ERayR Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 That is a fact in your view, are you 100% certain that it did not happen? Everybody has a point of view, but everybody should look for the most reasonable point of view. Everybody should be open minded. There are an infinite number of interpretations, so lets try to look for the most reasonable ones that we have the capacity to find. What do you call a "reasonable" pov. Why one that agrees with you, of course. Again "reasonable" depends on where one is standing and what "facts" one has at their disposal and which of those one is willing to consider.
MormonFreeThinker Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 What do you call a "reasonable" pov. Why one that agrees with you, of course. Again "reasonable" depends on where one is standing and what "facts" one has at their disposal and which of those one is willing to consider. I give up, you have your point of view, I have my point of view.
ERayR Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 I give up, you have your point of view, I have my point of view. Now you are beginning to see. My 50+ years of study has put me in a different place than you are. Tell me why I should shape my life to your pov? 1
mfbukowski Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 Tell that to the truck speeding towards you. really a silly reply. If there is a truck speeding toward you, your point of view would show a truck speeding toward you, growing bigger and bigger by the second, and so you better get your...... point of view..... out of the way if you still want a point of view in the morning. In fact, you would be in a better position- from your point of view- to know if you should jump to the left or right. Someone from a different point of view, say from the side, may not be in a position to give you any useful information at all. Someone totally objective might wonder if it is worth the effort to yell at you since after all, it might appear you are doomed. Or perhaps they don't care at all if you get hit by the truck at all. Maybe it would be fun to see someone flattened. But some might disagree that the truck was headed toward you at all. Their instruments simply showed it missing you by at least a foot. They suggest an experiment to put you back in the same spot and duplicate the velocity and direction of the truck to analyze whether or not it was in fact necessary for you to even adjust your position. Since you happen to be the President of the United States, soon there will be a congressional investigation to determine if in fact you were in the way of the truck at all, and so who should bear responsibility. Each member of congress would have their individual points of view on the situation and some will want to hold the secret service responsible. But the data was ambiguous and the truth of the situation was impossible to determine Never the less you are convinced you saved your bippy, without the objective evidence to support your position. After all, all you have is your point of view- and so without objective evidence you have no case that your jump was warranted. Please don't post that lame comment again so I don't have to re-type this ok? Having a point of view doesn't mean you are blind, it just means you have a point of view. You know like POINT of VIEW? How does that imply not SEEING?? 2
mfbukowski Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 He originally said it as a fact, or it seemed to. I agree that Macro-Evolution has not been proven with absolute certainty, but it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. "My point of view" is not always useful, we have to make important decisions sometimes. Reasonable certainties are not absolute certainties, to get somewhere we must look for reasonable certainties or reasonable probabilities. How do you guys define a "fact"? LOL LOL?Read the above. There are no facts, only interpretations. do you really want to get into it? From what you are saying you should agree with that- why you don't is a mystery. Why don't YOU define "fact"? since facts are only provisional? Uh- like maybe there are no permanent facts, only changing interpretations of data? Does that help? 1
mfbukowski Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 There are an infinite number of interpretations, so lets try to look for the most reasonable ones that we have the capacity to find. Sounds nice, but defining your terms and your "shoulds"- "We should be reasonable"- What does that MEAN? How is a testimony "reasonable"? Invisible people talking to you? How does your science work with that? 1
mfbukowski Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 I give up, you have your point of view, I have my point of view. Now wait a minute- I thought we were supposed to be "open minded"? How do you justify your point of view as being the most "reasonable"? If you really give up then let's not revisit this in two days, ok? 4
MormonFreeThinker Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 (edited) Now you are beginning to see. My 50+ years of study has put me in a different place than you are. Tell me why I should shape my life to your pov? So your 50+ years of study means that you can't be wrong? In my five+ years of study I realized that I been wrong so many times. There are no facts, only interpretations. do you really want to get into it? I agree that all of us have our own point of views and interpretations. Maybe our views are wrong, maybe the world is a matrix. Maybe the world was created five minutes ago. I believe in looking for the truths that are useful to humanity, I also believe that we should be objective. How do you justify your point of view as being the most "reasonable"?? Perhaps it is not the most reasonable, but I try to be open minded and objective. There are no facts, only interpretations. do you really want to get into it? In Theism there are facts.Preach My Gospel says, "Truth is a knowledge of things as they really are, were, and will be. It does not change with conditions or time. Truth is the same in every age and culture. God is the source of all truth" In a Atheism there are no facts like you just said. We are Theists, are you sure there are no facts? Edited March 20, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker
