How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

[thedoc]

That's what I want you to explain? ..will you explain how you know, or what is it that knows? and where that knowing is located?
.

That some thing hears and knows that a sound exists is irrelevant, nothing needs to hear a sound for a sound to exist. Right now my wife is at work but I cannot see her or hear her voice, unless I call her on the phone, but I still believe that she exists. Right now I am inside my house, I can't see the Sun or the trees on the one part of my property but if I walk out the door I will be able to see the Sun and the trees. You're saying that I can't know that they are there, and you might be correct, so what, I can still know they are there whether you think I can or not, what you believe of me is not relevant.

[uwot]

A layman generates a theory to account for the phenomena that they are familiar with. So do scientists.

No. a layman develops a theory to explain something they do not understand, a scientist develops a theory to explain what the do understand.

Well, that's just you developing a theory to explain something you don't understand. It really would be worth your investment to grapple with the difference between demonstrable facts and explanatory inferences.

[Dontaskme]

That some thing hears and knows that a sound exists is irrelevant, nothing needs to hear a sound for a sound to exist. Right now my wife is at work but I cannot see her or hear her voice, unless I call her on the phone, but I still believe that she exists. Right now I am inside my house, I can't see the Sun or the trees on the one part of my property but if I walk out the door I will be able to see the Sun and the trees. You're saying that I can't know that they are there, and you might be correct, so what, I can still know they are there whether you think I can or not, what you believe of me is not relevant.

Okay Doc, this is not about what I believe about your capacity to know things.

When you say 'nothing needs to hear a sound for a sound to exist' ..this tells me that sound exists because there is knowledge that it exists.

We both agree on this.

But what I'm trying to get you to see is...where is the knower of the knowledge of things existing located? can the knower be located to actually exist like the sound exists?

.

[thedoc]

Okay Doc, this is not about what I believe about your capacity to know things.

When you say 'nothing needs to hear a sound for a sound to exist' ..this tells me that sound exists because there is knowledge that it exists.

We both agree on this.

But what I'm trying to get you to see is...where is the knower of the knowledge of things existing located? can the knower be located to actually exist like the sound exists?
.

The "knower" can be any thing that has the capability of knowing that a sound exists, I really don't understand why you are trying to pin it down to more than it is. If you are referring to a particular sound then you must specify what that sound is, otherwise it could be any sound and any knower that knows that the sound exists. A sound does not need that anything know that it exists to exist, it just is, the presence or absence of anyone or anything to hear it or know that it exists is irrelevant.

[thedoc]

When you say 'nothing needs to hear a sound for a sound to exist' ..this tells me that sound exists because there is knowledge that it exists.

We both agree on this.

When I say that nothing needs to hear a sound for it to exist, I mean that the existence of a sound or anything is independent of an observer, I do not believe that an observer is necessary for anything to exist. The world and universe will exist if there is any living thing to experience it or not. you could extrapolate the concept and ask, "Before there was any life on earth or in the universe, and an object struck the surface of the Earth, did it make a sound?"

[Dontaskme]

The "knower" can be any thing that has the capability of knowing that a sound exists, I really don't understand why you are trying to pin it down to more than it is. If you are referring to a particular sound then you must specify what that sound is, otherwise it could be any sound and any knower that knows that the sound exists. A sound does not need that anything know that it exists to exist, it just is, the presence or absence of anyone or anything to hear it or know that it exists is irrelevant.

Doc, that you are able to say sound ''just is'' is also knowledge.

Do you not understand that to state anything as ''just is'' or anything at all requires knowledge of such..

And unless you understand who the knower of knowledge is ..you have no claim to say that anything exists at all.

Do you not see what I am trying to say?

[ken]

Is earth a living organism?

If so, is earth made up of rocks?

The Earth in total is a living thing that is made up of living and non-living material. Rock is a non-living material.

If rock is a non-living part of earth, then what part of the earth is living?

[ken]

Human beings make up theories about things that they are not sure of yet.

Science never claims to be 100% sure of anything,

Science never claims ANY thing. Human beings claim things.

but the theories you mention are based on the best evidence that is known so far. If new data is discovered the theory will be refined or changed to suit.

So, are you saying here that human beings make up theories about things, based on "best evidence" known so far,
("evidence" obviously to one person is not necessarily evidence to another), and these theories, based on some sort of evidence, are of things that those human beings are not sure of yet?

[thedoc]

So, are you saying that human beings make up theories about things, based on "best evidence" ("evidence" obviously to one person is not necessarily evidence to another), and these theories are of things that those human beings are not sure of yet?

Evidence in science is well defined and a persons opinion is not a factor so what is evidence to different people, does not matter. In science a theory is what scientists can be sure of based on the available evidence.

[thedoc]

If rock is a non-living part of earth, then what part of the earth is living?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Just for you,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p51FiPO2_kQ

[surreptitious57]

The fundamental structure of DNA is the same in all organisms but the order or sequence and complexity
of DNA in them does vary. Anything non biological is DNA free and so that would be all inanimate objects

Do you have any examples of non biological dna free things that are inanimate objects
I ask this because I see all physical things as being alive and just as much a part of Life

Not all physical things are alive only biological life forms because they have sense organs and a nervous system. Inanimate objects do not have
these so are not alive. A rock is an example of this. There is a clear distinction between alive and dead. So not everything is alive as you claim

[surreptitious57]

So you KNOW that things that be beyond human knowledge and imagination can not be known. Therefore in a particular way
ALL things can be known. Also how do you KNOW that there are / will be things beyond human knowledge and imagination

The human brain is a physical organ which means that there is a limitation to how much knowledge it can acquire
It does not have infinite capability so therefore cannot know or imagine everything that can be known or imagined

[surreptitious57]

Is there going to be human extinction? Do you KNOW this for sure?

Yes I do because of the Second Law Of Thermodynamics and the Sun going red giant in five billion years
So even if a suitable exo planet is discovered before then the Second Law will still guarantee extinction

[surreptitious57]

I have never understood the word flat in relation to space. There might be an easy explanation for this but I have yet to see it. To Me space is
just the distance between objects or particles of matter. This applies from the smallest of objects to the largest of objects. Unless they mean
the space between two objects being measured in a flats or straight line

Space is indeed the distance between objects but it is also flat and smooth at the classical level while distorted and jagged at the quantum level
This may be because of the extra dimensions predicted by string theory that supposedly exist at the latter but are not experienced at the former

[surreptitious57]

saying something similar to Experiments have shown this to happen is NOT actually providing evidence

Experiments conducted with the rigour of the scientific method eventually provide reliable evidence