Ken Ham's Opening Day at the Ark. #FAIL only 4000 show up. (judge, judgement)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nope.
I've made this argument for years.
Do you claim there is "Absolutely Infallible" data or information?
If not...all you have is "strong belief and trust" (FAITH) in the validity of any claim or assertion.
"Facts VS Faith" is bogus. There is no such thing as "facts"...not infallible facts, anyway. You could be wrong. So...you always need FAITH.
Faith is belief without proof. There is no such thing as proof. So, if you believe something is true...you necessarily employ Faith to a greater or lesser degree.
You are just doubling down on the same fallacy. The faith you are talking about and religious faith are completely different.
However this actually is an interesting discussion so lets see if my writing skills are sufficient to put my stance on it into words:
When we make judgements there is such a thing as a frame of reference. For instance if you jog 5mph to the front of a bus going 45mph, the people on the outside of the bus see you as traveling at 50mph, but the people on the inside of the bus see you as traveling at 5 mph.
Science operates inside the largest frame of reference we currently know of, which is the universe. If you exit the universe we are inside of, all kinds of crazy things are possible. I wouldn't be surprised at all if we WERE in a simulation actually. The thing is though, from INSIDE the frame of reference, there are indeed things we can know that are factual - in respect to said frame of reference. For instance we know that inside the potential simulation that is our universe, or in the computer controlling the data feeding into our brains in jars, that gravity behaves in a certain manner and will always behave in a certain manner. We don't need to take this on faith because it is a statement who's validity is predicated on its existence in our frame of reference. The "brains in jars" dismissal of our ability to discern truth is just base sophistry that provides no utility or explanatory frame work. It simply adds an additional layer of obfuscation to an already philosophically dense topic.
You are just doubling down on the same fallacy. The faith you are talking about and religious faith are completely different.
However this actually is an interesting discussion so lets see if my writing skills are sufficient to put my stance on it into words:
When we make judgements there is such a thing as a frame of reference. For instance if you jog 5mph to the front of a bus going 45mph, the people on the outside of the bus see you as traveling at 50mph, but the people on the inside of the bus see you as traveling at 5 mph.
Science operates inside the largest frame of reference we currently know of, which is the universe. If you exit the universe we are inside of, all kinds of crazy things are possible. I wouldn't be surprised at all if we WERE in a simulation actually. The thing is though, from INSIDE the frame of reference, there are indeed things we can know that are factual - in respect to said frame of reference. For instance we know that inside the potential simulation that is our universe, or in the computer controlling the data feeding into our brains in jars, that gravity behaves in a certain manner and will always behave in a certain manner. We don't need to take this on faith because it is a statement who's validity is predicated on its existence in our frame of reference.
Hopefully this makes sense.
But making claims that the historic account of Noah and the flood he survived is all fiction is not based on proof but just the say-so of anyone who says so. And people who believe the say-so-ist is taking their say-so by faith that if they say it is a fictitious account, it therefore is faith.
But you can't actually PROVE the historic account of Noah's flood is superstition. We claim it isn't. At least we have the historic account to back our side. And it isn't willful ignorance to put ones faith in historic accounts. You use faith all the time when you read history books of the ancient Romans etc.
First of all, saying that nobody can prove the biblical flood was a myth is absolutely not true, and you know it. Many of us have proven (many times) that it was scientifically impossible, but you stick your tongue out and say that doesn't count because science isn't proof.
Second, you're completely missing the point about faith, too. There are many, many things in my life that I have faith I'm right about, but in every single case - every single case - I accept the possibility that I'm wrong, and am open to being educated if I am. That's the difference between you and us. Most of us freely admit the possibility that we are wrong about some of the things that we're discussing, but we believe what we believe because that's what fits the evidence. You refuse to admit any possibility that you are wrong, and that is the hallmark of an intellectually dishonest argument.
But making claims that the historic account of Noah and the flood he survived is all fiction is not based on proof but just the say-so of anyone who says so. And people who believe the say-so-ist is taking their say-so by faith that if they say it is a fictitious account, it therefore is faith.
