Two new episodes of The Non-Prophets are up »« Open thread on AETV #782

Feedback from Sunday’s show…

Let’s make today’s e-mail a GREAT one. I directed a caller on Sunday’s show to my take on the Sermon on the Mount. He was, admittedly, a searching deist with Christian leanings – but he was still of the opinion that the New Testament was an improvement and that there were merits there that elevated his view of Christianity. Here’s the e-mail I just received (posted with permission):

“I was on the show a few days ago and was really open minded to learning some new things. I read almost all of the iron chariot wiki and let me tell you I don’t know how anyone could still be Christian! I ordered a few books on atheism and I am really excited to read them. I hope I can really start to feel comfortable with saying I don’t believe in god after I read these. I really appreciate it.”

That’s why religiosity is waning and the ‘nones’ are taking over, as this shows: http://www.pewforum.org/Unaffiliated/nones-on-the-rise.aspx

Comments

  1. says

    Not to snow on your show, but the analysis I’ve seen of the growth in the number of ‘nones’ has more to do with people rejecting religion than rejecting god concepts per se. Something like 2/3 of nones still believe in God, many of them pray daily. They just think religions are too intolerant and stuck in their ways.

    I WILL say, however, that a rejection of ‘religion’ took me toward a rejection of faith pretty quickly. I imagine that the motivation to discover answers to faith questions needs to be pretty high. If you reject religion but don’t care much if it’s true, there’s little reason for you to ask the kinds of questions that lead you toward atheism as your caller did.

    Still, very good news. Congrats!

    • Jed Deemer says

      “They just think religions are too intolerant and stuck in their ways.” Well, they’re right, as I think pretty much all of us would agree.

      And while it wouldn’t be perfect, I think I could live with a country full of non-religious believers, people who keep their private beliefs–oh, what’s the word I’m looking for? Right!–private.

    • says

      Here’s the thing though – I started as a “religion is too intolerant” as well, like you. So the more people we have there, the more searching they get the chance to do. Letting them be aware of the poor arguments, the rational arguments, and the options there are out there, a lot of them can be brought through the same roundabout that I did before I de-converted.

    • mike says

      @Crommunist

      But if they reject mainstream and cult religions entirely then those religions would collapse and the primary destructive power would be gone. The dogma would be gone and people would be free to make their own decisions. If people still prayed as you say, to their own personal god, then their god would have the same morals and values as they do and these would be governed by reason and empathy. The only difference between these deists and atheists would be that personal god, and unless they professed some demonstrable power that the gods had, they would be useless gods and these ‘believers’ would be perfectly acceptable to live with.

      • murk says

        yes and no
        = not no
        thus yes

        if law of contradiction can be broken then it cant be.
        (think about it)

        Do you hold certainty as elusive?

        • jdog says

          hey guyz can i play 2? lol

          can god like make a rock so hvy he cant lift it???!!

          You understand that his answer was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, right? Also, the law of noncontradiction is an axiomatic statement; if asked to prove your answer, you don’t actually have any way to to do so (that doesn’t fall to a logical fallacy).

          Is there some point to these word games?

          • murk says

            i thought it might be tongue in cheek – but i thought i’d cut through the evasive maneuver

            re: rock – Suppose an almighty being (God)- Almighty means He can lift anything.
            Then an object that he cannot lift cannot exist

            similar to unstoppable force / immovable object
            if one exists – the other can’t
            saying that both exist = nonsense
            putting God in a nonsense statement does not alter that

            Are you certain that axioms are unprovable – without invoking the law of contradiction?

            or think of it this way – You did not put the law of logic (contradiction) aside when you made that statement. It is necessary. it can thus be proved indirectly – by the impossibility of the contrary.

          • jdog says

            Go on and demonstrate to me then how you can prove (or even falsify) the law of noncontradiction without invoking the law of noncontradiction.

            The point I was attempting to get across (as was wholething, I suspect) is that “can the law of contradiction be broken” is just as much of a nonsensical question as “can god make a rock he can’t lift” or “can something come from nothing”.

            Again, is there a point to these word games?

          • murk says

            we are saying the same thing – law of contradiction is absolute thus universal / immaterial / invariant

            attempting to put it aside would result in sentences like:
            orange Thursday flies faster

            it is thus proved because if it isn’t absolute we could not make any distinctions or have any knowledge

            is there any point to the word game of asking me what the point of these word games is?

            words are no gaming matter – think of the words uttered by people that have huge implications:
            i do / you’re fired / off with his head

            How do we account for the law of contradiction?

            Can we know things for sure?

          • jdog says

            Okay, so a basic grasp of the uses of metaphor isn’t among your talents. I’ll rephrase my question. What is the purpose you are hoping to achieve by asking the questions about the law of noncontradiction and whether or not certainty is elusive?

            “Self-evident” (or axiomatic) is not the same thing as “proven” (or non-axiomatic), even though we both have to agree that the law of noncontradiction is axiomatic to have any sort of meaningful discussion about it. If the law of noncontradiction is axiomatic, it cannot be proven; that’s why we have to declare it as axiomatic in the first place.

          • extian says

            if no one declared law of contradiction as axiomatic would it be valid?

            Yes. As jdog already stated, the law of contradiction is self-attesting, meaning it doesn’t have to be proven true – it simply is true by virtue of the nature of reality.

            The law of noncontradiction can be accounted for by the existence of reality itself.

          • murk says

            thank you, i was just checking

            there are those who hold that laws of logic are conventional
            (although that is a very entertaining road to go down:)

            ok so we have immaterial / non-changing /universal law of logic
            that we cannot observe

            We can have no sense perception of the law of logic

            What must you presuppose to be true prior to holding the external world as real? So how can you use external world a foundation for the law of contradiction?

            According to you we live in an “apparently undirected”:)universe made of matter and energy where observation is held as a gatekeeper for knowledge.
            This is supported by unobservable unchanging universal laws
            that are not made of matter and energy but dictate what
            matter and energy do. Yet these laws can be accounted for by matter and energy.

            everyone ok with this?

            just checking again if i may; how is knowledge gained?

  2. koliedrus says

    Now I feel like a junky.

    I’m caught up on the Non Prophets (I have seen DOG!), I’d rather not add an uninformed comment regarding the weekly cable broadcast and I haven’t the slightest clue as to how I can watch the broadcasts from the new digs.

    1. Is there a publicly available recording of:
    AXP S01E01: New Studio?

    2. How do I jump in and watch it as it is being broadcast?

    3. Have you considered using torrents to save on bandwidth costs? You post, we seed.

    4. I have no idea how donations would fit into the bigger picture but I’m willing to toss out some to keep you people doing what you do.

    5. I’m willing to direct some of my potential donations right at the cable station that has changed so many lives because of what you’ve done for us.

    I hope I’m not the only one to see change as having a potentially positive outcome.

  3. murk says

    rationality is held in high esteem on this page. i would like to know how rationality can be justified in a chance universe.

    if anything can happen certainty must be elusive.

    if we cannot know anything for sure – we cannot know anything

    yet knowledge claims abound here

    is change a property of the universe?

    • extian says

      Are you Stephen Feinstein’s sock puppet? You certainly have the same flawed thinking.

      To call this a “chance universe” is to oversimplify the situation. We live in a universe of matter and energy interacting in an (apparently) unguided manner. Just because the universe is unguided doesn’t mean it cannot be understood; it is reasonable to assume that reality has always behaved like itself (based on all available observations), and thus will continue to behave in the future. Your implication that rationality cannot be justified by a “chance” or undirected universe is a non-sequitur.

      if anything can happen certainty must be elusive…if we cannot know anything for sure – we cannot know anything

      There are things I know with certainty, for example, my own existence. If this is the case, then it is impossible for me to know my own non-existence, which means NOT anything can happen. There are some things I can know, but they must be justified by evidence or self-attesting axioms. So far, God does not fit either qualification.

      is change a property of the universe?

      From a certain perspective, I suppose this is true, but if you’re going to set up a false dichotomy between change and uniformity of the material world, then please stop. The arrangement of matter in the universe constantly changes, but the “laws” governing those physical changes remains the same (as far as all our observations have shown).

      Say hi to Pastor Feinstein for me.

      • murk says

        No idea who Pastor Feinstein is.

        apparently unguided manner – yet behaves like itself and thus will continue in future

        i like the word apparently here

        you presuppose that the only possible necessary starting point
        (the God of the Bible) does not exist
        that means that in your worldview He can never exist because
        even if you took some evidence here and there and thought hey
        you know what He probably exists – then He is not your God
        because He is subject to your ability to reason

        the Bible makes it clear that we cannot know anything
        unless we start with Him (eg. Prov 1:7)

        and you make this clear by the word apparently

        you call chance universe over simplified and then state that reality has always behaved like itself and thus will continue to behave in the future.

        congratulations you’re the first to answer David Hume

        origin of matter / origin of life from non-life / origin of atheist with name extian this kind of stuff has been observed
        hats off to you, you’re the first again

        why are laws constant? and where do laws come from in a universe made of matter and energy?

        how do you know you exist with certainty?

        • extian says

          No idea who Pastor Feinstein is.

          He’s a presuppositional apologist that Russell just had an online debate with. He makes the same flawed arguments that you make about a “chance universe” somehow refuting the atheists’ position.

          you presuppose that the only possible necessary starting point (the God of the Bible) does not exist that means that in your worldview He can never exist because even if you took some evidence here and there and thought hey you know what He probably exists – then He is not your God because He is subject to your ability to reason

          I have no idea what you’re talking about, dude. I do not presuppose anything about God or whether anything is the “only possible necessary starting point” (I’m assuming you mean the universe’s starting point.). Of course it is possible that God is the necessary starting point of the universe, but neither you nor I should just presuppose this without demonstrating it first. We can’t know anything without starting with God? Prove it. Proverbs does not count as proof.

          you call chance universe over simplified and then state that reality has always behaved like itself and thus will continue to behave in the future. congratulations you’re the first to answer David Hume…origin of matter / origin of life from non-life / origin of atheist with name extian this kind of stuff has been observed…hats off to you, you’re the first again

          I said these things are reasonable assumptions based on all available observations. I’m only going with what science says. Do me a favor and educate yourself on how science works: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning.

          why are laws constant? and where do laws come from in a universe made of matter and energy?

          You are misusing the word “law.” Laws aren’t some extra things put into the universe to tell matter and energy what to do – laws are man-made descriptions of the behavior of matter and energy. Asking where the laws of nature come from is like asking where words come from.

          how do you know you exist with certainty?

          I know I exist because of the impossibility of the contrary. If I didn’t exist I wouldn’t even be thinking about my existence, because non-existent things don’t think.

          Now, how do you know your god exists with certainty? The contrary is most definitely not impossible, and if you think it is, you must demonstrate it.

          • murk says

            you presuppose that the only possible necessary starting point (the God of the Bible) does not exist that means that in your worldview He can never exist because even if you took some evidence here and there and thought hey you know what He probably exists – then He is not your God because He is subject to your ability to reason

            I have no idea what you’re talking about, dude. I do not presuppose anything about God or whether anything is the “only possible necessary starting point” (I’m assuming you mean the universe’s starting point.). Of course it is possible that God is the necessary starting point of the universe, but neither you nor I should just presuppose this without demonstrating it first. We can’t know anything without starting with God? Prove it. Proverbs does not count as proof.

            I mean for people to make sense of anything.
            By stating that “neither you nor I should just presuppose this without demonstrating it first.”
            you are implying that God is subservient to your reason
            So tell me why do you trust your ability to reason?
            He made it plain – I can only know things because He has revealed things
            So your highest authority is yourself (your ability to reason)
            and you cannot state something negative without also stating something positive
            (to see through a magicians illusion requires that one knows something about the true state of affairs first)
            the positive thing you must state by making yourself ultimate is:
            God is not sovereign / History has no purpose or direction / there are no limits to possibility
            that is a lot to know – these are conceptual / universal limitations which cannot be observed
            Yet you must hold them as true prior to stating that observation is the way to knowledge
            do you see the tension?
            Your own reason determines what is possible and impossible. Yet you have no control over history. And Yet this all is circumscribed by the laws of logic. Don’t you get dizzy and tired?
            The one who died to save our necks and knowledge wants to give you rest.

            you call chance universe over simplified and then state that reality has always behaved like itself and thus will continue to behave in the future. congratulations you’re the first to answer David Hume…origin of matter / origin of life from non-life / origin of atheist with name extian this kind of stuff has been observed…hats off to you, you’re the first again

            I said these things are reasonable assumptions based on all available observations. I’m only going with what science says. Do me a favor and educate yourself on how science works: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning.

            You have no basis to say the future will be like the past other than habit (which is a precondition to do science)
            To invoke probability (based on experience) is not an option
            For probability rests on the uniformity of nature – so it cannot support uniformity.
            I do (for example Genesis 8:22)
            Can one reason inductively (from a specific to a universal) without first accepting as true that universals exist and are constant?

            Now why would someone who believes that there is no one directing the universe look for regularities? The universe must be ultimately mysterious with this starting point. Then any so called knowledge gained in the present is an illusion along the way. And since there is no pre- interpretation in your worldview then you cannot investigate as you pretend – you can only legislate what reality will be. (as you do when you say laws are “man made descriptions” “i’m only going with what science says”)

            if you pay homage to science as your ultimate authority you have some serious consequences.

            if knowledge is only gained by the 5 senses then by which of the 5 senses did you gain the knowledge that knowledge is only gained by the 5 senses? i could go on but my word count may run out:)

            so were these laws around before people showed up?
            if the majority decides that 2 +2 = 5 do we change the laws of math?
            you don’t live like this and you probably resent this idea – but if you were consistent to your espoused worldview you would have to embrace it.
            your worldview if lived out consistently would destroy all knowledge.
            but you don’t because He restrains you and you are inescapably made in His image so therefore you do know things.
            Could you be wrong about everything you know?
            I can account for the law of contradiction – it amounts to lying and God does not lie,
            and we are made in His image so we are not to lie as He clearly revealed in one of the commandments.
            is science descriptive or prescriptive?

            why are laws constant? and where do laws come from in a universe made of matter and energy?
            You are misusing the word “law.” Laws aren’t some extra things put into the universe to tell matter and energy what to do – laws are man-made descriptions of the behavior of matter and energy. Asking where the laws of nature come from is like asking where words come from.

            but earlier you stated about the law of contradiction “it simply is true by virtue of the nature of reality”
            so which is it conventional or true beyond human tampering?

            how do you know you exist with certainty?

            I know I exist because of the impossibility of the contrary. If I didn’t exist I wouldn’t even be thinking about my existence, because non-existent things don’t think.

            What if you are a character in a dream that thinks he thinks?
            or could we be in a Matrix world?

            Now, how do you know your god exists with certainty? The contrary is most definitely not impossible, and if you think it is, you must demonstrate it.

            I’ve started above. I think the best way is to do one question at a time. this is getting rather wordy and my cutting room floor is littered :)

  4. extian says

    By stating that “neither you nor I should just presuppose this without demonstrating it first.”
    you are implying that God is subservient to your reason

    Well, it’s kind of hard to reason without using…y’know, reason. When you’re reading your Bible, don’t you use reason to analyze the letters, words, and sentences to turn them into concepts in your head? What else would you use to reliably gain knowledge? Faith? Faith is nothing but gullibility; it’s believing things for no good reason.

    the positive thing you must state by making yourself ultimate is: God is not sovereign / History has no purpose or direction / there are no limits to possibility
    that is a lot to know – these are conceptual / universal limitations which cannot be observed…Yet you must hold them as true prior to stating that observation is the way to knowledge

    Umm, no, I didn’t say that. I said those things seem apparent based on observation, not prior to observation. You obviously didn’t read the link I posted.