Robert F. Smith Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 I agree, it is not 100% certain, the only certainty is that there is no conspiracy like some skeptics claim. However, "Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers" (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences). I said "most authors". How many papers by skeptics are published in respected Journals? Not that many. None, I have nothing to offer, but it makes more sense to take the 97% of the researchers more seriously. It makes more sense to be more skeptical of the 3%.. Have you read all the papers of both sides? Please read what I been saying, I linked to 3 scientific papers that prove most of the scientific literature agrees. I don't care about the media, I don't watch Fox News or MSNBC. I care about the scientific literature. I can also name many researchers and link to their profile. The tenor of this debate reminds me so much of the debate about the Book of Mormon, and of the imaginary polling which takes place among those who are completely unfamiliar with the science -- and who are uninterested in even considering the science, since that might lead to who knows where? Dogmatic or ideological fear from both sides has more to do with their a priori positions on such matters than science ever has.
thesometimesaint Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 (edited) really a silly reply. If there is a truck speeding toward you, your point of view would show a truck speeding toward you, growing bigger and bigger by the second, and so you better get your...... point of view..... out of the way if you still want a point of view in the morning. In fact, you would be in a better position- from your point of view- to know if you should jump to the left or right. Someone from a different point of view, say from the side, may not be in a position to give you any useful information at all. Someone totally objective might wonder if it is worth the effort to yell at you since after all, it might appear you are doomed. Or perhaps they don't care at all if you get hit by the truck at all. Maybe it would be fun to see someone flattened. But some might disagree that the truck was headed toward you at all. Their instruments simply showed it missing you by at least a foot. They suggest an experiment to put you back in the same spot and duplicate the velocity and direction of the truck to analyze whether or not it was in fact necessary for you to even adjust your position. Since you happen to be the President of the United States, soon there will be a congressional investigation to determine if in fact you were in the way of the truck at all, and so who should bear responsibility. Each member of congress would have their individual points of view on the situation and some will want to hold the secret service responsible. But the data was ambiguous and the truth of the situation was impossible to determine Never the less you are convinced you saved your bippy, without the objective evidence to support your position. After all, all you have is your point of view- and so without objective evidence you have no case that your jump was warranted. Please don't post that lame comment again so I don't have to re-type this ok? Having a point of view doesn't mean you are blind, it just means you have a point of view. You know like POINT of VIEW? How does that imply not SEEING?? Some POV's about trucks are fine. Some POV's about trucks are not fine. What makes the difference is how close that truck is. Edited March 20, 2015 by thesometimesaint
MormonFreeThinker Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 (edited) The tenor of this debate reminds me so much of the debate about the Book of Mormon, and of the imaginary polling which takes place among those who are completely unfamiliar with the science -- and who are uninterested in even considering the science, since that might lead to who knows where? Dogmatic or ideological fear from both sides has more to do with their a priori positions on such matters than science ever has. pogi sent me a link, but pogi forgot to read part two CO2 Climate change theory is powerful because it has survived the test of time and scientific scrutiny for many years. It beautifully explains all the data, no other theory explains all the data. The papers (very few papers) published by skeptics have not survived scientific scrutiny. There is really no significant debate in the scientific community, if the theory is wrong it means that the evidence that challenges it has not been published yet. Edited March 20, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker
UtahTexan Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 I dunno. I have become pretty jaundiced about anything anyone says re: science.....or almost anything. I think we are fed what the policy makers want us to believe. Like Global Warming. I truly have no idea what is the correct answer. Al Gore claims it...but he also claimed he invented the internet. Brian Williams agreed with it and reported, but...... Is it Global Warming? Is it simply weather cycles? I dunno. I recall winters in the 70s that were HORRIBLE. It started mass exodus from the North to the South. In the early 80s, Texas set records for heat and consecutive days over 100 degrees that still stand. So....it would seem that this is all just cyclical....but....maybe not. The sad thing is, we have come to a point where we do not believe anything from anywhere anymore