The story of Noah is fiction because it is supposed to have occurred inside our frame of reference (the universe) but violates known properties of said frame of reference. The known properties of our frame of reference that it violates exist in the scientific fields of physics, biology, geology, astronomy, paleontology, archaeology, chemistry and many others.
But making claims that the historic account of Noah and the flood he survived is all fiction is not based on proof but just the say-so of anyone who says so. And people who believe the say-so-ist is taking their say-so by faith that if they say it is a fictitious account, it therefore is faith.
But making claims that the account of Noah and the flood he allegedly survived is fact is not based on proof but just the say-so of anyone who says so. And people who believe the say-so-ist is taking their say-so by faith that if they say it is a real account, it therefore is faith.
First of all, saying that nobody can prove the biblical flood was a myth is absolutely not true, and you know it. Many of us have proven (many times) that it was scientifically impossible, but you stick your tongue out and say that doesn't count because science isn't proof.
No, I never said "science isn't proof". But I would say there is plenty of science by Christian scientists to back up the world-wide flood. See science can be a good thing when used as a tool in proper hands.
Quote:
Second, you're completely missing the point about faith, too. There are many, many things in my life that I have faith I'm right about, but in every single case - every single case - I accept the possibility that I'm wrong, and am open to being educated if I am. That's the difference between you and us. Most of us freely admit the possibility that we are wrong about some of the things that we're discussing, but we believe what we believe because that's what fits the evidence. You refuse to admit any possibility that you are wrong, and that is the hallmark of an intellectually dishonest argument.
The difference between your faith and mine is that by me saying "Okay God, if You say Christ died for our sins, was entombed and roused the third day" I have faith that what you say is the truth. I have not one ounce of doubt that you would lie about this and believe 100% that which you have said is the absolute truth.
See how that goes?
I refuse to admit any possibility that GOS IS WRONG because I know He isn't. There is a big difference there.
I believe Ken Ham had the Ark Encounter built. I have no reason to believe otherwise. One can say, yea, but you can research that out to see if he really did have the Ark Encounter built. Yes, that is so. But I take it by faith that what God has said is so.
No, I never said "science isn't proof". But I would say there is plenty of science by Christian scientists to back up the world-wide flood. See science can be a good thing when used as a tool in proper hands.
The difference between your faith and mine is that by me saying "Okay God, if You say Christ died for our sins, was entombed and roused the third day" I have faith that what you say is the truth. I have not one ounce of doubt that you would lie about this and believe 100% that which you have said is the absolute truth.
See how that goes?
I refuse to admit any possibility that GOS IS WRONG. There is a big difference there.
You also refuse to admit any possibility that the bible is not the word of god. That is the base faith that you have to accept before stacking all your other faiths on top of it. A true foundation of quicksand. Why do you believe the bible is the word of god?
But making claims that the account of Noah and the flood he allegedly survived is fact is not based on proof but just the say-so of anyone who says so. And people who believe the say-so-ist is taking their say-so by faith that if they say it is a real account, it therefore is faith.
Not quite there. It is based on ancient historic documents which the Israelites have believed to be historically accurate for thousands of years. I believe I am in great company.
The story of Noah is fiction because it is supposed to have occurred inside our frame of reference (the universe) but violates known properties of said frame of reference. The known properties of our frame of reference that it violates exist in the scientific fields of physics, biology, geology, astronomy, paleontology, archaeology, chemistry and many others.
No it doesn't any more than Ken Ham's building the Ark Experience violates any of those fields of science.
No it doesn't any more than Ken Ham's building the Ark Experience violates any of those fields of science.
Get back to me when Ken Ham floats his boat on the ocean for a year in stormy seas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Not quite there. It is based on ancient historic documents which the Israelites have believed to be historically accurate for thousands of years. I believe I am in great company.
Yes it is an old book. The Rigveda is older than the bible and also has been believed to be accurate for thousands of years. Like the Israelites, you would also be in great company with the Hindus. Yet you don't believe it. This is the problem - not just your world views, but the way you process information is not consistent.
Now WHY do you believe it? Just because a bunch of other people believed it? Because your mom and dad told you its true? Because you converted for a girl and now you are fully invested?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