    You have no basis to say the future will be like the past other than habit

    I’ve already told you…this is a reasonable assumption based on past observations that have never contradicted the hypothesis of the uniformity of nature (your Biblical fairy tales notwithstanding). Read the fucking link.

    You do not understand how science works. The only axioms I (and most rational people) start with is my own existence and the existence of the universe. Even if I’m a dream character or in the Matrix, I still exist as that dream character or Matrix simulation – so that point is irrelevant. If the universe means “all that exists,” then it would be ludicrous to say “all that exists doesn’t exist.” From this point I can look at nature, observe how things fundamentally haven’t really changed in the past and make the reasonable assumption that things will probably remain the same in the future.

    Using God or the Bible as your starting point gets you nowhere. Who created God? What accounts for God’s existence? What are His preconditions? Who wrote the Bible? Don’t you need reason to understand the Bible? Don’t you need reason to understand that God is talking to you and not your own subconscious? Doesn’t that make God “subservient” to your reason?

    Find out what inductive reasoning is before you reply.

  5. murk says

    “Though many dictionaries define inductive reasoning as reasoning that derives general principles from specific observations, this usage is outdated.[2]
    Description

    Inductive reasoning is probabilistic; it only states that, given the premises, the conclusion is probable.”

    quote from Wikipedia link you so kindly provided. I did not realize that the redefine crowd butchered induction.
    (can we redefine a word prior to redefining definition?)

    Can the statement “inductive reasoning is probabilistic” be known by induction?

    Is it absolutely true that inductive reasoning is probabilistic?

    Does probability rest on the uniformity of nature?

    induction cannot be foundational no matter how much you say that it is.

    re: reason / understanding

    distinction is required between using reason as a tool
    (eg. to understand the Biblical statute “lean not on your own understanding…”)
    and using reason as ultimate (which extian does)

    why do you trust your ability to reason?

    is the universe indeterminate?

    (i know only God can “open the eyes of the blind” however inconsistencies should drive us to Him to do his work)

    • extian says

      induction cannot be foundational no matter how much you say that it is.

      I never said it was. Induction (reason) is the tool we use to determine what is foundational. What is foundational is nature or reality – the “laws” of nature are human descriptions of how reality works based on our observation. Is there anything else besides that?

      How the hell do you know God can “open the eyes of the blind”? How do you know “Biblical statutes” are reliable? I’ve provided my reasoning for why I depend on reason to interpret the universe (hint: there’s no other reliable way). Why do you base your supposition on God? Why not Allah or Zeus or the Easter Bunny or Cthulu or any other unevidenced deity?

      I may not be able to ultimately account for reality, but at least I know (yes for certain) that it exists. How do know your supposition even exists?

      • murk says

        cool

        you are certain that reality exists based on applying the inductive method to observation.

        to do this the following “realities of nature” you must necessarily hold as absolutely true:

        uniformity of nature
        validity of induction
        reasonableness of reason
        universal / invariant / immaterial laws of logic
        laws of science

        by what standard or authority do you hold these as true?

        if you answer this question i will answer your question on how i know for certain that the God of the bible is the only possible precondition for intelligibility

        (also since induction is probabilistic it cannot support certainty)

        i understand that in your worldview induction is your only avenue to the possibility of new information, since your own reason is ultimate.

        But then you have that pesky “little” problem of accounting for origin of matter / life from non-life / origin of time within the framework of your own ultimacy which is supported by the uniformity of nature which somehow derived from an indeterminate universe where anything can happen

        • codemonkey says

          to do this the following “realities of nature” you must necessarily hold as absolutely true:

          uniformity of nature
          validity of induction
          reasonableness of reason
          universal / invariant / immaterial laws of logic
          laws of science

          by what standard or authority do you hold these as true?

          You are going to accept that deductive logic works, and you are going to accept that the scientific process usually works. Alternatively, you are going to accept the “weaker” propositions that we can and should use deductive logic, and that we can and should use the scientific process, in order to gain knowledge. If you don’t agree, then the conversation is over. I don’t care how you justify these propositions. Perhaps you “derive” them from god. Perhaps you take them axiomatically like I do. Perhaps you justify them cyclically. I don’t care how you do it. You will agree to these starting points, or else I will dismiss you entirely.

          (also since induction is probabilistic it cannot support certainty)

          Now you’re getting it! That’s right!

          But then you have that pesky “little” problem of accounting for origin of matter / life from non-life / origin of time within the framework of your own ultimacy which is supported by the uniformity of nature which somehow derived from an indeterminate universe where anything can happen

          Here, I’ll save you some time. I don’t know. I don’t know if the universe had a beginning. I don’t know by what process the universe began to exist – if it indeed began to exist. I don’t know. It is not an inconsistency in the usual atheist materialist reductionist scientific point of view. It is merely an unknown.

          • murk says

            if the universe (thus including time) had no beginning could the present moment have arrived? Yet here we are discussing it. If you don’t see an inconsistency here…

          • codemonkey says

            You are confused. I see this frequently in those who don’t understand math. This is your argument in a nutshell:
            1- There is a hypothetical observer who saw the first time.
            2- There is an infinite amount of time between the first time and the present.
            3- Thus this observer would never see the present.
            4- Thus proof by contradiction.

            You have to realize that this is your argument. You are arguing that an infinite amount of time in the past is nonsensical because “we never would have got here”, aka a hypothetical observer never would have gotten here. Gotten here from where? The time time, a point infinitely far in the past.

            However, that misses the entire point. Your proof by contradiction assumes there is a first time in order to show the contradiction of my position that there is no first time. Your argument is nonsensical.

            If we want to model time via the Real Numbers, and model the present position with 0, then there is no position on the Real Number line that is infinitely far from the present, in either direction. The Real Numbers are all finite, and the difference between any two Reals is itself Real and finite.

            I see nothing confusing about there being no lower bound to time. This strikes me as reminiscent of Zeno’s Paradoxes.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes

          • murk says

            of course i do not fully understand time.

            But He has revealed that time had a beginning thus i know this for sure. (Titus 1:2, 2 Tim 1:9)

            i also know that i’m a creature of time (i’m subject to time and cannot change it – i will have a death date as i had a birthdate – and this is true for you)

            For a creature subject to time to attempt to test the timeless one in the test tube of time is really silly as i’m sure you’ll agree

            To posit the eternal existence of time, (without the creator of time)requires the admission of the existence of the eternal but that eternal is subordinate of time. and this is absurd

            Thus time had to have a beginning (perhaps i did not communicate it clearly)

            your Real numbers analogy also admits the difficulty of infinity with numbers and thus time (by analogy)

            So we both agree time had a beginning

            I can account for it – the timeless one (eternal God of Bible) made time as He said He did.

            Being eternal means He is not subject to time (ie. the origin of time problem cannot be applied to Him)since He created time/space and matter as revealed in Gen 1:1 and upholds and sustains it until he shuts it all down since He determines reality.

            You need to try to reconcile the concept of time and its origin within your espoused material worldview, and the whole time you are subject to time.

            My original argument was not as you say from time-time
            rather i assumed (for arguments sake) that if there always was time (not an infinite amount of time between time time and present)
            it only assumes what we see today – time is real, a day is a day and we are subject to it and cannot alter it. and from here go backwards

            every race starts when the clock starts (and the flag drops/gun fires etc. at the same time)
            no clock start no race
            no time start no human race:)

          • codemonkey says

            For a creature subject to time to attempt to test the timeless one in the test tube of time is really silly as i’m sure you’ll agree

            If you cannot “test it in a test tube”, then you do not have any justifiable reason to believe anything about it. Relevation is indistinguishable from delusion and from insanity.

            To posit the eternal existence of time, (without the creator of time)requires the admission of the existence of the eternal but that eternal is subordinate of time. and this is absurd

            Thus time had to have a beginning (perhaps i did not communicate it clearly)

            your Real numbers analogy also admits the difficulty of infinity with numbers and thus time (by analogy)

            So we both agree time had a beginning

            Nope. You lost me. Why does the existence of time imply the existence of something outside of time? And what does this have to do with whether there’s a first time?

            I can account for it – the timeless one (eternal God of Bible) made time as He said He did.

            You can account for it? You can demonstrable that it’s sufficient? That’s nice. You also need to demonstrate that it’s necessary, which requires the presentation of positive scientific evidence specific to the bible. (And no, the bible on its own doesn’t count, not any more than a Harry Potter novel.)

            every race starts when the clock starts (and the flag drops/gun fires etc. at the same time)
            no clock start no race
            no time start no human race:)

            I see a very bad argument by analogy that everything has a beginning. This is an overextended extrapolation, an extrapolation well past the limits of the data set. Your very poor inductive argument does not strike me as compelling that there was necessarily a first time. I suggest that you should learn some proper methods of statistics.

      • murk says

        how do i know God exists?

        the same way you do, we are made in His image, and he revealed it so we can know it for sure.

        • codemonkey says

          @ murk
          Quoting: “can the statement “induction is foundational” be known inductively?”
          I’m throwing my hands up right now. Are you for real? Or are you just trolling me?

          “Foundational” means “axiomatic”. If one take something axiomatically, then one does not offer justification for it. Come on man. You should know this.

          You’re asking me if I can justify a proposition with itself, and of course attempts to justify an proposition by citing itself are bogus. Belief systems should not be cyclic.

          • murk says

            Why do you trust your ability to reason?
            How do you know your senses are reliable?
            (try not to be cyclic :)

            all belief systems are circular but only one can be correct.

            the statement “induction is foundational” is necessarily false based on the law of contradiction. I was merely jumping into your worldview for arguments sake to answer your question of “why not?”

            since induction is done by humans who cannot verify induction due to their temporal / spatial / intellectual limitations it is always probabilistic (as we both agree on)

            so if it cannot be known for sure if induction is foundational
            it cannot be foundational. Since this is a knowledge claim. But if induction is foundational no knowledge cannot exist.

            get it?

          • codemonkey says

            so if it cannot be known for sure if induction is foundational it cannot be foundational.

            And this is the point of contention. No.

          • codemonkey says

            Sorry about this double post.

            This just came to me. Your problem is you don’t understand logic and philosophy at all. You cannot know much of anything for sure. All belief systems are axiomatic. Axiomatic means starting from axioms, from positions that are unjustified and unjustifiable.

            Play this game with yourself. Ask how you know god exists. You’ll probably give a reason. Ask how do you know that is true. You may give another reason. Ask how do you know that is true. Repeat. As we both accept “deductive logic”, there are only three possible conclusions. 1- You’ll arrive at a proposition that you cannot justify. We call those axioms. 2- You’ll arrive at a proposition that you’ve already used. We call this cyclic. 3- You will continue on indefinitely never repeating propositions. We call that an infinite regression.

            In any sane belief system, all justification chains must terminate, and they terminate at axioms.

          • murk says

            Sorry about tardy response – been busy

            i agree of course that all reasoning must come to rest on a starting point (axiom)

            if not we’d be bobbing in a shore less ocean where every thought is futile

            “Belief systems should not be cyclic.”

            i agree (with the added limitation that for temporal / spatial beings such as us that the foundation must be self attesting and necessary and this entails that we cannot be the ultimate authority because we all had birthdays)

            Lets look at your worldview (you have not answered some of my questions so i’m going out on a limb here – if i’m incorrect on your underlying beliefs let me know and i will adjust)

            1. universe is indeterminate (no purpose or direction)thus ultimately mysterious
            1a. yet you rely on uniformity to know anything via induction / deduction.
            2. induction is an avenue to knowledge however it is never certain (probabilistic)
            2a. Yet probability rests on uniformity therefore it cannot support your knowledge about uniformity
            3. an indeterminate universe entails there are no limits to possibility
            3a yet you rely on the law of contradiction to reason
            4. you admit that materialism is one of your axioms
            4a.you can only “know” this through non-material laws
            5. you state that the nature of reality is foundational
            5a. yet it cannot be foundational because it had to change in your worldview in order for you/matter/time/laws to exist
            6. deduction requires absolutes as a starting point. This requires insight into the very nature of reality of the whole universe.
            6a. this is beyond the limits of humans. thus to know anything, the one who holds his own reason as ultimate – has to know everything. which you cannot.. therefore…

            Your worldview has irreconcilable inconsistencies

            now for my worldview

            everything is created by and supported by God – He makes things possible thus He also limits what is possible. As Jesus said He is vine we are branch. Thus we cannot do anything without Him – including denying Him or reasoning about validity of reason

            He is immaterial / invariant / universal
            the laws we use to reason and understand reality are encompassed by Him

            He Has made himself plain to all people through what was made
            He determined the laws that support the physical world
            He has revealed this in abundance in the Bible

            All people know He exists. He has revealed this
            Thus we all have an avenue to knowledge because we all start from this point. The distinction lies at the next step – some people suppress that He is the starting point and some people confess that He is the starting point.

            the first group then goes on to destroy knowledge and become vain / futile in their thinking (as described a bit above)

            the second group trusts him and as they obey they know even more

            Thus i do not reason to God (look for evidences that He exists with my senses / reason et al.) because that would be a posture of my own ultimacy (which is really silly) it would also reflect that i’m calling Him a liar – as if He did not reveal His existence and character so i can know it for sure.
            Even if i did i end up back at Him – because if i’m calling Him a liar i have to account for the immorality of lying apart from Him which is impossible.

            You see no matter where we turn we are faced with His clear revelation

            Rather i reason from Him

            Revelation is the only possible source for knowledge.

            i admit that the only way to know anything is to know everything or someone who does – and His name is Jesus

            Zeus / Vishnu and gang are false – they are not necessary and they are self contradictory. Which can only be determined using the standard of the one God. I can expose the internal consistencies of each counterfeit irrational belief system.
            if you wish to do this pick one and let me know.

            a final word on other belief systems. Can counterfeit money exist if no real money exists? The same with false starting points.
            Can two opposing things both be true at the same time and in the same way? Thus only one starting point can be true.

            i’m rambling a bit… have a good day

          • codemonkey says

            i agree of course that all reasoning must come to rest on a starting point (axiom)

            if not we’d be bobbing in a shore less ocean where every thought is futile

            “Belief systems should not be cyclic.”

            i agree (with the added limitation that for temporal / spatial beings such as us that the foundation must be self attesting and necessary and this entails that we cannot be the ultimate authority because we all had birthdays)

            So, you don’t agree. You specifically said the foundation must be self attesting. There’s a word for that. It’s called “circular”. I don’t know if I can continue this conversation when you have such a tenuous grasp on the English language.

            Lets look at your worldview (you have not answered some of my questions so i’m going out on a limb here – if i’m incorrect on your underlying beliefs let me know and i will adjust)

            [...]

            Let me try to explain what I believe, and why. I do not know if the universe has a creator. I am agnostic on the issue. I do not believe it has purpose, and I do not believe it does not have purpose. I reject both claims as unsubstantiated. I do not know, and neither do you.

            However, I do know that the gods of the popular modern day religious do not exist because the evidence says that they do not exist.

            The rest of your description of my world view, and the takedown, is IMHO not applicable because you seem to think that axioms must be self justifying, aka circular, and I think that’s just silly.

            I also think your takedown is irrelevant and a red herring. I think you have agreed that science works, and that logic works, and that we can have a conversation where we take it for granted that both work. Great! Now let’s discuss the evidence. Do you think the world is ~6000 years old, or more like 4.5 billion for the Earth and 13.7 billion for our local big bang event universe thingy? Because the evidence completely agrees with the “atheistic” science. If you agree that the world looks exactly as if there was no interfering creator god, then we’re in full agreement, and you’re welcome to invent whatever untestable irrelevant vacuous claims you want, and I heard I stopped caring about 5 minutes ago.

