A ball thrown at the escape velocity (~11.2 km/sec ) will break free from earths gravitational force. Basic in rocket science, but definitely not rocket science.

Doesn't that fail to account for air-resistance though? My point was that the ball would slow down as it climbed higher. I thought you had to maintain escape velocity in order to escape the Earth's pull? Hence why rockets have...well...rockets

(January 21, 2010 at 10:36 am)rjh4 Wrote: My whole point in the questioning was that I do not think atheism can account for objective truth, only relative truth, and, therefore, self-destructs as a worldview.

If atheism should have any ambition to account for objective truth, which I don't think is the case at all since atheism rather is the decline of the claims of others on knowledge of objective truth, it would be in accordance with science here. Please take note of the fact that science claims no objective truth. It only delivers tentative truth. This is a very basic notion you can find in any entry level work on philosophy of science.

But precisely the urge you show here to not settle on anything less than absolute truth and to demand it right now with no intellectual effort on your part at all, precisely that wishfull thinking leads to premature assumption of a god who delivers this all from some skyhook argument that has no evidential proof.

As science shows in practice, frameworks build on relative truth are not worthless at all and do not self-destruct. This is because in real life, the absolute is not what matters but what works good enough is what matters. We don''t have to know all zillion decimal places of pi to be able to make round tyres.

You disqualify yourself with this argument immediately in debate. It means nothing less than that you say that science has self-destructed already. The argument already has exploded in your face.

(January 21, 2010 at 3:51 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Doesn't that fail to account for air-resistance though? My point was that the ball would slow down as it climbed higher. I thought you had to maintain escape velocity in order to escape the Earth's pull? Hence why rockets have...well...rockets

It would slow down over time due to loss of energy, with the air and the opposing force of gravity, but the deceleration due to air resistance would actually be decrease over distance upwards.

You could shoot a projectile out of the atmosphere given the average velocity of the projectile over the distance to escape gravity was greater than the escape velocity.

(January 21, 2010 at 3:51 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Doesn't that fail to account for air-resistance though? My point was that the ball would slow down as it climbed higher. I thought you had to maintain escape velocity in order to escape the Earth's pull? Hence why rockets have...well...rockets

The 11.2 km/s does not include the effect of air resistance, that's true. Still there is a finite velocity with which a ball from the surface of the earth can be thrown to overcome both the gravitational pull of the earth and the effect of air-resistance. To launch a rocket from the surface with a starting velocity of 11.2 km/s ( a mere 40000 km/h) is not really feasible. Rockets need trust over a larger distance than an arm length to build up velocity in a way in which the forces exerted on their structure are within acceptable range.

Edit: crossed with Void's post

Imagine if you really could throw that hard. With a wall, catch basin with a screen over it, and a basket of apples you could make cider in minutes!

(January 21, 2010 at 2:25 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Objective proof is an absolute. I don't see how you can simply say "it's my point of view, therefore it's true" when such a statement is subjective (the "point of view" bit highlights that). You've previously asked others on this forum how science can make an absolute truth claim on the claim "Science is a method for establishing truth". It's a good example of logical thinking and shows you somewhat understand the problems of subjective and objective truths, and our position in them.

What you fail to do, however, is to use the same logical thinking on your own beliefs! How can you make the absolute truth claim "the Bible is the word of God because the Bible promises that it is" and not see the bad logic there??? How can you objectively show that this view is the truth, without resorting to "excuses" that believers like you regularly use? It really is infuriating when you rightly observe our assumptions (and when I freely admit to them) and then act like a hypocrite and claim your view makes perfect sense of knowledge when you are making assumptions too!

Ca you at least admit that your view is logically flawed since it involves circular logic? Or else please explain how your Bible is objectively true based on a promise made in the same book!

Sorry, Adrian, I am not trying to be infuriating.

I do not think I ever said "the Bible is the word of God because the Bible promises that it is", at least not when the whole context of what I said was considered. And I admit that I should not have said that "I can objectively state..." if that is to be taken as a statement of something that can be proven absolutely. My statement would then be inaccurate. I was trying to convey the conviction of my position in view of the Holy Spirit's witness to me. I do realize that is not proof of the objective truth of the statement. In other words, it was not my intent to show a double standard, although I do see how you took it that way.

