Well the Southern Baptists declared the bible a true factual word of God.

[ding]

Your GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call a veterinarian and have it put down.

I am sorry.

My comment was not a "Gotcha" attempt, merely a thought to ponder. I agree we will not know until the hereafter.

My apologies. You're right. We will not know, either in our lifetimes, or on this plane of existence.

Through the light of human reason I know now.

The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available.

Idk, maybe you are right.

I suspect daveman reads Genesis literally. Which as near as I can tell - relatively speaking - is a new thing.

Dave is a fundie?

I don't use terms like that. I believe he reads Genesis literally. I could be wrong.

You are. And I have no idea how you could have come to that conclusion.

Because of your thought experiment OP.

I don't care either way. To each his own.

No way to conclude I read Genesis literally from that thread.

Sure there was. Think about it.

Dude. I WROTE it. I already thought about it.

Ok, then let me enlighten you. It's your reluctance to accept what science tells us about the age and origin of the universe which led you to postulate that God intentionally created a universe that only looks like it is old.

 

[ding]

Your GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call a veterinarian and have it put down.

I am sorry.

My comment was not a "Gotcha" attempt, merely a thought to ponder. I agree we will not know until the hereafter.

My apologies. You're right. We will not know, either in our lifetimes, or on this plane of existence.

Through the light of human reason I know now.

The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available.

Idk, maybe you are right.

I suspect daveman reads Genesis literally. Which as near as I can tell - relatively speaking - is a new thing.

Read Post #62 in the Thought Experiment thread. My beliefs are made clear. Ask if you need further clarification.

A simple, I'm not a YEC would have sufficed.

I don't feel obligated to jump when I'm told.

Vainglory

Not at all.

The truth will set you free.

 

[ding]

Your GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call a veterinarian and have it put down.

I am sorry.

My comment was not a "Gotcha" attempt, merely a thought to ponder. I agree we will not know until the hereafter.

My apologies. You're right. We will not know, either in our lifetimes, or on this plane of existence.

Through the light of human reason I know now.

The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available.

It kind of contradicts itself when it says...

"We shall see that as a mental activity Christian faith is no different from everyday faith."

and

"The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available."

Most people don't put complete trust in something or someone without good reason for doing so. So if they are asserting that Christian faith is no different than say putting faith in seat belts, what they are arguing for is completely different than everyday faith. I am arguing that no matter what people put their faith in they have good reasons for doing so. God can be known through the light of human reason through the study of what he created.

If St. Paul is correct that we are without excuse, then St. Paul must have believed that there is empirical and rational proof available. Setting aside that St. Paul was talking about studying what God created to see proof of God's work, what about Jesus? Are you suggesting that Jesus Christ is not empirical evidence or rational proof?

I suggest only the things I say outright.

Yes, I believe there is ample evidence for the existence of both God and His Son. But not everyone is going to look at the same examples and come to the same conclusion.

We were given free will for a reason.

Then you don't need to take it on faith. You have proof. You know.

It's proof for me. It's proof for you. But show it to an atheist. It will not be proof to them.

I didn't realize you were speaking for others when you made that post.

I try not to do that. And if you have presented what you see as evidence to atheists, what was their reaction?

It doesn't matter what their reaction was. My obligation is satisfied when I presented it. I have no preference for an outcome.

When you argued that you didn't know and took it on faith and then rationalized that statement by saying not everyone comes to the same conclusion, that was you speaking for others instead of yourself.

So... do you know or do you know?

 

[daveman]

Your GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call a veterinarian and have it put down.

I am sorry.

My comment was not a "Gotcha" attempt, merely a thought to ponder. I agree we will not know until the hereafter.

My apologies. You're right. We will not know, either in our lifetimes, or on this plane of existence.

Through the light of human reason I know now.

The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available.

Idk, maybe you are right.

I suspect daveman reads Genesis literally. Which as near as I can tell - relatively speaking - is a new thing.

Dave is a fundie?

I don't use terms like that. I believe he reads Genesis literally. I could be wrong.

You are. And I have no idea how you could have come to that conclusion.

Because of your thought experiment OP.

I don't care either way. To each his own.

No way to conclude I read Genesis literally from that thread.