            However, this worries me:

            Revelation is the only possible source for knowledge.

            See, this is the problem. We can’t have a meaningful conversation. I cannot tell the difference between you, a liar, a deluded person, and an insane person. There is no criteria or process by which I can compare your claims of Jesus vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster vs the Muslim god. Except for science, which says they’re all wrong.

            Zeus / Vishnu and gang are false – they are not necessary and they are self contradictory. Which can only be determined using the standard of the one God. I can expose the internal consistencies of each counterfeit irrational belief system.
            if you wish to do this pick one and let me know.

            Sorry. Even if you could do such a feat, it’s entirely irrelevant, because there is a limitless supply of asspull gods, and until you present actual positive scientific evidence, I cannot differentiate between your god and an asspull god.

          • murk says

            round and round we go…

            “and until you present actual positive scientific evidence, I cannot differentiate between your god and an asspull god.”

            by which of the senses did you acquire the knowledge that knowledge can only be gained via sense perception?

            you’re trying the impossible;

            attempting to put God on trial

            You are on trial – God is not

            you have plenty of justification, it is a posture of your will
            that’s preventing the acceptance of truth

          • codemonkey says

            attempting to put God on trial

            You are on trial – God is not

            Which god, and how do you know that? Even if you disprove all of the modern popular gods as you claim you can do (lol), why is god not the magic purple tiara, the one I just invented out of whole cloth, which I specifically tailored to meet your criteria of necessity? The christian god seems to be to me just a fiction of human culture, just like my magic purple tiara.

          • murk says

            why do you trust your ability to reason?

            how do you know your senses are reliable?

            and a new one, before i can take this as true (according to you)
            i must scientifically test this claim:

            “If you cannot “test it in a test tube”, then you do not have any justifiable reason to believe anything about it.”

            since i’m a little rusty on science could you help me get started with how to empirically test this claim?

        • murk says

          Hey do you guys drive a “nice dodge”?

          if you would answer some of my questions it would become really clear that all knowledge and wisdom is in Christ

          perhaps you know this hence the dodge

  6. murk says

    “I reject both claims as unsubstantiated. I do not know, and neither do you.”

    obviously you know this via scientific evidence :)

    you do not believe universe has purpose
    you do not believe the universe does not have purpose
    choosing not to decide is still a choice
    (another evidence of the inescapable reality of the only one who can give us choice)
    Do you deny freewill to? (you must to be consistent with your worldview but that hasn’t stopped you before)

    (never mind that evidence presupposes logic which again is universal and not made of matter and invariant thus cannot be supported by material and they are absolute and there is only one way to account for an absolute)

    exposing your self refutations could be a full time job
    i’m just picking em here and there part time

    • codemonkey says

      Belief is (usually) not a choice. I do not believe the universe has a purpose, and I do not believe the universe does not have a purpose, because I have not yet seen sufficient evidence and reasoning one way or the other.

      Do I deny free will? You’d first have to define the term to my satisfaction in a way that allows a scientific test. Until then, I think the question is likely word salad. If it helps you any, I’m in Dan Dennett’s camp on this issue as far as I can tell.

  7. murk says

    i can demonstrate this to you if you answer my questions.
    perhaps one at a time
    if you like, submit a question to me with your answer.

    1. can anything happen?

    • codemonkey says

      Acl! Too many sub-threads! Lol. Murk, I’d suggest you pick one of my replies and reply only to that, but bring in whatever comments you want.

      Yes things can happen. I’m not sure what sort of semantic word-game trap I’m wandering into yet, but sure, things can and do happen.

      • murk says

        sorry maybe my question was to vague, i meant:
        can anything happen?
        are there things that cannot happen?
        (limits to possibility)

        i’ve no trap in mind, just trying to understand with more precision what your worldview is.

        • codemonkey says

          I’m going to try to group all my replies at a single time into a single post, to prevent this multiplying of subthreads.

          Quoting murk:

          why do you trust your ability to reason?

          I have no justification. I have no answer. I take it as axiomatic.

          how do you know your senses are reliable?

          They are not fully reliable. They can be faulty. There are plenty of well known optical illusions and faults, both in the sense organs, and in the brain. I do believe that properly done science almost-always works, or perhaps more weakly that we ought to operate as though science works. I take this as axiomtic.

          and a new one, before i can take this as true (according to you)
          i must scientifically test this claim:
          “If you cannot “test it in a test tube”, then you do not have any justifiable reason to believe anything about it.”
          since i’m a little rusty on science could you help me get started with how to empirically test this claim?

          I see what you’re getting at, and you’re just wrong. You are projecting your need of self-justifying (aka circular) axioms onto me. I have no such need for cirular beliefs. My belief system is not circular.

          My epistomology categories claims into different classes, or kinds. Scientific claims are one such class. Scientific claims encompass all existence claims which are not abstract, and not logical not math existence claims (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_operator ).

          An axiom, or standard, in my epistomology is that I try to believe scientific claims only on the basis of good scientific evidence and scientific reasoning. That standard, that axiom, does not apply to itself. That standard is not a scientific claim; it isn’t even a claim. I’m not claiming anything there. I’m putting forth a standard of evidence, reason, logic, argument, etc., for what it would take to convince me of the truthiness of claims of a certain class.

          I’m sure you have your own standards of belief, of what it would take to convince you to believe claims of certain classes. It seems that you want the standard to be “self-justifying”, and I think circular belief systems are just silly. Now, if you can manage to show a contradiction in my beliefs, I’ll be very interested. However, I will not be interested if you continue this line of attack where you demand that I justify that which I claim is axiomatic, or this line of attack where you try to pervert my stated axioms into becoming self justifying aka circular.

          sorry maybe my question was to vague, i meant:
          can anything happen?
          are there things that cannot happen?
          (limits to possibility)

          The short answer is there are some describable phenomena which cannot happen. The entire endeavor of science is to describe phenomena which will not (likely) happen (and that which will (likely) happen). Ex: positive electrical charges are not going to stop repelling and start attracting anytime soon. This is not an absolute certainty. My degree of confidence depends on the quality of the scientific evidence and scientific reasoning.

          • murk says

            i agree science is valid only on existence claims (matter)

            “My belief system is not circular.”

            false all beliefs are circular because we are not ultimate
            circular is another word for consistency
            flatly circular or viciously circular is bad (perhaps this is where the confusion is) it is like saying “The Bible is true because it says it is true” (which it does say but saying something does not make it true – and to test the Bible a standard higher than it has to be applied to it – but you will find that the only standard that can be applied to the Bible can only be justified by the Bible hence it is necessary or ultimate)

            you call the network of your beliefs your standard (which i agree with by the way – i do “science” for a living)

            but as i keep trying to communicate – science is supported by more fundamental things that must be held as true before science can start

            Your standard is thus authoritative, and so it should be.
            it also must be absolute or you could not know anything
            if the foundation is not true or square the building will fall (at some elevation)

            Now any authority must be self attesting (eg. policeman with badge / uniform)

            you say you are not claiming anything yet putting forth a standard you do need justification for that standard.
            because many people have standards that are false
            every science thing has a standard

            you say you are not making a claim
            but you must start with the underlying beliefs to do science
            then you do science
            and if it works your underlying beliefs are confirmed
            (and you say circularity is not in your worldview:)

            and the law of contradiction does not allow for both to be true
            in fact the law of contradiction hinges on the concept of truth
            how can you account for absolute truth?

            if you notice all your knowledge claims are non-absolute
            which is how it must be in your worldview, and i appreciate your consistency with this.

            Yet they are supported by your absolute network of underlying beliefs about non-physical things (math/logic/reason/uniformity/reliability of senses/honesty of previous data recorders/precision of data…..)

            could you be wrong about everything you know?

            what is your ultimate authority?

          • codemonkey says

            Where to start. This will my last post to you, unless you make some headway or bring up new material, but I do want to try to be complete and honest to your questions.

            Let me do some quick replies first: (Quotes in italics:)

            all beliefs are circular because we are not ultimate – Disagreed. This also assumes the existence of “ultimate” things, which has not been demonstrated.

            but as i keep trying to communicate – science is supported by more fundamental things that must be held as true before science can start \ fundamental things that must be held as true before science can start – Nope.

            it also must be absolute or you could not know anything – Nope.

            Now any authority must be self attesting (eg. policeman with badge / uniform) – Nope. Also horrible proof by analogy.

            you say you are not claiming anything yet putting forth a standard you do need justification for that standard. – I am concerned about what is true. I think science is the best and only method to differentiate between true and false scientific claims.

            because many people have standards that are false – Correct.

            every science thing has a standard – Incorrect. Each individual claim doesn’t have a standard. The scientific method is the single standard by which every scientific claim is evaluated.

            you say you are not making a claim \ but you must start with the underlying beliefs to do science \ then you do science \ and if it works your underlying beliefs are confirmed \ (and you say circularity is not in your worldview:) – Nope. Science cannot justify science. I reject “self attesting” aka circular belief systems out of hand. If someone says “I know science works, because it works by any scientific measure”, I would similarly call that idiotic. If you want, consider “science works” as a claim. I will still take it as axiomatic.

            and the law of contradiction does not allow for both to be true \ in fact the law of contradiction hinges on the concept of truth \ how can you account for absolute truth? – I do not account for absolute truth. I have truth in varying certainties. That’s how science works. Let me borrow aronra’s (how do you capitalize that anyway?) “motto”: “Science doesn’t know everything. Religion doesn’t know anything.” I’d rather take a belief system with degrees of confidence that is actually right some of the time instead of a belief system that is simply wrong all the time (barring stopped-clock coincidences). http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stopped_clock

            if you notice all your knowledge claims are non-absolute – Correct.

            if you notice all your knowledge claims are non-absolute \ which is how it must be in your worldview, and i appreciate your consistency with this. \ Yet they are supported by your absolute network of underlying beliefs about non-physical things (math/logic/reason/uniformity/reliability of senses/honesty of previous data recorders/precision of data…..) – I’m sorry. I don’t know what you’re getting at here. I think you’re saying that I have an absolute belief in logic. This almost begs Platonic Realism. I am not a Platonic Realist. In fact I’m not even a realist of any kind. Whether we’re in The Matrix It’s a stupid question, one that does not matter, until perhaps one day someone offers me a red pill, aka a way to tell the difference between the models. Similarly, I’m going to use logic, I’m going to take it as axiomatic, but I don’t have this weird fetish that you have for “absolute certainty that logic works”. In fact, I’d actually describe logic (and math) as a useful creation of human culture. Anything more is Platonic Realism, and consequently not even wrong. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

            could you be wrong about everything you know? – Yes.

            what is your ultimate authority? – Depends on the kind of claim. If it’s a scientific claim, then my “ultimate authority” is the scientific method and the scientific evidence.

            One or two other loose ends to clean up.
            Quoting murk:

            flatly circular or viciously circular is bad (perhaps this is where the confusion is) it is like saying “The Bible is true because it says it is true” (which it does say but saying something does not make it true – and to test the Bible a standard higher than it has to be applied to it – but you will find that the only standard that can be applied to the Bible can only be justified by the Bible hence it is necessary or ultimate)

            You really need to work on your typing and presentation skills. This is your argument as best as I can understand it: “There is no standard higher than the bible. Thus it is the best standard. Thus it is a sufficient standard for everything, including the bible. The bible fulfills the standard of the bible, and thus we can know it to be true.” – I’ll first ask if that is your argument. I think it is. If so, you’ve made a bunch of entirely baseless claims.

            1- “There is no standard higher than the bible.” Says who? Why? How do you know this? Why not the Koran? Why not the first Harry Potter novel?

            2- “There is no standard higher than the bible, and thus it is the best standard.” As a pedantic technicality, there can be local maxima without a global maxima. I see no reason why all standards must be “higher” or “lower” pairwise.

            3- “The bible is the highest best standard, and thus it is a sufficient standard for itself”. Unsubstantiated. You implicitly assume that there must be a standard. This is one of the many flaws of your thinking this demand for absolutes. “Science doesn’t know everything. Religion doesn’t know anything.” This is also what we call a circular justification: “How do we know the bible is true? Because it says so.” I don’t care if it happens to be the best standard of truth, it’s still circular.

            And I will now try to educate you as to the correct usage of terms.
            Quoting murk:

            circular is another word for consistency

            I don’t know where you learned logic and/or English, but that’s not right. I’d prefer if you use the conventional definitions. Here’s a quickie definition: For a set X of atomic (boolean-valued) propositions, a set Y of (boolean-valued) propositions over set X is consistent iff there exists an assignment of truth values to the atomics in X so that each proposition of Y evalutes to true.

            Consider Adam, Bob, and Chris. We don’t know their heights. Here’s some quick examples of how to apply the word “consistency” to scientific claims.

            Ex: { “Adam is taller than Bob”, “Bob is taller than Chris”, “Chris is taller than Adam”, “‘taller-than’ is transitive” }
            That set of (boolean-valued) propositions is provably inconsistent.

            Ex: { “Adam is taller than Bob”, “Bob is taller than Chris”, “‘taller-than’ is transitive” }
            That set of (boolean-valued) propositions is provably consistent.

            Protip: consistent does not mean “all true”. You can have a consistent set of all false propositions.

            Now, circular is not a description of a set of propositions. Circular is a description of a proof or justification. Here’s a quickie definition: a proof is circular if its conclusion is also a premise.

            Circular is also a description of a belief system. A circular belief system contains at least one circular justification. Ex: The bible is true because it’s the word of god. I know the bible is the word of god because the bible, says so and the bible is true.

            So, I hope we can agree that the above example is both a circular belief belief, and a bad belief system, and it’s bad because it’s circular.

            Here’s another example: I know evolution is true because the difference between genomes of species forms a family tree. I know it forms a family tree because they came from a common ancestor. I know they come from a common ancestor because evolution is true.

            That is another circular belief system, and it’s also bad, and it’s bad because it’s circular.

            Finally, you haven’t answered my questions. I would appreciate some tit for tat.

            Do you think that the Earth is closer to 6000 years old, or 4.5 billion years old? Do you think our local big bang universe thingy is closer to 6000 years old, or closer to 13.7 billion years old? If you are a young earth creationist, and as you are a scientist, then how do you explain that all of the scientific evidence flatly contradicts a young earth? If you are an old earther, then a few more questions. Do you think that the “atheistic” science is right on every testable falsifiable scientific claim? Do you think there’s a difference in the testable falsifiable scientific claims between “atheist” science and your world view? Which came first, trees or stars? (Guess which Genesis says.) If you do believe the book Genesis is not literal and you accept modern science, then Adam and Eve didn’t exist, and consequently original sin doesn’t exist, and consequently there’s no reason for Jesus to have died for our sins, and the entire Christian story of redemption is empty and bankrupt.

            This is also the most important question I have for you: If I were to write a book that satisfies your criteria of a necessary / sufficient / consistent / self-attesting standard whatever, but it involves the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then why is my new fiction book wrong, why is your bible right, and how can you tell?

            fin

  8. murk says

    Kazim said “An asspull god can’t put anyone on trial.”

    i have to agree with this off course

    but the real one undoubtedly can

    the thing is if you serve an asspull god you’re not serving the real one. the real one (Jesus) has revealed that a man cannot serve two masters, and he stated that people are either for him or against him

    its like a person who cuts down a tree and burns some for heat and cooking and the rest he carves into a statue and then says to that statue “save me” or you are my father you made me
    (Isaiah 44:14-20 / Jeremiah 2:27)

    do you ever wonder about the existence of a third sex?
    of course not because we know it does not exist.
    So why do atheists talk so much about God or asspull Gods?
    if there was no real money would there be counterfeit money?
    if there was no real God would there be asspull gods?
    why is it that all over the world when people hit their thumb with a hammer they say Jesus Christ – i have yet to hear Buddha or Allah?

