talking about. I'm not saying the philosophical problem of hard solipsism can be resolved or offering a resolution to that problem, I simply don't see how it is significant in any way so I move on to something else.

Is certain knowledge possible? Sure, it's also possible that tiny mice have taken control of the governments of the world. I have faith that objects exist because I interact with them daily, I have a subjective experience of an objective world and it seems ridiculous to seriously doubt that this is due to an objective world. I will continue believing an objective world exists unless someone has a more convincing alternative. If I woke up from a vat tomorrow and was told that everything I experienced had been a simulation that would be an example of evidence that my previous sensory experience can't be trusted.

Now I'd like to ask you a question. Do you have a better strategy?

 

[RobbyEarl]

I'd be happy to clarify. I don't think solipsism is interesting, enlightening or worth discussing. I see it as a sort of boring argument consisting of word games that never leads anywhere important and exists to sow doubt in people's mind for no practical reason.

Here is a transcript of the video:

"The question of whether or not when you see something, you see only the light or you see the thing you’re looking at, is one of those dopey philosophical things that an ordinary person has no difficulty with. Even the most profound philosopher, sitting eating his dinner, has many difficulties making out that what he looks at perhaps might only be the light from the steak but it still implies the existence of the steak which he is able to lift by the fork to his mouth. The philosophers that were unable to make that analysis and that idea have fallen by the wayside from hunger."

I'm therefore not really "appealing to solipsism" because I'm not concerned in the least with problems like am I a brain in a vat or is this all really an illusion. All I am interested in doing is finding out more about the world and I think we can be more certain of some things than others. I think this is intuitively obvious to everyone and not worth talking about. I'm not saying the philosophical problem of hard solipsism can be resolved or offering a resolution to that problem, I simply don't see how it is significant in any way so I move on to something else.

Is certain knowledge possible? Sure, it's also possible that tiny mice have taken control of the governments of the world. I have faith that objects exist because I interact with them daily, I have a subjective experience of an objective world and it seems ridiculous to seriously doubt that this is due to an objective world. I will continue believing an objective world exists unless someone has a more convincing alternative. If I woke up from a vat tomorrow and was told that everything I experienced had been a simulation that would be an example of evidence that my previous sensory experience can't be trusted.

Now I'd like to ask you a question. Do you have a better strategy?

Wow, yall is tu smert fer me, Im is jest glad that Christ died fur me and saved my soul. ands teeny mice takens control well that makes my melons taste funny. Gosh darn I wush Iz smert as yall iz.

 

[William86]

At this point I'm starting to wonder if you're not just using an argument by many questions as a debate tactic and attempting to demonstrate some kind of equivalence of certainty between religious ideas and scientific ideas where both require a similar level of faith to believe. If this is not what you're doing please clarify but that's definitely how it appears.

 

[Tintin]

What makes you a Christian? You clearly don't have any respect for God's Word. So what makes you a Christian?

 

[William86]

What makes you a Christian? You clearly don't have any respect for God's Word. So what makes you a Christian?

So basically if I don't agree with whatever crackpot beliefs you and your religious sect happen to believe in due to historical circumstance I'm somehow not a "true" christian. Blocked.

 

[Kisses1990]

Why do so many struggle with No True Scotsman fallacy? You're a true christian! No You are! I know you are but what am I?! Sorry to derail this, and maybe this is an important discussion for another thread. Take it by all means, William... But I hate when people point fingers and make accusations and go on a witch hunt over people that might believe slightly different than them. That MUST mean they aren't a TROO Christian!

 

[valiant]

Luke 1:1-4
"1 Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, [SUP]2 [/SUP]just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, [SUP]3 [/SUP]I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first,[SUP][a][/SUP] to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, [SUP]4 [/SUP]so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed."

This means that:
1) Luke is aware of other oral and written sources that he is drawing information from
2) Luke does not claim to be an eyewitness but is claiming at least some of his sources were

read it again

 

[Dan_473]

I'd be happy to clarify. I don't think solipsism is interesting, enlightening or worth discussing. I see it as a sort of boring argument consisting of word games that never leads anywhere important and exists to sow doubt in people's mind for no practical reason.

Here is a transcript of the video:

"The question of whether or not when you see something, you see only the light or you see the thing you’re looking at, is one of those dopey philosophical things that an ordinary person has no difficulty with. Even the most profound philosopher, sitting eating his dinner, has many difficulties making out that what he looks at perhaps might only be the light from the steak but it still implies the existence of the steak which he is able to lift by the fork to his mouth. The philosophers that were unable to make that analysis and that idea have fallen by the wayside from hunger."

I'm therefore not really "appealing to solipsism" because I'm not concerned in the least with problems like am I a brain in a vat or is this all really an illusion. All I am interested in doing is finding out more about the world and I think we can be more certain of some things than others. I think this is intuitively obvious to everyone and not worth talking about. I'm not saying the philosophical problem of hard solipsism can be resolved or offering a resolution to that problem, I simply don't see how it is significant in any way so I move on to something else.

Is certain knowledge possible? Sure, it's also possible that tiny mice have taken control of the governments of the world. I have faith that objects exist because I interact with them daily, I have a subjective experience of an objective world and it seems ridiculous to seriously doubt that this is due to an objective world. I will continue believing an objective world exists unless someone has a more convincing alternative. If I woke up from a vat tomorrow and was told that everything I experienced had been a simulation that would be an example of evidence that my previous sensory experience can't be trusted.