Sure there was. Think about it.

Dude. I WROTE it. I already thought about it.

Ok, then let me enlighten you. It's your reluctance to accept what science tells us about the age and origin of the universe which led you to postulate that God intentionally created a universe that only looks like it is old.

Congratulations. You completely missed my point.

Definition of postulate​

(Entry 1 of 2)
transitive verb
1: DEMAND, CLAIM
2a: to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary : depend upon or start from the postulate of
b: to assume as a postulate or axiom (as in logic or mathematics)

That's not what I did. At all.

I presented a scenario intended to get people to think about what they know.

As I said, most posters on that thread were hostile to the idea. You were one of them.

 

[daveman]

Your GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call a veterinarian and have it put down.

I am sorry.

My comment was not a "Gotcha" attempt, merely a thought to ponder. I agree we will not know until the hereafter.

My apologies. You're right. We will not know, either in our lifetimes, or on this plane of existence.

Through the light of human reason I know now.

The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available.

Idk, maybe you are right.

I suspect daveman reads Genesis literally. Which as near as I can tell - relatively speaking - is a new thing.

Read Post #62 in the Thought Experiment thread. My beliefs are made clear. Ask if you need further clarification.

A simple, I'm not a YEC would have sufficed.

I don't feel obligated to jump when I'm told.

Vainglory

Not at all.

The truth will set you free.

Oh, it will indeed. Yet I have in no way exhibited to trait you claim I have.

 

[daveman]

Your GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call a veterinarian and have it put down.

I am sorry.

My comment was not a "Gotcha" attempt, merely a thought to ponder. I agree we will not know until the hereafter.

My apologies. You're right. We will not know, either in our lifetimes, or on this plane of existence.

Through the light of human reason I know now.

The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available.

It kind of contradicts itself when it says...

"We shall see that as a mental activity Christian faith is no different from everyday faith."

and

"The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available."

Most people don't put complete trust in something or someone without good reason for doing so. So if they are asserting that Christian faith is no different than say putting faith in seat belts, what they are arguing for is completely different than everyday faith. I am arguing that no matter what people put their faith in they have good reasons for doing so. God can be known through the light of human reason through the study of what he created.

If St. Paul is correct that we are without excuse, then St. Paul must have believed that there is empirical and rational proof available. Setting aside that St. Paul was talking about studying what God created to see proof of God's work, what about Jesus? Are you suggesting that Jesus Christ is not empirical evidence or rational proof?

I suggest only the things I say outright.

Yes, I believe there is ample evidence for the existence of both God and His Son. But not everyone is going to look at the same examples and come to the same conclusion.

We were given free will for a reason.

Then you don't need to take it on faith. You have proof. You know.

It's proof for me. It's proof for you. But show it to an atheist. It will not be proof to them.

I didn't realize you were speaking for others when you made that post.

I try not to do that. And if you have presented what you see as evidence to atheists, what was their reaction?

It doesn't matter what their reaction was. My obligation is satisfied when I presented it. I have no preference for an outcome.

When you argued that you didn't know and took it on faith and then rationalized that statement by saying not everyone comes to the same conclusion, that was you speaking for others instead of yourself.

So... do you know or do you know?

Well, that's handy, isn't it? You have no preference for an outcome when you present evidence.

So, in conclusion, you have not converted any atheists.

Meanwhile, it's insanely obvious that not everyone comes to the same conclusion when presented with the same evidence. That's not speaking for anyone, no more than is saying the sun comes up in the east.

 

[ding]

Your GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call a veterinarian and have it put down.

I am sorry.

My comment was not a "Gotcha" attempt, merely a thought to ponder. I agree we will not know until the hereafter.

My apologies. You're right. We will not know, either in our lifetimes, or on this plane of existence.

Through the light of human reason I know now.

The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available.

Idk, maybe you are right.

I suspect daveman reads Genesis literally. Which as near as I can tell - relatively speaking - is a new thing.

Dave is a fundie?

I don't use terms like that. I believe he reads Genesis literally. I could be wrong.

You are. And I have no idea how you could have come to that conclusion.

Because of your thought experiment OP.

I don't care either way. To each his own.