    • codemonkey says

      why is it that all over the world when people hit their thumb with a hammer they say Jesus Christ – i have yet to hear Buddha or Allah?

      That’s not actually true, you know. Have you even ever left your city of birth, let alone the US state of your birth? I’m starting to think troll. No one can be that stupid.

      • murk says

        yap – worked on 4 continents, many many countries, many many times
        lived in South America for 2 years at one point. Worked in Asia/Africa/Middle East/all over North America…
        (i can empirically demonstrate this via passport stamps off course:)

        i hope you will see the truth, that you attempt to deny but must (unwittingly?) invoke to do so

        you deny absolutes yet hold circular reasoning as absolutely fallacious.

        is it absolutely true that “You can have a consistent set of all false propositions.”?

        are you absolutely certain that absolutes do not exist?

        “I think science is the best and only method to differentiate between true and false scientific claims.”
        i know, i know this is not cyclic because some wikepedia article says … and …

        if you could be wrong about everything you know you could be wrong about, well everything you know.
        so it is possible that all your knowledge is false
        this entails that it is possible that you don’t know anything
        yet you keep on making “knowledge” claims
        (note this is an honest conclusion because you deem yourself ultimate and recognize your limits – now how can we make sense of the concept of “honest” WITHOUT the Bible?

        if axioms are arbitrary as you say (no standard) then the FSM may well have some say

        i think we’re back where i started – can the law of contradiction be broken? it must be held as a standard (because you or i do not validate it and it was around before people were)
        if you say it can be broken – then it cant be (think about it)

        if law of contradiction is conventional then was it around before people showed up?
        (i’m sure that you realize either a yes or a no answer results in absurdity)

        if you hold that chance is behind the existence of the universe

        then you have to invoke some standards (in order to hold this view)such as:

        there is no chance that something did not happen by chance
        there is no chance that God of the Bible purposed and created it
        that there are no absolutes (because they can only be supported by God of the Bible)
        you have to hold that there are no limits to possibility (absolutely:)
        yet you have to be absolutely certain that the nature of reality/possibility is as described above
        and this is your standard – based upon your ability to reason
        in your finite mind, with limited experience, with limited knowledge, with limited ability.

        Now i can account for universal validity of law of contradiction;
        it amounts to lying
        Bible says we are made in his image
        He does not lie
        we are not to lie (commanded not to)

        holding the law of contradiction as valid does not mean it is its own foundation (especially in a material universe)

        every which way you turn turns into foolishness
        which the Bible accounts for (Eph 4-17-18, Col 1:21 and lots more)

        your call – keep on invoking (absolute truth) in your attempt to deny (absolute truth) or bow your knee to the truth.
        this way is better – i’ve learned that before honour comes humility

        is the FSM made of matter (spaghetti?)
        then he is not necessary because he is not omnipotent/omniscient etc.

        if he revealed himself to you. Then i recommend a therapist:)
        God did reveal himself to you – through what was made – including the laws of logic you use to argue against Him

        and at every turn you confirm His truth and your lying

        He is the only one who died for you – and rose

        Every other religion is based on man – you can do something to get out of this pickle

        Christianity is unique because there is nothing we can do
        the Bible makes it clear that we are desperately wicked…therefore..who can know it? (Jer 17:9)(this was written about 600 BC and even though God knew this He finished the book – because He loves people)
        we cannot even recognize our error without Him
        (as you so kindly demonstrated in your admission that you could be wrong about everything you know)
        the Bible accounts for this (Psalm 19:12)
        We cannot do anything to help ourselves
        But He initiated while we were still unable to even recognize our problem

        if you want a serious discussion on truth of FSM or Jesus, let me know, it’ll be a lot of fun

        i’ll answer you questions on Genesis / age of earth in a bit

        thanks for the discussion

        murk

  9. codemonkey says

    Ok. Only succinct replies for you now. (Man, not that succinct. As best as I could.)

    There are plenty of people in the world who don’t know who jesus christ is, and such cities and cultures surely have (other) expressions and saying for when they hit themselves with a hammer. Also this is completely irrelevant unless you think that makes Thor true because everyone refers to that day of the week as Thor’s Day = Thursday.

    is it absolutely true that “You can have a consistent set of all false propositions.”? – You need to learn some basic definitions of commonly used words before you can intelligently continue in this conversation. I’d suggest an introduction to logic course. I took one through my college’s philosophy department even, and I’m sure the math courses are just as good. Maybe a book. Maybe a web site. I wouldn’t suggest wikipedia because the articles on this subject technical and you don’t have the background to understand it.

    are you absolutely certain that absolutes do not exist? – I don’t know what it means for an absolute to exist. I recognize “existence” as meaningful only in the scientific sense, and in the sense of the existential operator ∃ of logic.

    [insulting remarks about how science is or isn't cyclic, or something] – Science is not cyclic because I do not attempt to use it cyclically. I put forth “science works”, and I offer no justification. Thus, I do not have a cyclic justification.

    this entails that it is possible that you don’t know anything \ yet you keep on making “knowledge” claims – Yes, and?

    how can we make sense of the concept of “honest” WITHOUT the Bible? – Scientific evidence? Sometimes, we can tell if someone knowingly makes a false claim.

    if axioms are arbitrary as you say (no standard) – I did not. I said my standard is science, and that I favor it above all relevant competing standards, and that I offer no justification for it. That is different than saying it’s arbitrary. It’s not arbitrary, because I disagree with all other competing relevant standards.

    can the law of contradiction be broken? – Similarly, I take logic axiomatically, and I prefer it to all relevant competing “standards”, and I offer no justification for it.

    if law of contradiction is conventional then was it around before people showed up? – Again, I don’t know what “was it around” means except in a scientific sense, and that is not a scientific question.

    if you hold that chance is behind the existence of the universe – I said I do not know, and you don’t either.

    your call – keep on invoking (absolute truth) in your attempt to deny (absolute truth) or bow your knee to the truth. – I have done no such thing. I have never invoked absolute truth in this discussion.

    is the FSM made of matter (spaghetti?) – You say god is an intangible person and an intangible mind. I’ve never seen an intangible person nor a mind without a tangible brain. Why can’t I invoke intangible spiritual, or even metaphorical, spaghetti?

    if he revealed himself to you. Then i recommend a therapist:) – Same to you for your fake god.

    He is the only one who died for you – and rose – The rules of physics do not allow someone to rise from the dead. If the obviously forged/faked story were true, then other histories would record when the hundreds of zombies went into the city as described in the bible when jesus purportedly rose.

    Every other religion is based on man – you can do something to get out of this pickle – So is your religion. It was invented made by humans.

    if you want a serious discussion on truth of FSM or Jesus, let me know, it’ll be a lot of fun – I do. This is the most important question I have for you: how you can differentiate between the bible and any other fiction book written by humans?

    i’ll answer you questions on Genesis / age of earth in a bit – I’m waiting.

    • murk says

      “your call – keep on invoking (absolute truth) in your attempt to deny (absolute truth) or bow your knee to the truth. – I have done no such thing.

      I have never invoked absolute truth in this discussion.”

      “The rules of physics do not allow someone to rise from the dead.”

      if you can’t see the irony….

      • codemonkey says

        That’s called a statement of scientific fact, which is not absolute, and my certainty is based on the available evidence, which gives me an absurdly high confidence, but not absolutes.

        • murk says

          scientific fact does not equal absolute
          therefore: fact could be false

          fact could be non-fact

          but Codemonkey could be wrong about this thus:
          fact could be true and fact could be false

          blue Wednesday flies faster

    • murk says

      Ok its not concise but you did ask some big questions…

      Genesis / Age of earth
      Biblical worldview overview:
      God created everything (including laws that support stuff) in 6 days
      He created man in His own image (you my friend are an image bearer)
      He gave man dominion over the earth
      everything was “very good” – no death/suffering/shame…
      Man applied this dominion to the one who gave him the dominion – which is called sin
      this event is often called the fall
      Man thus tried to make himself higher than his maker – or he attempted to be ultimate
      Death came through sin

      Therefore:

      nothing died before the fall
      death is an imposter, the last enemy to be destroyed
      Therefore:
      millions of years of suffering and death (by dinosaurs and animals) before man entered is impossible

      Jesus referred to this event when He said “in the beginning He made them male and female”
      this makes sense if He referred to creation week
      it is absurd and He is a raving lunatic if evolution is true. This would mean Jesus was out by 4.5 billion years or so.

      So yes I believe the world is about 6000 years old

      and yes plants were made before the sun. So was the earth since Sun / moon / stars were created on day 4

      You are very astute to recognize the incompatibility of evolution and the Bible
      trying to marry them requires scripture mutilation and extreme mental gymnastics that require breaking the laws of logic (oh wait there is only one way to account for the laws of logic 
      Now you say there is evidence for an old earth. Really?
      what do people do that is empirical in nature when they “date” things ? (whether C14 dating/potassium-argon or whatever other types there are. And whether they are dating organic or non-organic material)

      what assumptions are made to attach an age to what they did above?
      what justification is there for these assumptions?
      Could you or them be wrong about everything you know (apart from resting on the knower of everything and what He revealed)?
      “If you are a young earth creationist, and as you are a scientist, then how do you explain that all of the scientific evidence flatly contradicts a young earth?”
      Funny question from someone who is not sure that: the evidence flatly contradicts a young earth.
      at one point everybody “knew” that blood letting saved lives (they even killed George Washington while clinging to this belief!
      We have the same data – how it is interpreted is related to starting points. That is why I am much more interested in discussing people’s starting points. However I will continue to answer your questions in the hopes of having an interesting discussion on this subject.

      If you like give me one or two “evidences” that “flatly contradict” a young earth and I will expose the unjustified assumptions that they are based on and yes the circularity of the claim:)

      “Which came first, trees or stars? (Guess which Genesis says.)”
      Trees (It is written pretty clear isn’t it? – the order of creation)

      “If you do believe the book Genesis is not literal and you accept modern science, then Adam and Eve didn’t exist, and consequently original sin doesn’t exist, and consequently there’s no reason for Jesus to have died for our sins, and the entire Christian story of redemption is empty and bankrupt.”

      correct – Bible makes sense as a unit. Good observation. And may I add the above implication hinges on the absolute universal, immaterial, invariant law of contradiction, law of identity and law of excluded middle – for which only the Bible gives an account for and provides the guarantee that this was, is and will remain. (and which you cannot know to be true by your own admission)

      “This is also the most important question I have for you: If I were to write a book that satisfies your criteria of a necessary / sufficient / consistent / self-attesting standard whatever, but it involves the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then why is my new fiction book wrong, why is your bible right, and how can you tell? “

      How could codemonkey who had a birth date and admits to being wrong about everything He knows write an infallible / authoritative book about the nature of reality, origin of universe, the future, specifics details of history that have never been falsified, an account for the concept of false, condition of man, solution of this condition and so on, and so on

      Is it possible to write a “fiction book” that satisfies “my criteria” of a necessary/sufficient/consistent self attesting standard which must rest on absolute truth?
      Truth is stranger than fiction – because – fiction has to make sense or the reader will reject it because it is incoherent. This testifies to the truth that the reader is an image bearer.
      “my criteria” and “your criteria” are in many ways the same (law of contradiction, rejection of pseudo-science, passion for discovering truth etc.)

      the Biblical acid test for recognizing false prophets (which you would be if this wasn’t hypothetical but you were to set out on this endeavor) is this:
      denial of Jesus coming in the flesh (man like you and me) 1 John 4:2 / 2 John 1:7
      The Bible gives the only possible avenue to not being deceived. For I like you could be wrong about everything I know – unless- (key word) I trust in the one who knows everything and He chooses to reveal things so I can know them for sure.
      Jesus himself said : “see to it that you are not deceived”…implying it is possible
      He also said “apart from me you can do nothing” thus including – seeing to it that I am not deceived.
      He also said “if anyone chooses to do God’s will he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.”
      and
      “if you hold to my teaching you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth and …”
      Knowledge is thus linked to obedience – to doing God’s will.
      If reality is what He says it is, If history is an expression of God’s will then it follows that He is the source of all knowledge (for which the Bible accounts Col 2:3) and can distribute it as He pleases.

      Our empirical adventures testify to the truth of this don’t they?

      Remember you have admitted to the total destruction of knowledge according to your worldview. (you could be wrong about everything you know)
      So heed carefully Jesus words, before replying with a posture of your own ultimacy.
      He is more certain than my ability to reason (since it depends on so many things that I cannot control as we discussed many times – uniformity/logic/reliability of senses/laws of science (like light refraction on stuff I observe)
      if you want to delve into the age of earth – lets go
      As you can see the Biblical worldview is like a system or unit. It must be presented as such.
      Just like your worldview.
      This is impossible to do without trust. We humans typically communicate only one concept at a time. And I will trust you to correctly remember underlying propositions that subsequent propositions rest on.

  10. codemonkey says

    Out of order replies for better context and flow.

    (and which you cannot know to be true by your own admission)

    [And many other quotes to the same effect]
    You’re conflating absolute certainty with knowledge. Knock that off. Knowledge with a high degree of confidence is still useful knowledge. Yes, I am flawed. “Science doesn’t know everything. Religion doesn’t know anything.” – aronra

    at one point everybody “knew” that blood letting saved lives (they even killed George Washington while clinging to this belief!

    Science is not a popularity contest. I don’t believe scientists because they call themselves scientists. I believe them when their stated reasons, specifically the purported evidence, are good scientific arguments, and because they have developed a trust based on past experience, past evidence, that I can trust them that they actually collected that evidence. I have confirmed several of the evidences myself. I’ve made a processor from scratch. I know they don’t just make stuff up.

    At no point did someone do a double blind study on the efficacy of blood letting, and if they did, they would find that it does not work (or it works only as good as a placebo). That is why we can safely dismiss it now, and why people should have dismissed it then. The people in the past claiming blood letting works had no purported evidence to back them up, and that’s why no one should believe it, and that’s why it wasn’t science.

    Your argument by analogy is wrong and useless. In effect, “blood letting works” is a religious claim, a scientific claim without evidence, and thus a claim on faith. This is an example in my favor, not yours, that we should trust the evidence, and not merely what some yahoos say.

    the Biblical acid test

    And what if I wrote a book that said all of that, exactly, except replaced “jesus” and “god” with “flying spaghetti monster”, and “kill your neighbors if they work on the sabbath” to “kill your neighbors if they burn pasta”? How could you tell the difference?

    Now you say there is evidence for an old earth. Really?
    what do people do that is empirical in nature when they “date” things ? (whether C14 dating/potassium-argon or whatever other types there are. And whether they are dating organic or non-organic material)

    what assumptions are made to attach an age to what they did above?
    what justification is there for these assumptions?

    If you like give me one or two “evidences” that “flatly contradict” a young earth and I will expose the unjustified assumptions that they are based on and yes the circularity of the claim:)

    For reference, here’s a good comprehension list:
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation

    But let’s focus on three of my favorites:

    1-
    Dendrochronology. Trees when they grow make tree rings. Tree rings are the result of differing rates of growth during the different seasons. Thus, if we see a tree with 5 rings, then that corresponds to at least 5 seasons. (Possibly more. There are recorded seasons where tree growth was minimal. The point is “at least that number of seasons, aka years”.) We can find petrified buried tree trunks, and we can match the alternating thick/thin segments like you would with the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. We have done this several times using completely separate sets of petrified trees from completely separate regions, and several times we have gotten chains of tree rings going back more than 6,000 years. There is one particular chain that goes back over 11,000 years.

