21 Apr 11
Originally posted by KellyJayYou haven't answered my question. Why is written record not 'pure conjecture'?
If I have to know what I'm saying is true, it is better to record that which I can
verify as factual. If I can put my numbers up against reality, than I know my
numbers are far better than if I can only do it against what I think it means. If
I have access to written records of an event, I'll take that over word of mouth.
Kelly
Why are written records, in your opinion, more trustworthy than scientific evidence?
21 Apr 11
Originally posted by KellyJayAs I said, you are deliberately avoiding admitting the consequences of your claim. It is not about me 'thinking that way'. It is about common sense and logic.
So if you think things like that are an illusion, than fine think that way!
If gravity is created prior to the object that causes the gravity, then the object causing the gravity is illusory.
If light is created as if it came from an object that was never there, then the object emitting the light is illusory.
Creation was a sudden event, looking at the universe would not lend itself to that type of information gathering for dates.
Yet it would lend itself to information gathering for dates for the illusionary objects.
I cannot think of any test that would show us one unverse was created and another was not.
If it was created the way you say, then there is no test. However, if it was created the way you say then God deliberately created, along with the universe, a complete illusory history for the universe. The question then, from a philosophical point of view is whether or not, if we can never distinguish whether or not the past in an illusion, do we say that 'it happened' or 'it existed'?
I'm not at all being "DISHONEST" here or attempting to hide anything from you!
Over a number of pages now, you have refused to admit the obvious consequences of your claim. You have not claimed my logic is flawed. You have not offered an alternative. Instead, you waffled on about how I was reading the tea leaves. Yes, you were, and still are, attempting to avoid admitting the consequences of your claim.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
21 Apr 11
Originally posted by KellyJaySo in your book, Adam and Eve were Last Mondayists, for a day or two.🙂
I heard of that, that suggests all of our memories and all of our history is false.
I understand that some may say that is still what I'm suggesting but I don't think
so, there is a difference between our saying what we have experienced is not
true or real and suggesting that the universe was created in working order with
all its parts in place to support life.
Kelly
22 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadCall it what you will, call it illusory, I do not care! Bottom line is still true, seeing
As I said, you are deliberately avoiding admitting the consequences of your claim. It is not about me 'thinking that way'. It is about common sense and logic.
If gravity is created prior to the object that causes the gravity, then the object causing the gravity is illusory.
If light is created as if it came from an object that was never there, then the you were, and still are, attempting to avoid admitting the consequences of your claim.
the candle burn does not tell you how long it has been lit! The same thing is also
true of the universe, if you do not know how or when it started no matter what
you look at, it wil not tell you how long its been here, it only shows you its current
state.
Kelly
22 Apr 11
Originally posted by jaywillI checked your link to the cell. It is amazing that man has the
Given enough time, why anything could develop by accident.
[b]Signatue in the Cell - Stephen Meyer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVkdQhNdzHU&feature=related[/b]
intelligence to be able to know how this works. It is wven more
amazing that it does. It definetely uses a program of information
to know what it is supposed to do. I can not understand how
someone like twhitehead, who is suppose to be a computer
programmer would think a computer could do any work without
a program to tell it what to do. When living organisms reproduce
there is a need for many programs for how could it happen by
accident. But what does he believe? He thinks there is no need
for a programmer to make a program for it to happen. It just
miraculously happens. And they call us gullible.
22 Apr 11
Originally posted by KellyJayI generally agree. But if we see a candle is burnt halfway down, then it may have been created that way, but at the very minimum, we have the illusion that the candle burnt halfway down. The question then, is why you:
Call it what you will, call it illusory, I do not care! Bottom line is still true, seeing
the candle burn does not tell you how long it has been lit! The same thing is also
true of the universe, if you do not know how or when it started no matter what
you look at, it wil not tell you how long its been here, it only shows you its current
state.
Kelly
1. criticize people for studying the illusion.
2. trust some possible illusions over others. e.g. you trust that writing is not an illusion. You trust that dinosaur bones are not an illusion etc. Why do you believe that God could make a whole four billion years of illusionary history for billion of billions of stars but would struggle when it comes to a few fossils or books?
