spotlight wrote:So you imagine that you have a detailed model that will stand up to rigorous review and satisfy all currently known facts and data about the world? That would be something Frank. But then your simple model doesn't even pass the drunk test. Tell us how it is in detail that a soul that is separable from our body and brain can get drunk from a physical chemical. I missed that detail.
Take a chill pill Spotlight. Enjoy your weekend.
The pleasures of this world are more important than disseminating the truths of the eternities for Franktalk I guess.
ETA: I live near Seattle. It's raining outside.
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
Franktalk wrote:The problem comes from extending collected evidence into an interpretation. Then you consider your interpretation as evidence which it is not. Don't feel bad many people do this.
Let's revisit my jigsaw puzzle analogy again. Making no attempt to extend collected evidence into an interpretation renders the evidence useless. That would be the equivalent of making no attempt to fit the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle together so we can see the whole picture, or at least as much of the picture as can be built up by the pieces available. There is always going to be an interpretation that best fits the available evidence when painstakingly and logically fitted together.
We also like to test interpretations/predictions to see if they work and work with some consistency. Frank doesn't appear to have any way to test his interpretations from feelings and thoughts. So how can one know they are correct? Is this wise to put so much stock in these interpretations? He attacks some scientific knowledge that has gone through a lot of testing. Testing he knows almost nothing about, and not willing to learn. Who really is being open minded?
The CCC wrote: The reason for asking is that having a priori of Theism or Atheism predetermines the outcome. In scientific terms God, or lack thereof, is a non-testable hypothesis. As such God is outside the realm of science.
Sorry, not how it works. If God is a real entity as you assert then it is testable hypothesis. So it is not outside the realm of science like you are desperate to assert. The problem is that you have no evidence to support your belief, and your assertions are vague enough to try and create gaps to try and hide in.
Having a priori of Theism or Atheism predetermines the outcome.
The CCC wrote:Having a priori of Theism or Atheism predetermines the outcome.
I started with a theistic a priori and the evidence forced me to conclude my a priori was wrong.
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
spotlight wrote:ETA: I live near Seattle. It's raining outside.
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your interpretation, man.
Tomorrow science may determine that it is in fact not raining, and all will worship at the altar of the new paradigm until it is replaced by the next. You will revel in this hamster-wheel mental prison until you listen to your greater consciousness and realize: there is no spoon, man.
(Sorry 'bout that -- it's just that some of Franktalk's philosophical musings read a bit like a Matrix/Big Lebowski mashup.)
Bret Ripley wrote:Sorry 'bout that -- it's just that some of Franktalk's philosophical musings read a bit like a Matrix/Big Lebowski mashup.
I do not think Themis Franktalk really understands what this means.
Franktalk wrote:You see this is easy for you. This weird stuff Frank says can be tossed away and you feel good about it. Now place yourself in my shoes, I take an inward journey casting everything out. Then over time bit by bit this strange assortment of information comes to me. I think "Crap" this can't be true. But over time it becomes evident that it is true. I meet others who have gone on the same journey and have been led to the same information. Pretty strange stuff. It is like Pandora's box. Once opened there is no going back.
I think this last post adds a bit of Close Encounters of the Third Kind into the mix.
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
Franktalk wrote:The problem comes from extending collected evidence into an interpretation. Then you consider your interpretation as evidence which it is not. Don't feel bad many people do this.
Let's revisit my jigsaw puzzle analogy again. Making no attempt to extend collected evidence into an interpretation renders the evidence useless. That would be the equivalent of making no attempt to fit the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle together so we can see the whole picture, or at least as much of the picture as can be built up by the pieces available. There is always going to be an interpretation that best fits the available evidence when painstakingly and logically fitted together.
Themis wrote:We also like to test interpretations/predictions to see if they work and work with some consistency.
Of course! That should go without saying!
Themis wrote:Frank doesn't appear to have any way to test his interpretations from feelings and thoughts. So how can one know they are correct? Is this wise to put so much stock in these interpretations? He attacks some scientific knowledge that has gone through a lot of testing. Testing he knows almost nothing about, and not willing to learn. Who really is being open minded?
Like you, I think it is clear that the answer to your last question is not Franktalk!
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
The CCC wrote: Having a priori of Theism or Atheism predetermines the outcome.
Not really. Certainly some can be biased enough to come to a particular conclusion, but it is not universal. You are avoiding that you have no real evidence for a claimed real entity with a physical body. God also is supposed to be able to do all kinds of physical things in the world which would also be testable. Like the claim of healing.
