Kylie's Pool Challenge, Mark II

[BobRyan]

What you mean here by 'it is still a historic fact, literal and reliably true' is derived by way of belief and I cannot objectively test a belief simply held as 'being true'. .

1. Is it logical to argue that whatever happens in real life, in real history for which you do not have a lab workbook showing how to reproduce it, did not happen? Is that even a rule in science??

2. Can you "objectively test" the fact that rocks dust and gas will never turn into a horse no matter how much time and chance you give??

3. Can you "objectively test" that rocks, dust and gas will most certainly turn into a horse if you give them enough time and chance?

Life itself is beyond the realm of the Lab to create ... in fact the Urey Miller experiment proved that even the basic chemical components with correct chiral orientation are beyond the lab to demonstrate any sort of environment that would produce it.

 

[BobRyan]

humanism - rejects the POV that God can or would communicate anything to humans at all - if God exists. Having no communication at all from God then ... what would be the basis for not being atheist??

 

[BobRyan]

Wasn't that account written by a man?

Ok so then - aliens gave it to man to write... (I.E beings not from this Earth) does that make it more acceptable to atheists and humanists?? Or has "science proven" that aliens also do not exist?

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok so then - aliens gave it to man to write... (I.E beings not from this Earth) does that make it more acceptable to atheists and humanists?? Or has "science proven" that aliens also do not exist?

Evilution 101: Nothing that stands in the way of evolution exists.

 

[Allandavid]

Ok so then - aliens gave it to man to write... (I.E beings not from this Earth) does that make it more acceptable to atheists and humanists?? Or has "science proven" that aliens also do not exist?

Why would that be more “acceptable”? The reality is that all of the writings that you folk are fond of quoting were written by men. The same is true for all of the major religions’ texts. Written by men who make claims that the words were somehow given or inspired by god/s. No evidence that any god created these writings themselves...

 

[AV1611VET]

Why would that be more “acceptable”? The reality is that all of the writings that you folk are fond of quoting were written by men. The same is true for all of the major religions’ texts. Written by men who make claims that the words were somehow given or inspired by god/s. No evidence that any god created these writings themselves...

You were there?

What about our martyrs who died giving us those writings?

 

[SelfSim]

1. Is it logical to argue that whatever happens in real life, in real history for which you do not have a lab workbook showing how to reproduce it, did not happen? Is that even a rule in science??

Tis you who assume 'lab workbooks showing how to reproduce it' are, somehow, an essential part of doing science and reaching inference based conclusions about the past .. not me.
Science assumes no 'truths' ... science tests its assumptions.

2. Can you "objectively test" the fact that rocks dust and gas will never turn into a horse no matter how much time and chance you give??

If that were 'a fact' it would have already been objectively tested.

3. Can you "objectively test" that rocks, dust and gas will most certainly turn into a horse if you give them enough time and chance?

Science tests its theories .. which are always then taken as being contextual and provisional .. (and thus subject to change).
The closest you'll ever get to any 'truth' value, is never anything more than its last best tested theories.
Science isn't about trying to discover some kind of mind independent 'most certain' truth(s) .. because that would be an untestable belief.

Life itself is beyond the realm of the Lab to create ... in fact the Urey Miller experiment proved that even the basic chemical components with correct chiral orientation are beyond the lab to demonstrate any sort of environment that would produce it.

So?
You just 'disproved' (to yourself) your own 'lab work-book' straw-man, by positing an assumed truth ... Wonderful!
Completely meaningless babble from a scientific viewpoint, of course.

 

[SelfSim]

humanism - rejects the POV that God can or would communicate anything to humans at all - if God exists. Having no communication at all from God then ... what would be the basis for not being atheist??

I don't know .. I'm not fixated on someone else's definition of what a Humanist 'is' or 'isn't'.

My avatar also attempts to show that I'm not about any '-isms' (or part of '-ist' movements).