It is not your general argument I have a problem with, but the fact that you are inconsistent with your argument and refuse to accept some of the consequences. Even here you still don't really admit that the history of the universe is illusory, you instead try to portray me as incorrectly calling it that.
22 Apr 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou are the one that thinks you know why things are the way they are so you
I generally agree. But if we see a candle is burnt halfway down, then it may have been created that way, but at the very minimum, we have the illusion that the candle burnt halfway down. The question then, is why you:
1. criticize people for studying the illusion.
2. trust some possible illusions over others. e.g. you trust that writing is not an illusi ...[text shortened]... tory of the universe is illusory, you instead try to portray me as incorrectly calling it that.
paint a picture as why in your head. It looks this way but if itsn't, its wrong, it isn't
real, it is an illusion something to trick you. I didn't say the candle had to be
created that way, it could have been blown out and someone lit it again. There are
lots of things that could have happen with the universe, creation being the one I
favor. I do not criticize people for studying their illusions, but making claims that
they know how it all begun when they do not know. I do not believe God created
four billion years of illusionary history, I believe He just created it and people took
it upon themselves to come up with a story that matches what they think, it does
not have to be true only fit what they believe. The one who lit the candle was not
trying to fool someone who looks at it later and thinks it was burning for 24 hours
instead of 5 minutes, the one who drew that conclusion took it upon themselves to
view it that way all by themselves.
Kelly
22 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayCorrect. Yet you refuse to admit this and try to pretend that it is only me choosing to call it an illusion.
You are the one that thinks you know why things are the way they are so you
paint a picture as why in your head. It looks this way but if itsn't, its wrong, it isn't
real, it is an illusion something to trick you.
I didn't say the candle had to be created that way, it could have been blown out and someone lit it again. There are lots of things that could have happen with the universe, creation being the one I
favor. I do not criticize people for studying their illusions, but making claims that
they know how it all begun when they do not know.
So why do you not equally apply the same criticism to yourself when it comes to last Thursdayism? Why do you trust written records, fossils and such like? Why don't you equally criticize me for believing the sun or moon exist?
I do not believe God created four billion years of illusionary history, I believe He just created it and people took it upon themselves to come up with a story that matches what they think, it does not have to be true only fit what they believe.
If it fits 'what I believe' or rather 'what I conclude based on the evidence' then it is an illusion and it is illusory history and who created it if not God?
The one who lit the candle was not trying to fool someone who looks at it later and thinks it was burning for 24 hours instead of 5 minutes, the one who drew that conclusion took it upon themselves to view it that way all by themselves.
Kelly
What if it was not a candle, but a book? Would you equally say that the creator had no intention of putting meaning into the words in the book, but that it is just us drawing that conclusion when we 'read' it?
Why do you conclude that the candle burnt at all? Surely that too is just you drawing an unwarranted conclusion? The ash, melted wax etc were not put there by the creator to make you think it burnt, but is an unwarranted conclusion made by you.
Do you see that you do not apply your logic universally, you only apply it when it suits you?
If you applied it universally, you would realize that we all accept the possibility of last Thursdayism, but discard it due to the lack of relevance to us. If the world looks like it was here before last Thursday, then why should we care if it was only created last Thursday? You still have to pay those bills from last Wednesday. More importantly, if you cannot distinguish between a world created last Thursday and one which has lasted much longer, then which one is the reality? Is not what we perceive to be so (the illusion), more real than what actually happened?
23 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]I do believe you are choosing an illusion, your illusion is that you think the
Correct. Yet you refuse to admit this and try to pretend that it is only me choosing to call it an illusion.
[b]I didn't say the candle had to be created that way, it could have been blown out and someone lit it again. There are lots of things that could have happen with the universe, creation being the one I
favor. I do not criticize people for study Is not what we perceive to be so (the illusion), more real than what actually happened?
universe is billions of years old, and that through time evolution has caused
all life to spring up through non-living material that formed into life then
changed into the variety we see today.
Kelly
23 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaSince the baseball season is constantly becoming more endless, this implies the Cubs will win the World Series again. 😉
Given enough time (i.e. if time is infinite and with a cardinality of time bigger than the cardinality of possible events) then anything that could happen will. ...
