I have noticed that sometimes people with a scientific mind, people who have studied a lot and know a lot of information about different sciences, do not notice simple things that do not escape the attention of ordinary people, even if they have studied less or almost nothing.
For example, the fact that the animals that evolutionists call "lower" in the evolutionary scale still live alongside humans, and that others supposedly fitter, because they are located in a higher position in the evolutionary line of man, no longer exist.
Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more capable of surviving. Why, then, is the “inferior” ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no “ape-men.” Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced “links” between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes? https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101985017
To what extent do you think the "wisdom" of this system of things can cloud a person's mind?
Scientific thinking and common sense
Moderator: Moderators
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: Scientific thinking and common sense
Post #131Sheesh, try and keep up, okay?
Again, if you're not prepared to debate or defend it, then you say nothing about it in a forum that is specifically about debating religion.
Nothing you've said about your "truth" offends me.Why ask me a question if a truthful answer offends you?
Again, this isn't about proof...this is about making religious claims in a religious debate forum and then not understanding why those claims are questioned and challenged.There are truths than cannot be proven Jose, I advise you to think about that, the problem you seem to be having is inside your mind, it originates within you, how you think.
If this forum isn't the place to challenge and debate religious claims, exactly what do you think it is for?
And once again we see you demand others answer your questions, while you avoid theirs.As you say this is a debate, so answer my question.
By defending and justifying it, or conceding that you can't.If in a debate the answer to a question is an unprovable truth, how should one respond to the question?
Again, I'm amazed at how creationists seem to be completely baffled by the very concept of debate.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: Scientific thinking and common sense
Post #132Really? Jose an unprovable proposition cannot be "defended" or "justified" only asserted, like a self evident truth which in fact this is.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:24 pmSheesh, try and keep up, okay?
Again, if you're not prepared to debate or defend it, then you say nothing about it in a forum that is specifically about debating religion.
Nothing you've said about your "truth" offends me.Why ask me a question if a truthful answer offends you?
Again, this isn't about proof...this is about making religious claims in a religious debate forum and then not understanding why those claims are questioned and challenged.There are truths than cannot be proven Jose, I advise you to think about that, the problem you seem to be having is inside your mind, it originates within you, how you think.
If this forum isn't the place to challenge and debate religious claims, exactly what do you think it is for?
And once again we see you demand others answer your questions, while you avoid theirs.As you say this is a debate, so answer my question.
By defending and justifying it, or conceding that you can't.If in a debate the answer to a question is an unprovable truth, how should one respond to the question?
Again, I'm amazed at how creationists seem to be completely baffled by the very concept of debate.
Your insults only weaken your case, your insulting insinuation that I am "baffled" has no place in polite discourse. Please stick to the subject, try, please try, to avoid attacking my character or presumed comprehension of the subject.
No Sir, you can complain and insult and insinuate all you wish, I will not refrain from stating a self evident truth simply because you disapprove of me doing so.
Your position is it seems "I want to discuss religion but only on my terms according to my rules", well awfully sorry buddy, but no can do.
You should also be aware that EVERY argument you could ever make here can be reduced to self evident truths, do you understand that?
By your reasoning the forum should be silent, because nobody can prove or defend any claim because all claims can be shown to rest on assumptions, self evident truths, go ahead try it and see, test me on this if you feel the need to.
Christ faced this same problem, he spoke the truth yet it was unpalatable to his fellow Jews, so they lied, accused him, tortured and executed him - yes, some people really do not like the truth sometimes. He could have lived if he had chosen to lie, but the truth was too important for that, that's what he demonstrated.
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: Scientific thinking and common sense
Post #133I recommend you try and avoid black/white, binary thinking as much as you can. There is lots of space between proven and asserted.
Your problem is that my characterization is accurate. You did indeed express a level of confusion regarding why people were challenging your assertions.Your insults only weaken your case, your insulting insinuation that I am "baffled" has no place in polite discourse. Please stick to the subject, try, please try, to avoid attacking my character or presumed comprehension of the subject.