ERayR Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 So your 50+ years of study means that you can't be wrong? In my five+ years of study I realized that I been wrong so many times. I agree that all of us have our own point of views and interpretations. Maybe our views are wrong, maybe the world is a matrix. Maybe the world was created five minutes ago. I believe in looking for the truths that are useful to humanity, I also believe that we should be objective. Perhaps it is not the most reasonable, but I try to be open minded and objective. In Theism there are facts.Preach My Gospel says, Truth is a knowledge of things as they really are, were, and will be. It does not change with conditions or time. Truth is the same in every age and culture. God is the source of all truth" In a Atheism there are no facts like you just said. We are Theists, are you sure there are no facts? Sigh: Wrong from whose point of view. I have adjusted my interpretations of data from time to time as my vantage point has shifted. (Truth is a knowledge of things as they really are, were, and will be . . ) I Take that to mean from God's vantage point. I haven't reached that place yet. At times I get glimpses. From where I am standing I think I am objective. At least I consider data that you dismiss out of hand.
mfbukowski Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 (edited) I believe in looking for the truths that are useful to humanity, I also believe that we should be objective. Perhaps it is not the most reasonable, but I try to be open minded and objective. In Theism there are facts.Preach My Gospel says, "Truth is a knowledge of things as they really are, were, and will be. It does not change with conditions or time. Truth is the same in every age and culture. God is the source of all truth" In a Atheism there are no facts like you just said. We are Theists, are you sure there are no facts? Listen, I do not want to argue with you about this. You are on a voyage of discovery and I wish you well. Your opinion will change many times in the future, you have a long journey ahead. I would caution you AGAINST thinking you will find objective evidence for God and that science can prove his existence. That is going down the wrong trail. In fact it is THAT position which leads to atheism. You will find that "things as they are" are more as your heart reflects them than as objective evidence sees them. Virtually every atheist who has ever posted here- or anywhere - has complained about the lack of "objective evidence" for the existence of God. Virtually every anti-mormon brings up continuously the question of lack of "objective evidence" EVERY single one. Sooner or later you will have to come to grips with the issue of what it means to be "objective" and "scientific" and what those terms mean and the importance you give them in your life. Know now that there could be a trial of your faith in the future, but when there is, that there are answers you are not considering now as even possibilities. Keep an open mind- as you like to say- and know that there ARE ANSWERS when the time comes. I wish you well. PS. This has nothing to do with the matrix. Nothing whatsoever. John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. What is unchanging is DOING HIS WILL. Doctrines are VERBAL and are understood linguistically according to languages, and are perceived differently in every culture. Scientific evidence is based on what seems to work right now, and is not about eternal truth. Doing God's will is the only eternal "fact" that does not change. This is called "praxis" Required ACTIONS do not change- verbal truths do If you want a scientific explanation for that, it is evolutionary. Human survival ALWAYS requires following the golden rule, or we would kill ourselves off. That would end the problem. The only human communication that is eternal is a smile and handshake. Non verbal. Kindness is non-cultural and that is "things as they are" Science IS culture. Totally. It is the cultural consensus of what is "real" and that consensus does NOT include God. No pictures of God from space, so he must not exist. DEFINING what "God" "is" is always the problem. The words are the problem, and science does not even look at the important questions. Good luck! Edited March 20, 2015 by mfbukowski 3
mfbukowski Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 Some POV's about trucks are fine. Some POV's about trucks are not fine. What makes the difference is how close that truck is.I have absolutely understanding what that means or what you are even trying to say. As the truck gets subjectively closer I am sure you feel a great deal of fear and then pain. What is that supposed to prove?? Objectively I am sure the onlookers see blood and guts. Then perhaps they feel sorry that poor Bukowski got hit by a truck. Perhaps some cheer. Perhaps some feel sorry for a day or two. Perhaps my family would feel sorry longer. That is the extent of the points of view possible that could be reported. Your point? Getting run over in a truck ends up being a totally subjective experience that no one else even really cares about. I have not seen any objective studies on actually dying have you? NOT "NDE's" but written scientific studies on what the afterlife is. I think we have just a small epistemological problem there. Please do not come back with a lengthy discussion of what science studies- trust me, I really do know that. I have taken multiple courses in the philosophy of science. This is at least the third time you have made the same comment about the truck that I recall, and to which I respond, and to which you do not respond. Let's just skip that last part in the future. I won't respond to it again anyway.