[need to reboot brain, assumptions about reality have been thrown out of whack. Start with something simple, assume normal curves with independent arrivals of incidents, Poisson distribution, that's it ...].
23 Apr 11
Originally posted by KellyJayWhen you look in a mirror and see an image of yourself, is the illusion of another person standing there entirely a product of your beliefs, or is it an existent illusion in its own right?
I do believe you are choosing an illusion, your illusion is that you think the
universe is billions of years old, and that through time evolution has caused
all life to spring up through non-living material that formed into life then
changed into the variety we see today.
Kelly
The illusion of the stars can be seen by anyone, including both you and me. You have claimed that the light you see coming from the stars was created in transit. Either you cannot see stars when you look up at the sky at night or you see the same illusion that I do. Considering that you know what I mean when I say 'star', I think the latter is true.
23 Apr 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou see light period, you assign that light to the star, you see an image of
When you look in a mirror and see an image of yourself, is the illusion of another person standing there entirely a product of your beliefs, or is it an existent illusion in its own right?
The illusion of the stars can be seen by anyone, including both you and me. You have claimed that the light you see coming from the stars was created in transit. Eit ...[text shortened]... hat I do. Considering that you know what I mean when I say 'star', I think the latter is true.
yourself in a mirror a refection, they simply are what they are, the illusion would
be to think they were something other than what they are, assign false credit
or flawed understanding to what they are, that is building an illusion in your mind.
Reality, not illusion would be to grasp what it is for the reason it is there, God
creating something and bringing it into reality does create an illusion, what does
would be your flawed understanding of what you think you are looking at.
Kelly
23 Apr 11
Originally posted by KellyJaySo you do not believe that stars and galaxies further away than about 8,000 light years actually exist? And everyone else is wrongly assigning all that light we see at night to stars. Even though what we see looks remarkably like what we would expect from stars orbiting each other (galaxies) and many of the features in the light we see not only fits our theories remarkably well, but we can even predict certain properties with remarkable accuracy. For example, if we see what we think is a galaxy, we can predict, based on its apparent size, the redshift of the light coming from it. We can predict various absorption bands in that light etc etc. So even though the light coming from the sky paints as detailed a picture as your reflection in the mirror, we are wrong to believe that they exist, and you are wrong to believe that what you see in the mirror is a reflection of you. You are jumping to conclusions when you do that.
You see light period, you assign that light to the star, you see an image of
yourself in a mirror a refection, they simply are what they are, the illusion would
be to think they were something other than what they are, assign false credit
or flawed understanding to what they are, that is building an illusion in your mind.
Reality, not illusion would be ...[text shortened]... sion, what does
would be your flawed understanding of what you think you are looking at.
Kelly
23 Apr 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think a good question to ask him and other young-Earth creationists (lets say those that claim that the universe is less than, say, one million years old) who claim that the stars and their light in transit were made at the same time is;
So you do not believe that stars and galaxies further away than about 8,000 light years actually exist? And everyone else is wrongly assigning all that light we see at night to stars. Even though what we see looks remarkably like what we would expect from stars orbiting each other (galaxies) and many of the features in the light we see not only fits our t ...[text shortened]... t you see in the mirror is a reflection of you. You are jumping to conclusions when you do that.
If we see a star explode to oblivion today that is one million light years away, WHEN did it explode?
This one simple basic question they cannot ever really answer because they cannot do so without exposing their illogic (and so I bet he will not answer) because, if these young-Earth creationists are correct, then:
EITHER that exploding star never happened, in which case that would beg the question; why would a deity show us a fictitious history?
OR it exploded at a time BEFORE the universe began and therefore, presumably, BEFORE that star's formation, which is logically incoherent!
OR, one million years from now, we will see that same star explode again (because the light from the explosion would have finally reach us) even though it no longer exists (because it would have already exploded to oblivion one million years previously ) ! which would beg the question; why would a deity show us fictitious dates of a historical cosmological events?
Also, the assumption that that the stars and the light in transit were made at the same time is itself an assumption about history not based on any evidence -unlike the scientific fact that the universe and the Earth is many millions of years old which IS not only based on evidence but several very different kinds of evidence from several different independent sources that are all in general agreement with each other. So those young-Earth creationists are making a totally baseless assumption about history that the evidence clearly proves is false.