Nine Questions Some Creationists Feel Are Real Stumpers

[columbus]

are you on or not?

What does that mean?
Tom

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What does that mean?
Tom

You have to forget what ever you know about knowledge and suspend judgment. You can't take for grant what you know holds as knowledge and indeed what knowledge is.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Polymath257]

Okay, this is going to be philosophy and not science, so before we start, are you on or not?

Depends. Which axioms are you using for your philosophy?

As I have said before, philosophy tends to be best when it finds paradoxes and cautionary tales and worst when it thinks it has answers. In particular, what metaphysics are you assuming?

 

[Polymath257]

You have to forget what ever you know about knowledge and suspend judgment. You can't take for grant what you know holds as knowledge and indeed what knowledge is.

Oh goody! Are we going to define those concepts? Or are they undefined in your system?

 

[columbus]

You have to forget what ever you know about knowledge and suspend judgment.

That has no utility at all.
I have solid evidence that broccoli will provide my body with important nutrients. Whether my subjective taste preferences include it or not, broccoli has fiber and vitamins. Ice cream doesn't. Whether my subjective taste preferences include it or not, ice cream is mostly fat and sugar and next to nothing I need to nourish my body.

You can't take for grant what you know holds as knowledge and indeed what knowledge is.

Oh yes I can.
My knowledge is the beliefs I hold because the preponderance of evidence implies that the belief is objectively true. True for everyone, regardless of Faith or ignorance or preferences or whatever.


You can redefine knowledge out of existence, for yourself. Your subjective truth may not include such mundane concepts as utility. But mine does.
Tom

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Depends. Which axioms are you using for your philosophy?

As I have said before, philosophy tends to be best when it finds paradoxes and cautionary tales and worst when it thinks it has answers. In particular, what metaphysics are you assuming?

No metaphysics as such as any particular version. The argument suits naturalism, neutral monism and idealism, but not dualism, because that has it own problems.

So for you I will use naturalism.

Your first person experience as an effect is caused by something else. The objective part of the natural world, hereafter objective reality. All you have is the effect, because you can't know something unless you know it.

Now this one comes in many variations but it always meets the following standard.
There is an objective reality.
The objective reality simulates another reality to you than it actually is.

Example:
You are in a variant of an Boltzmann Brain universe. It consists of a super computer and a power source. You are running on the computer as you and the computer simulates the rest of the universe as it appears to you.
Note that it is not a simulation of the universe. Note that there is regularity in the objective reality and you can make laws of nature. There is time and all the consistency you experience. The objective reality is just not as it appears to you.

This is part one. We will not get to part 2 unless we agree on that there is no way for you to know if that is the case or not as described above.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Skwim]

Oh goody! Are we going to define those concepts? Or are they undefined in your system?

I see them likely to be defined when needed, and then as needed to suit whatever purpose. A devolution of the debate, if you will.

In any case, I'm ready.

.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That has no utility at all.
I have solid evidence that broccoli will provide my body with important nutrients. Whether my subjective taste preferences include it or not, broccoli has fiber and vitamins. Ice cream doesn't. Whether my subjective taste preferences include it or not, ice cream is mostly fat and sugar and next to nothing I need to nourish my body.


Oh yes I can.
My knowledge is the beliefs I hold because the preponderance of evidence implies that the belief is objectively true. True for everyone, regardless of Faith or ignorance or preferences or whatever.


You can redefine knowledge out of existence, for yourself. Your subjective truth may not include such mundane concepts as utility. But mine does.
Tom

Yeah, you are a strong believer. Thanks for being honest. But not thanks. I am a skeptic and I don't do these debates, when you are as clear as you are about having strong beliefs.

Regards and love
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Depends. Which axioms are you using for your philosophy?

As I have said before, philosophy tends to be best when it finds paradoxes and cautionary tales and worst when it thinks it has answers. In particular, what metaphysics are you assuming?

No metaphysics as such as any particular version. The argument suits naturalism, neutral monism and idealism, but not dualism, because that has it own problems.

So for you I will use naturalism.