MormonFreeThinker Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 I would caution you AGAINST thinking you will find objective evidence for God and that science can prove his existence. That is going down the wrong trail. In fact it is THAT position which leads to atheism. I agree that there is no scientific proof for God, but there are some reasonable arguments that make sense. What about Alister Mcgrath? Francis Collins? CS Lewis? PS. This has nothing to do with the matrix. Nothing whatsoever. but in a point of view the Matrix is a fact. From where I am standing I think I am objective. At least I consider data that you dismiss out of hand. Good, but I only dismiss data when it has flaws. I will never dismiss good evidence. Al Gore claims it...but he also claimed he invented the internet. LOL Al Gore is completely irrelevant to science. No need to mention him. I dunno. I recall winters in the 70s that were HORRIBLE. The Global Climate is not winter or weather. The sad thing is, we have come to a point where we do not believe anything from anywhere anymore That is what some people want, they want you to be confused so you won't be worried about it. Some people are very happy that you are saying that, they are laughing .
mfbukowski Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 (edited) I agree that there is no scientific proof for God, but there are some reasonable arguments that make sense. What about Alister Mcgrath? Francis Collins? CS Lewis?See that's the problem here, you don't even know what you are arguing against.I am a fan of Mcgrath and think he is right on the money.McGrath proceeds to address whether religion specifically conflicts with science. He points to Gould's supposition of Non-overlapping magisteria, or NOMA, as evidence that Darwinism is as compatible with theism as it is with atheism. With additional reference to the works of Sir Martin Rees, Denis Noble, and others, McGrath advocates a modified version of NOMA which he terms "partially-overlapping magisteria". He posits that Science and Religion co-exist as equally valid explanations for two partially overlapping spheres of existence, where the former concerns itself primarily with the temporal, and the latter concerns itself primarily with the spiritual, but where both can occasionally intertwine.%5B4%5D McGrath confirms his position by suggesting that some scientists are also theists, pointing specifically to Owen Gingerich, Francis Collins and Paul Davies as examples.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dawkins_Delusion%3FIn case you hadn't noticed, you have been taking the Dawkins position in this thread and I have been taking the McGrath position. Science and religion are equally valid, and talking about different subjects. You persist in thinking science has something to do with religion- it does not. Some people are very happy that you are saying that, they are laughing .Considering the context, this was not a very appropriate post imo. Edited March 21, 2015 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 The idea that science and religion and a host of other language games can be "equally valid" really and truly is not "the matrix". I would suggest less time posting and more time reading.
