Kylie's Pool Challenge

[Kylie]

But you used a liar to make your point.

Let's see you make the same point without using a liar as one of the players.

My pool challenge, on the other hand, didn't use any liars.

From the point of view of the person who comes afterwards and has nothing but the documentation to figure out what happened, how are they to know the difference?

It makes me tempted to start a new thread based on this, with just the third person's point of view.

 

[AV1611VET]

From the point of view of the person who comes afterwards and has nothing but the documentation to figure out what happened, how are they to know the difference?

The third person, according to your OP, has already made up his mind.

"The documentation says it, that settles it."

Your challenge is asking if the third person is right.

In other words, he is reading that the first person did not break, but "had simply placed the balls in this position."

Then you're saying he refuses to believe the truth, and asking if he is right.

No, he is not right.

He refuses to believe the truth.

It makes me tempted to start a new thread based on this, with just the third person's point of view.

Please do.

I'll take that one apart too.

 

[Kylie]

The third person, according to your OP, has already made up his mind.

"The documentation says it, that settles it."

Your challenge is asking if the third person is right.

In other words, he is reading that the first person did not break, but "had simply placed the balls in this position."

Then you're saying he refuses to believe the truth, and asking if he is right.

No, he is not right.

He refuses to believe the truth.

So you agree that a person can have a document that claims to explain how something came to be, and the can accept it totally - and still be wrong?

Is it just documentation about pool balls you think this applies to, AV?

Please do.

I'll take that one apart too.

Kylie's Pool Challenge, Mark II

 

[AV1611VET]

So you agree that a person can have a document that claims to explain how something came to be, and the can accept it totally - and still be wrong?

You mean like the Bhavagad-gita, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, The Preservation of Favoured Races, those kinds of documents?

Is it just documentation about pool balls you think this applies to, AV?

No.

Kylie's Pool Challenge, Mark II

Thank you. I'll check it out.

 

[Kylie]

You mean like the Bhavagad-gita, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, The Preservation of Favoured Races, those kinds of documents?

Yup.

And I see what you're trying to do there, by including Darwin's work, but the thing is this. If all that is presented is a text that makes a claim and we accept it, then we can be wrong. But if what is presented is a text that makes a claim and then (and this is the important bit, so pay attention here) we can go and check that claim to see if there's evidence from the real world that supports it, then it is far less likely that we would be wrong if we accept it.

No.

Do you think this reasoning also applies to the Bible? Why or why not?

Thank you. I'll check it out.

You're most welcome.

 

[AV1611VET]

... we can go and check that claim to see if there's evidence from the real world that supports it, then it is far less likely that we would be wrong if we accept it.

I've gone and checked it out ... many times.

The source is your OP.

That's all I have to work with, and I've drawn my conclusions from the information you provided.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But you used a liar to make your point.

Let's see you make the same point without using a liar as one of the players.

It's not difficult - suppose a coach tour stops at a bar to let someone use the bathroom. Just before that person enters the bar, a pool player breaks the balls then goes to the bathroom himself. When the coach person enters the bar the balls are still rolling. He goes to the bathroom, leaves via the back door, and gets back on the coach. He tells his friend that he saw a table with balls that were moving by themselves. His friend writes in her diary that they stopped at a bar with a magic table with balls on it that moved around of their own volition.

All the people involved think they are honestly reporting what they've seen or been told was seen, but the pool player's account is very different from the diary entry.

If you allow the coach party to pass the story from one occupant to the next, you might well end up with a 'Chinese whispers' story about a magic table that walked around the room.

 

[AV1611VET]

All the people involved think they are honestly reporting what they've seen or been told was seen, but the pool player's account is very different from the diary entry.

Fair enough.

 

[SelfSim]

Please do.

I'll take that one apart too.

You didn't succeed .. looks like we need a Mark III version?

 

[AV1611VET]

You didn't succeed ..

Post 74 nailed it.

 

[SelfSim]

Post 74 nailed it.

It remains to be clarified that when I agree with 'Its possible', that means that I hold a model, (or concept), in my mind, which I regard as being real (aka: 'the possibility') .. but the method by which I arrived at the conclusion that what it contains is real, is by way of a belief.
The presence of the model, is objectively testable and evidenced. The belief it contains however, is not.