So you think the proper way to behave in a forum titled "Debating Christianity and Religion" is to assert one's religious beliefs and get upset whenever those assertions are challenged?No Sir, you can complain and insult and insinuate all you wish, I will not refrain from stating a self evident truth simply because you disapprove of me doing so.
Again I have to wonder what you think this forum is for, if not to debate Christianity and religion?
Huh. I guess my impression was accurate. Creationists really don't understand the concept of debate.Your position is it seems "I want to discuss religion but only on my terms according to my rules", well awfully sorry buddy, but no can do.
My position is exactly what I've said all along. In a forum titled "Debating Christianity and Religion", the terms and rules for discussions in that forum include the concept that everything posted therein is subject to challenge and debate.
Why is that so difficult for you to grasp? Why come to a "debating religion" forum, make religious claims, and then get upset when people attempt to debate those claims?
Again, try and avoid black/white, binary thinking as much as you can.You should also be aware that EVERY argument you could ever make here can be reduced to self evident truths, do you understand that?
By your reasoning the forum should be silent, because nobody can prove or defend any claim because all claims can be shown to rest on assumptions, self evident truths, go ahead try it and see, test me on this if you feel the need to.
You've not demonstrated anything to be "truth". Apparently you believe things become true simply because you declare them to be so. I hope you appreciate how it's not just me who's noticed that about you.Christ faced this same problem, he spoke the truth yet it was unpalatable to his fellow Jews, so they lied, accused him, tortured and executed him - yes, some people really do not like the truth sometimes.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: Scientific thinking and common sense
Post #134Maybe folks'd be more willing to answer your questions if you were more willing to answer theirs.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: Scientific thinking and common sense
Post #135Do you think biblical claims of the resurrection of Jesus are true?
I know, I know, you're confounded, when any iteration of "truth" gets mentioned.
My purpose here is to ensure the observer's aware you'll do you some of that which you accuse others of doing.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: Scientific thinking and common sense
Post #136Folks'll have em an easier time convincing me a Jesus they can't show existed spoke him the truth, than you'll ever have of convincing me you speak it.Inquirer wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:39 pm Christ faced this same problem, he spoke the truth yet it was unpalatable to his fellow Jews, so they lied, accused him, tortured and executed him - yes, some people really do not like the truth sometimes. He could have lived if he had chosen to lie, but the truth was too important for that, that's what he demonstrated.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: Scientific thinking and common sense
Post #137How that rebuts "Jose an unprovable proposition cannot be "defended" or "justified" only asserted, like a self evident truth which in fact this is." I don't know.
I don't have a problem but you might if you continue to resort to insults as a means of debating.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:58 pmYour problem is that my characterization is accurate. You did indeed express a level of confusion regarding why people were challenging your assertions.Your insults only weaken your case, your insulting insinuation that I am "baffled" has no place in polite discourse. Please stick to the subject, try, please try, to avoid attacking my character or presumed comprehension of the subject.
The proper way to behave is to remain polite and avoid the tactical use of insults.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:58 pmSo you think the proper way to behave in a forum titled "Debating Christianity and Religion" is to assert one's religious beliefs and get upset whenever those assertions are challenged?No Sir, you can complain and insult and insinuate all you wish, I will not refrain from stating a self evident truth simply because you disapprove of me doing so.
It doesn't matter what I think "its for" I'm sure there are as many answers as there are members.
What a rude and sweeping insult Jose, this is uncalled for, many participants here are creationists, first you attack me and now you attack a whole group.
By all means challenge me, I do not object to being (politely) challenged I think the record shows that rather well in my case. The fact is that a self-evident truth can only be affirmed, let me ask, do you understand what a self-evident truth is? you seem reticent to even talk about this, why is that?Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:58 pm My position is exactly what I've said all along. In a forum titled "Debating Christianity and Religion", the terms and rules for discussions in that forum include the concept that everything posted therein is subject to challenge and debate.
Why is that so difficult for you to grasp? Why come to a "debating religion" forum, make religious claims, and then get upset when people attempt to debate those claims?