Over all, I think I have been pretty consistent in saying that God existing and His revelation through creation and His Word, the Bible, were first principles (presuppositions) in my worldview. So I guess you could reasonably say that these first principles are foundational assumptions that are not deduced from any other proposition or assumption. All other things are subordinate to these in my worldview, hence my previous statement that logic and science are useful tools for discovery within the created universe but it would be inappropriate within my worldview to use these tools to try to prove my first principles.

In comparison, any other worldview must also begin with a set of first principles (set X) and everything else subordinate to these.

So if one begins with a set of first principles and from them demonstrates something and says that this confirms the first principles, it is not a proof of the first principles. But if the conclusion of confirming the first principles is taken as or meant as proof of the first principles, the argument would be seen as or be circular.

Does this make my position any more clear?

I don't know where we are on any other issues/questions in this thread as things are getting so long. So if you would like me to address something previously mentioned, you might want to ask again. Thanks.

(January 21, 2010 at 4:52 pm)rjh4 Wrote:

(January 21, 2010 at 2:25 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Objective proof is an absolute. I don't see how you can simply say "it's my point of view, therefore it's true" when such a statement is subjective (the "point of view" bit highlights that). You've previously asked others on this forum how science can make an absolute truth claim on the claim "Science is a method for establishing truth". It's a good example of logical thinking and shows you somewhat understand the problems of subjective and objective truths, and our position in them.

What you fail to do, however, is to use the same logical thinking on your own beliefs! How can you make the absolute truth claim "the Bible is the word of God because the Bible promises that it is" and not see the bad logic there??? How can you objectively show that this view is the truth, without resorting to "excuses" that believers like you regularly use? It really is infuriating when you rightly observe our assumptions (and when I freely admit to them) and then act like a hypocrite and claim your view makes perfect sense of knowledge when you are making assumptions too!

Ca you at least admit that your view is logically flawed since it involves circular logic? Or else please explain how your Bible is objectively true based on a promise made in the same book!

I do not think I ever said "the Bible is the word of God because the Bible promises that it is", at least not when the whole context of what I said was considered. And I admit that I should not have said that "I can objectively state..." if that is to be taken as a statement of something that can be proven absolutely. My statement would then be inaccurate. I was trying to convey the conviction of my position in view of the Holy Spirit's witness to me. I do realize that is not proof of the objective truth of the statement. In other words, it was not my intent to show a double standard, although I do see how you took it that way.

So, to summaries:

Science is not accurate enough for you because it is a consensus of subjective human experts observing objective phenomenon in any given field, yet you have the single most subjective experience possible and that is good enough to convince you that not only is there Is a God, but he's the Christian one, actually wrote the book and it's 100% accurate.

Surely you see how inane that is?

Quote:Over all, I think I have been pretty consistent in saying that God existing and His revelation through creation and His Word, the Bible, were first principles (presuppositions) in my worldview. So I guess you could reasonably say that these first principles are foundational assumptions that are not deduced from any other proposition or assumption. All other things are subordinate to these in my worldview, hence my previous statement that logic and science are useful tools for discovery within the created universe but it would be inappropriate within my worldview to use these tools to try to prove my first principles.

Sounds like me your comfortable stupor has prevented you from being able to question your presuppositions, and if you are not prepared to question your presuppositions then how can you claim to care about the truth? You surely know that quite often the biggest problem in an idea is the presuppositions under which it was made? That's why presuppositions have to be just as heavily examined and scrutinised as the conclusions that follow from them.

I also laugh at your statement that "Logic and science are useful tools for discovering within the created universe" yet you are so quick to dismiss the scientific process whenever it is incompatible with your silly old book. Another example of how your emotional attachment to your presuppositions is affecting your ability to honestly examine the world.

Quote:In comparison, any other worldview must also begin with a set of first principles (set X) and everything else subordinate to these.

Ok then, lets test your claim.

What is my presupposition?

Quote:So if one begins with a set of first principles and from them demonstrates something and says that this confirms the first principles, it is not a proof of the first principles. But if the conclusion of confirming the first principles is taken as or meant as proof of the first principles, the argument would be seen as or be circular.

This would only be the case if we claimed the first principles were absolute and objectively true. As my signature says (courtesy of the great Feynman), science only talks about what is more likely and what is less likely, not what is possible and not possible. So in this case any conformation of the conclusions of a hypothesis only serve to strengthen the hypothesis as currently accurate when compared to the current body of relevant knowledge, it does not prove the hypothesis as absolutely and objectively true.