And by 'belief' there, I mean (an operational definition, or distinction follows):
'Any notion which I hold to be true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic'.

It takes a human thinking mind to do that .. and the presence of an active mind, at that point in the conversation, was being completely denied, (I suspect), as a bizarre hard-line counter-reaction to the opposing hard-line belief ..

I hope this post restores any misinterpretations of any perceived inconsistencies in my position in that thread. There are none visible to me, in any of what I say above, at present and that's how I explain my position of:

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

No.

Who should Joe listen to?

Bruce.

.. believed 'nails' or not ...

 

[durangodawood]

From AV's Pool Challenge thread...

​

Now, I looked at this and thought that the situation wasn't taking into account everything it should have. So I presented an alternative situation...

Let's say someone broke, and then a second person wrote down a statement claiming that he had not broken, but had simply placed the balls in this position. Later, a third person comes in, reads the documentation and concludes that the documentation MUST be right, and anyone who says the balls reached this position as a result of regular play is terribly wrong. The third person refuses to consider any alternative, and claims, "The documentation says it, that settles it!"

Is the third person right?

No. "Someone said so" doesnt establish truth.

(How did this ever get to 16 pages?)

 

[SelfSim]

... (How did this ever get to 16 pages?)

Ha! That's nothin'!:

The follow-up thread made it to 24 pages, included a raid by a moderator who, at one point WAS the word of God and appeared to deny others their freedom of choice, then was shut down for 'moderator discussions' (which have now taken 8 days with no updates on any reason being given for thread closure) and who also completely ignore my own PMs requesting their reasons!

 

[FredVB]

If all that is presented is a text that makes a claim and we accept it, then we can be wrong. But if what is presented is a text that makes a claim and then (and this is the important bit, so pay attention here) we can go and check that claim to see if there's evidence from the real world that supports it, then it is far less likely that we would be wrong if we accept it.

Do you think this reasoning also applies to the Bible? Why or why not?

This is the Creation and Evolution discussion forum. I already know it is not the place for discussing the merits and basis for faith in the Bible. Discussion of that must be found elsewhere. But there is necessary existence, for there being any existence. Existence which we see has no other explanation. The analogy attempted here does not address that. To address this nevermind what some one or some people wrote later. Where did everything come from to start with? One thing could have always been around, which would explain everything else coming into being, if having the power for that. This would be that necessary existence. What is necessary existence would not be divided, and would not have any limit. Of all we see, of the universe and anything in it, nothing is that. There is this basis to believe there is the supreme being, that is this necessary being. Which text should be trusted for revealing who it is will have discussion elsewhere, as it has to be.

 

[SelfSim]

This would be that necessary existence. What is necessary existence would not be divided, and would not have any limit. Of all we see, of the universe and anything in it, nothing is that. There is this basis to believe there is the supreme being, that is this necessary being.

All I see happening there, is us humans exploring our perceptions, (be those beliefs or objective observations), in order to update the meaning of your term of: 'necessary existence'.
The only issue then is whether to pursue beliefs, or the objective testing process, in doing that. Where one chooses to follow the latter, there is no dependency on a 'supreme being' .. we can do it for ourselves .. after all, they are all our own perceptions that we are exploring there, no?

Which text should be trusted for revealing who it is will have discussion elsewhere, as it has to be.

How about what it is? A Physical Sciences forum seems a likely discussion venue for discussing that .. and there is no reason to assume some specific text as being the basis for that discussion.

 

[Kylie]

But there is necessary existence, for there being any existence. Existence which we see has no other explanation.

Can you show that?

Where did everything come from to start with? One thing could have always been around, which would explain everything else coming into being, if having the power for that. This would be that necessary existence.

This seems to be just the argument from incredulity.

What is necessary existence would not be divided, and would not have any limit. Of all we see, of the universe and anything in it, nothing is that.

I don't see how, even if your arguments so far have been correct, you could possibly be able to determine the properties of this necessary existing thing.

There is this basis to believe there is the supreme being, that is this necessary being. Which text should be trusted for revealing who it is will have discussion elsewhere, as it has to be.

