rjh4 said: "So, CP, have you done all the experiments and observations to confirm all that you hold to? "

Actually, I have done some experiments. In fact here in the states we have biology and chemistry classes in High School. We did plenty of tests and observed the results and confirmed the findings also I was once an astronomy enthusiasts and even owned my own high powered telescope and charts of the stars to help me find their locations etc. What I am stating in a nut shell is that most scientific discoveries are testable and by following instructions and observing you can duplicate most of the experiments that led the discoverer to the conclusions he/she has come up with. And who knows every once in awhile you may find a discrepancy but that is the beauty of science! There are no absolutes, it is a never ending journey of discovery. Your position makes claims of certainty that are neither provable nor able to be confirmed in any conventional way shape or form.

(February 10, 2010 at 11:07 am)rjh4 Wrote: [...]
Consequently, I do not think I was using circular reasoning at all. I think you are extrapolating from what I said relative to the issue at hand into an area that was not even being discussed. On the other hand, I would also agree that the wording of my sentence that you quoted was less than crystal clear on my part and may have contributed to such extrapolation.

I was referring to the part I bolded. I know we are discussing criteria but I bolded where you said how you get your criterion from the Bible "because the Bible says so" - and what I'm talking about is not just on this biological matter, but on other matters - if you're going to just get your criteria from "The Bible is right because the Bible says so" - then I don't see how I am supposed to argue with you. That is circular thinking.

EvF

(February 10, 2010 at 11:32 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I was referring to the part I bolded. I know we are discussing criteria but I bolded where you said how you get your criterion from the Bible "because the Bible says so" - and what I'm talking about is not just on this biological matter, but on other matters - if you're going to just get your criteria from "The Bible is right because the Bible says so" - then I don't see how I am supposed to argue with you. That is circular thinking.

EvF

I am not, nor was I trying to say "The Bible is right because the Bible says so". Like I said before, I agree that the sentence you quoted might appear to be saying that, but that is not what I meant. I meant that it is my position that man is not an animal because the Bible says so. And regarding the man/animal thing, I think the only real issue between us is our criteria that we use to decide the question.

Okay... yes I agree we have different criteria's, certainly.

So I am guessing, then, that you have reasons to believe that the word of the Bible is all true, and that's why you believe that it is simply right when it comes to matters such as, animals and humans for instance (and everything else that it applies to I would imagine?)?

I believe you have your own reasons.... I simply doubt that I will find them valid.

EvF

(February 10, 2010 at 12:14 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: So I am guessing, then, that you have reasons to believe that the word of the Bible is all true, and that's why you believe that it is simply right when it comes to matters such as, animals and humans for instance (and everything else that it applies to I would imagine?)?

You have guessed correctly.

(February 10, 2010 at 12:14 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I believe you have your own reasons.... I simply doubt that I will find them valid.

EvF

I also doubt that you would find them valid (but that is another discussion altogether).

Actually, anyone who argues about the veracity of the bible without proof or evidence of said veracity is doing nothing more than parroting what is written there. It is not even considered circular reasoning since in my opinion there is no reasoning involved. I remember a long time ago that I posted that faith was the ultimate equalizer in all arguments of logic and reason since you don't require either of those two criteria to substantiate your claims.

(February 10, 2010 at 10:09 am)rjh4 Wrote:

(February 10, 2010 at 6:41 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Because my "presuppostions" are based on the evidence presented that shows that the world and

the universe it is in are billions of years old, Astronomy,Geology,Physics, Paleontology, in fact, all of the

physical sciences.

Whereas yours is based on the bible, which has no evidence to support it whatsoever.

Zen, your presuppositions (first principles) are foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption (from wiki). So your presuppositions are not based on the evidence as you put it, your presuppositions are the basis for your interpretation of evidence. You have it backwards. So if you want to rethink what your presuppositions (first principles) are and get back to me, I am certainly willing to discuss this with you.

---

Ah, First Principles hey??

Then my first principle is that the world is what the evidence that science has discovered says it is.

It's hard to believe that christians equate their superficial knowledge based on their book of myths with actual scientific knowledge that has in many aspects presented evidence for many of its discoveries.

(February 11, 2010 at 7:40 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Then my first principle is that the world is what the evidence that science has discovered says it is.

First, that statement sounds noble but it certainly is not very clear as to what it actually means (see below).

Second, the statement suffers from the fallacy of reification since science does not discover or say anything, scientists do. And if you mean scientists, then my question would be which ones and how do you decide based on what "science says"?

Third, then your whole worldview is based on a moving first principle since the conclusions in science change all the time. I guess your world view is totally in the hands of others (scientists) and what a majority(???) of them happen to decide about the universe and the meaning of life at any particular point in time. How do you go about finding out what you actually believe on any particular day?

Fourth, I guess that would rule out using logic since as far as I know, logic is not based on some scientific experiment or effort. Alternatively, if science uses logic but logic was a result of the scientific method, then how do you have any confidence in either as it all sounds quite circular? Oh, but mentioning circularity is mentioning a logical fallacy but if your worldview cannot account for logic, I wonder how it deals with logical fallacies.

Fifth, I guess that would rule out using mathematics for the same reasons set forth above for logic.

Sixth, even if you consider morals a relative thing, how does the scientific method provide you with a basis for making any moral decisions?

As far as I can tell, your first principle does not provide any of the preconditions for knowing or deciding anything. It certainly is not a first principle that I would want to follow.

My first principle(s) is/are, perhaps - I am here, I am alive. I cannot know anything for absolutely certain including my own existence, the fact that I'm here - and I can't even absolutely know that I can't absolutely know anything. Life is probabilistic as far as I am concerned, I experience my life subjectively - how else? - through my own judgement(s) - how else? - what I consider to be valid reasons to believe I deem as evidence.... and I just live my life and do what I think is right.

EvF