No way to conclude I read Genesis literally from that thread.

Sure there was. Think about it.

Dude. I WROTE it. I already thought about it.

Ok, then let me enlighten you. It's your reluctance to accept what science tells us about the age and origin of the universe which led you to postulate that God intentionally created a universe that only looks like it is old.

Congratulations. You completely missed my point.

Definition of postulate​

(Entry 1 of 2)
transitive verb
1: DEMAND, CLAIM
2a: to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary : depend upon or start from the postulate of
b: to assume as a postulate or axiom (as in logic or mathematics)

That's not what I did. At all.

I presented a scenario intended to get people to think about what they know.

As I said, most posters on that thread were hostile to the idea. You were one of them.

It wouldn't be the first time I missed something but I don't think I did. I'm opposed to paradoxes which are logical fallacies. If you could have provided a logical reason for it, I would have been more receptive to your paradox. As it was you missed my point.

 

[ding]

Your GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call a veterinarian and have it put down.

I am sorry.

My comment was not a "Gotcha" attempt, merely a thought to ponder. I agree we will not know until the hereafter.

My apologies. You're right. We will not know, either in our lifetimes, or on this plane of existence.

Through the light of human reason I know now.

The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available.

Idk, maybe you are right.

I suspect daveman reads Genesis literally. Which as near as I can tell - relatively speaking - is a new thing.

Read Post #62 in the Thought Experiment thread. My beliefs are made clear. Ask if you need further clarification.

A simple, I'm not a YEC would have sufficed.

I don't feel obligated to jump when I'm told.

Vainglory

Not at all.

The truth will set you free.

Oh, it will indeed. Yet I have in no way exhibited to trait you claim I have.

Your statement that you don't feel obligated to jump when told says otherwise.

 

[ding]

Your GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call a veterinarian and have it put down.

I am sorry.

My comment was not a "Gotcha" attempt, merely a thought to ponder. I agree we will not know until the hereafter.

My apologies. You're right. We will not know, either in our lifetimes, or on this plane of existence.

Through the light of human reason I know now.

The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available.

It kind of contradicts itself when it says...

"We shall see that as a mental activity Christian faith is no different from everyday faith."

and

"The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available."

Most people don't put complete trust in something or someone without good reason for doing so. So if they are asserting that Christian faith is no different than say putting faith in seat belts, what they are arguing for is completely different than everyday faith. I am arguing that no matter what people put their faith in they have good reasons for doing so. God can be known through the light of human reason through the study of what he created.

If St. Paul is correct that we are without excuse, then St. Paul must have believed that there is empirical and rational proof available. Setting aside that St. Paul was talking about studying what God created to see proof of God's work, what about Jesus? Are you suggesting that Jesus Christ is not empirical evidence or rational proof?

I suggest only the things I say outright.

Yes, I believe there is ample evidence for the existence of both God and His Son. But not everyone is going to look at the same examples and come to the same conclusion.

We were given free will for a reason.

Then you don't need to take it on faith. You have proof. You know.

It's proof for me. It's proof for you. But show it to an atheist. It will not be proof to them.

I didn't realize you were speaking for others when you made that post.

I try not to do that. And if you have presented what you see as evidence to atheists, what was their reaction?

It doesn't matter what their reaction was. My obligation is satisfied when I presented it. I have no preference for an outcome.

When you argued that you didn't know and took it on faith and then rationalized that statement by saying not everyone comes to the same conclusion, that was you speaking for others instead of yourself.

So... do you know or do you know?

Well, that's handy, isn't it? You have no preference for an outcome when you present evidence.

So, in conclusion, you have not converted any atheists.

Meanwhile, it's insanely obvious that not everyone comes to the same conclusion when presented with the same evidence. That's not speaking for anyone, no more than is saying the sun comes up in the east.

To be objective one must have no preference for an outcome. It's the only way to see reality and God is reality.

It's not my job to convert or convince anyone of anything. It's that whole free will thingee. I choose to not get in God's way. In the context of this discussion my obligation is to present and nothing more.

I wasn't conversing with everyone when you denied that you knew. I was conversing with you. So... do you know or do you know?

 

[daveman]

Your GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call a veterinarian and have it put down.