How that rebuts "You should also be aware that EVERY argument you could ever make here can be reduced to self evident truths, do you understand that?" I don't know.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:58 pmAgain, try and avoid black/white, binary thinking as much as you can.You should also be aware that EVERY argument you could ever make here can be reduced to self evident truths, do you understand that?
By your reasoning the forum should be silent, because nobody can prove or defend any claim because all claims can be shown to rest on assumptions, self evident truths, go ahead try it and see, test me on this if you feel the need to.
I agree that I've not demonstrated a self evident truth to be true and neither can you, yet they do exist Jose. You reasoned "you believe things become true simply because you declare them to be so" which is to completely misunderstand everything I've been saying to you.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:58 pmYou've not demonstrated anything to be "truth". Apparently you believe things become true simply because you declare them to be so. I hope you appreciate how it's not just me who's noticed that about you.Christ faced this same problem, he spoke the truth yet it was unpalatable to his fellow Jews, so they lied, accused him, tortured and executed him - yes, some people really do not like the truth sometimes.
No, I believe that something doesn't become false simply because I cannot prove it to you, a very very very big difference Jose, do now understand what we're talking about?
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: Scientific thinking and common sense
Post #138It seems we are using the term "self-evident truth" in different ways. You've been using it to refer to a mere assumption. I've been using it to refer to truths that don't need to be proven because they are very obvious.Inquirer wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 3:22 pmHow that rebuts "Jose an unprovable proposition cannot be "defended" or "justified" only asserted, like a self evident truth which in fact this is." I don't know.
I don't have a problem but you might if you continue to resort to insults as a means of debating.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:58 pmYour problem is that my characterization is accurate. You did indeed express a level of confusion regarding why people were challenging your assertions.Your insults only weaken your case, your insulting insinuation that I am "baffled" has no place in polite discourse. Please stick to the subject, try, please try, to avoid attacking my character or presumed comprehension of the subject.
The proper way to behave is to remain polite and avoid the tactical use of insults.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:58 pmSo you think the proper way to behave in a forum titled "Debating Christianity and Religion" is to assert one's religious beliefs and get upset whenever those assertions are challenged?No Sir, you can complain and insult and insinuate all you wish, I will not refrain from stating a self evident truth simply because you disapprove of me doing so.
It doesn't matter what I think "its for" I'm sure there are as many answers as there are members.
What a rude and sweeping insult Jose, this is uncalled for, many participants here are creationists, first you attack me and now you attack a whole group.
By all means challenge me, I do not object to being (politely) challenged I think the record shows that rather well in my case. The fact is that a self-evident truth can only be affirmed, let me ask, do you understand what a self-evident truth is? you seem reticent to even talk about this, why is that?Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:58 pm My position is exactly what I've said all along. In a forum titled "Debating Christianity and Religion", the terms and rules for discussions in that forum include the concept that everything posted therein is subject to challenge and debate.
Why is that so difficult for you to grasp? Why come to a "debating religion" forum, make religious claims, and then get upset when people attempt to debate those claims?
How that rebuts "You should also be aware that EVERY argument you could ever make here can be reduced to self evident truths, do you understand that?" I don't know.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:58 pmAgain, try and avoid black/white, binary thinking as much as you can.You should also be aware that EVERY argument you could ever make here can be reduced to self evident truths, do you understand that?
By your reasoning the forum should be silent, because nobody can prove or defend any claim because all claims can be shown to rest on assumptions, self evident truths, go ahead try it and see, test me on this if you feel the need to.
I agree that I've not demonstrated a self evident truth to be true and neither can you, yet they do exist Jose. You reasoned "you believe things become true simply because you declare them to be so" which is to completely misunderstand everything I've been saying to you.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:58 pmYou've not demonstrated anything to be "truth". Apparently you believe things become true simply because you declare them to be so. I hope you appreciate how it's not just me who's noticed that about you.Christ faced this same problem, he spoke the truth yet it was unpalatable to his fellow Jews, so they lied, accused him, tortured and executed him - yes, some people really do not like the truth sometimes.
No, I believe that something doesn't become false simply because I cannot prove it to you, a very very very big difference Jose, do now understand what we're talking about?