Your first person experience as an effect is caused by something else. The objective part of the natural world, hereafter objective reality. All you have is the effect, because you can't know something unless you know it.

Now this one comes in many variations but it always meet the following standard.
There is an objective reality.
The objective reality simulates another reality to you than it actually is.

Example:
You are in a variant of an Boltzmann Brain universe. It consists of a super computer and a power source. You are running on the computer as you and the computer simulates the rest of the universe as it appears to you.
Note that it is not a simulation of the universe. Note that there is regularity in the objective reality and you can make laws of nature. There is time and all the consistency you experience. The objective reality is just not as it appears to you.

This is part one. We will not get to part 2 unless we agree on that there is no way for you to know if that is the case or not as described above.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I see them likely to be defined when needed, and then as needed to suit whatever purpose. A devolution of the debate, if you will.

In any case, I'm ready.

.

Nine Questions Some Creationists Feel Are Real Stumpers

 

[columbus]

Yeah, you are a strong believer. Thanks for being honest. But not thanks. I am a skeptic and I don't do these debates, when you are as clear as you are about having strong beliefs.

Regards and love
Mikkel

Do you think that my belief, broccoli is more nutritious than ice cream, is wrong?
If not, why not?
Tom

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you think that my belief, broccoli is more nutritious than ice cream, is wrong?
If not, why not?
Tom

No, Tom. Please, I accept that you hold your understanding of knowledge. I accept you as a human also. I just don't want to start debating with you, because I assume it will be a waste of time. How you understand the world works for you and you feel strongly about that, so there is no reason to start.
Now if you still want to, I will do it.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Polymath257]

No metaphysics as such as any particular version. The argument suits naturalism, neutral monism and idealism, but not dualism, because that has it own problems.

So for you I will use naturalism.

Your first person experience as an effect is caused by something else. The objective part of the natural world, hereafter objective reality. All you have is the effect, because you can't know something unless you know it.

Now this one comes in many variations but it always meet the following standard.
There is an objective reality.
The objective reality simulates another reality to you than it actually is.

Example:
You are in a variant of an Boltzmann Brain universe. It consists of a super computer and a power source. You are running on the computer as you and the computer simulates the rest of the universe as it appears to you.
Note that it is not a simulation of the universe. Note that there is regularity in the objective reality and you can make laws of nature. There is time and all the consistency you experience. The objective reality is just not as it appears to you.

And, I assume in that simulation there are other people who report their viewpoints.

That means the 'reality' in the simulation *is* the objective reality. The 'outside of experience' of being a Boltzmann brain is unknowable and untestable, so is ultimately a meaningless proposition. Hence, I can dismiss it as an irrational possibility.

This is part one. We will not get to part 2 unless we agree on that there is no way for you to know if that is the case or not as described above.

I agree. And I agree for exactly the same reason I said about being brains in a vat or about living in the Matrix. And I reject this scenario for exactly the same reasons as I do the others.

The point is that the term 'objective reality' is ultimately defined in terms of our experiences and nothing else. It is whatever every maximally predictive, testable model based on observations agrees to.

Even if we are Boltzmann brains, the regularity of our experience *defines* objective reality.

 

[columbus]

I accept that you hold your understanding of knowledge.

Now if you still want to, I will do it.

Yes, I do.
What I mean by knowledge is "beliefs supported by objective evidence".
It's not an absolute.

Humans are quite limited in perception and reasoning, so oftentimes knowledge is wrong. For most of human history, most people believed that Creation was a big, solid, flattish plane, with a blue dome over top and the relatively small sun skooting between on a daily basis. Now, most people believe that the earth is a tiny speck of mostly molten rock hurtling through the void, kept in orbit around the sun by gravity.
I believe the latter, quite strongly. It's not a "feeling." It's a belief founded upon evidence that I find compelling, i.e. proof. I recognize that I might be wrong, but I don't worry about that at all. I don't even think about it.