I stand for going though life trying my best to distinguish any beliefs my mind develops and then moving onwards, neutralising them, by way of objective testing.

I stand for: 'Finding out'

And I'm pretty sure there'll be a label of some kind, invented by believers for the purposes of dividing and conquering that stand .. but I don't need any label .. I know what I'm about, and my posts usually demonstrate those concepts .. but you have to actually look to see them.

 

[SelfSim]

What about our martyrs who died giving us those writings?

Is 'martyr' a mind independent object, which exists? How would you know .. if they're dead?

 

[AV1611VET]

I stand for: 'Finding out'.

* cough *

Sorry -- carry on.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is 'martyr' a mind independent object, which exists?

A what?

How would you know .. if they're dead?

Do you know what a martyr is?

 

[SelfSim]

A what?Do you know what a martyr is?

I know what the dictionary definition of 'martyr' says:
It says: 'a person who is killed because of their religious or other beliefs'.

But how do we know that what that person believes, exists after they're dead?

 

[AV1611VET]

But how do we know that what that person believes, exists after they're dead?

Because what they believed existed before they were alive.

E was emcee squared long before Einstein came along.

 

[Hammster]

Joe walks into a bar and sees a pool table. There are balls on the table, and it appears that the game has just begin, for most of the balls are still on the table. There's a document sitting on the edge of the table, and Joe picks it up and reads it. The document claims that the game had just begin, but nobody actually broke. Rather, claims the document, the balls were manually placed by hand in their current locations. However, Joe carefully checks the positions of the balls, and they are positioned in a way which is entirely consistent with having been broken in the regular way without being manually placed.

Question: Is Joe justified in claiming the documentation is correct?

Is it possible that the documentation is correct?

 

[AV1611VET]

Is it possible that the documentation is correct?

Good question! After all, it could be a game of "trick shots".

 

[Allandavid]

You were there?

What about our martyrs who died giving us those writings?

Martyrs have died for many reasons. It doesn’t convey validity to the causes for which they died.

 

[AV1611VET]

Martyrs have died for many reasons.

I'm talking about ones who wrote something, told to retract what they wrote because it was a lie, and refused to do so.

I'm not talking about those who read what someone else wrote and believed it to the death.

I'm talking about those who wrote it in the first place.

I believe even psychologists say that a person will not allow himself to die for something he knows he fabricated, if he can help it.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
humanism - rejects the POV that God can or would communicate anything to humans at all - if God exists. Having no communication at all from God then ... what would be the basis for not being atheist??

I don't know .. I'm not fixated on someone else's definition of what a Humanist 'is' or 'isn't'. .

Nice to hear. One of us has it on his profile the other one of us almost never talks about it.

 

[BobRyan]

Hammster said: ↑
Since this is CF, and I’m a Christian, we can trust the biblical account because it was given by God Himself.

For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
— Exodus 20:11

Wasn't that account written by a man?

Ok so then - aliens gave it to man to write... (I.E beings not from this Earth) does that make it more acceptable to atheists and humanists?? Or has "science proven" that aliens also do not exist?

Why would that be more “acceptable”?

I assume that even in an atheist or humanist model - "a being can do something".

The reality is that all of the writings that you folk are fond of quoting were written by men.

At God's direction.

The same is true for all of the major religions’ texts. Written by men who make claims that the words were somehow given or inspired by god/s.

Ours can predict the future, 1000's of years ahead of time.

No evidence that any god created these writings themselves...

Ours can predict the future, 1000's of years ahead of time.

Here is an atheist evolutionist university professor of biology - explaining how the Bible convinced him to go from evolutionist to creationist.

walter veith conversion story from atheist - Bing video

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
humanism - rejects the POV that God can or would communicate anything to humans at all - if God exists. Having no communication at all from God then ... what would be the basis for not being atheist??

I don't know .

Well said

I stand for: 'Finding out'

Amen to that one... I too am for "Finding out"