I am sorry.

My comment was not a "Gotcha" attempt, merely a thought to ponder. I agree we will not know until the hereafter.

My apologies. You're right. We will not know, either in our lifetimes, or on this plane of existence.

Through the light of human reason I know now.

The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available.

Idk, maybe you are right.

I suspect daveman reads Genesis literally. Which as near as I can tell - relatively speaking - is a new thing.

Dave is a fundie?

I don't use terms like that. I believe he reads Genesis literally. I could be wrong.

You are. And I have no idea how you could have come to that conclusion.

Because of your thought experiment OP.

I don't care either way. To each his own.

No way to conclude I read Genesis literally from that thread.

Sure there was. Think about it.

Dude. I WROTE it. I already thought about it.

Ok, then let me enlighten you. It's your reluctance to accept what science tells us about the age and origin of the universe which led you to postulate that God intentionally created a universe that only looks like it is old.

Congratulations. You completely missed my point.

Definition of postulate​

(Entry 1 of 2)
transitive verb
1: DEMAND, CLAIM
2a: to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary : depend upon or start from the postulate of
b: to assume as a postulate or axiom (as in logic or mathematics)

That's not what I did. At all.

I presented a scenario intended to get people to think about what they know.

As I said, most posters on that thread were hostile to the idea. You were one of them.

It wouldn't be the first time I missed something but I don't think I did. I'm opposed to paradoxes which are logical fallacies. If you could have provided a logical reason for it, I would have been more receptive to your paradox. As it was you missed my point.

"Thought experiment".

Thought experiments are performed in the imagination. We set up some situation, we observe what happens, then we try to draw appropriate conclusions. In this way, thought experiments resemble real experiments, except that they are experiments in the mind.

 

[daveman]

Your GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call a veterinarian and have it put down.

I am sorry.

My comment was not a "Gotcha" attempt, merely a thought to ponder. I agree we will not know until the hereafter.

My apologies. You're right. We will not know, either in our lifetimes, or on this plane of existence.

Through the light of human reason I know now.

The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available.

Idk, maybe you are right.

I suspect daveman reads Genesis literally. Which as near as I can tell - relatively speaking - is a new thing.

Read Post #62 in the Thought Experiment thread. My beliefs are made clear. Ask if you need further clarification.

A simple, I'm not a YEC would have sufficed.

I don't feel obligated to jump when I'm told.

Vainglory

Not at all.

The truth will set you free.

Oh, it will indeed. Yet I have in no way exhibited to trait you claim I have.

Your statement that you don't feel obligated to jump when told says otherwise.

And that's a true statement. If you'd like to make the case that I am obligated, I'm willing to listen.

 

[daveman]

Your GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call a veterinarian and have it put down.

I am sorry.

My comment was not a "Gotcha" attempt, merely a thought to ponder. I agree we will not know until the hereafter.

My apologies. You're right. We will not know, either in our lifetimes, or on this plane of existence.

Through the light of human reason I know now.

The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available.

It kind of contradicts itself when it says...

"We shall see that as a mental activity Christian faith is no different from everyday faith."

and

"The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available."

Most people don't put complete trust in something or someone without good reason for doing so. So if they are asserting that Christian faith is no different than say putting faith in seat belts, what they are arguing for is completely different than everyday faith. I am arguing that no matter what people put their faith in they have good reasons for doing so. God can be known through the light of human reason through the study of what he created.

If St. Paul is correct that we are without excuse, then St. Paul must have believed that there is empirical and rational proof available. Setting aside that St. Paul was talking about studying what God created to see proof of God's work, what about Jesus? Are you suggesting that Jesus Christ is not empirical evidence or rational proof?

I suggest only the things I say outright.

Yes, I believe there is ample evidence for the existence of both God and His Son. But not everyone is going to look at the same examples and come to the same conclusion.

We were given free will for a reason.

Then you don't need to take it on faith. You have proof. You know.

It's proof for me. It's proof for you. But show it to an atheist. It will not be proof to them.

I didn't realize you were speaking for others when you made that post.

I try not to do that. And if you have presented what you see as evidence to atheists, what was their reaction?

It doesn't matter what their reaction was. My obligation is satisfied when I presented it. I have no preference for an outcome.

