Answering the Big Questions of Life

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bigquest.html ^ | Sue Bohlin

[OWK]

AndrewC said that the presence of tools by the Neanderthal grave site suggests that they believed in the afterlife. Tpaine seems to want to interpret the evidence differently. Can AndrewC not claim a certain knowledge since Tpaine subjectively interprets the evidence differently?

Neither tpaine nor AndrewC may claim knowledge, as the object of their assertions (the expressions of the beliefs of minds long dead, who left us no specifically interpretable record as to their beliefs) is untestable, and therefore unknowable.

They may theorize, but they may not know.

[DittoJed2]

The empty tomb. The changed lives of the disciples. My own changed life. The fact that the apostles of Jesus were willing to die for something that they KNEW first hand was either true or false. How often can you find entire groups of people willing to die for what they would have KNOWN was a lie? You may have one lunatic do this, but have 11 disciples who were willing to be crucified, boiled in oil, decapitated, exiled, scourged, stoned, etc., for something that they would have KNOWN was a lie. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Too much evidence, archaeological, historical, etc., backs up the claims of the Bible. It sets its truth claims above and beyond all of the claims of the sun worshippers, insect worshippers, and the atheists.

[betty boop]

...search for truth in science....

tpaine, science is not about "truth!" Science is about making accurate descriptions of Nature.

Here's the great physicist, Neils Bohr, on that point:

"It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature."

In other words, science is about epistemology; it's not about ontology. Capice???

[DittoJed2]

And, evolutionists may theorize but they do not know. It is subjectivity, based upon human opinion and/or preference. I add the preference here because you seem to prefer the non-existence of God over the existence of God. That preference colors your view of the evidence just as my belief that God exists colors my view of the evidence.

[tpaine]

"Nor would demonstration of a universal consensus do anything to validate the veracity of a given untestable assertion."
-OWK-

Exactly, -- but most here cannot understand what you just wrote.
Its a hopeless task to attempt to reason in the face of irrational faith.

[AndrewC]

Typically inane idiocy. Never said it did.

Then what was your post 32 all about? I did not use the word "prove" prior to your use. Consensus is a general description and evidence that even neanderthal believed in a soul(you seem to agree) is evidence of a consensus. Inane is a description that applies to yourself.

[tpaine]

Our search for truth is real.

Well then tell me, tpaine, where are you looking for it?

In human rationality, a rare trait in man, as we see demonstrated here.

It seems clear you haven't consulted human history, culture, or the arts, where the record of the search is amazingly well-documented, and where invaluable insights can be found.

My my betty, you usually don't make personal attacks till you're well trounced in debate. Why the change?

So where are you looking for truth? And how will you know when you've found it?

I know I'm getting close when my arguments go unrefuted. - Thanks kiddo.

[betty boop]

Its a hopeless task to attempt to reason in the face of irrational faith.

On that score, tpaine, you and I are in total agreement.

But I do want to add one tiny qualification: Faith is only truly irrational when it is atheist faith.

[DittoJed2]

Its a hopeless task to attempt to reason in the face of irrational faith.
What is your proof that it is irrational? This is a typical assertion that bares no resemblence to truth. Christianity is ultimately a faith issue, however it is not without rational reasons to belive. You seek to portray Christianity as some fideistic system of belief when in reality our faith is not irrational at all. Here are four such rational reasons concerning just ONE element of the story of Christianity that indicate it is a rational faith in which to believe.

[DittoJed2]

Faith is only truly irrational when it is atheist faith.
Touche'

[tpaine]

"I am humored by the arguments." -andy-


What you can't understand andy, is often dismissed as humorous.
Don't worry, most here laugh with you, as they too are clueless.

[AndrewC]

What you can't understand andy, is often dismissed as humorous.
Don't worry, most here laugh with you, as they too are clueless

I didn't say I did not understand it. I just said it was humorous. You are the one that went from documentation to proof to calling names. I am still humored by your arguments. Namecalling Ad Hominem is evidence of a lost argument.

[DittoJed2]

Oops, forgot to include you on this one.

[tpaine]

"Capice?"


Of course I understand you betty. You're belaboring the obvious in an effort to make a meaningful reply.

[tpaine]

I really can't help you andy.
I'm not a professional.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

Gee A-Gal, I also watch the advances in math and science and marvel at the gyrations of some to deny the obvious truths of our real world. So it goes, - aye?

How do you define "truth" and "real"?

[tpaine]

"Faith is only truly irrational when it is atheist faith."
-BB-


Thanks betty. We've come to quite a rapid consensus on your view of faith.
Usually it takes many more paragraphs of bafflegab on Vogelien types to get to this point.

[tpaine]

How do you define "truth" and "real"?
-AG-


Same way you do, if you accept english as our common language.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

Actually, we have been all over the subject of "what is reality?" on a number of different threads. And I have been collecting the different views, because it has a great deal of bearing on how people react to certain issues of math and science.

Here's what I've got so far:

To a metaphysical naturalist, "reality" is all that exists in nature

To an autonomist "reality" is all that is, the way it is

To an objectivist "reality" is that which exists

To a mystic "reality" may include thought as substantive force and hence, a part of "reality"

To Plato "reality" includes constructs such as redness, chairness, numbers, geometry and pi

To Aristotle these constructs are not part of "reality" but merely language

To some physicists, "reality" is the illusion of quantum mechanics

To Christians "reality" is God's will and unknowable in its fullness.

Do you characterize yourself in any of these ways?

[goodseedhomeschool (returned)]

Thanks for the ping DittoJed2 :)