    2-
    Distant starlight. We know the speed of light is unchanging and constant. Through the methods of parallax and type Ia supernova standard candles, we can tell the distance to these faraway objects. We know that there are stars more than 11,000 light years away, and we can see them, and thus light has been in route for over 11,000 years. If you want to quote c-decay theories, learn about SN 1987A.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A
    Because of the specific peculiarities of SN 1987A, we are able to measure the speed of light in the distant past, specifically the speed of light at the time of the supernova. Surprise! It’s the same value as today.

    How did we measure it? Before SN 1987A exploded, there was an existing cloud of gas surrounding it. We saw, on Earth, SN 1987A go boom. 8 months later, we saw, on Earth, light reflected off the pre-existing gas cloud. We can measure the apparent angle on Earth between the gas cloud and SN 1987A, and through high school trig you can measure the speed of light in the past. Moreover, any sort of attempt at adjusting the speed of light in the past, such as to make it faster, makes the trig just break and be inconsistent. The speed of light has been unchanging since the big bang.

    3-
    Consider plate tectonics, sea floor spreading, radioactive dating, and magnetic pole shifts. At certain undersea faults lines, the sea floor spreads as new crust is created. We can measure the current rate with lasers. This supports the “atheistic” age of the Earth. We can also do radioactive dating on the sea floor, and the results show very new crust next to the fault, and it says that the sea floor gets older as you get further away from the undersea fault. Finally, there are certain kinds of igneous rock that when they solidify, they form in such a way that their structure records the magnetic field in the area when it solidified. When we look at the sea floor, we see alternating bands of recorded magnetic field lines, north bands, then south bands, etc. The bands of recorded magnetic field lines are all parallel to undersea fault. Moreover, if you look at the rocks in a particular magnetic-band, and you compare the ages of the rocks in that band to its neighbor magnetic-bands, ages according to standard radioactive dating techniques, then you see that the bands form a partition of ages, non-overlapping age ranges, so that the upper bound of ages of one band is equal to the lower bound of ages of the neighbor band. Put another way, the undersea bands of recorded magnetic fields match perfectly with the ages as measured with radioactive dating.

    Summary-
    I put it to you: did these all happen by chance? Did god make it this to purposefully mislead us? And most importantly, I ask again: Are the falsifiable observable scientific predictions of “atheistic” science always correct, or do you believe there are observable reproducible falsifiable scientific claims which don’t match the “atheistic” science? Because “atheistic” science gave us the computers that we’re typing on. Cosmologists and astrophysics studying the stars far away from us gave us the MRI. Don’t you even try to call one science and the other not. It’s all science. It all makes falsifiable predictions, and improves our lives for the better.

    • murk says

      Dude i’m all for science – real science as you are
      it helps people – like you say MRI / antibiotics / gas furnaces

      we can play the “evidence game” until the cows come home
      you interpret in your worldview, and i in mine and nothing changes
      no one can change a worldview but God
      if i give you some information about the validity of Jesus resurrection you will reject it

      You cannot allow the possibility of a miracle in your worldview
      because that would point to God whom you have rejected beforehand

      You defend this (or adjust to keep your worldview in tact because it is the sacred cow that will not be sacrificed) by saying that would violate laws of physics / nature

      but if the Christian worldview is true miracles are not a problem since the laws of physics originate and are maintained by God

      So what you are really saying is – unless the Christian worldview is true miracles cannot happen

      again you cannot account for laws of physics / uniformity / knowledge etc. by your own admission

      Dating – the only empirical thing daters do is count molecules
      then they apply assumptions (amount of original parent material / no material added / no material subtracted / rate of decay constant – which cannot be empirically verified

      if you bring a bone to a C14 shop will they date it by itself?
      or will they request other information first?

      speed of light – i believe it is constant

      you have your own speed of light problem – horizon problem
      CBM temp similar to within 1/100 000 everywhere it is measured
      universe is assumed a minimum of 10x bigger than speed of light from big bang could have reached. so theories were presented to try to solve the problem (keep the sacred cow in tact) Alan Guth had his inflation theory – others presented that speed of light was faster in the past (both sides have tried this:)

      then there is the dark matter / dark energy
      i find this comical – +/- 80 percent of mass cannot be observed scientifically – and this to explain shapes of galaxies – wow.
      (spiral galaxies should have spun out of their spiral shape due to their mass AND assumed age (the sacred cow is safe again)
      it is inconceivable that the assumed age is less because then we would not have enough time to have evolved

      the point is – dark matter and dark energy are not empirically discovered (hence the name dark) or discoverable
      the religion of atheism required this miraculous metaphysical assumption
      (you guys have a lot of faith)

      do you know history of age of the earth theories and how they grew as complexity in life was understood in more detail?

      Dendrochronology: i admit i know very little about this field
      i do know that all that is done that is empirical is counting rings and measuring size of rings. (and then assumptions applied) i also know that trees can grow more than 1 ring / year. Oldest tree cannot be older than approx. 4500 years because of global flood (Noah)

      Book – because you plagiarized the original – counterfeit is dependent on real. God is the only one who can keep me from deception because He determines reality and He is good and powerful (everything else would make me like you – destroy all knowledge.

      “Knowledge with a high degree of confidence is still useful knowledge.”

      but you could be wrong about this (unless you’ve changed your position)

      wishing it wasn’t so does not change anything
      accusing me of conflating certainty with knowledge does not change that either
      is aronra your ultimate authority?

      you misunderstand evidence
      it never can be a trump card
      because your worldview is determined by your worldview
      and your worldview determines what is allowed as evidence
      and how it is interpreted

      i can present evidence that the earth was ripped apart by what we call mid ocean rifts during the global flood. The Bible states that the fountains of the deep opened first. and this caused continental drift. and the rate of speed of continents was faster around the time that this happened. and that the switching of polarity found in particles with magnetic properties in rocks around these rifts happened at the time of the flood. and that 80% of the world is covered by a 1000m or more of sedimentary rocks (deposited by water) which can be explained by the global flood….and so on…
      and you will laugh
      because you have decided beforehand that you are ultimate
      and in thus doing so you have forfeited not only certainty but all knowledge. You need to think about this – by making yourself ultimate you have made a claim about metaphysics of the universe – something you cannot support – it is arbitrary
      you also have made a claim about epistemology – that seeing is believing (yet this belief cannot be verified by sense perception)
      you oppose yourself at every turn

      Can you answer the question “how do we know” without answering the question “what do we know?”

      Is falsifiable one of the requirements of science?

  11. codemonkey says

    This is going to be a short post. I’ll be glad to answer some more of your questions, but you owe me this. Also, the rest of the conversation doesn’t matter unless you surrender this point.

    Here are two quotes from you, from the same post, from your most recent post.

    Dude i’m all for science – real science as you are
    it helps people – like you say MRI / antibiotics / gas furnaces

    you misunderstand evidence
    it never can be a trump card
    because your worldview is determined by your worldview
    and your worldview determines what is allowed as evidence
    and how it is interpreted

    Those two quotes are inconsistent. They are contradictory. They are logically inconsistency, and logically contradictory, both in the layman sense and the formal logic sense. If you believe that scientific evidence is not a trump card for scientific claims, then you are not for science. That would make you actually against science. If you are for science, then you will change your mind about scientific claims when presented with sufficient scientific evidence on the claim. It’s as simple as that, and there is little room for disagreement.

    I am concerned about what is true, and you are apparently not concerned about what is true. Either admit evidence is a trump card, or admit that you disagree with science and thus end our conversation.

    If there is no possibility of scientific evidence changing your mind on a scientific claim, then you are close-minded, dogmatic, and insane.
    “Insanity – doing the same thing over and over again, getting the same result each time, and expecting a different result the next time”.
    Equivalently: “Insanity – denying science works”.

    If you are close-minded, dogmatic, and insane, then I see no reason to continue this conversation. You will not change your position. I will learn nothing new from a close-minded, dogmatic, insane person, and you will likely not convince me that I am wrong because you apparently lack scientific evidence for your scientific claims.

    I will respond to nothing else from you ever again until this is resolved.

    • codemonkey says

      Sorry for the double post. In my anger and frustration, I didn’t quite see this angle of attack.

      you misunderstand evidence
      it never can be a trump card
      because your worldview is determined by your worldview
      and your worldview determines what is allowed as evidence
      and how it is interpreted

      Evidence and science is not dependent on your world view. If I drop a hammer, and every time I drop it falls, then it’s scientifically accurate to conclude that the hammer will fall the next time. Your world view simply doesn’t enter into it.

      Similarly, when we look at the evidence, we see everything consistent with a 4.5 billion year old Earth and a 13.7 billion year old universe.

      Thus, it is insane to believe that tomorrow we’ll uncover a bunch of evidence for a worldwide flood that happened about 4000 years ago. That is the definition of insanity. If you expect to find that evidence, even though every time we’ve ever looked we’ve found the opposite, then you are insane, ignorant, or deluded. If you do not expect to find that evidence but still believe in the flood myth, then you are still insane or deluded.

      Wherever I look, I always see evidence consistent with a 4.5 billion year old Earth and 13.7 billion year old universe, with unchanging laws of physics, and I never see evidence that contradicts it. Not a single reliable piece of evidence. Yes, this is a bold claim. And yes, I’ll be willing to discuss it and defend it, but only after you agree that it’s possible that scientific evidence can convince you that you are wrong about any and all of your beliefs concerning our shared reality, past, present, and future. Evidence can convince me, and often does convince me, that I am wrong about my beliefs of our shared reality. I am not close-minded, dogmatic, or insane. I am a scientist. Evidence is my trump card (for scientific questions).

  12. murk says

    there is no inconsistency:

    Science works (the hammer will always fall down)
    Because the laws of science are fixed
    You cannot account why the laws are fixed
    You cannot account for a system of truth in which you interpret the invariant characteristics of laws
    in fact you need the laws not to be fixed in order to explain the existence of anything (from matter / energy / space / you etc)

    Your worldview does not allow circularity
    Yet you operate with circularity all the time – in order for your worldview not to be sacrificed

    if you are for truth will you follow where it leads?

    Can science account for truth? (since it is always tentative)

    Science is man’s attempt to categorize / organize / make sense of the nature of reality in the physical world

    It is descriptive – it describes what is real – independent of man

    In your worldview it must be prescriptive (as you have alluded to on several occasions)

    Belief in blood letting was religious (in the narrow sense of the word : a system of belief that could be wrong)
    BUT it was masquerading around as SCIENCE
    The point is that apart from the only possible source of truth people can kill presidents while thinking they are saving them
    and that what the majority think (or the illusion of majority due to who receives the air time) could be wrong (like evolution)
    You attempt to avoid metaphysical commitments – all the while not realizing that this is impossible. The claim that there is no metaphysical reality is itself a metaphysical commitment
    You hold that unless it can be tested empirically it is not knowledge
    Yet this belief of yours cannot be tested empirically – thus should be rejected – but you keep on.
    Dating has only one empirical aspect (counting molecules)
    The remaining assumptions cannot be tested empirically thus must be rejected by your own standard!
    You try make yourself ultimate – supported by science – which itself is supported by assumptions that you have no justification for.
    Then you say I don’t need justifications – that you rely on axioms which cannot be verified
    You think you either run into infinite regress or circularity unless you stand on axiom as self attesting
    This is true only if the axiom is true.
    and you cannot know this unless you know everything – which you don’t (no person does)or know someone who does (you know His name:)
    Therefore you trust that you have correct information based upon probability
    But probability is only valid if the uniformity of nature is held as true FIRST
    Thus you are guilty of breaking your own standard of circularity

    Debating evidential things with you is a fruitless activity because your ultimate authority is you
    mine is God. and you refuse to see that you must invoke what you attempt to deny.

    (certainty / absolutes – God)
    You have made it clear that your rejection of truth is not an intellectual / logical / information problem
    It is a posture of your will – the intellect is ethical my friend (and yes the Bible accounts for this)
    Because you can break your own standards arbitrarily – just to try to keep the illusion of your own autonomy intact
    I hope He opens your eyes
    Murk

    thanks for the conversation (if we’re done)

    P.S. the insane one wonders what percentage of the earth is covered by 1000m or more of sedimentary rock (deposited by water)?

    how did this come to be?

    what percentage of fossil fuels have been discovered in sedimentary basins?

    how long does it take to form a barrel of oil (or millions of barrels?)

    and why are there sea life fossils across the mountain ranges of the world? even on top of Everest?

    how could they still be there within your worldview’s espoused rates of erosion and time frame?

    (If you answer we will watch you butcher science / reason in order to keep your worldview intact and to maintain the illusion of my insanity)

  13. murk says

    Sorry one more, i couldn’t resist

    “Science doesn’t know everything. Religion doesn’t know anything.” – aronra

    oh oh … another standard broken – certainty
    Latter statement is absolute no?
    (and was this knowledge gained empirically?:)

    but wait – codemonkey (or whatever atheist) does not know that for sure.

    must fix worldview make another adjustment that exposes my foolishness….
    “The fool says in his heart there is no God”

    thanks for demonstration

  14. codemonkey says

    You did not answer my question. You did not answer if there might exist sufficient scientific evidence that would convince you that you are wrong about the Earth being 6,000 years old.

    Instead, you continued to purposefully misinterpret my position, to strawman my position – willful dishonesty or unbelievable obtuseness.

    Answer my question, or the conversation is over.

    • murk says

      evidence assumes logic – logic is invariant/universal/non-material

      which can only be accounted for if the Bible is true
      The author is my ultimate authority

      So if “evidence” exists that contradicts the parts of the Bible that could be verified empirically, i either misunderstand it or the Bible is false

      if the Bible is false i could not know anything
      thus including the alleged evidence

      evidence is not foundational (for either of us)

      I can only know what He has revealed
      There is no such thing as an isolated fact

      Scientific method operates in the present – repeatable experiments on stuff (based upon the unscientific principle of uniformity among other things)

      Historical science is an impossibility

      The past is beyond the reach of science

      bones are bones and rocks are rocks – without a story attached to them all we can do is interpret based on our worldview

      Long answer i know
      if i answer your question with the short answer – then i would have to first make myself ultimate and then our differences are no more. I would be like you

      Thus evidence cannot exist that negates the global flood
      again before you laugh – think about what your ultimate authority is and why you admit certain “evidence” and reject others

      are we still playing after my answer?

      • codemonkey says

        You just admitted that there is nothing I could possibly show you that could convince you that you are wrong about the age of the Earth. Thus, you are dogmatic and close-minded.

        On the contrary, you could convince me that I am wrong about the age of the Earth with evidence and good scientific argument.

        I will not change your mind, you are likely to not change my mind because of your tenuous grasp on reality and the available evidence, and there appears nothing more for me to learn here.

        Actually, I might still be interested in one last line of attack, one last thing that I might be able to learn: I mentioned that I could write a new book by copying the bible, except with a global replace “god” for “FSM”, “jesus” for “son of FSM”, and “kill those who work on the sabbath” for “kill those who burn pasta”. I asked how you could tell the difference between my fiction book and your fiction book. I think you mentioned that mine is counterfeit and thus not true. First, how do you know it’s counterfeit? Because of scientific evidence? Second, I would argue that the bible is demonstrably counterfeit in many places, and thus it is also not true. What do you say to this?

        (Ignore my reference of the fallacy fallacy, copied from you, and used by me for brevity. Not relevant to the conversation at this point.)