When you argued that you didn't know and took it on faith and then rationalized that statement by saying not everyone comes to the same conclusion, that was you speaking for others instead of yourself.

So... do you know or do you know?

Well, that's handy, isn't it? You have no preference for an outcome when you present evidence.

So, in conclusion, you have not converted any atheists.

Meanwhile, it's insanely obvious that not everyone comes to the same conclusion when presented with the same evidence. That's not speaking for anyone, no more than is saying the sun comes up in the east.

To be objective one must have no preference for an outcome. It's the only way to see reality and God is reality.

It's not my job to convert or convince anyone of anything. It's that whole free will thingee. I choose to not get in God's way. In the context of this discussion my obligation is to present and nothing more.

I wasn't conversing with everyone when you denied that you knew. I was conversing with you. So... do you know or do you know?

I know this is boring the ass off me.

 

[ding]

Your GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call a veterinarian and have it put down.

I am sorry.

My comment was not a "Gotcha" attempt, merely a thought to ponder. I agree we will not know until the hereafter.

My apologies. You're right. We will not know, either in our lifetimes, or on this plane of existence.

Through the light of human reason I know now.

The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available.

Idk, maybe you are right.

I suspect daveman reads Genesis literally. Which as near as I can tell - relatively speaking - is a new thing.

Read Post #62 in the Thought Experiment thread. My beliefs are made clear. Ask if you need further clarification.

A simple, I'm not a YEC would have sufficed.

I don't feel obligated to jump when I'm told.

Vainglory

Not at all.

The truth will set you free.

Oh, it will indeed. Yet I have in no way exhibited to trait you claim I have.

Your statement that you don't feel obligated to jump when told says otherwise.

And that's a true statement. If you'd like to make the case that I am obligated, I'm willing to listen.

It has nothing to do with your being obligated and everything to do with your pride which is what vainglory is.

 

[ding]

Your GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call a veterinarian and have it put down.

I am sorry.

My comment was not a "Gotcha" attempt, merely a thought to ponder. I agree we will not know until the hereafter.

My apologies. You're right. We will not know, either in our lifetimes, or on this plane of existence.

Through the light of human reason I know now.

The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available.

It kind of contradicts itself when it says...

"We shall see that as a mental activity Christian faith is no different from everyday faith."

and

"The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available."

Most people don't put complete trust in something or someone without good reason for doing so. So if they are asserting that Christian faith is no different than say putting faith in seat belts, what they are arguing for is completely different than everyday faith. I am arguing that no matter what people put their faith in they have good reasons for doing so. God can be known through the light of human reason through the study of what he created.

If St. Paul is correct that we are without excuse, then St. Paul must have believed that there is empirical and rational proof available. Setting aside that St. Paul was talking about studying what God created to see proof of God's work, what about Jesus? Are you suggesting that Jesus Christ is not empirical evidence or rational proof?

I suggest only the things I say outright.

Yes, I believe there is ample evidence for the existence of both God and His Son. But not everyone is going to look at the same examples and come to the same conclusion.

We were given free will for a reason.

Then you don't need to take it on faith. You have proof. You know.

It's proof for me. It's proof for you. But show it to an atheist. It will not be proof to them.

I didn't realize you were speaking for others when you made that post.

I try not to do that. And if you have presented what you see as evidence to atheists, what was their reaction?

It doesn't matter what their reaction was. My obligation is satisfied when I presented it. I have no preference for an outcome.

When you argued that you didn't know and took it on faith and then rationalized that statement by saying not everyone comes to the same conclusion, that was you speaking for others instead of yourself.

So... do you know or do you know?

Well, that's handy, isn't it? You have no preference for an outcome when you present evidence.

So, in conclusion, you have not converted any atheists.

Meanwhile, it's insanely obvious that not everyone comes to the same conclusion when presented with the same evidence. That's not speaking for anyone, no more than is saying the sun comes up in the east.

To be objective one must have no preference for an outcome. It's the only way to see reality and God is reality.

It's not my job to convert or convince anyone of anything. It's that whole free will thingee. I choose to not get in God's way. In the context of this discussion my obligation is to present and nothing more.