How do you know it's a being? Maybe the universe itself is a necessary existing thing.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But there is necessary existence, for there being any existence. Existence which we see has no other explanation.
...
Where did everything come from to start with? One thing could have always been around, which would explain everything else coming into being, if having the power for that. This would be that necessary existence.

That's unwarranted speculation; the fact is, we don't know. It's certainly seems logical that something cannot come from the complete absence of anything, in which case something must always have been. But what seems logical to us from our very limited spatio-temporal perspective has been shown to be very misleading when it comes to scales beyond our direct awareness - for example, both general relativity and quantum mechanics are totally counter-intuitive in that respect. Now we know that time itself is dynamic, temporal statements about the universe itself become questionable.

What is necessary existence would not be divided, and would not have any limit. Of all we see, of the universe and anything in it, nothing is that.

Again, unwarranted speculation - even assuming some necessary existence, we have no idea what that might be like; the evidence suggests that at the earliest time the universe was extremely smooth and homogenous, i.e. not divided, and the evidence also suggests that it could be spatially infinite - in fact, that is the default assumption made by cosmologists.

There is this basis to believe there is the supreme being, that is this necessary being.

There appears to be a human need or predisposition to explain the unknown in terms of (usually greater) agency. There are plausible explanations for why this may be (hyperactive agency detection? overactive theory of mind?), and we do tend to treat objects in the world in general as if they have agency, experience, and a point of view - but this doesn't mean they do.

 

[FredVB]

This is the Creation and Evolution discussion forum. I already know it is not the place for discussing the merits and basis for faith in the Bible. Discussion of that must be found elsewhere. But there is necessary existence, for there being any existence. Existence which we see has no other explanation. The analogy attempted here does not address that. To address this nevermind what some one or some people wrote later. Where did everything come from to start with? One thing could have always been around, which would explain everything else coming into being, if having the power for that. This would be that necessary existence. What is necessary existence would not be divided, and would not have any limit. Of all we see, of the universe and anything in it, nothing is that. There is this basis to believe there is the supreme being, that is this necessary being. Which text should be trusted for revealing who it is will have discussion elsewhere, as it has to be.

All I see happening there, is us humans exploring our perceptions, (be those beliefs or objective observations), in order to update the meaning of your term of: 'necessary existence'.
The only issue then is whether to pursue beliefs, or the objective testing process, in doing that. Where one chooses to follow the latter, there is no dependency on a 'supreme being' .. we can do it for ourselves .. after all, they are all our own perceptions that we are exploring there, no?
How about what it is? A Physical Sciences forum seems a likely discussion venue for discussing that .. and there is no reason to assume some specific text as being the basis for that discussion.

Yes, we can discuss necessary existence in this forum for creation and evolution within physical science, what we won't discuss is why believe passages of the Bible, or any religious texts, for it. This is a matter of faith, it is certainly alright to have it, but it is not for discussing here. Why update the term necessary existence? I didn't understand the reasoning for that, I do understand the term already. If you or others don't, I did not mean for any to be left in the dark, and I will explain it further hoping to do so better. I hope to understand you more clearly. You want to discuss what necessary existence is, but not have any discussion of a supreme being because that depends on a text? Is that it? Because though it is my faith that there is the supreme being that is not based on text. I already have faith there is the supreme being before consideration of any text.

Can you show that?

I can try for others. I see it. We cannot really have anything from nothing before, even though some say math does not apply. A field that produces anything is still something, not nothing. But what is necessary existence, by the definition of its necessarily existing, cannot not exist anywhere, there must be the existence, and arbitrary limits are excluded, by the logic of the definition. This describes nothing found in the universe, though many can see the design to the universe.

This seems to be just the argument from incredulity.

I don't see how, even if your arguments so far have been correct, you could possibly be able to determine the properties of this necessary existing thing.

How do you know it's a being? Maybe the universe itself is a necessary existing thing.

I say it's a being, not that it has to be included in consideration of necessary existence that is not the universe, but that I myself find it fits best. I explain it as well as I can. It could be some keep up a barrier to seeing this.

