"Real" ringworlds

[Fyron]

Narf:

seen is not the same as percieved. if you hear an object, you percieve an object, even if you don't see it. i believe there are ways of percieving that involve spiritual senses rather than physical ones.

That was my point. You are implying that there is something wrong with the quote because it only involves sight, but I was trying to explain that it involves other forms of perception too. The post following the quote was not focusing on sight alone, just using it as a synonym.

Krsqk:

Well, we don't know that. If that person was receiving direct revelation from God, I would think they could accept that as evidence.

That requries extremely circular logic. You are using that to prove itself, which most certainly does not work.

So you're asking for what, exactly? An explanation of speciation under creationism? It is not possible under most forms of creationism to separate origins from our present-day state.

I am asking for something more than just trying to pick out every minor perceived flaw (most of them are based on incorrect assumptions or a lack of knowledge about the specifics of the reasoning behind the theory). It was not directed at you specifically, but at everyone that has been doing things like this.

And you are right, such things are not possible under ignore-all-the-evidence-around-us forms of Creationism. But there are other forms of Creationism.

[Krsqk]

That requries extremely circular logic. You are using that to prove itself, which most certainly does not work.

Actually, I was trying to demonstrate that a theory can be valid without being provable. Assuming creation to be true, if God did give divine revelation about creation to someone to be written down, that doesn't mean He sent copies of the interview to everyone with a press credential. There would be no objective proof of the creation, but it would nonetheless have happened. That is just the way a supernatural event would be--it's nothing against logic; it just isn't subject to logical proof or disproof.

[Fyron]

Sigh. I think you need to take some new philosophy classes.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". Faith is not about the things you can prove, but about things you do not perceive, perhaps things that cannot be perceived

That was my point. You are implying that there is something wrong with the quote because it only involves sight, but I was trying to explain that it involves other forms of perception too. The post following the quote was not focusing on sight alone, just using it as a synonym.

ok, now that i have that down:
he was saying that there are thing's that perhaps cannot be perceived, i missed the perhaps, and i was saying that everything can be percieved, although not with our physical senses. they require faith. like i said, faith is a working bootstrap, which also is why scientists have problems with it.

[Fyron]

Narf, please go read my post on "faith"...

[narf poit chez BOOM]

my original reply, which you replied to, was not to you. it was to that first qoute in my Last post

[ May 21, 2003, 07:32: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[Fyron]

It does not matter who it was directed at. You still need to learn what faith really is. You are using it inappropriately in this context.