I wasn't conversing with everyone when you denied that you knew. I was conversing with you. So... do you know or do you know?

I know this is boring the ass off me.

Tell me about it, brother.

 

[ding]

Your GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call a veterinarian and have it put down.

I am sorry.

My comment was not a "Gotcha" attempt, merely a thought to ponder. I agree we will not know until the hereafter.

My apologies. You're right. We will not know, either in our lifetimes, or on this plane of existence.

Through the light of human reason I know now.

The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available.

Idk, maybe you are right.

I suspect daveman reads Genesis literally. Which as near as I can tell - relatively speaking - is a new thing.

Dave is a fundie?

I don't use terms like that. I believe he reads Genesis literally. I could be wrong.

You are. And I have no idea how you could have come to that conclusion.

Because of your thought experiment OP.

I don't care either way. To each his own.

No way to conclude I read Genesis literally from that thread.

Sure there was. Think about it.

Dude. I WROTE it. I already thought about it.

Ok, then let me enlighten you. It's your reluctance to accept what science tells us about the age and origin of the universe which led you to postulate that God intentionally created a universe that only looks like it is old.

Congratulations. You completely missed my point.

Definition of postulate​

(Entry 1 of 2)
transitive verb
1: DEMAND, CLAIM
2a: to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary : depend upon or start from the postulate of
b: to assume as a postulate or axiom (as in logic or mathematics)

That's not what I did. At all.

I presented a scenario intended to get people to think about what they know.

As I said, most posters on that thread were hostile to the idea. You were one of them.

It wouldn't be the first time I missed something but I don't think I did. I'm opposed to paradoxes which are logical fallacies. If you could have provided a logical reason for it, I would have been more receptive to your paradox. As it was you missed my point.

"Thought experiment".

Thought experiments are performed in the imagination. We set up some situation, we observe what happens, then we try to draw appropriate conclusions. In this way, thought experiments resemble real experiments, except that they are experiments in the mind.

I got that the first time. My point still stands.

The problem I have with most paradox is that the premise is flawed. So it's hard to get past the flawed premise to get to the exercise.

In fact, your paradox was so flawed that the correct answer to it was a simple "no one would know." In other words your thought experiment didn't require any thought at all.

So let me give you a thought experiment. What would be the purpose of creating a universe 10 minutes ago with everyone having memories and knowledge of the past including science, history, math, music, art and personal experiences? Think about that.

 

[daveman]

Your GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call a veterinarian and have it put down.

I am sorry.

My comment was not a "Gotcha" attempt, merely a thought to ponder. I agree we will not know until the hereafter.

My apologies. You're right. We will not know, either in our lifetimes, or on this plane of existence.

Through the light of human reason I know now.

The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available.

Idk, maybe you are right.

I suspect daveman reads Genesis literally. Which as near as I can tell - relatively speaking - is a new thing.

Dave is a fundie?

I don't use terms like that. I believe he reads Genesis literally. I could be wrong.

You are. And I have no idea how you could have come to that conclusion.

Because of your thought experiment OP.

I don't care either way. To each his own.

No way to conclude I read Genesis literally from that thread.

Sure there was. Think about it.

Dude. I WROTE it. I already thought about it.

Ok, then let me enlighten you. It's your reluctance to accept what science tells us about the age and origin of the universe which led you to postulate that God intentionally created a universe that only looks like it is old.

Congratulations. You completely missed my point.

Definition of postulate​

(Entry 1 of 2)
transitive verb
1: DEMAND, CLAIM
2a: to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary : depend upon or start from the postulate of
b: to assume as a postulate or axiom (as in logic or mathematics)

That's not what I did. At all.

I presented a scenario intended to get people to think about what they know.

As I said, most posters on that thread were hostile to the idea. You were one of them.

It wouldn't be the first time I missed something but I don't think I did. I'm opposed to paradoxes which are logical fallacies. If you could have provided a logical reason for it, I would have been more receptive to your paradox. As it was you missed my point.

"Thought experiment".

Thought experiments are performed in the imagination. We set up some situation, we observe what happens, then we try to draw appropriate conclusions. In this way, thought experiments resemble real experiments, except that they are experiments in the mind.

