Meeting with Bishop: Faith is a Choice

[_Hoops]

Of course he/she does, but he/she will never admit it, because he/she can't defend it.

Buffalo can't answer the questions put to him, so he answers questions put to others. Interesting.

[_Buffalo]

Empiricists believe what they see, hear, touch, smell, taste.

Yes, they do. Now show me evidence that this in any way gives you access to what is real.

Nothing is real therefore Jesus. Never gets old! Brilliant!

[_Drifting]

I can't because you are not real...

You don't know that.

I know you're not real enough to answer the flood question...

[_Buffalo]

Of course he/she does, but he/she will never admit it, because he/she can't defend it.

Buffalo can't answer the questions put to him, so he answers questions put to others. Interesting.

You, as a figment of my imagination, have had your questions answered repeatedly. Pretending that they haven't been answered must be your own (read: my own) personal exercise in applied solipsism

[_Hoops]

Ahhhh.... the sweet taste of victory.

you're welcome back when you've worked on your game a lot more.

[Guest]

YOu can stipulate what you wish

Well, in fact I was trying to guess what conditions YOU had in mind when you suggested that someone might look at a cup, say 'that cup is blue', and be wrong about it. If you won't specify the conditions, your statement that

Just because you and ten of your friends see a blue cup on the table doesn't mean the cup is actually blue. Blue may only exist in your perception of it.

is pretty meaningless.

But when you say this:

Independently, these wavelengths may be yellow.

that is the 13th strike of the clock so far as you are concerned (I'm sure you know what that means).

A wavelength is no more colored than a number can be salty or sweet. The only way wavelengths of electromagnetic waves get associated with colors is because you direct them into people's eyes, and then listen to what color name they utter. There is no other way of finding out. The idea that a wavelength that elicits the name 'blue' from all people with a normal complement of retinal cone cells is 'really' some other color is simply meaningless.

[_Buffalo]

Ahhhh.... the sweet taste of victory.

you're welcome back when you've worked on your game a lot more.

The bcspace bolero. Avoid responding to your opponent's arguments. Repeat the same logical fallacies over and over. Declare victory.

[_Buffalo]

YOu can stipulate what you wish

Well, in fact I was trying to guess what conditions YOU had in mind when you suggested that someone might look at a cup, say 'that cup is blue', and be wrong about it. If you won't specify the conditions, your statement that

Just because you and ten of your friends see a blue cup on the table doesn't mean the cup is actually blue. Blue may only exist in your perception of it.

is pretty meaningless.

But when you say this:

Independently, these wavelengths may be yellow.

that is the 13th strike of the clock so far as you are concerned (I'm sure you know what that means).

A wavelength is no more colored than a number can be salty or sweet. The only way wavelengths of electromagnetic waves get associated with colors is because you direct them into people's eyes, and then listen to what color name they utter. There is no other way of finding out. The idea that a wavelength that elicits the name 'blue' from all people with a normal complement of retinal cone cells is 'really' some other color is simply meaningless.

Ruh roh

[_Ceeboo]

Ahhh Yes, the old "make the silly believer answer the global flood/age of the earth" question so we can illustrate, to each other, how dumb their total position really is. Ha- ha- ha- ha.

I would suggest that we (all of us) should at least consider the magnitude of how much we really do not know (while offering with complete certainty that we "know").

Ceeboo will be happy to answer the question: :)

I do not discard the global flood

I do not discard the YEC's stance that the age of the earth is 6,000-7,000 years.

I do not discard a literal account of Genesis

I do not discard those who subscribe to "yom" (day) being a period of time.

I do not discard those who debate that the literal 24 hour day did not begin until the sun and moon were created (day 3) thus giving the means and method by which to govern these 24 hour cycles.

While I know very, very little, I believe that there is a Creator/God that is behind it all and some day we all might have answers to the many, many mysterious questions we are all forced to ponder.

Did I answer the question?

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Buffalo]

Ahhh Yes, the old "make the silly believer answer the global flood/age of the earth" question so we can illustrate, to each other, how dumb their total position really is. Ha- ha- ha- ha.

I would suggest that we (all of us) should at least consider the magnitude of how much we really do not know (while offering with complete certainty that we "know").

Ceeboo will be happy to answer the question: :)

I do not discard the global flood

I do not discard the YEC's stance that the age of the earth is 6,000-7,000 years.

I do not discard a literal account of Genesis

I do not discard those who subscribe to "yom" (day) being a period of time.

I do not discard those who debate that the literal 24 hour day did not begin until the sun and moon were created (day 3) thus giving the means and method by which to govern these 24 hour cycles.

While I know very, very little, I believe that there is a Creator/God that is behind it all and some day we all might have answers to the many, many mysterious questions we are all forced to ponder.

Did I answer the question?

Peace,
Ceeboo

While you may know very little about these subjects, that doesn't mean that others don't know quite a lot about them ;)