  15. murk says

    re: FSM Bible

    no not because of scientific evidence
    rather because you are not the author of life and determiner or reality (or any human including me)

    i mean come on you admitted that you could be wrong about everything you know – how could you write a book about things that are beyond the limits of science (metaphysical / moral / epistemological / future / past – especially before man)

    Which are necessary preconditions to do science (i feel like a broken record:)

    in fact you would need to rely on the truth – which He revealed in the Bible in order to write your book (some of which i have written in previous posts in this conversation)

    So if you wrote your book you would be working for God though unwittingly

    re: dogmatic

    i’ve spent many years of my life denying certainty

    and i was certain of that certainty was elusive

    i was a mess and opposed myself

    You must concede that it is possible that the God of the Bible exists (all knowing / powerful / everywhere / creator / determiner of reality )

    if He exists – could He reveal things to people so we know them for sure?

    You seem quite dogmatic that i’m not to be dogmatic :)

    ” I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go;
    I will counsel you with my loving eye on you”

    Such is the God of the Bible for those who fear Him

    “Merely having an open mind is nothing; the object of opening a mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.” G.K. Chesterton

    He initiated my freedom – there is nothing i can do without Him, He made that clear me (and to all people)

    i am right that He is God and i am not

    I thus reason from Him
    It is foolish to reason to Him for that would be saying that He did not reveal things clearly – which He said He did
    “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.” Prov 1:7

    or in fancy speak He is the necessary precondition for reason to be reasonable. Or the guarantor of the law of contradiction and identity

    if this is how you define dogmatic – then i’m proud of it

    So we gonna discuss the flood? i would like to.

    You got me thinking of a concise answer to your question re: changing my mind if evidence of a billions year old earth surfaced.

    Yes i would – because if He changed i’m done, we’re all done and it would not matter what we do at that point.

    However He has revealed that He does not change
    and this is therefore certain

  16. murk says

    “Second, I would argue that the bible is demonstrably counterfeit in many places, and thus it is also not true. What do you say to this?”

    an example would be nice.

    How can there be absolute truth in your worldview?
    Are you borrowing from my worldview to make your point?

    You go ahead and try to destroy the book that so many powerful people in the past have tried to destroy.

    Let me know how you make out

  17. codemonkey says

    You didn’t answer my questions. I claim that the bible was written by some ignorant goat herders, who are not the authors of life. In fact, I know a lot more than those ignorant goat herders. How do you know that the bible was written by god and variant wasn’t? What if I told you I saw the arch-pasta servant Gabe who told me that the bible had a couple errors I correct in my version.

    How do you know that my version is not the real bible? Did you use personal testimony? Because that’s science. That’s using evidence to reach a conclusion.

  18. murk says

    “I know a lot more than those ignorant goat herders.”

    “could you be wrong about everything you know? – Yes.”

    if the Bible was false i would be like you and not know anything
    as you so aptly demonstrated with your own words as quoted above.

    can’t navigate without an external reference point – (north star/GPS satellites/light house etc.)

    can’t know anything for certain without a source of certainty – and you not only admitted but demonstrate this nature of reality quite well

    There is hope – He loves you

  19. murk says

    “Did you use personal testimony? Because that’s science. That’s using evidence to reach a conclusion.”

    Did you use the empirical method to determine that knowledge is gained by the sense perception?

    You are starting to concern me a little – personal testimony is science?
    The perhaps you would do well to read the personal testimonies of John, Mark, Matthew and Luke. Lots of evidence of Jesus real life.

    if the Bible is false we cannot know anything (as you know oh my another contradiction in your worldview)

    if the Bible is false we cannot prove anything

    if the Bible is false the term false is meaningless

    if the Bible is false meaning has no meaning:)

    impossibility of the contrary

    you deny possibility of certainty – (and of that you are certain:) Because you recognize that to know anything you need to know everything. OR someone who does who is good and kind and chooses to reveal things to us so we know them for sure

    Whom you deny

    As long as you “know” yet “don’t know” that you are right and i am wrong “for certain” yet “not for certain” you’re in a world of hurt

    i know you are an unbeliever and thus to look at this honestly you would have to accept and deny your own ultimacy at the same time and that is abhorrent to you. (now why is this abhorrent? where does that come from?)

  20. codemonkey says

    if the Bible is false we cannot prove anything

    So what? It does not follow from that that the bible must be true. It may desirable to know something, anything, but it does not follow that we can know something. The desirability of a thing has absolutely nothing to do with whether that thing is true.

    You still haven’t answered my question how you can tell the difference between your bible and my FSM bible.

    • murk says

      You need to read what i wrote, not read into what i wrote

      “if the Bible is false we cannot prove anything”

      has nothing to do with desire – it means what it says

      it has to do with epistemological possibility

      necessary precondition to knowledge

      as opposed to your worldview where you destroy all knowledge

      ““could you be wrong about everything you know? – Yes.”

      (quote by codemonkey)

      • codemonkey says

        You still haven’t answered my question how you can tell the difference between your bible and my FSM bible.

  21. murk says

    i did answer – along with other details – do you reject my answer or not understand it?

    “if the Bible is false we cannot know anything (as you know oh my another contradiction in your worldview)

    if the Bible is false we cannot prove anything

    if the Bible is false the term false is meaningless

    if the Bible is false meaning has no meaning:)

    impossibility of the contrary”

    above from Oct 29

    or put another way – No God to guarantee / sustain uniformity of nature – no science for codemonkey

  22. murk says

    or put another way – by what standard would i measure the validity of any document?

    -well it would have to be honest – now why is lying wrong?
    -it would need to be void of contradictions – now where do we account for that?
    it would have to explain origins – FSM Bible – author codemonkey – birthdate of codemonkey __/__/19__ so author not qualified to write eyewitness account of origin
    - there can only be one coherent book – you’re a little late

    As stated in 1st line you would have to borrow from principles in the Bible (precepts/ordinances/decrees/laws/statutes/commands/absolutes) to write your book

    i have answered this question in many ways
    i’m thinking you cannot understand what i am saying

  23. codemonkey says

    Well, what if I said this. If my FSM Bible is false we cannot know anything. If the FSM Bible is false we cannot prove anything. If my FSM Bible is false the term “false” is meaningless. If my FSM Bible is false meaning has no meaning. My Lord the Flying Spaghetti Monster guarantees and sustains the uniformity of nature. My Lord the Flying Spaghetti Monster tells me that science works, except when it contradicts holy Pasta scripture. I agree – if the FSM Bible is false then by what would I measure the validity of any document, including your jesus bible? My FSM Bible is obviously devoid of any contradictions. The FSM Bible clearly describes that His Holiness made the world in six days and rested on the seventh. My FSM Bible is divinely inspired, and your jesus bible is actually just a knock-off of my FSM Bible. I know it because my FSM Bible says so.

    I’m pretty sure any possible argument you use against my new position I can use against yours.

    You nee to kneel to your real Pasta Lord, or be damned to Pasta hell.

    • murk says

      for someone who could be wrong about everything he knows,
      and someone who states that axioms don’t need justification

      you sure are making a lot of knowledge claims and requesting a lot of justifications from me

      think of the peace you could have if the standards you applied to yourself you also applied to me

      it would of course require that you relinquish your futile attempt to make yourself your highest authority – something you are not willing to do

      are metaphysical commitments avoidable?

  24. codemonkey says

    @murk

    for someone who could be wrong about everything he knows,
    and someone who states that axioms don’t need justification

    [Sarcasm:] I changed my mind. You convinced me that the FSM bible is needed to ground my logic.

    You’ve dodged the question for 3 posts already. Are you going to dodge it for another 3? I claim my FSM bible is the truth, and your bible is the counterfeit, a human-made derivative of the true FSM bible. Can you tell which bible is the true bible, and how did you determine it?

    • murk says

      Only the Bible provides the necessary preconditions to know anything at all

      it accounts for:

      uniformity of nature
      immaterial, universal, invariant laws
      why the future will be like the past
      existence of the nature of reality
      rationality of man
      origin of universe / life / intelligence / beauty / morals

      (i can give you the verses if you like)

      All of which you need for the concept of proof to have any meaning.

      and also all of which you need to know anything

      You must presuppose God to deny Him

      You are not innocent – to deny that He exists is a reach far beyond your only claimed avenue to knowledge (empiricism)
      It is an arbitrary belief that you hold in a futile attempt to maintain autonomy – you break your own standard rather than sacrificing the sacred cow

      this reveals that you are deeply religious
      but since your religion is arbitrary and self refuting it is false

      Yet even empiricism is impossible in a chance universe
      You must borrow from the Bible even to justify empiricism

      Again if the Bible was false you could not know anything
      (as you admitted)
      But even that is a knowledge claim – can you see the futility?

      Does truth exist?

      How does the FSM Bible account for it?

  25. murk says

    By what authority do you make the claim that your FSM Bible is true and the Bible is false?

    By what standard can you measure what is absolutely true?

  26. codemonkey says

    (The FSM is the bible is the same as your derivative faked copied bible, and thus any argument you can apply to your jesus bible applies to mine, except of course that you need to worship the FSM and it is a sin to burn pasta, not work on the sabbath.)

    You still haven’t answered my question. What justifications do you have to dismiss the true authoritative original FSM bible and prop up that sham of a book the jesus bible?

    • murk says

      This is getting ridiculous, you are exposing your foolishness at every turn

      i have answered your question – what we need is a psychological explanation of codemonkey

      By what standard do you “know” that the FSM Bible is the same as the Bible?

      remember – you have admitted that you could be wrong about everything you know

      and that the standard must utilize sense perception only
      (according to your claim)

      so be consistent (if you are not then there is no point for me to continue)
      have fun

      • codemonkey says

        I changed my position in order to argue a point. Try to keep up. For the purposes of argument, I am now adopting every single position you have, every single position, except I regard the “FSM bible” as the one true source of knowledge, and your fake jesus bible as a human-made derivative sham. Am I wrong? Do you know if I am wrong? If so, how do you know this?

        • codemonkey says

          Sorry for double post.

          I would think that it’s clear, but it’s evidently not. I’m not sure if you’re a troll, or just incredibly thick, so let me try it like this.

          The jesus bible is a fiction book written by man. The FSM bible is a fiction book written by man. A priori, I have no reason to favor one over the other. Through careful copy-paste construction, all of your arguments apply equally well to both. However, they both cannot be true – either burning pasta is a sin or it is not. If you cannot account for why one of them is true, and the other is not, without referring to the text of either (because they are the same ala the copy-paste construction), then I have no reason to take you any more seriously than a real Pastafarian, because your arguments would also prove that Pastafarianism is true and the only legitimate basis for knowledge.

          Come on now. I’ve explained my question quite thoroughly. I would appreciate if you answer it please. Do you know if your jesus bible is the right one, and the FSM bible is the wrong one? And if so how do you know this?

  27. murk says

    Am I wrong? Do you know if I am wrong? If so, how do you know this?

    Well the short answer is that you have admitted it.
    Yet even this is a knowledge claim. (thus you demonstrate that you depend God to assert anything but suppress this truth)

    to know anything requires either that a human knows everything
    or someone who does

    no one can know everything this leaves only one option

    there is only one who knows everything and He has chosen to reveal himself to us in a way that we know for sure – His name is Jesus (John 1:1, Col 2:3, John 15:5)

    to argue against Him requires presupposing Him first, as you have amply demonstrated in previous posts.

    As i have previously noted, you must assume:

    uniformity of nature
    validity of induction
    universal, immaterial, invariant absolute laws of logic
    reliability of your memory
    rationality
    absolute moral laws
    and more non-material things

    to do the empirical science that you hold as the only avenue to knowledge.

    Yet all these things that you must hold as true are metaphysical
    they are law like in nature and beyond human influence (you believe these things – thus confirming the concepts only made intelligent by the Bible – trust, belief, uniformity, rationality)

    a material universe cannot account for these things
    yet you know they are true because you are made in His image

    a material chance universe is a place where anything can happen
    thus there can be no uniformity

    in a material universe the concept of meaning is meaningless
    yet you are communicating what you mean to me
    there is no way to get to meaning without purpose,
    there is no way to get to purpose without a starting purpose and a greater purpose for the universe

    you are schizophrenic, you must believe two opposing things at the same time (so you confirm the Bible that the fool says in his heart that there is no God)

    Only Jesus died for our sins and rose for our justification

    your worldview if followed consistently would destroy all knowledge, it cannot make sense of anything – it is futile and absurd (for which the Bible accounts)
    Eph 4:17-18, Romans 1: 18-21, Col 2:3-4, Prov 1:7 and many more

    the FSM by definition (i know it is hypothetical)

    Flies –
    requires gravity – as default position.
    requires certain force of gravity
    Requires atmosphere of a certain density
    requires immaterial laws of aerodynamics
    requires validity of law of contradiction
    (the only way to overcome gravity is to operate in a different law – and there is no 3d option – you operate in one or the other)

    Spaghetti – origin likely 12th century – made of matter, made by humans – not qualified to be authoritative, not around to provide eyewitness account of beginning of time/space/matter

    monster – according to your authority (Wikipedia) it is a fictional creature
    yet even here you have a problem – the true definition of fiction is : not true
    so you need truth to understand what non-truth is
    absolute truth must have a guarantor

    any information must have an intelligent source

    read past posts to refresh your memory (memory requires uniformity to be valid, accurate storage system, retrieval system, date and time stamps – for which no one can account for apart from God)

    He has revealed Himself to all people, thus including codemonkey, (Psalm

    You either profess or suppress the truth

    at base the intellect is ethical, you also exemplify this by refusing to answer my question because you know that this will reveal your foolishness, yet you keep badgering me about how i can know that FSM bible (which is a non existant book) is not true – and you reject my answers without justification

    “Every one on the side of truth listens to me” Jesus

    you can build your house of pseudo knowledge on whatever foundation but Jesus and when the tests come your house will crash down. which has happened in this debate – yet you keep on in denial. Matt 7:24-27

    By what standard do you “know” that the FSM Bible is the same as the Bible?

    any chance that you are going to answer my question or is this a one way conversation now?

    • codemonkey says

      By what standard do you “know” that the FSM Bible is the same as the Bible?

      Reading comprehension bro. I already explained it. Let me explain again. I just wrote it down by copy-pasting the fake jesus bible, and fixing a few verses, and using a global text-replace feature of my text editor to replace god and jesus with FSM and Son Of FSM.

      • murk says

        by what standard do you know the Bible is fake?

        it can’t be you because you could be wrong about everything you know, so what is it?

        you may squirm but all knowledge is hidden in Christ

  28. codemonkey says

    you are schizophrenic, you must believe two opposing things at the same time

    You are a retard.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_sake_of_argument
    I sometimes adopt the FSM now “for the sake of argument”, that is to pursue it to see what possible rebuttals you might have.

    blah blah blah FSM can’t exist because science blah blah blah

    So, you’re using science to determine the FSM is false? That’s what you did! You started talking science when you starting talking about gravity, about how you know when spaghetti came to be invented, and so on. I can use science too! God can’t have a mind because minds only come from physical brains. The bible can’t be true because the evidence indicates that many stories of the bible, such as most of genesis, is a complete fabrication. The world is older than 6,000 years.

    So, you’re going to use science to determine whether the FSM bible is true, but not the jesus bible? That sounds like a load of crap to me.

    • murk says

      schizophrenia note has nothing to do with FSM – read context in post

      i even wrote “i know it is hypothetical” i know you are using this for argument sake

      read post re: necessary preconditions for science – for which i can account through Christ – you don’t even know if they are true
      you can absolutely not tolerate an absolute (schizo)for that would necessitate God.

      “minds only come from physical brains” and i suppose you “know” this metaphysical claim through science?

    • murk says

      and i to, used science “for arguments sake” and look at your response.