I got that the first time. My point still stands.

The problem I have with most paradox is that the premise is flawed. So it's hard to get past the flawed premise to get to the exercise.

In fact, your paradox was so flawed that the correct answer to it was a simple "no one would know." In other words your thought experiment didn't require any thought at all.

So let me give you a thought experiment. What would be the purpose of creating a universe 10 minutes ago with everyone having memories and knowledge of the past including science, history, math, music, art and personal experiences? Think about that.

You've already made that point.

 

[ding]

Your GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call a veterinarian and have it put down.

I am sorry.

My comment was not a "Gotcha" attempt, merely a thought to ponder. I agree we will not know until the hereafter.

My apologies. You're right. We will not know, either in our lifetimes, or on this plane of existence.

Through the light of human reason I know now.

The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available.

Idk, maybe you are right.

I suspect daveman reads Genesis literally. Which as near as I can tell - relatively speaking - is a new thing.

Dave is a fundie?

I don't use terms like that. I believe he reads Genesis literally. I could be wrong.

You are. And I have no idea how you could have come to that conclusion.

Because of your thought experiment OP.

I don't care either way. To each his own.

No way to conclude I read Genesis literally from that thread.

Sure there was. Think about it.

Dude. I WROTE it. I already thought about it.

Ok, then let me enlighten you. It's your reluctance to accept what science tells us about the age and origin of the universe which led you to postulate that God intentionally created a universe that only looks like it is old.

Congratulations. You completely missed my point.

Definition of postulate​

(Entry 1 of 2)
transitive verb
1: DEMAND, CLAIM
2a: to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary : depend upon or start from the postulate of
b: to assume as a postulate or axiom (as in logic or mathematics)

That's not what I did. At all.

I presented a scenario intended to get people to think about what they know.

As I said, most posters on that thread were hostile to the idea. You were one of them.

It wouldn't be the first time I missed something but I don't think I did. I'm opposed to paradoxes which are logical fallacies. If you could have provided a logical reason for it, I would have been more receptive to your paradox. As it was you missed my point.

"Thought experiment".

Thought experiments are performed in the imagination. We set up some situation, we observe what happens, then we try to draw appropriate conclusions. In this way, thought experiments resemble real experiments, except that they are experiments in the mind.

I got that the first time. My point still stands.

The problem I have with most paradox is that the premise is flawed. So it's hard to get past the flawed premise to get to the exercise.

In fact, your paradox was so flawed that the correct answer to it was a simple "no one would know." In other words your thought experiment didn't require any thought at all.

So let me give you a thought experiment. What would be the purpose of creating a universe 10 minutes ago with everyone having memories and knowledge of the past including science, history, math, music, art and personal experiences? Think about that.

You've already made that point.

Sure, but it's a thought experiment.

 

[daveman]

Your GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call a veterinarian and have it put down.

I am sorry.

My comment was not a "Gotcha" attempt, merely a thought to ponder. I agree we will not know until the hereafter.

My apologies. You're right. We will not know, either in our lifetimes, or on this plane of existence.

Through the light of human reason I know now.

The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available.

Idk, maybe you are right.

I suspect daveman reads Genesis literally. Which as near as I can tell - relatively speaking - is a new thing.

Dave is a fundie?

I don't use terms like that. I believe he reads Genesis literally. I could be wrong.

You are. And I have no idea how you could have come to that conclusion.

Because of your thought experiment OP.

I don't care either way. To each his own.

No way to conclude I read Genesis literally from that thread.

Sure there was. Think about it.

Dude. I WROTE it. I already thought about it.

Ok, then let me enlighten you. It's your reluctance to accept what science tells us about the age and origin of the universe which led you to postulate that God intentionally created a universe that only looks like it is old.

Congratulations. You completely missed my point.

Definition of postulate​

(Entry 1 of 2)
transitive verb
1: DEMAND, CLAIM
2a: to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary : depend upon or start from the postulate of
b: to assume as a postulate or axiom (as in logic or mathematics)

That's not what I did. At all.

I presented a scenario intended to get people to think about what they know.

As I said, most posters on that thread were hostile to the idea. You were one of them.