So if your position here is "I assume I had a revelation from a god, I assume it was true and real, and I assume it was the Christian God" and nothing more, and you have zero interest in debating it or defending it, then as others have noted, you're just preaching. I'm not even really sure what you hoped to accomplish.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: Scientific thinking and common sense
Post #139Yes that can happen, I may have used them interchangeably, but I don't think it materially effects my argument though. You see neither can be "shown" to be true and the essence of my disagreement with you is just that.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 3:50 pmIt seems we are using the term "self-evident truth" in different ways. You've been using it to refer to a mere assumption. I've been using it to refer to truths that don't need to be proven because they are very obvious.Inquirer wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 3:22 pmHow that rebuts "Jose an unprovable proposition cannot be "defended" or "justified" only asserted, like a self evident truth which in fact this is." I don't know.
I don't have a problem but you might if you continue to resort to insults as a means of debating.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:58 pmYour problem is that my characterization is accurate. You did indeed express a level of confusion regarding why people were challenging your assertions.Your insults only weaken your case, your insulting insinuation that I am "baffled" has no place in polite discourse. Please stick to the subject, try, please try, to avoid attacking my character or presumed comprehension of the subject.
The proper way to behave is to remain polite and avoid the tactical use of insults.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:58 pmSo you think the proper way to behave in a forum titled "Debating Christianity and Religion" is to assert one's religious beliefs and get upset whenever those assertions are challenged?No Sir, you can complain and insult and insinuate all you wish, I will not refrain from stating a self evident truth simply because you disapprove of me doing so.
It doesn't matter what I think "its for" I'm sure there are as many answers as there are members.
What a rude and sweeping insult Jose, this is uncalled for, many participants here are creationists, first you attack me and now you attack a whole group.
By all means challenge me, I do not object to being (politely) challenged I think the record shows that rather well in my case. The fact is that a self-evident truth can only be affirmed, let me ask, do you understand what a self-evident truth is? you seem reticent to even talk about this, why is that?Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:58 pm My position is exactly what I've said all along. In a forum titled "Debating Christianity and Religion", the terms and rules for discussions in that forum include the concept that everything posted therein is subject to challenge and debate.
Why is that so difficult for you to grasp? Why come to a "debating religion" forum, make religious claims, and then get upset when people attempt to debate those claims?
How that rebuts "You should also be aware that EVERY argument you could ever make here can be reduced to self evident truths, do you understand that?" I don't know.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:58 pmAgain, try and avoid black/white, binary thinking as much as you can.You should also be aware that EVERY argument you could ever make here can be reduced to self evident truths, do you understand that?
By your reasoning the forum should be silent, because nobody can prove or defend any claim because all claims can be shown to rest on assumptions, self evident truths, go ahead try it and see, test me on this if you feel the need to.
I agree that I've not demonstrated a self evident truth to be true and neither can you, yet they do exist Jose. You reasoned "you believe things become true simply because you declare them to be so" which is to completely misunderstand everything I've been saying to you.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:58 pmYou've not demonstrated anything to be "truth". Apparently you believe things become true simply because you declare them to be so. I hope you appreciate how it's not just me who's noticed that about you.Christ faced this same problem, he spoke the truth yet it was unpalatable to his fellow Jews, so they lied, accused him, tortured and executed him - yes, some people really do not like the truth sometimes.
No, I believe that something doesn't become false simply because I cannot prove it to you, a very very very big difference Jose, do now understand what we're talking about?
The question I posed was "If in a debate the answer to a question is an unprovable truth, how should one respond to the question?" and you replied "By defending and justifying it, or conceding that you can't".
I disagree with your answer, by definition a provable proposition differs from an unprovable proposition, the former can be defended and justified by some process of reasoning, the latter cannot - it can be true but no amount of reasoning can support or justify it, it just "is".
In fact "God reveals knowledge" is provable but only by God, I can't do what God can. Asking for support is pointless, all I can say is "God has revealed that he is real, to me" and that is that, it won't satisfy you but that's tough, it is still true.
