Satenza

Then the best argument you have is circular reasoning. If you want to prove me wrong then tell me how to find truth? If you say knowledge: that is circular reasoning because you can't make a definition with the word already in it. If something is justified does that make it true? No, it requires it to be true and it requires it to be beleived in. Anyway - How is knowledge defined with the word knowledge? How many times do i need to tell you thing again and again. Knowledge requires a small checklist. [] Is it Justified? [] Is it believed? [] Is it true? If you check all those you have knowledge. Edit: So lets do your neo example: [/] Is it Justified? - Yes, his sense tells him he is eating. [/] Is it believed? - Yes he beleives to be eating. [X] Is it true? - Not because he is not eating. = Not knowledge that he is eating.

But it wasn't true. Let me tell you again what is needed for knowledge: Justified, True, Belief. Knowledge requires ALL of them together.

What? He didn't know he was eating the food, he beleived he was eating the food. He wasn't eating the food and therefore it was not true, and because it did not fulfill all the requirments of knowledge it is not knowledge.

It is circular reasoning to say truth is knowledge because knowledge is truth. That is not justification. As I already have said, truth is NOT knowledge alone. Knowledge requires truth, but also needs justification and belief and therefore not circular reasoning. Again that is circular reasoning because by your definition truth can't be justified. What? How can't truth be justified? Example: X when heated creates Y. A man heats X and creates Y, over and over again to make sure that everytime it creates Y and it does. The man therefore beleives this to be true. = Knowledge.

Time Travel: We don't know it's possible and don't have adequate justification. Therefore it's not knowledge. UFO: We don't know if they are true or again have adequate justification. Therefore it is not knowledge.

It is circular reasoning to say truth is knowledge because knowledge is truth. That is not justification. As I already have said, truth is NOT knowledge alone. Knowledge requires truth, but also needs justification and belief and therefore not circular reasoning.

How many times have I told you, Knoweldge requires; Justified, True, Belief. Neo had a belief he was eating the food, and he had justification for it. But it was not true and therefore NOT knowledge.

He didn't have knowledge that the food was real then? Your mixing definitions up.

Truth isn't knowledge on it's own. It requires justification and belief.

How is it phychological, it is a faily simple concept. Knowledge requires 3 things; Justified, True, Belief. If you say truth is constant then you are saying knowledge is constant because knowledge entails truth. Edit: But Neo eating food wasn't true and therefore not knowledge.

Then it wouldn't be true and therefore not knowledge.

His definition of knowledge was wrong. He said that the world being flat was knowledge and therefore it isn't always correct. Which goes against the self evident meaning of knowledge that is has to be true. His God maybe is true, but it is not justifed and therefore can't be knowledge.

Knowledge is truth.

How can truth never be knowledge?

Actually knowledge is: Justified True Belief So yes, knowledge does require truth, it is the very essance of knowledge.

How can you have a school based on faith, thats ridiculous. All you're saying is that you accept the Bible over empirical evidence and testing. That thought in itself is stupid, irrational and illogical. How can anyone say that they have full faith in the Bible, because is says it is the word of God, in the Bible. It's no different to any other religious doctrine which says the exact same thing. So how did you choose that faith? Indoctrination, because their is absolutley nothing to seperate one religion from another which requires faith in a doctrine. Aha, religion is the most anti-humanitarian tool there is. Without religion humans wouldn't need to constantly ask for forgiveness and would concentrate more on the life we have here than looking towards their final goal of heaven. Religion is a clever way of supressing our humanity when really would should be embracing it, it's a way of controlling humanity through a 'divine' opinion, and any divine opinion equals absolute morality and truth. Which does cause wars and killings and brainwashings, and indoctrination.

Theres no point because the conspiracy theorists are blind to the truth and seem to give more weight to anecdotal speculation than the actual facts. What yould your explanation for WTC7's pre-determined fate be then?

Yes, and so the flood can't be concived as possible without the actions of God. Therefore every argument which includes Gods intervention is worthless and intrinsic. How is the Bible just as valid as science? Science is empirical testing the bible is just a book

^ He ran some marathon.

Even if the ice caps melted there is not enough water to cover the entire earth. Truth - No animal could survive because of the enormous air pressure. Truth - Such air pressure would cause earths surface to be very hot, so hot nothing could survive. Source [hide=The Maths]Another problem I see with the Global Flood is that with Mt. Everest being 29,035 feet (8,850 m) above sea level, it would have to rain on the entire globe an average of about 6 inches (15.2 cm) per minute for 40 days and 40 nights. The recorded world record for rainfall in one minute is 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) - -and it occurred at one remote location, not globally, and only for that one minute, not at a constant rate for an extended period of time. According to Genesis 7:20, all the earth was covered by 15 cubits which would equate to about 25 feet (7.6 m). So, with Mt. Everest being the highest point in the world, that would equate to 29,060 feet (8,860 m) of water above sea level. Anyone familiar with SCUBA diving knows that ocean water pressure at 33 feet (10 m) equals one atmosphere of air on earth. Fresh water is 34 feet per atmosphere, so we're not talking about a big difference either way. At 33 feet of water per atmosphere, if we are under 29,060 feet (8,860 m) of water in the form of vapor in the air before the rain began, this would equate to air pressure at the earth's surface of approximately 12,775 psi as compared to the actual earth surface air pressure of a mere 14.5 psi. (29,060 divided by 33 equals about 881. 14.5 psi times 881 equals about 12,775 psi.) It would be impossible for anything to live under these conditions in that not only would the air pressure be too great, but as a result of such intense pressure, the ambient temperature at the earth's surface would be unbearably hot. And we're not talking triple digits hot; we're probably talking quintuple digits hot. Anyone with an elementary level of knowledge in physics knows that as a gas expands under reduced pressure, its temperature decreases, and as a gas contracts under increased pressure, its temperature increases. This is the primary reason why air at the earth's surface at higher elevations is generally cooler than that of lower elevations at the same latitude.[/hide]

It is independant of truth. Truth - The isn't enough water on the planet to cover the whole earth. Truth - Animals would kill each other. Truth - The ark would never be able to float. Theres no possible way this ever happened without entering a intrinsic argument which is completley worthless.

Your just supporting logical fallacies with more logical fallacies. It could be true because it's written in the bible which could be Gods book. The only possible way you could beleive it was real is if you where some sort of fundementalist in respect towards the Bible. Why would you beleive the Bible to be the word of God? Because you have faith, and faith is just a word to make it sound like ilogical beleifs have some founding when they have nothing. So the beleif you have that the ark was real is founded on completley nothing. You have nothing but a worthless intrinsic argument.

It's a combination of things that prevent the flood from ever being a possible event if we think logically and rationaly: God flooding the earth. God taking water away. God making Noah survive. God making the animals survive. God making sure theres no fossil records of the flood. God making the boat. God allowing the boat to defy physics and hold that amount of animals and food needed. God somehow helping Noah collect animals he could never have gotten. God stopping animal nature, hence not letting them eat and kill each other. God allowing for mass amounts of food to feed all the animals. and I'm sure a lot more of what God had to do.

I agree in slowing down evolution from the past through medical and technological advancement. It's a question of morals.

Attraction: Foreign ie: Italian, Spanish, Portuguese ect, nice body, well dressed and well groomed. Dislikes: Messy, overweight, lazy all that kind of jazz.