      1. no response to argument
      2. you use science to “know” yet “not know” (your admission – this is also schizo) that evidence indicates Bible is fabricated
      this statement requires some underlying things to be universally true:

      evidence presupposes metaphysical universals: uniformity/logic/reliability of senses/reason/reality of external world/ which only God can sustain

      fabricated – implies fabrications are false – requires absolute moral law of right and wrong – which only God can sustain

      and you cannot know in your worldview, thus must deny

      3. “the Bible can’t be true” requires absolute, invariant, universal law of contradiction – which you must deny and cannot account for – Bible can – God does not lie / we are made in His image / we are not to lie

      4. world is older than 6000 years. i asked this before but you did not answer: what do people do that is empirical in nature when they “date” things? what do they have to do that is not?

    • murk says

      and i to, used science “for arguments sake” and look at your response.

      1. no response to argument
      2. you use science to “know” yet “not know” (your admission – this is also schizo) that evidence indicates Bible is fabricated
      this statement requires some underlying things to be universally true:

      evidence presupposes metaphysical universals: uniformity/logic/reliability of senses/reason/reality of external world/ which only God can sustain

      fabricated – implies fabrications are bad – requires absolute moral law of right and wrong – which only God can sustain

      and you cannot know or allow absolute moral law in your worldview, thus you must deny this claim (another Schizo thing)

      3. “the Bible can’t be true” requires absolute, invariant, universal law of contradiction – which you must deny and cannot account for – Bible can – God does not lie / we are made in His image / we are not to lie. another Schizo problem – you must assume the Bible to be true to deny it.

      4. world is older than 6000 years. i asked this before but you did not answer: what do people do that is empirical in nature when they “date” things? what do they have to do that is not?

      as you continue to demonstrate;no matter what you do – you work for Him – “For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth.” 2 Cor 13

      be so much better if you professed instead of suppressed

      this is truly incredible – an atheist jumps over a christian for using science. and then turns around and uses science as an ultimate authority in an attempt to “prove” God / Bible are false. All the while not admitting that the only reason people can do science is because God made and sustains order…
      perhaps it would do you well to re-read my many posts on metaphysical absolutes that are required for us to do science

      • says

        evidence presupposes metaphysical universals: uniformity/logic/reliability of senses/reason/reality of external world/ which only God can sustain

        fabricated – implies fabrications are bad – requires absolute moral law of right and wrong – which only God can sustain

        Things that have not been shown to exist cannot be said to “sustain” anything. We know a material universe exists. We do not know your God exists. Present evidence that your God exists first, then we can talk about whether there’s any validity to your claim that only God can sustain things like moral laws, reason, etc. etc. (which establishing his existence would not do by default).

        • murk says

          “Things that have not been shown to exist cannot be said to “sustain” anything.”

          and what do you have to believe that exists, that cannot be shown to exist, to make this statement?

          So before Volta, Franklin, Faraday et al showed that electricity existed, did electricity not “sustain” them? (electrical systems in human bodies required for earthly life)

          You do know God exists because He made it plain to you

  29. codemonkey says

    If you want me to respond to questions, try to not just repeat yourself with these massive text spam walls of preaching. Instead, try engaging in an honest conversation, and not asking questions I’ve already answered numerous times.

    If you cannot come up with an argument against the FSM bible which does not apply equally well to the jesus bible, then this is what we call a reductio ad absurdum.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

  30. murk says

    call a reductio ad absurdum.

    back to absolute/immaterial/invariant laws of logic are we?

    in a material universe?

    i’ll let you know if i figure out a way to run this through the test tubes :)

  31. murk says

    “massive text spam walls of preaching”

    ok – i wasn’t trying to preach – rather offer justification
    i’ll keep em short from now on

    i still struggle with how you know that He does not exist, that is a lot to know – it probes into the very nature of reality and limits of possibility – and you must hold a standard that is more authoritative than Him to have this knowledge. Using induction based on rationality of yourself is a bit of a stretch no?

    “the universe is a big place, perhaps the biggest”

  32. codemonkey says

    i still struggle with how you know that He does not exist – Let me be extraordinarily clear on this point. If “He exists” implies the Earth and universe was made 6,000 years ago, then science flatly contradicts that, in example: we know there are stars out there whose light has been traveling for billions of years to reach us. Thus, I see an apparent contradiction in your world view. If you use science, but science contradicts the plain meaning of the jesus bible, then what have you? On the other hand, if instead it’s “he exists” refers to one of those nebulous untestable ideas of god, then I reject the claim he does exist, and I reject the claim he does not exist. I am militant agnostic; I do not know, and you do not know either.

    I am also struggling. I am struggling to understand why you pick the jesus bible and not my FSM bible. Previously you tried to answer by denouncing the FSM bible with science, but by your own reasoning you’re not allowed to use science to disprove the jesus bible, so why are you allowed to use science to disprove the FSM bible? This seems to be classic “begging the question” (assuming the jesus bible in order to disprove the FSM bible in order to prove that the jesus bible is true), unjustified double standards, and otherwise basic intellectual dishonesty. This is the question I’ve been asking for like 7 posts now, in various ways. That you seem to actually care and you are actually engaging in a discussion is the only reason I’m still here, a glimmer of hope that you might answer this question to my satisfaction.

    • murk says

      i still struggle with how you know that He does not exist – Let me be extraordinarily clear on this point. If “He exists” implies the Earth and universe was made 6,000 years ago,

      Correct – many Christians miss this inescapable conclusion

      then science flatly contradicts that, in example: we know there are stars out there whose light has been traveling for billions of years to reach us. Thus, I see an apparent contradiction in your world view.

      Yet even big bang proponents have the horizon problem, which I mentioned in an earlier post. This led to wild theories (inflation or C was faster in the past) in an attempt to resolve the problem.

      Stars came on day 4,

      Thus could not be billions of years

      Do we “know” it was billions of years to travel? Or are there a host of specific assumptions required to ascertain this? (not including the assumptions required to do science)

      At what speed does gravity travel? (is it faster than C?)

      If you use science, but science contradicts the plain meaning of the jesus bible, then what have you?

      A problem. But it does not. Science is impossible unless the Bible is true.

      On the other hand, if instead it’s “he exists” refers to one of those nebulous untestable ideas of god, then I reject the claim he does exist,

      I agree with you here

      and I reject the claim he does not exist. I am militant agnostic; I do not know, and you do not know either.

      This makes sense or you would have the problem of proving a universal negative

      I am also struggling. I am struggling to understand why you pick the jesus bible and not my FSM bible.

      not sure why you don’t accept my answers
      1. you are the author – fallible human
      2. it is not necessary
      3. you require the Bible to be true to write FSM bible
      4. it is a copy

      Previously you tried to answer by denouncing the FSM bible with science, but by your own reasoning you’re not allowed to use science to disprove the jesus bible, so why are you allowed to use science to disprove the FSM bible?

      Did it for arguments sake (jumped into your worldview and showed it fails on its own terms)

      This seems to be classic “begging the question” (assuming the jesus bible in order to disprove the FSM bible in order to prove that the jesus bible is true), unjustified double standards, and otherwise basic intellectual dishonesty.

      By what authority do you know that “begging the question” is absolutely fallacious?

      re: unjustified double standards – you told me you don’t need justification for your axioms.
      Why the double standard?

      This is the question I’ve been asking for like 7 posts now, in various ways. That you seem to actually care and you are actually engaging in a discussion is the only reason I’m still here, a glimmer of hope that you might answer this question to my satisfaction.

      I have answered before and now again in this post

      • murk says

        “For the purposes of argument, I am now adopting every single position you have, every single position, except I regard the “FSM bible” as the one true source of knowledge, and your fake jesus bible as a human-made derivative sham. Am I wrong? Do you know if I am wrong? If so, how do you know this?”

        post from Nov 6…follow up
        if you answer what the key terms in your substitution approach you will have your answer.

        what is knowledge?
        what is wrong ?
        what standard do you utilize to assert Jesus Bible is fake?

        funny you use a substitution mechanism – because Jesus is my substitute.

        Did FSM die and raise from the dead for all mankind?

  33. codemonkey says

    Sadly, we’re still going in circles, so I think this really will be my last post.

    In the interests of fairness, here are answers for you:

    Yet even big bang proponents have the horizon problem, which I mentioned in an earlier post. This led to wild theories (inflation or C was faster in the past) in an attempt to resolve the problem.
    Same old same old. It is improper to reject big bang theory merely because it does not explain everything. It explains some things, and it does so well, and correctly. The evidence says so.

    Do we “know” it was billions of years to travel? Or are there a host of specific assumptions required to ascertain this? (not including the assumptions required to do science)
    Why yes, as a matter of fact I do know that it took billions of years to travel. I know it’s been a week or two since I last mentioned it, but let me do it again. SN 1987A. “SN” supernova, “1987″ observed in 1987, “A” first supernova observed in that year. From the top: the first supernova observed in the year 1987. Because of the specifics of this particular supernova, SN 1987A, we are able to measure the speed of light in the past as it was hundreds of thousands of years ago. When measured, it is the same speed as today. Thus, we can conclude that that particular supernova happened at least 168,000 years before present day. So no, it’s not based on unsubstantiated assumptions. It’s demonstrable fact.

    At what speed does gravity travel? (is it faster than C?)
    Relativity predicts that the effects of gravity travel at the speed of light. Google “gravity waves”.

    I am also struggling. I am struggling to understand why you pick the jesus bible and not my FSM bible.

    not sure why you don’t accept my answers
    1. you are the author – fallible human

    (For the sake of argument:) I didn’t say that. I said the FSM bible is the inspired word of god, and it just happens to have been written down by me, just like your jesus bible.

    2. it is not necessary
    3. you require the Bible to be true to write FSM bible
    4. it is a copy

    The hell do you mean here? It’s as necessary as your jesus bible. It has the same text. It effectively has the same history – written down by some dude, and the dude says that it is the authoritative inspired word of god/FSM. (For the sake of argument:) Furthermore, I said that my FSM bible is actually the true version. Humans in the first century AD corrupted it by not writing it down correctly, and that’s how you get the fake jesus bible. So, actually, mine is the original, and yours is the derivative copy. Want to dispute that? The only methods I can see that you might use to dispute it are: 1- Faith that yours is the original. 2- Unjustified double standards that yours is better or something (you seem to like doing this). Or 3- Deducing that I wrote the FSM bible from thin air and I was not inspired by god. However, you would have to use science and evidence to do so, and if you can use science and evidence against the FSM bible, I can use it against the jesus bible.

    Did FSM die and raise from the dead for all mankind?
    (For the sake of argument:) Yes. It says so right here in my FSM bible.

    I have answered before and now again in this post
    No you haven’t. Until you can put forth an argument against the FSM bible that I cannot turn around against the jesus bible, as I have done many times now, no you have not. Your “logical” arguments apply equally well to the jesus bible and the FSM bible, and that is why I dismiss you. Until you actually answer my question, you are a hypocrite, using unjustified double standards, and begging the question.

    PS:
    By what authority do you know that “begging the question” is absolutely fallacious?
    If you were a reasonable person, you would at least agree that “begging the question” is a fallacy. You might argue that you need to justify a rule against using it, but you would at least agree that its use is bad. But you didn’t do that. You did not explicitly and unambiguously agree that “begging the question” is bad. What you did do was imply that perhaps “begging the question” is an allowed debate tactic. Normally, that might just be a slip of the tongue, an accident, or perhaps an unintended implication. However, you’ve argued several related points many times now. You have argued the equivalent many times now. In other words, you have argued that you don’t need to construct valid arguments, many times. That means you are willfully dishonest or unbelievably insane, and given the length of this conversation, apparently irredeemably so.

    tl;dr fuck you

    Good day sir.

  34. murk says

    man your getting edgy as you dodge

    if the sun were to stop burning right now when would it get dark on earth?

    if the sun were to lose all of its mass right now when would the earth break from its orbit?

    Does relativity assume and require instantaneous speed of gravity?

    i cant believe that a sense perception adherent is arguing for the primacy of his FSM bible which does not even exist.

    If you can cut loose from any requirement of evidence why do you even speak?

  35. murk says

    re; if begging the question is absolutely fallacious…

    you did not answer if it was or not

    my answer is yes

    your answer is ______

    a simple yes or a no would suffice

    i’ll even let you avoid the authority bit – it must really unsettle you

  36. codemonkey says

    Against my better judgment…

    murk: Does relativity assume and require instantaneous speed of gravity?
    I just answered that, explicitly, in my most recent post, the one to which you replied. Here it is:
    codemonkey: Relativity predicts that the effects of gravity travel at the speed of light. Google “gravity waves”.

    I do not believe you are a troll (perhaps my mistake). I believe you are sincere, but that you are not honestly engaging in the conversation. I believe you are not reading my posts for comprehension, instead only skimming them enough to use formulaic rebuttals from a script. This is not an isolated example. Is it endemic to this conversation. This is why I am done with you.

    As some Muslims say, “lying is ok if you’re lying for god”. I want you to look in the mirror, and see if you’re ok with what you see.

    • murk says

      ok, i appreciate the dialog, thank you

      i hope that you will come to know certainty

      re: speed of gravity – there is a distinction between gravity waves and the force of gravity (if you think of a buoy chained to the ocean floor – the anchor and chain are the force of gravity, the buoy an object. if anchor moves – buoy moves with delay – ripples caused buoy moving causes ripples in water – analogous to gravity waves which have a delay or speed limit)

      Wikipedia uses confusing words but still has to admit the instant speed of gravity

      ,” and do not show any speed of light delay effects, as seen from bodies moving with regard to them.”
      “In other words, since the gravitoelectric field is, by definition, static and continuous, it does not propagate.”
      source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity

      there are 2 frameworks in which to interpret GR: geometric and field

      geometric has to invoke conservation of angular momentum to explain the experiments – which violates causality
      Field solves the problem by assuming an instantaneous speed of force of gravity (not waves)

      So GR does assume infinite speed of gravity, irony is that it also is used to explain that max possible speed is light speed

      You take care, and thanks again

      • codemonkey says

        Here’s the short version:

        You’re aware of the energy mass equivalence relation, E = m c^2, right? That’s part of a bigger thing. Relativity predicts that the energy, “apparent mass”, and velocity changes if you change your relative speed. Lorentz transformations and all. What that quote is trying to say that if you change your speed, then you see a different gravity field. It “changes instantly”. That is, it doesn’t change at all. You just see it differently due to your new speed. That’s all the wiki page is saying.

        I don’t know how you got it into your head that changes in gravity propagate faster than light according to GR. Simply not true.

        See: This fact sometimes causes confusion about the “speed” of such static fields, which sometimes appear to change infinitely quickly when the changes in the field are mere artifacts of the motion of the observer, or of observation.

        You really ought to learn about a thing before you dismiss it.

        • murk says

          So if gravity fields can “appear” to propagate instantaneously then what of sense perception as the only avenue to knowledge?

          are you telling me things are not what they appear? Our senses could deceive us?

          i think we may be working toward some common ground here…

          if the sun vanished in a moment when would the earth’s orbit change?

          • codemonkey says

            if the sun vanished in a moment when would the earth’s orbit change?

            Let’s make it semi-realistic. Let’s suppose some dark object, a burned out star, a black hole, whatever, hit our sun, at a right angle to our current position and the sun, so that it knocks the sun cleanly out of the solar system. Let’s further suppose it’s traveling at some ludicrously high speed, like .999 c.