mfbukowski Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 (edited) but in a point of view the Matrix is a fact. Whatever that is supposed to mean. This is not about anime or manga, though perhaps that is an equally valid perception of the universe. I kind of like cartoons actually Edited March 21, 2015 by mfbukowski
Robert F. Smith Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 pogi sent me a link, but pogi forgot to read part two CO2 Climate change theory is powerful because it has survived the test of time and scientific scrutiny for many years. It beautifully explains all the data, no other theory explains all the data. The papers (very few papers) published by skeptics have not survived scientific scrutiny. There is really no significant debate in the scientific community, if the theory is wrong it means that the evidence that challenges it has not been published yet. Yes, but, if a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to hear it or see it, it might just as well have not fallen at all. Indeed, there is no proof that it fell or made a sound. Of course, anthropogenic global warming is true and scientifically valid, but so what? If you can't get the politicians to agree (not only due to their abysmal ignorance, but also just based on naked fear of the repercussions of going against the politically correct right-wing ideology), then it might just as well not be true. Reality is a matter of social construction. If people don't believe something, then it must not be true. Yokels is as yokels does. 1
longview Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 (edited) - - - LOL Al Gore is completely irrelevant to science. No need to mention him. - - -This is NO laughing matter. Gore has ENORMOUS influence on science, school children, government funding of Universities to "authenticate" AGW, etc. Gore orchestrated a massive propaganda campaign travelling all over the world (using his private jet and making a large carbon footprint) and pushing his movie "An Inconvenient Truth". But his predictions have proven wrong time and again over the last 20 or more years. Gore was invested in ENRON which was preparing to set up an exchange of "carbon credits" but the corporation went into bankruptcy when their executives were prosecuted for criminal accounting procedures. Now Gore has moved into renewable energy companies (which requires a great deal of lobbying on the government).Michael Mann was exposed for falsifying science with his infamous Hockey Stick graph (which completely ignored the Medieval Warming Period). The University of East Anglia was caught with their pants down when their emails were hacked and released to the public showing how manipulative they were in trying to foment climate hysteria. You see government using science grants to corrupt the scientific process to get the "outcome" they desire. Most proponents of "Big Government" really don't care about the science of AGW except to impose restrictions on the quality of life for the common people and to force massive redistribution of wealth to other countries. Edited March 22, 2015 by longview 1
MormonFreeThinker Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 (edited) This is NO laughing matter. Gore has ENORMOUS influence on science, school children, government funding of Universities to "authenticate" AGW, etc. Gore orchestrated a massive propaganda campaign travelling all over the world (using his private jet and making a large carbon footprint) I don't care about Al Gore. He is irrelevant to the topic. I care about science and peer-review. Let's talk about the scientific literature. Michael Mann was exposed for falsifying science with his infamous Hockey Stick graph (which completely ignored the Medieval Warming Period). Where do you read so much propaganda? Firstly, during the Medieval Warming Period Earth was warmer only on some regions, not the entire Global Average Temperature.Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which cannot be caused by the same mechanisms. The University of East Anglia was caught with their pants down when their emails were hacked and released to the public showing how manipulative they were in trying to foment climate hysteria. No, it is called confirmation bias and parallelomania. What did the e-mails say? "Hide the decline"? Is that the fraud? LOLThe real conspiracy is caused by the skeptics that are spreading so much misleading information. Edited March 21, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker 1
thesometimesaint Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A2KIo9fdGQ1VPm8AxKUsnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByZWc0dGJtBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQDBGdwb3MDMQ--?p=bad+badder+best&vid=73b81bb178417daa2eebf08b4200398f&l=7%3A28&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DVN.608045852106035026%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DtciQts-8Cxo&***=Bad%2C+Badder%2C+BEST&c=0&sigr=11boljur6&sigt=10ha5qmo2&sigi=11rbo39s8&age=1319547789&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av&hsimp=yhs-001&hspart=mozilla&tt=b https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9A3F0E23E61A24BAhttp://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2010/2010-07-08-01.html
ERayR Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 Where do you read so much propaganda? Firstly, during the Medieval Warming Period Earth was warmer only on some regions, not the entire Global Average Temperature.Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which cannot be caused by the same mechanisms. Please point me to the observed temperature readings and data for the Medieval period. I would be interested in seeing the observed data.
longview Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 I don't care about Al Gore.VEEERRRYY interesting ! ! ! He is irrelevant to the topic.How so? Do you deny that there is a MASSIVE sustained propaganda offensive by "97%" of all media? That this has been ongoing ever since the 70's? (By the way this "97%" is a favorite figure used by many in this debate and other unrelated issues without real basis of fact) . . . I care about science and peer-review.Then you MUST also be very concerned about the serious lack of academic openness and unwarranted constriction of free speech on the campus. Let's talk about the scientific literature.There is real concern that much of the government grants are seriously corruptive. The real motivations for certain priorties are not disclosed. It is extremely unfortunate that the common people have to wade through so much propaganda in order to cull out the information they desire.
Recommended Posts