Now I'd like to ask you a question. Do you have a better strategy?

I agree that solipsism isn't very interesting. that's why I was surprised when you wrote,

All knowledge is going to be inherently "iffy" to some degree, absolutely nothing is ever known with absolute certainty, only differing degrees of certainty.

but then I'm also confused, because in this post you wrote,
"Is certain knowledge possible? Sure, it's also possible that tiny mice have taken control of the governments of the world."

so, do you say that all knowledge is uncertain, or is certainty possible?



the strategy I use is to see which beliefs give me joy, and go with those.

so, looking at the big picture, would you agree that it's odd to go to a christian forum, and say that God hasn't clearly communicated with us in any way? what would be the common ground for discussion?

 

[Dan_473]

Wow, yall is tu smert fer me, Im is jest glad that Christ died fur me and saved my soul. ands teeny mice takens control well that makes my melons taste funny. Gosh darn I wush Iz smert as yall iz.

that's one of the interesting things, I think... because I think William said earlier that he didn't believe that Jesus died to save us from the sin that entered the world through one man.

 

[Tintin]

that's one of the interesting things, I think... because I think William said earlier that he didn't believe that Jesus died to save us from the sin that entered the world through one man.

Oi vey! Exactly. Then what makes a person a Christian?

 

[Dan_473]

At this point I'm starting to wonder if you're not just using an argument by many questions as a debate tactic and attempting to demonstrate some kind of equivalence of certainty between religious ideas and scientific ideas where both require a similar level of faith to believe. If this is not what you're doing please clarify but that's definitely how it appears.

(I'm not sure who this is addressed to, but if it's addressed to me...)

yes, I believe the same level of faith is required to say that the bible is reliable or that science is reliable.

ok, so... I believe there is an implied assumption here on cc that the bible is reliable, it isn't factually wrong.

so then, if one brings up something from the world of mainstream science, the goal is to see how it could relate to the bible.

if it is used it to show the bible is unreliable, then there's no common ground for the thread... imo...

 

[Dan_473]

Oi vey! Exactly. Then what makes a person a Christian?

well, the word "christian" can be used in a lot of different ways...

but if I remember right, William said he wasn't into "biblical christianity"... so as long as we qualify it with "biblical", I think William would agree...


but no need to speak for someone else. what do you say, William my man?

 

[William86]

well, the word "christian" can be used in a lot of different ways...

but if I remember right, William said he wasn't into "biblical christianity"... so as long as we qualify it with "biblical", I think William would agree...


but no need to speak for someone else. what do you say, William my man?

I love the bible and christianity, I just don't assume it is inerrant just like many other christians. I have no real problem with you Dan, I might disagree with you on some things but that is to be expected if we start with different assumptions. I don't really care at this point whether you're able to understand what I think though, I've explained it well enough. I can see now you are more interested in twisting others words than seeking the truth, which is why you're able to accept young earth creationism and reject scientific knowledge for bad reasons.

 

[Dan_473]

I love the bible and christianity, I just don't assume it is inerrant just like many other christians. I have no real problem with you Dan, I might disagree with you on some things but that is to be expected if we start with different assumptions. I don't really care at this point whether you're able to understand what I think though, I've explained it well enough. I can see now you are more interested in twisting others words than seeking the truth, which is why you're able to accept young earth creationism and reject scientific knowledge for bad reasons.

wow! where did that come from?

in 1784, in sounded like you were fine with "compile your own" christianity, weren't really into traditional christianity, and deviated pretty far from Paul's teachings.

are you upset or frustrated at the difficulty of talking about whether knowledge is certain or whether God has communicated with us? I can certainly understand that... also too, sometimes when we see things we wrote used in logical corollaries, they can end up looking twisted to us.

May the peace of the Lord be always with you!

 

[William86]

wow! where did that come from?

in 1784, in sounded like you were fine with "compile your own" christianity, weren't really into traditional christianity, and deviated pretty far from Paul's teachings.

are you upset or frustrated at the difficulty of talking about whether knowledge is certain or whether God has communicated with us? I can certainly understand that... also too, sometimes when we see things we wrote used in logical corollaries, they can end up looking twisted to us.

May the peace of the Lord be always with you!

I stopped taking you seriously when I realized you are attempting to demonstrate that empiricism amounts to an endorsement of solipsism and that religion is as certain as science by committing equivocation fallacies. Likewise nothing can be derived from the possibility of something because anything is possible. You're constantly committing either or fallacies as well. What I find frustrating is having a conversation with a person who confuses logical fallacies with logic. I'm done with you.

 

[Dan_473]

I stopped taking you seriously when I realized you are attempting to demonstrate that empiricism amounts to an endorsement of solipsism and that religion is as certain as science by committing equivocation fallacies. Likewise nothing can be derived from the possibility of something because anything is possible. You're constantly committing either or fallacies as well. What I find frustrating is having a conversation with a person who confuses logical fallacies with logic. I'm done with you.

I don't believe I've commited any logical fallacies, but I could be wrong. If you'd like to lay them out, I'm interested in looking.


(for William or anybody else who wants to respond)
so, in the matter of the bible, science, and when the earth was created, my impression is that you consider science more reliable than the bible.
so, if there's a conflict, you will alter your interpretation of the bible to fit better with science.
is that a fair assessment?

 

[Dan_473]

or maybe, William, you'd just like to stop here, without any further explanation.

if so, I could certainly understand that.

so, if that's the case, then
May the peace of the Lord be always with you.
Dan