Audie wrote:Jac3510 wrote:Audie wrote:Asked why, I said I dont accept premises.
Asked what are the premises, I thought cosmos knew
their premises, I didnt write them out.
You want me to list premises that you know by heart? Why?
If I identify one, am I then to justify it, playing in your court?
I'd ask you not to make such assumptions about me. You should know all about that. You said you didn't accept the premises. My
assumption was that there are some that you accept (e.g., that some things are in motion) and some that you don't. I don't know what those assumptions you don't accept are, so I asked.
I had no interest in pressing the matter with you. I might have wanted to know why you rejected or didn't assume any particular premise, but the idea of debating the CA with you is about as interesting to me as giving a crocodile a root canal. But as someone who is interested in the CA and how it is perceived by those who haven't studied it, I was (again, emphasizing was) interested in your perception of it.
It's the same reason I read news from liberal media outlets that I tend to disagree with. I want to know their perspective. I was curious in yours. And you couldn't even provide that. Instead, you ask if I'm going to ask you to justify it and play in "my" court.
Get over yourself. For someone who doesn't take too kindly to bullying, you do a lot of it yourself. And it's frankly depressing, because you show the sparks of intellectual honesty, and I feel like I could actually learn something from discussing these things with you. And then you go pull stunts like this. It's disheartening and shameful. I may as well waste my time arguing with ACB.
Asking a q is making an assumption?
But never mind. I've said I dont care to discuss cosmo. I have read thru various articles and arguments for and against. I was not impressed, as for debating it, I choose to let who will be clever.
Now, with regard to sparks of intellectual honesty, and that which is disheartening and shameful.
We seem to see eachother in roughly the same way.
You clearly are a studious sort; I am impressed with your knowledge of ancient Hebrew for one.
Obviously philosophy, a love of truth and reason is there.
The following is neither an attack nor an attempt to win debate points:
You love truth and reason-
So what is it that causes this to all break down when it comes to yec?
It is just impossible to be an informed an honest yec.
Now, I am not well informed on CA. Possibly I should be. You are not well informed on
those things that demonstrate that yec is untenable, nothing but what Einstein referred to
as a childish superstition. Possibly you should look into being better informed. "Getting over yourself"
would be a excellent first step.
Yec has a tendency to make Christians a laughing stock. As kid in
Hong Kong, I thought Christianity was the stupidest thing I ever heard of. Later, I met intellectual Christians and realized they were not all like that.
It is dismaying to see an intellectual Christian who is a yec. I dont know how they do it, unless it is
willful cognitive dissonance. Whatever the case, it is shameful, to borrow your word.
As long as you keep up the yeccery, nothing about your other logic escapes the taint.
I really am curious about this. If anything is central to my current interest in
this forum it is wanting to understand the workings of the mind that could accept yec on any basis but
blind faith
I liked, 'cause I like it when you actually write longer posts and we get to see into you, your thoughts, rather than the tough exterior and short "wave offs" which can be quite frustrating, leading to pointless conversation. That, and well, I agree with your comments about YEC (no offense to Jac).
My understanding of Jac, through his posts where he has said that he's not a professor in any scientific field or studied sciences in detail, that he's no scientific expert... well, this shows that Jac places what he considers to be a source of truth he does know about above that which he knows lesser of. All people do this, with sources of truth they know little about being deemed suspicious whereas the source they know more of takes priority -- because well, we prefer to go with what we know (or think we know).
Consider for Christians, we accept two sources of truth, that which we call "revelation": special (i.e., Apostolic/Scripture) and natural (i.e., experiences in the world). There are actually more than this in theology (e.g., experience, tradition and reason). Now Jac places a lot of emphasis upon Special (it's what he's studied) and Reason, and perhaps Science and Tradition so much as it fits with his use of the first two ((although he's read much of Aquinas and others) -- but certainly, I think even he would agree he places much more emphasis upon Scripture and Reason as his sources.
So now, what will that lead to? Can an aeroplane fly with only half its wings? It'll likely veer off and crash.
Similarly, please don't be offended, I think you're flying with 1/2 your wings in only trusting in yourself and your understanding of Science. Like you've become educated on the physical world, but what of the immaterial things in the world? (let me inject here that I don't believe I'm by any means perfectly flying either)
By "immaterial" I mean that, well... we're conscious beings and the end result of consciousness means we carry immaterial and indeed spiritual beliefs. According to all we know, we (humans) are the only beings that ever study other creatures ie., there's no animals who study us or who care about what other types of animals are out there (except when it comes to eating them perhaps). We think deeply about matters, consider sex sacred (well many do, even if we fail by social standards it is understood "rape" and the like isn't acceptable), we're aware concepts like rightness and goodness, we want to know questions like where we came from, what is the meaning in life, what happens when we die, will we live on or is physical death it? At all times as far back as we can go, people have carried very spiritual beliefs. We dress ourselves up, create jewelry, want to look our best, care about what people think of us (even if we wish to believe otherwise), and you know, we're the only ones that bend nature to our will so fully that we could and do ruin the natural world.
Now you've explored much that physical Science has to offer, however what of these immaterial aspects I've just rattled off (let me dub them "Spiritual"). Science has a story for explaining how we as physical beings came to be, but what of the spiritual? We see tree diagrams of this species arising physically, and then that -- physical family tree; but what of a consciousness spiritual tree? Why are we spiritual, and to the extent we are? Why are we so far ahead of primates sofaras our conscious awareness is concerned? Certainly humans seem like a quantum leap from primates, how did that happen? What can we know about our spirituality, about these immaterial elements themselves like goodness, love, and the like? Isn't it these immaterial aspects that we believe gives our lives meaning? Relationships and the like are often what people report they wished they focused more upon in life once faced with death. No matter how wrong YECs are re: physical truths, answers to questions like how old the Earth is has no real impact upon what it most important to everyone -- living a fulfilling life.
So I don't know where you might start to understand the spiritual side to us, that's for you to decide when you're good and ready, if you can even be bothered to do so. But, clearly we can identify that the world, in virtue of our expressed spirituality, has more to it than merely physical descriptors, which is what science attempts to deal with. Hence why psychology was once scoffed at being pseudo-science, perhaps? Nonetheless, I'd encourage you to explore these immaterial aspects of the world, of us -- just look into our psych and why we are the way we are. Like you've focused upon material world truths, I'd encourage you to start somewhere exploring immaterial world truths.
Disagree with Christianity, YEC and the like, but until you explore the immaterial aspects as much as you have the phsycal, I think your picture of the world is very much one dimensional through your constant focus upon the material world. It's the reverse of the YEC problem, where such focus so much on the spiritual they neglect the physical truths. Clearly immaterial elements exist, and such as I see it requires equal explaining as the material on its own terms (and vice-versa) in order to have a more balanced view of the real world.