That's the objective difference between me and religious folks. I don't claim to have absolute certainty about anything. Because my beliefs are based on evidence, not feelings. Religious people commonly tell me that they're absolutely sure that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, despite the utter lack of evidence other than their feelings. They can't even explain the lack of evidence that should exist if this Resurrection actually happened.

That's one of the biggest differences between religionists and scientists. Religionists are utterly confident about beliefs they hold due to their own feelings. Scientists aren't utterly confident about what they can see and touch. Because scientists recognize the limitations of the human situation and religionists do not.
Tom

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And, I assume in that simulation there are other people who report their viewpoints.

...

No, there is only you as you. The rest is a simulation including other people.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, I do.
What I mean by knowledge is "beliefs supported by objective evidence".
It's not an absolute.

Humans are quite limited in perception and reasoning, so oftentimes knowledge is wrong. For most of human history, most people believed that Creation was a big, solid, flattish plane, with a blue dome over top and the relatively small sun skooting between on a daily basis. Now, most people believe that the earth is a tiny speck of mostly molten rock hurtling through the void, kept in orbit around the sun by gravity.
I believe the latter, quite strongly. It's not a "feeling." It's a belief founded upon evidence that I find compelling, i.e. proof. I recognize that I might be wrong, but I don't worry about that at all. I don't even think about it.

That's the objective difference between me and religious folks. I don't claim to have absolute certainty about anything. Because my beliefs are based on evidence, not feelings. Religious people commonly tell me that they're absolutely sure that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, despite the utter lack of evidence other than their feelings. They can't even explain the lack of evidence that should exist if this Resurrection actually happened.

That's one of the biggest differences between religionists and scientists. Religionists are utterly confident about beliefs they hold due to their own feelings. Scientists aren't utterly confident about what they can see and touch. Because scientists recognize the limitations of the human situation and religionists do not.
Tom

Good post, but not relevant.
I am neither a scientist nor a religionist for the purpose of this. I am a skeptic.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[columbus]

I am a skeptic.

I don't think you are.

But feel free.
Explain what you mean by "skeptic" and then explain why I should believe that you qualify.
Tom

 

[Heyo]

I am a skeptic.

No, there is only you as you. The rest is a simulation including other people.

You're not a skeptic, you're a solipsist.

 

[Polymath257]

No, there is only you as you. The rest is a simulation including other people.

Well, part of that simulation consists of images of other people that do things and that can seem to communicate with me.

It seems perverse and irrational to not say there are other people in this scenario, even if they are just (like me) simulations.

Sorry, but any solipsism, or Last Thursdayism, is irrational.

 

[Shad]

I claim that I can fly solely by using my body.



I can take off from the ground and fly. Now that is testable and I have actually tested it right now. I can't and thus it is wrong.

So how does that make me wrong?

As the claim was refuted.... by a test. Congratulations you caught up to a point I made days ago.....

What is the cause and effect from claiming something wrong to that it makes me wrong?

Testing the claim as per the above. You answered your own question but are blind to it. Hilarious.

How does that work? What are the physics, chemistry, biology and so on involved? You appear to claim that I am wrong?!! How do you test that?

A test like the one you posted above...... Hilarious.

Here are the process: I claim something -> It is tested -> It is wrong -> I claimed something wrong -> I am wrong. How does the -> work for the last part?

As your claim was wrong via the test. Again you pointed this out yourself in the first part of your post. Hilarious blindness you have.

Can you point to any part of science, which explains that?

The test. Yawn. Try again.

In my example with flying there is gravity and aerodynamics in part. What is the science involved in being wrong?

Biology. Yawn.

As far as I can tell, I am not wrong.

The flying claim was wrong ergo you were wrong. Yawn.

It is just something you claim.

Nope as per your own example of testing. Try again son.

Now if you can give evidence of the science involved I will listen, but for now I suspect that it is not something I am.

Again you provided your own test to falsify your own claim. Try again.

It is something you say I am, but you saying it, can't cause me to become wrong?!!

Again the test you put forward in the first part of the post. Yawn.

Hilarious that you refuted or answered all your own question with your own post. Too bad you are too blind to see it.