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.
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?
No, it is based on the solid rock of truth. Fulfilled prophetic statements which came true and the other historic accounts prove it all to be true. So why should I admit the Bible is not the word of God? Just because you say it isn't doesn't make it so.
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.
I understand.
It is also understood, as you noted...our "frame of reference" may not be representative of what is actually true. We can never know for sure.
And I'm not talking about Pedigree Solipsism. I'm talking about the possibility that what we believe to be true based on our "frame of reference" you note...may not actually be how things really are.
"Religious Faith" is not different from "faith"...it is just a type of faith. Faith based upon Religion is just that...Religion based FAITH.
Such as with the example of "drowning". We may only believe there is such a thing as "drowning", or "dying", or "living", etc...it may actually be that there is no such thing, but that it just appears that way to us. That is the point.
It's not like I'm the first to understand that nothing can be known for sure. And, thus, I might be wrong about that. LOL!
I understand.
It is also understood, as you noted...our "frame of reference" may not be representative of what is actually true. We can never know for sure.
And I'm not talking about Pedigree Solipsism. I'm talking about the possibility that what we believe to be true based on our "frame of reference" you note...may not actually be how things really are.
"Religious Faith" is not different from "faith"...it is just a type of faith. Faith based upon Religion is just that...Religion based FAITH.
Such as with the example of "drowning". We may only believe there is such a thing as "drowning", or "dying", or "living", etc...it may actually be that there is no such thing, but that it just appears that way to us. That is the point.
It's not like I'm the first to understand that nothing can be known for sure. And, thus, I might be wrong about that. LOL!
I can dig it. Truce.
Ah crap re read and there is one line I cannot endorse =(
""Religious Faith" is not different from "faith"...it is just a type of faith. Faith based upon Religion is just that...Religion based FAITH."
This is not true. One type of faith is based on what we would expect to happen consistent with our understanding of our frame of reference(it is internally consistent), the other type of faith has complete disregard for what we understand about our frame of reference and also posits other frames of reference that there is no evidence for(it is not internally consistent). I will let you guess which is which.
It equivalent to the difference between "I know that if I jump out of this plane I will fall" and "I know we ARE living in a simulation". One makes sense because it is consistent with what we observe and the other doesn't even touch what we observe at all. Sometimes it is even worse - it will be in direct contradiction to the observed(internally consistent) properties of our frame of reference like the Noah story. The last one is equivalent to believing that if you jump out of a plane you will fall.... UP.
Last edited by zzzSnorlax; 07-22-2016 at 02:30 PM..
No, it is based on the solid rock of truth. Fulfilled prophetic statements which came true and the other historic accounts prove it all to be true. So why should I admit the Bible is not the word of God? Just because you say it isn't doesn't make it so.
Correct. Noah's Ark is not false because I said so. It is false because it violates known operating principles of our frame of reference.
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.
Complete and utter bull**** Edgar. Well done though. You're doing a great job for the cause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
Get back to me when Ken Ham floats his boat on the ocean for a year in stormy seas.
Whilst containing every organism/lifeform that has ever existed, past, present and future.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
Complete and utter bull**** Edgar. Well done though. You're doing a great job for the cause.
Thank you. I know I am doing a great job or I wouldn't make truthful statements.
Quote:
Whilst containing every organism/lifeform that has ever existed, past, present and future.
The Bible doesn't state that as being the case, so why say it?
Lets start small. Just having it float for a few months on a calm sea would be a good start. Then we can start cramming it full of biomass.
The waters were very calm while Noah and crew were adrift. It was only at the end of their sojourn in Genesis 8:1 that God caused a wind to pass over the earth and the ark rested on the mountains of Ararat. So it didn't have to deal with huge surging waves.
So can you tell me one good thing about Ken Ham's Ark Encounter?
Correct. Noah's Ark is not false because I said so. It is false because it violates known operating principles of our frame of reference.
Not really. It is historically accurate and the dimensions given are perfect as far as physics goes for a wooden ark.
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.