No, asserting a self evident truth is not preaching if it is, explain the difference between preaching and not-preaching insofar as making unprovable assertions.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 3:50 pm So if your position here is "I assume I had a revelation from a god, I assume it was true and real, and I assume it was the Christian God" and nothing more, and you have zero interest in debating it or defending it, then as others have noted, you're just preaching. I'm not even really sure what you hoped to accomplish.
What is this talk of "you have zero interest in debating it or defending it"? how could that mean anything? can you debate or defend that you are a human being and not some remote AI software?
You cannot so why even bother trying? its not through disinterest or avoidance that I don't debate "God reveals himself to us" it is because it is as futile as you debating or defending "I am a person not an AI package". In principle anything a person can say a machine could say, so there is no way to distinguish by discourse, this is called the Turing Test.
The confirmation you seek can only come from God and that is his prerogative and he acts as he wants when he wants so suit his purpose - in fact that very statement is revealed knowledge, I'm giving you nuggets here, they were given to me and I'm sharing them freely with you.
I don't expect or condemn you for not accepting what I say, I would and did do the same once, but don't make the logical error of dismissing it as false, as a delusion, religious devotion, unprovable claptrap, just keep an open mind, that's all, what possible harm can that do?
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: Scientific thinking and common sense
Post #140It most certainly affects your argument (although I hesitate to call what you're doing an "argument").
If by "self-evident truth" you mean "assumption", then there is no debate to be had. It's just something you assume to be true.
If by "self-evident truth" you mean "so obvious that no support is required", then that is most certainly debatable. The first thing that comes to mind is how you justify declaring your conclusions about revelations and gods to be "obvious".
Oh yes they can. That many fish swim in water is a self-evident truth in the "obvious" sense. It's so self-evident that it's not even a topic that's up for debate.You see neither can be "shown" to be true and the essence of my disagreement with you is just that.
"The Christian God came to me and revealed X" is not like that at all.
Again, I urge you to avoid black/white, binary thinking and appreciate that there is a great deal of space between "proven" and "merely assumed".The question I posed was "If in a debate the answer to a question is an unprovable truth, how should one respond to the question?" and you replied "By defending and justifying it, or conceding that you can't".
I disagree with your answer, by definition a provable proposition differs from an unprovable proposition, the former can be defended and justified by some process of reasoning, the latter cannot - it can be true but no amount of reasoning can support or justify it, it just "is".
That's a self-evident truth in the former, "assumption" sense. It most certainly is not one in the "it's so obvious no debate is necessary" sense.In fact "God reveals knowledge" is provable but only by God, I can't do what God can. Asking for support is pointless, all I can say is "God has revealed that he is real, to me" and that is that, it won't satisfy you but that's tough, it is still true.
It is if you're asserting an assumed self-evident truth that is specifically about revelations from gods. In fact, that's what a lot of preaching is!No, asserting a self evident truth is not preaching
Easy. Have the person posing the question clearly define terms and give criteria for each category, then demonstrate how I meet the criteria for "human being".What is this talk of "you have zero interest in debating it or defending it"? how could that mean anything? can you debate or defend that you are a human being and not some remote AI software?
Just because you can't, that doesn't mean no one else can.You cannot so why even bother trying?
So your "self-evident truths" about revelations from gods is in the "assumed" category. Okay.its not through disinterest or avoidance that I don't debate "God reveals himself to us" it is because it is as futile as you debating or defending "I am a person not an AI package". In principle anything a person can say a machine could say, so there is no way to distinguish by discourse, this is called the Turing Test.
You're sharing what you assume to be revelations from a god.The confirmation you seek can only come from God and that is his prerogative and he acts as he wants when he wants so suit his purpose - in fact that very statement is revealed knowledge, I'm giving you nuggets here, they were given to me and I'm sharing them freely with you.
I'll ask you for the third or fourth time now....what do you do with claims of revelations from gods that are mutually exclusive with the revelations you believe you've received?I don't expect or condemn you for not accepting what I say, I would and did do the same once, but don't make the logical error of dismissing it as false, as a delusion, religious devotion, unprovable claptrap, just keep an open mind, that's all, what possible harm can that do?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.