Quote:Does this make my position any more clear?

The only thing that it makes clear is you have a straw man of the scientific method and the category of claims it makes.

(January 21, 2010 at 5:15 pm)theVOID Wrote: So, to summaries:

Science is not accurate enough for you because it is a consensus of subjective human experts observing objective phenomenon in any given field, yet you have the single most subjective experience possible and that is good enough to convince you that not only is there Is a God, but he's the Christian one, actually wrote the book and it's 100% accurate.

Surely you see how inane that is?

Straw-man as I said nothing about science being inaccurate and because of such inaccuracies I begin with different presuppositions.

(January 21, 2010 at 5:15 pm)theVOID Wrote: Sounds like me your comfortable stupor has prevented you from being able to question your presuppositions, and if you are not prepared to question your presuppositions then how can you claim to care about the truth? You surely know that quite often the biggest problem in an idea is the presuppositions under which it was made? That's why presuppositions have to be just as heavily examined and scrutinised as the conclusions that follow from them.

There you would be wrong. I have questioned my presuppositions and concluded and continue to conclude that any other presuppositions lead nowhere.

(January 21, 2010 at 5:15 pm)theVOID Wrote: I also laugh at your statement that "Logic and science are useful tools for discovering within the created universe" yet you are so quick to dismiss the scientific process whenever it is incompatible with your silly old book. Another example of how your emotional attachment to your presuppositions is affecting your ability to honestly examine the world.

Laugh all you want. But in any worldview something must have the ultimate authority. In mine it is God.

(January 21, 2010 at 5:15 pm)theVOID Wrote: Ok then, lets test your claim.

What is my presupposition?

You tell me. It is your worldview.

(January 21, 2010 at 5:15 pm)theVOID Wrote:

Quote:So if one begins with a set of first principles and from them demonstrates something and says that this confirms the first principles, it is not a proof of the first principles. But if the conclusion of confirming the first principles is taken as or meant as proof of the first principles, the argument would be seen as or be circular.

This would only be the case if we claimed the first principles were absolute and objectively true. As my signature says (courtesy of the great Feynman), science only talks about what is more likely and what is less likely, not what is possible and not possible. So in this case any conformation of the conclusions of a hypothesis only serve to strengthen the hypothesis as currently accurate when compared to the current body of relevant knowledge, it does not prove the hypothesis as absolutely and objectively true.

Well if you personally don’t start with first principles that at least you think are absolute and objectively true, then I don’t know why you have such a high regard for whatever worldview you hold such that you find mine so laughable.

rjh4 Wrote:There you would be wrong. I have questioned my presuppositions and concluded and continue to conclude that any other presuppositions lead nowhere.

Don't just assert it, show us how and why you know that your presupposition gets you anywhere.

Quote:Laugh all you want. But in any worldview something must have the ultimate authority. In mine it is God.

Unless you can demonstrate valid logical reasoning for holding a positive belief in the existence of God your personal need for authority is worthless.

Quote:You tell me. It is your worldview.

I asked you to point them out, since you claim everyone has them by default.

I don't call Anything completely impossible, therefore I exclude nothing by default. My positions are based a weighing of evidence where it is available and withholding judgement where none is available.

Quote:Well if you personally don’t start with first principles that at least you think are absolute and objectively true, then I don’t know why you have such a high regard for whatever worldview you hold such that you find mine so laughable.

My position is based on the weighing of evidence between proposition to attain a level of certainty (or un). On the issue of the existence for God i see no evidence what so ever for his being existent and thus i consider him extremely unlikely, based on our current body of relevant knowledge.

You have an almost idiotic certainty of the truth of your presuppositions, especially considering the standard by which you came to this conclusion involved nothing more than totally subjective personal revelation of which there are many people who, by the same standard, have come to literally hundreds of positions that are entirely contradictory to your own. You can go two ways from here, you can either recognise that the current standard being used to substantiate your claims is logically insufficient and move on to a higher standard of evidence in an attempt to prove the viability of your claims over the other contradictory ones, or you can admit that you don't much care that you cannot rationally verify your position.

Quote:Straw-man as I said nothing about science being inaccurate and because of such inaccuracies I begin with different presuppositions.

You don't think it's accurate yet you reject the scientific method the minuet it produces answers that contradict your world view.

Some Christians cherry pick the bible, you cherry pick science.