That's unwarranted speculation; the fact is, we don't know. It's certainly seems logical that something cannot come from the complete absence of anything, in which case something must always have been. But what seems logical to us from our very limited spatio-temporal perspective has been shown to be very misleading when it comes to scales beyond our direct awareness - for example, both general relativity and quantum mechanics are totally counter-intuitive in that respect. Now we know that time itself is dynamic, temporal statements about the universe itself become questionable.

Again, unwarranted speculation - even assuming some necessary existence, we have no idea what that might be like; the evidence suggests that at the earliest time the universe was extremely smooth and homogenous, i.e. not divided, and the evidence also suggests that it could be spatially infinite - in fact, that is the default assumption made by cosmologists.

There appears to be a human need or predisposition to explain the unknown in terms of (usually greater) agency. There are plausible explanations for why this may be (hyperactive agency detection? overactive theory of mind?), and we do tend to treat objects in the world in general as if they have agency, experience, and a point of view - but this doesn't mean they do.

This is just based on a field that can generate things. But that is not nothing, either. And it is not uninterrupted limitless necessary existence, itself, as you give consideration to quantum existence for things generated, and would depend on some other, whether you call it being or thing.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes, we can discuss necessary existence in this forum for creation and evolution within physical science, what we won't discuss is why believe passages of the Bible, or any religious texts, for it. This is a matter of faith, it is certainly alright to have it, but it is not for discussing here. Why update the term necessary existence? I didn't understand the reasoning for that, I do understand the term already. If you or others don't, I did not mean for any to be left in the dark, and I will explain it further hoping to do so better. I hope to understand you more clearly. You want to discuss what necessary existence is, but not have any discussion of a supreme being because that depends on a text? Is that it? Because though it is my faith that there is the supreme being that is not based on text. I already have faith there is the supreme being before consideration of any text.

That's all very well, but it sheds no light whatever on the question of creation v. evolution. I continue to wonder why the question of the existence of a supreme creative entity (God, if you like) even comes up in this forum.

 

[SelfSim]

Yes, we can discuss necessary existence in this forum for creation and evolution within physical science, what we won't discuss is why believe passages of the Bible, or any religious texts, for it. This is a matter of faith, it is certainly alright to have it, but it is not for discussing here.

In general, dwelling on faith based notions, (ie, in your words: 'alright to have it'), actually stands in the way of performing tests designed to find out what's out there. We humans are quite capable of ruling out certain notions when these notions sound outrageous coming from a faith based paradigm.

Why update the term necessary existence? I didn't understand the reasoning for that,

That's how language works. Its us humans who decide what we consider as 'existing' (or what is 'real'). After all, its our language and so its up to us to manage it.

I do understand the term already. If you or others don't, I did not mean for any to be left in the dark, and I will explain it further hoping to do so better. I hope to understand you more clearly. You want to discuss what necessary existence is, but not have any discussion of a supreme being because that depends on a text? Is that it? Because though it is my faith that there is the supreme being that is not based on text. I already have faith there is the supreme being before consideration of any text.

Yes .. you have followed the belief-based process I mentioned in my earlier post in coming up with what you'd like it to mean.
The other way of deciding what 'necessary existence' is, is via the objective testing process. The two are completely distinct from eachother. The way any of us arrive at what terms and phrases mean when researching the unknown, is usually more significant than the end result.

I can try for others. I see it. We cannot really have anything from nothing before, even though some say math does not apply. A field that produces anything is still something, not nothing. But what is necessary existence, by the definition of its necessarily existing, cannot not exist anywhere, there must be the existence, and arbitrary limits are excluded, by the logic of the definition.

There's a classic example of what I mentioned above, ie: faith based notions, standing in the way of taking actions aimed at trying and find out something .. Eg: 'Under what conditions might an apparently theoretical universal quantum field be constrained?' becomes moot if one simply believes that the fixed and unchanging definition is sufficient.

You're using what you think the term means, (derived from your belief (or faith-based) paradigm), as the basis for arriving at a conclusion of: 'necessarily existing, cannot not exist anywhere' .. but we have no hard objective data/evidenced basis for knowing that .. so we update what 'necessarily existing' means, when we have that objective data/evidenced knowledge (and not before that).

This describes nothing found in the universe, though many can see the design to the universe.

No .. we can understand the theoretical model which includes a universal quantum field, then go and devise tests and make predictions based on that model .. that's all.