            We can speak of simultaneous events with respect to a particular inertia frame. The Earth is close enough to an inertia frame for this discussion. We can then talk about the precise moment in time in human standard Earth time when the sun was impacted and knocked clean out of the solar system. In simple terms, we could say there was a human spacecraft close to the sun, at rest relative to the sun and Earth (as they both have roughly the same inertia frame for the purposes of this thought experiment), and it had its clock synchronized with the clocks on Earth.

            This is what an observer near the sun on that spacecraft might see. Because the incoming object is traveling at such a high speed, there would be far less warning than one might expect. As it travels almost as fast as the speed of light, its arrival would be very close after the first sight of it. It would then impact the sun, and with our silly pool/billiards physics here, it and the sun would then leave the solar system at very high speed.

            An observer on the Earth would see this. It might see light coming from the incoming object, but again due to the high speed of the incoming object, it would have little advance warning. An observer on Earth might also notice that starlight from other stars was blocked or bended and lensed due to the presence of some dark object. He might even be able to predict when the object hits the sun according to the clocks in the sun’s and Earth’s shared inertial frame. However, if he were to track his orbit compared to some other “fixed” objects, such as nearby stars, he would notice that the path of the Earth would remain unchanged for roughly 8.5 minutes. Only then would the Earth’s path change. Only then would the Earth stop experiencing gravity from the sun. Why 8.5 minutes? Because in the inertial frame of the Earth, the sun is about 8.5 light-minutes away.

            An observer on Earth could also predict the path of Venus according to the premise that its orbit becomes a straight line simultaneous with the time of impact, and he could predict the path of Venus according to the premise that its orbit becomes a straight line simultaneous with roughly 6 minutes after the time of impact (because Venus is 6 light-minutes from the sun). These would be different paths. Minutes after impact, when light from Venus reaches Earth, the observer would see that its orbit changed according to the premise that Venus’s path became a straight line simultaneous with 6 minutes after impact.

            My apologies if I got any of that wrong. I don’t even have a minor in physics, though I was close.

            -

            In other words, changes in the gravity field propagate from the change of position of mass only at the speed of light. Here’s the simple rule: if you could transmit a signal faster than a straight line beam of light, then you’re breaking relativity. If you could detect the movement of mass simultaneous with its movement by detecting the simultaneous change of the gravity field, then you just transmitted information faster than a straight line beam of light, and that disallowed by relativity.

          • murk says

            i like your very descriptive hypothetical account of taking out the sun….

            if no sun how can gravity propagate for 8.5 min?

            g=w/m if m=0 we have a problem….

          • codemonkey says

            if no sun how can gravity propagate for 8.5 min?

            I don’t know. It is, because that’s what the evidence says. The evidence very much supports the model of General Relativity.

          • murk says

            i hear you

            if the evidence appears to support a theory in many other accounts – then it should not be given up for a specific case where it is currently unknown

            in your account of some massive object entering our solar system at a speed near C – our orbit would have changed by its
            mass prior to it colliding with the sun – approx. 99% of the mass of the solar system resides in the sun so this object would need to have a lot of mass. (interestingly only about 2% of the angular momentum of the solar system resides in the sun – since distance from centre is one of AM variables)

            but it does expose that evidence is non-negotiable
            (and i agree – i’m not into “voodoo” science or thought)

            and evidence presupposes logic
            and logic must be universal, immaterial and invariant

            to reason this must be held as true
            but cannot be true in an ever changing chance universe

            again showing that God made it plain for us humans

          • codemonkey says

            Wasting my time, but — That’s nice. You still haven’t explained why you believe in jesus and the bible as opposed to any other demonstrably fictional god. There is an infinite number of describable gods which fulfill your criteria, and not all involve the commandment against idolatry, for example. I could invent one right now, as I have, and you have no good reason to choose one over the other except by sensory experience of our shared reality, aka evidence, aka science. Which means you use science to decide whether the bible is true. Except you say you can’t. Hence the contradiction in your world view.

  37. murk says

    “I could invent one right now, as I have, and you have no good reason to choose one over the other except by sensory experience of our shared reality, aka evidence, aka science. Which means you use science to decide whether the bible is true.”

    my friend you need to read over our conversation

    i have demonstrated many times that science is supported by things that cannot be empirically verified

    (uniformity, laws of logic, reliability of memory, honesty of data reporters, etc.)

    and these things cannot be accounted for apart from the God of the Bible

    He is my starting point – “all treasures of knowledge and wisdom are hidden in Christ” the bible says and it is my authority

    what is yours?

    your hypothetical created “god” is not necessary

    uniformity is (for you to have the possibility of knowledge)

    now how can you account for uniformity in your worldview?

    • says

      The “laws of logic” can be empirically verified. To say otherwise is foolish. They are “laws” in the descriptive, not proscriptive sense, and simply describe conditions that exist in reality. Even if there were no intelligent minds anywhere to observe the conditions the laws describe, those conditions would be true: A would still equal A, and still not equal not-A. That we have descriptive “laws” at all to explain the conditions is because we have empirically verified the conditions. The God of your Bible, if he existed, would himself be subject to the conditions described by the laws: God could not be God and not-God at the same time.

      • murk says

        @ Martin

        we can empirically verify laws of logic without first presupposing them to be true?

        wow i did not know we can have sense perception of immaterial, universal, invariant things.

        suppose you can empirically verify induction (future will be like the past) without assuming it to?

        If God is subject to logic He cannot be God now can he?

        How do you account for these laws in a chance universe made of matter?

        • says

          we can empirically verify laws of logic without first presupposing them to be true?

          We can observe reality, note that a thing is always itself and not not-itself, and derive the laws of logic thereby.

          wow i did not know we can have sense perception of immaterial, universal, invariant things.

          That’s because you’re still confusing the map for the place. The laws of logic are not “things,” they are concepts used to describe things. Blue is not a “thing,” it is a concept we use to describe how a certain color is perceived by our vision.

          suppose you can empirically verify induction (future will be like the past) without assuming it to?

          Try rewording that. It makes no sense.

          If God is subject to logic He cannot be God now can he?

          Are you claiming God is both God and also not-God simultaneously? If your God is by your own admission logically incomprehensible, why believe he exists?

          Here, God is not subject to the laws of logic. In your other comment, he is the laws of logic personified. I think you should probably try to figure out what it is you actually believe in first, before trying to argue for it.

          How do you account for these laws in a chance universe made of matter?

          Even in such a universe, a thing would always be itself, and not not-itself. Concepts are not the things they describe.

          (I notice you’re also hung up on the common creationist misunderstanding of “chance,” but that’s another discussion.)

          • murk says

            “We can observe reality, note that a thing is always itself and not not-itself, and derive the laws of logic thereby.”

            sure as long as you hold contradiction as valid prior to starting this exercise
            and of course as long as you assume uniformity / reliability of senses and reason / and of course the laws of logic – beforehand

            re: induction – How do you know the future will be like the past?
            (you must hold this as true to know / do anything )

            re: logic / God
            i can account for Logic – God does not lie (contradiction) it is part of his character
            we are made in his image – including you – we are not to lie – He even codified it in the Bible

            thus i have a source for universality / immaterial / invariant nature of laws of logic we all use
            even to deny them you must invoke them

            Can law of contradiction be broken?

      • murk says

        “They are “laws” in the descriptive, not proscriptive sense, and simply describe conditions that exist in reality.”

        i agree – they are descriptive – they exist everywhere, do not change and are not made of matter

        if they exist independent of intelligence then you must hold the irrational as foundational over the rational.
        now that position has a lot of nasty consequences

        interestingly enough – the God of the Bible does not change, is not made of matter and is everywhere…

        • says

          if they exist independent of intelligence then you must hold the irrational as foundational over the rational.

          No, because something does not have to be sourced by intelligence to be comprehended by intelligence. Again, if there were no intelligences anywhere, a thing would always be itself, and not not-itself. To exist is to exist as something.

          the God of the Bible does not change, is not made of matter and is everywhere…

          So your God is just a synonym for the laws of logic? Why even bother with that, when the laws are perfectly comprehensible without him?

    • codemonkey says

      and these things cannot be accounted for apart from the God of the Bible

      Yes, they can. Logic can be accounted for by any of the infinite variety fictional gods that I can pull out of my ass right now. Why not? What is different about your god and a different god of the bible v2, where I change one irrelevant verse to read 800 horsemen instead of 700 horsemen? Or what if the bible v2 talked about Apollonius of Tyana instead of Jesus of Nazareth? You don’t get the basic problem with your position. You are giving special preferential treatment to your god when there are plenty of other gods that can “account for” the rules of logic. It is insane to suggest that the only possible “accounting for” logic is the King James version of the Holy Bible ™, which means that I can fiddle with subtle details, and arguably I can fiddle with larger details. What if god made the Earth 20,000 years ago instead of 6,000? Would that change the “accounting for” logic? Of course not. Almost all of the bible is irrelevant to your argument of “accounting for” logic.

      • murk says

        both of you:

        can law of contradiction be broken?
        are all knowledge questions answered the same way?

        can you hold that existence exists as absolutely true:
        without first holding law of contradiction as true?
        without first believing in existence of absolute truth?
        without first believing in uniformity of nature?
        without first believing that the future will be like the past?
        without first believing that there are limits to possibility?

        be brave and tell me how you know that the future will be like the past

        • codemonkey says

          I have, repeatedly. Why don’t you be brave and explain why you picked the bible as opposed to any other fiction book. Why aren’t you a follower of Apollonius of Tyana? Why do you think that the Earth was made 6000~ years ago? For the purposes of argument, I grant that a god is necessary for “grounding logic” or whatever bullshit, but you still haven’t explained why this particular god. We’ve been on this for months now, and you still haven’t given me a straight answer.

          As far as I can tell from your almost incoherent ramblings, you have this premise: “If god exists, then god must have contacted humans, and furthermore one of the popular, modern, existent religions must accurately describe this contact.” How do you know this? How do you know that god ever contacted humans? How do you know that any record of his contact exists today? How do you know that the record of his contact must be one of the popular existent religions? How do you know that humans haven’t altered the documents for their own benefits or purposes? These are the questions you must answer. You give special treatment to your bible. You assume it must be correct, and go from there. Why? Why do you give special treatment to that one? Why haven’t you tried to use evidence and reasoning to figure out document, if any, accurately describes god?

          Unless of course you think that it’s not god that “grounds” logic, but the bible that grounds logic. Is that idolatry? Can you not recognize the difference between god and a book written by humans? You conflate these two concepts, and you are breaking your own rules: no idolatry, and no gods before me (you treat the bible as a god). You must be able to recognize the possibility that a god exists to “ground” logic, and the bible is still false.

          • murk says

            Could the God of the Bible (you know the omnipotent, omniscient one – the only one) reveal things to people so we know them for sure?

            If you hold that we cannot know if God exists – then God lied
            for He revealed himself to all people clearly and plainly

            You presuppose that God does not exist.
            Therefore you are ultimate
            Yet you also admit that you could be wrong about everything you know
            all philosophies hinged on autonomous man end in skepticism – the destruction of all knowledge
            If you do an investigation to see if he exists,
            you assume you can know things for sure – but you have no avenue to certainty apart from Him
            (epistemological problem)

            you also (probably inadvertently) ensure that you’ll never find Him – because if He is required for knowledge
            to be possible you cannot even start this search. Even if your search deems it is probable He exists – He cannot because He is subject to your reason – you are still ultimate and He is on trial
            (moral problem)

            To assume He does not exists based on empirical means is reaching
            empiricism rests on metaphysical assumptions (uniformity, logic, laws of science)
            and no person can empirically verify everything
            in fact to state “all knowledge is gained by the senses” cannot be empirically verified thus self refuting
            (metaphysical problem)

            so in all three areas that relate to our worldview / starting point you reduce everything to absurdity

            as the Bible says: “the fool says in his heart there is no God”
            this is not name calling
            it is a description of the true state of a person who suppresses what God has revealed
            one obvious way is that as you admit – without him we cannot know anything for sure
            without certainty we cannot know anything

            you did not answer any of my questions
            (if you did answer how you know the future will be like the past in the past please remind me)

          • codemonkey says

            you did not answer any of my questions
            (if you did answer how you know the future will be like the past in the past please remind me)

            I have, repeatedly. I answered the question. Let me answer again.

            I have no justification. I do not know.

            I claim that science works by fiat. Equivalently, I claim science works as axiomatic.

            Again, you still have not answered my questions. How do you know that god ever contacted humans? How do you know that any record of such contact survives to the modern day? How do you know that any record of his contact wasn’t altered by humans for their own nefarious purposes in the intervening centuries? How do you know that the bible is the record of god’s contact and not some highly obscure religious text that you’ve never heard of? How do you know that the bible isn’t a fiction, a work of man, and the actual correct record of god’s contact isn’t buried somewhere or being used for kindling, like the dead sea scrolls were until recently? For the purposes of argument I grant that a god exists in order to provide a “basis” for science, logic, and reasoning. How do you know that the bible is an accurate description of that god?

          • murk says

            just like if a person argues for validity / existence of the laws of logic, they do not put them aside

            the Bible is necessary to reason
            it clearly depicts man as depraved, fallen, ignorant, in short in an impossible situation from which he cannot help himself
            All people know this to be true (why do i not do what i want to do?)
            it is the only one which provides the solution which is not based on man himself
            Jesus solved the problem because we could not
            if you examine any other religion it is based on man’s efforts eg. copycat religions Islam – do the 5 pillars,
            Mormonism: wear your underwear, JW: knock on doors, Mystic religions: Hindu – deny logic, reality, moralistic religions: Confucianism, Buddhism: work harder, they are all futile for a ship bobbing in a shore less ocean can never find the shore

            internal consistency – written over a 1500 year period by about 40 authors and it is one story – it is coherent

            manuscript evidence: (note this assumes absolute logic etc. which is impossible without God)
            24 000 copies of New Testament writings exist that were written within 100 years of events
            (compare with Homers Iliad 643 documents exists the earliest one was written 1200 years after Homer wrote, or only 7 writings of Plato exist that were written 1200 years after Plato – and the authenticity is not in question!)

            but if you really want to know if the Bible is true – read it
            and do what it Jesus says will make it clear in John 7:16-19 and John 8:31-32
            which makes sense – i could be wrong about everything i know the only way out is to trust someone who does

            Dead Sea scrolls are an interesting account of reliability
            book of Isaiah in DSS was 1000 years older than oldest copy known at the time
            the world held its breath while the experts compared them
            and aside from some punctuation / style they matched

            If God exists could He deliver a book exactly as He wants to fallen / sinful man?
            could He preserve it?
            could He reveal things so we know them for sure?

            of course He could – He is God after all

            the succinct reply would be: if the Bible were false we could no know anything

          • codemonkey says

            I’m done. You refuse to answer my questions, commit the fallacy of begging the question repeatedly, and just throw out complete bullshit, like:

            the Bible is necessary to reason — I’m pretty sure there are millions of of people who have never read the bible, furthermore never even heard of the bible, and they reason just fine.

            You are beyond reason. Of course, any reasonable person would have realized this months ago. Says bad things about me.

          • murk says

            reason just fine? pretty sure or sure? of course you could be wrong as you have admitted
            unless that changed

            all people are made in His image – we all know, try as we might we cannot escape the mighty one who died to save our necks

            i wonder where you get the concept of bad from in “says bad things about me?”

          • murk says

            “I have no justification. I do not know.”

            you thus have a belief system that is arbitrary – why do you expect anything different from those who
            differ with you?

            I claim that science works by fiat. Equivalently, I claim science works as axiomatic.

            Science works by fiat (decree)?
            Assuming this means by people (unless you posit another source of reasoning creatures)

            So did the laws of science and by necessity the laws of logic exist before man showed up?

            thanks for the conversation – i enjoyed it

            Merry Christmas

            murk

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>