It wouldn't be the first time I missed something but I don't think I did. I'm opposed to paradoxes which are logical fallacies. If you could have provided a logical reason for it, I would have been more receptive to your paradox. As it was you missed my point.

"Thought experiment".

Thought experiments are performed in the imagination. We set up some situation, we observe what happens, then we try to draw appropriate conclusions. In this way, thought experiments resemble real experiments, except that they are experiments in the mind.

I got that the first time. My point still stands.

The problem I have with most paradox is that the premise is flawed. So it's hard to get past the flawed premise to get to the exercise.

In fact, your paradox was so flawed that the correct answer to it was a simple "no one would know." In other words your thought experiment didn't require any thought at all.

So let me give you a thought experiment. What would be the purpose of creating a universe 10 minutes ago with everyone having memories and knowledge of the past including science, history, math, music, art and personal experiences? Think about that.

You've already made that point.

Sure, but it's a thought experiment.

Okay. There would be no way for me to know the point. A mortal mind cannot grasp the Creator.

 

[ding]

Your GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call a veterinarian and have it put down.

I am sorry.

My comment was not a "Gotcha" attempt, merely a thought to ponder. I agree we will not know until the hereafter.

My apologies. You're right. We will not know, either in our lifetimes, or on this plane of existence.

Through the light of human reason I know now.

The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available.

Idk, maybe you are right.

I suspect daveman reads Genesis literally. Which as near as I can tell - relatively speaking - is a new thing.

Dave is a fundie?

I don't use terms like that. I believe he reads Genesis literally. I could be wrong.

You are. And I have no idea how you could have come to that conclusion.

Because of your thought experiment OP.

I don't care either way. To each his own.

No way to conclude I read Genesis literally from that thread.

Sure there was. Think about it.

Dude. I WROTE it. I already thought about it.

Ok, then let me enlighten you. It's your reluctance to accept what science tells us about the age and origin of the universe which led you to postulate that God intentionally created a universe that only looks like it is old.

Congratulations. You completely missed my point.

Definition of postulate​

(Entry 1 of 2)
transitive verb
1: DEMAND, CLAIM
2a: to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary : depend upon or start from the postulate of
b: to assume as a postulate or axiom (as in logic or mathematics)

That's not what I did. At all.

I presented a scenario intended to get people to think about what they know.

As I said, most posters on that thread were hostile to the idea. You were one of them.

It wouldn't be the first time I missed something but I don't think I did. I'm opposed to paradoxes which are logical fallacies. If you could have provided a logical reason for it, I would have been more receptive to your paradox. As it was you missed my point.

"Thought experiment".

Thought experiments are performed in the imagination. We set up some situation, we observe what happens, then we try to draw appropriate conclusions. In this way, thought experiments resemble real experiments, except that they are experiments in the mind.

I got that the first time. My point still stands.

The problem I have with most paradox is that the premise is flawed. So it's hard to get past the flawed premise to get to the exercise.

In fact, your paradox was so flawed that the correct answer to it was a simple "no one would know." In other words your thought experiment didn't require any thought at all.

So let me give you a thought experiment. What would be the purpose of creating a universe 10 minutes ago with everyone having memories and knowledge of the past including science, history, math, music, art and personal experiences? Think about that.

You've already made that point.

Sure, but it's a thought experiment.

Okay. There would be no way for me to know the point. A mortal mind cannot grasp the Creator.

Why couldn't this be a computer simulation? If it were a computer simulation then it could have been created 10 minutes ago.

Which would mean that none of this is real which would be logical.

 

[ding]

"...It is primarily physicists who in recent times have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind. Arthur Eddington in 1928 wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff ... The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time.... Recognizing that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”

Von Weizsacker in 1971 states as “a new and, I feel, intelligible interpretation of quantum theory” what he calls his “Identity Hypothesis: Consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality.”

I like most of all Wolfgang Pauli’s formulation, from 1952: “To us . . . the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”

What this kind of thought means essentially is that one has no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves.

As for this seeming a strange viewpoint for a scientist -- at least until one gets used to it -- as in so many other instances, what is wanted is not so much an acceptable concept as an acceptable rhetoric. If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? -- virtually the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious..."

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe