Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[Loudmouth]

You shouldn't reduce knowledge to belief.

There are those who believe but do not know that God exists and there are those that know that God exists.

Then they should be able to demonstrate that God exists. Where is that demonstration?

Tell me what is a food item that you really love and one that you really hate and wouldn't eat unless you were dying of starvation?

If I claimed that I liked a food that no one could show to exist, wouldn't you think I was a little bonkers?

 

[bhsmte]

I can live with that, as long as you do understand that people hold knowledge that others may well not have but it is knowledge and not just belief.

Once, if it makes you feel better, call it knowledge, ok?

At the end of the day, if this knowledge can not be objectively shown to have verifiable support, guess what, it is only "personal" knowledge, which lacks objective verifiability.

I would bet, all sorts of people claim to have a myriad of personal knowledge, that you don't agree with, because it can't be objectively supported.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then they should be able to demonstrate that God exists. Where is that demonstration?

Provide evidence that only knowledge that can be demonstrated is knowledge.

If I claimed that I liked a food that no one could show to exist, wouldn't you think I was a little bonkers?

Please just answer my question.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Once, if it makes you feel better, call it knowledge, ok?

At the end of the day, if this knowledge can not be objectively shown to have verifiable support, guess what, it is only "personal" knowledge, which lacks objective verifiability.

I would bet, all sorts of people claim to have a myriad of personal knowledge, that you don't agree with, because it can't be objectively supported.

Please objectively show that knowledge is only knowledge if it can be shown objectively.

 

[bhsmte]

Please objectively show that knowledge is only knowledge if it can be shown objectively.

Sure, people can claim to have knowledge of something and that knowledge turns out to be false.

Do you think this ever happens once, where someone claims to have knowledge of something and it turns out the knowledge they thought they had was incorrect?

There is a differentiation between, objective verifiable knowledge (through external means) and personal knowledge, which may turn out to be wrong.

Do you think people that believe in other Gods claim to have personal knowledge they are correct? I would bet they do, do you think that knowledge is correct?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Sure, people can claim to have knowledge of something and that knowledge turns out to be false.

Do you think this ever happens once, where someone claims to have knowledge of something and it turns out the knowledge they thought they had was incorrect?

There is a differentiation between, objective verifiable knowledge (through external means) and personal knowledge, which may turn out to be wrong.

Do you think people that believe in other Gods claim to have personal knowledge they are correct? I would bet they do, do you think that knowledge is correct?

Please provide objective evidence that knowledge is only knowledge if it is objectively demonstrated.

 

[bhsmte]

Please provide objective evidence that knowledge is only knowledge if it is objectively demonstrated.

I just did. Someone can claim to have knowledge, does that automatically mean that knowledge is true?

I will ask you again; the person who believes in a different God than you, who claims to have personal knowledge they know their God exists, they have knowledge, correct? Just as you claim to have knowledge that the God you believe in exists.

Do you believe the person who claims to have knowledge the different God they believe in exists, is correct?

 

[HitchSlap]

You shouldn't reduce knowledge to belief.

There are those who believe but do not know that God exists and there are those that know that God exists. There is a difference.

Tell me what is a food item that you really love and one that you really hate and wouldn't eat unless you were dying of starvation?

Stating you know something exists before you're able to demonstrate something exists, is well, foolish.

Knowledge is simply an understanding of reality, and exists regardless of belief. Which is why theists need "faith" to believe in god/s, because it's the very thing they can't demonstrate.

 

[HitchSlap]

Please provide objective evidence that knowledge is only knowledge if it is objectively demonstrated.

Are you under the impression that every conceivable possibility is actual knowledge of it's existence? Do you actually believe that a five year old's imaginary friend is reality just because he believes it to be true based on his claim that he knows it to be true.

Knowing what separates reality from make believe is a hallmark of being sane.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I just did. Someone can claim to have knowledge, does that automatically mean that knowledge is true?

Does providing objective evidence prove something is true? IF knowledge truly must be demonstrated then even Science is in jeopardy. Science can not demonstrate that knowledge is only knowledge if it can be demonstrated by objective evidence.

I will ask you again; the person who believes in a different God than you, who claims to have personal knowledge they know their God exists, they have knowledge, correct? Just as you claim to have knowledge that the God you believe in exists.

Do you believe the person who claims to have knowledge the different God they believe in exists, is correct?

I don't even know if someone who holds to the Christian God as God has knowledge of Him. Our base or foundation of knowing of having knowledge of something is based on the certainty and the evidence we have in our lives. We have those things we believe to be true and those things we know to be true. We exist, we know this is true with complete certainty. We believe rather than know that the sun will "rise" tomorrow. Our knowledge comes from what we see as evidence to gain that knowledge rather than something we have little or no evidence for so we believe rather than know.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Are you under the impression that every conceivable possibility is actual knowledge of it's existence? Do you actually believe that a five year old's imaginary friend is reality just because he believes it to be true based on his claim that he knows it to be true.

Knowing what separates reality from make believe is a hallmark of being sane.

Exactly, a sane and "normal" adult throughout their lives form a distinction between knowing and believing. One knows what one knows and believes that belief doesn't make knowledge.

 

[Dizredux]

Please provide objective evidence that knowledge is only knowledge if it is objectively demonstrated.

To weigh in, there are many kinds of knowledge but not all of them are either measurable or sharable.

By shareable, just look at pain. While we can feel pain and darn well know that it hurts we cannot describe the pain or how severe it is. The best we have is a a pain scale of 1-10 to try to even estimate.

The same with feelings of beauty or joy. They are real but there is no known way of objectively communicating the feelings.

So for scientific purposes, knowledge has to be be objective. For personal purposes it does not have to be.

The problem is that personal knowledge cannot really be validated by others while objective knowledge can. It is a real and very important dividing line.

The discussion over the aspect of design of the universe is similar. Once, it is clear that you sincerely feel that the universe appears to be designed and that feeling is real. That the design is real however has not been objectively shown and this appears to be the area of contention. Your personal knowledge of the design does not necessarily translate into objective knowledge that can be demonstrated to others.

I know you probably will not agree with this but right now no one has demonstrated the existence of design in the makeup of the universe. It is your personal knowledge vs objective knowledge. Both are valid in their own way in my opinion but personal knowledge does not necessarily translate into objective knowledge. It doesn't mean you are wrong but it does often mean you cannot demonstrate it to others and therein lies the problem.

Dizredux

 

[HitchSlap]

Exactly, a sane and "normal" adult throughout their lives form a distinction between knowing and believing. One knows what one knows and believes that belief doesn't make knowledge.

Then you admit that you believe god/s exist, but you really can't say you know god/s exist.

I'm glad you're willing to admit this. It makes you appear more reasonable now.

 

[Loudmouth]

Please provide objective evidence that knowledge is only knowledge if it is objectively demonstrated.

That is how knowledge is defined, as something that is verifiably true.

 

[Loudmouth]

Does providing objective evidence prove something is true?

It demonstrates that it is knowledge instead of belief.

IF knowledge truly must be demonstrated then even Science is in jeopardy. Science can not demonstrate that knowledge is only knowledge if it can be demonstrated by objective evidence.

Epistemologies are not supposed to prove themselves.

I don't even know if someone who holds to the Christian God as God has knowledge of Him. Our base or foundation of knowing of having knowledge of something is based on the certainty and the evidence we have in our lives. We have those things we believe to be true and those things we know to be true. We exist, we know this is true with complete certainty. We believe rather than know that the sun will "rise" tomorrow.

That is where you go off the rails. We have knowledge of how gravity works which gives us confidence in the orbit and rotation of the Earth. It isn't a belief.

Our knowledge comes from what we see as evidence to gain that knowledge rather than something we have little or no evidence for so we believe rather than know.

It comes from what we can DEMONSTRATE as evidence.

 

[bhsmte]

Does providing objective evidence prove something is true? IF knowledge truly must be demonstrated then even Science is in jeopardy. Science can not demonstrate that knowledge is only knowledge if it can be demonstrated by objective evidence.


I don't even know if someone who holds to the Christian God as God has knowledge of Him. Our base or foundation of knowing of having knowledge of something is based on the certainty and the evidence we have in our lives. We have those things we believe to be true and those things we know to be true. We exist, we know this is true with complete certainty. We believe rather than know that the sun will "rise" tomorrow. Our knowledge comes from what we see as evidence to gain that knowledge rather than something we have little or no evidence for so we believe rather than know.

Once, you didn't answer my question.

You have said, you have knowledge that you know the God you believe in exists. With that said, if another person who believes in a different God than you, states they also have knowledge the God they believe in exists, they would have knowledge as well, correct?

So, since you would disagree with the person who believes in a different God, you would think their knowledge is incorrect, just as they would think, your knowledge is incorrect, no matter how much each of you claim you have knowledge to be right.

This is why, personal claims of knowledge, are just that, personal claims.

 

[Oncedeceived]

To weigh in, there are many kinds of knowledge but not all of them are either measurable or sharable.

By shareable, just look at pain. While we can feel pain and darn well know that it hurts we cannot describe the pain or how severe it is. The best we have is a a pain scale of 1-10 to try to even estimate.

The same with feelings of beauty or joy. They are real but there is no known way of objectively communicating the feelings.

So for scientific purposes, knowledge has to be be objective. For personal purposes it does not have to be.

The problem is that personal knowledge cannot really be validated by others while objective knowledge can. It is a real and very important dividing line.

I agree with that, do you then agree that there is a difference between what we personally know and what we believe and that we do know the difference?

The discussion over the aspect of design of the universe is similar. Once, it is clear that you sincerely feel that the universe appears to be designed and that feeling is real.

I don't "feel" the universe appears to be designed. I don't "see" the appearance with my eyes. The notion of appears in this situation is that we recognize design in our world. We know what it means when something happens by chance or accident from those things that have the characteristics of design such as computer programs and the like. I don't base my conclusion on patterns I might "see" in the way something looks on the surface. I base my conclusion on the data and what that data constitutes according to what we know of the universe, life on it and how that correlates as a whole.

That the design is real however has not been objectively shown and this appears to be the area of contention. Your personal knowledge of the design does not necessarily translate into objective knowledge that can be demonstrated to others.

You seem to switch back and forth between real design when discussing evidence and assume that is the issue. It isn't. I can not, have not claimed to, or "feel" that actual design is shown objectively by the evidence. I have repeatedly said that the appearance of design supports the possibility of actual design. I don't even know if there is a way to provide objective evidence that the appearance of design equates to actual design. That is true in the case of the opposite as well, how would one provide objective evidence that design is not actual?

I know you probably will not ais but right now no one has demonstrated the existence of design in the makeup of the universe.

I would agree, but they have demonstrated by evidence that there is an appearance of design. They have demonstrated by evidence that the universe has attributes that seem fixed as if designed.

It is your personal knowledge vs objective knowledge.

The objective knowledge is what scientists have termed fine tuned features that could not arise by chance. These fine tuned features seem to be set for the allowance of intelligent life to such a precise degree that it is recognizable in terms of design. Meaning we see design in man made designs and recognize that type of characteristic in the universe. It is not possible right now and might never be possible to claim it is actual design.

Both are valid in their own way in my opinion but personal knowledge does not necessarily translate into objective knowledge. It doesn't mean you are wrong but it does often mean you cannot demonstrate it to others and therein lies the problem.

If I were trying to demonstrate that actual design is evident and has objective evidence then yes, it would be a problem. I am not doing that. I am claiming the appearance of design is supportive of possible actual design.

 

[bhsmte]

Exactly, a sane and "normal" adult throughout their lives form a distinction between knowing and believing. One knows what one knows and believes that belief doesn't make knowledge.

And sometimes, people can claim to have certain personal knowledge and be wrong.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Once, you didn't answer my question.

You have said, you have knowledge that you know the God you believe in exists. With that said, if another person who believes in a different God than you, states they also have knowledge the God they believe in exists, they would have knowledge as well, correct?

So, since you would disagree with the person who believes in a different God, you would think their knowledge is incorrect, just as they would think, your knowledge is incorrect, no matter how much each of you claim you have knowledge to be right.

This is why, personal claims of knowledge, are just that, personal claims.

And you didn't provide evidence that knowledge is only knowledge if it can be demonstrated.

 

[Loudmouth]

The objective knowledge is what scientists have termed fine tuned features that could not arise by chance.

Show us a single scientist who makes that claim.

You keep confusing objective facts and your subjective opinions. The "appearance" of desisgn is completely subjective. It is not objective.

These fine tuned features seem to be set for the allowance of intelligent life to such a precise degree that it is recognizable in terms of design.

Every single universe would be fine tuned for the unique features found in that universe. You are painting the bullseye around the bullet hole.

Meaning we see design in man made designs and recognize that type of characteristic in the universe.

Where did you show that natural processes could not produce design?

If I were trying to demonstrate that actual design is evident . . .

You already did make that claim when you said that you had objective evidence for a fine tuned universe.