What if the Bible was true?
In Sodom, they did sodomy. In Gemorrah they did gemorary. Apparently the practices in Gemorrah were unspeakable because not a word has been written about them.
ruveyn
Anatomically modern humans are about 100K years old, but reasoning has been present for much longer than 2500 years. Even written history is significantly older than that.
You left the term "conclusive knowledge" undefined. If you meant the ordinary dictionary definition, keep in mind that many people would deny that "conclusive knowledge" exists or can exist.
Anthropomorphism. "Mankind" is not a single individual, nor does its development exactly parallel a single individual. Even if it were -- children don't routinely go insane for a period of time during development.
_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton
Not this argument again. Lack of evidence is not a disproof. And have you really stopped to think about how few individual people from that time have any proof of their existence at all? Why the arbitrary exclusion of the bible as a source of historical evidence?
Luke 23:3 "Pilate asked him, 'Is this true that you're 'King of the Jews?'' 'Those are your words, not mine,' Jesus replied."
Luke felt that, coming from a roman centurion, saying that was equivalent to praising God, albeit indirectly and unintentionally.
_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton
No a scientific theory needs evidence. The everyday theory is what you in science call a thesis.
Even a thesis need any kind of hard fact, not conclusive fact, but in any kind of facts. For the idea of a god there not a shred of hard facts.
But his thesis has a kind of hard fact, We exists. By defining "God" as the universe (from: God is everywhere/in us all. etc) his argument have some validation.
Hard evidence?
_________________
Sing songs. Songs sung. Samsung.
Anatomically modern humans are about 100K years old, but reasoning has been present for much longer than 2500 years. Even written history is significantly older than that.
There is a relative paucity of evidence for sophisticated reasoning prior to a few thousand years ago. Significant math goes back maybe 4-5K years, but there is little in the way of empirical natural philosophy that far back.
_________________
* here for the nachos.
Anatomically modern humans are about 100K years old, but reasoning has been present for much longer than 2500 years. Even written history is significantly older than that.
We do not have any source for rational reasoning regarding the world beyond a mythical interpretation prior about 500 BC. Our oldest written text are older, but they are of mythical context. We can pin-point the start of a rational world view quite well in the classic Greek period with philosophers like Epicurus or Democritus.
You left the term "conclusive knowledge" undefined. If you meant the ordinary dictionary definition, keep in mind that many people would deny that "conclusive knowledge" exists or can exist.
No one with sound mind can deny the functioning of electrical light, the computer or the fact that antibiotics can heal infections. The functioning of this technical world is based on a "conclusive knowledge" how the real world works, knowledge regarding the laws of nature.
Anthropomorphism. "Mankind" is not a single individual, nor does its development exactly parallel a single individual. Even if it were -- children don't routinely go insane for a period of time during development.
Societies and mankind are in some respect "meta organisms" with a history and learning curves. We do not need to repeat the debates of the 16th century, because those debates are closed. Societies change their attitude over time. Our western societies were just a few hundred years ago for our current standard unbelievable brutal. Google a bit for "hanged, drawn and quartered" - it is not that long ago that people suffered this horrible dead in front of a cheering crowd.
We do not start today with "Point Zero" when we ask how to run our societies, how organize politics or economy.
---
Also: Children perhaps are not upright mad, but do childish thinks and believe in thinks far beyond reality.
No a scientific theory needs evidence. The everyday theory is what you in science call a thesis.
Even a thesis need any kind of hard fact, not conclusive fact, but in any kind of facts. For the idea of a god there not a shred of hard facts.
But his thesis has a kind of hard fact, We exists. By defining "God" as the universe (from: God is everywhere/in us all. etc) his argument have some validation.
If define "god" this way you change the meaning of the term "god". "God" means in our western society, based on judo-christian idea, something which is outsid the universe and its creator.
Hard evidence?
How else a child would know from birth that it needs to make contact to the human around and this strange sound waves are of some importance (speech)?
No a scientific theory needs evidence. The everyday theory is what you in science call a thesis.
Even a thesis need any kind of hard fact, not conclusive fact, but in any kind of facts. For the idea of a god there not a shred of hard facts.
But his thesis has a kind of hard fact, We exists. By defining "God" as the universe (from: God is everywhere/in us all. etc) his argument have some validation.
If define "god" this way you change the meaning of the term "god". "God" means in our western society, based on judo-christian idea, something which is outsid the universe and its creator.
"God created the heaven and the earth." So if the universe created itself, then it's god, by definition? Nothing in the bible tells us exactly what god is.
Hard evidence?
How else a child would know from birth that it needs to make contact to the human around and this strange sound waves are of some importance (speech)?
That's not evidence that's an assumption. The kid don't know that, it just mimics the surroundings, it trys to "contact" anything it see. That's why any baby/pupy/etc can be brought up to think it's something els. A child is a blank paper and the experience is the text that makes it what it is.
_________________
Sing songs. Songs sung. Samsung.
No a scientific theory needs evidence. The everyday theory is what you in science call a thesis.
Even a thesis need any kind of hard fact, not conclusive fact, but in any kind of facts. For the idea of a god there not a shred of hard facts.
But his thesis has a kind of hard fact, We exists. By defining "God" as the universe (from: God is everywhere/in us all. etc) his argument have some validation.
If define "god" this way you change the meaning of the term "god". "God" means in our western society, based on judo-christian idea, something which is outsid the universe and its creator.
"God created the heaven and the earth." So if the universe created itself, then it's god, by definition? Nothing in the bible tells us exactly what god is.
Hard evidence?
How else a child would know from birth that it needs to make contact to the human around and this strange sound waves are of some importance (speech)?
That's not evidence that's an assumption. The kid don't know that, it just mimics the surroundings, it trys to "contact" anything it see. That's why any baby/pupy/etc can be brought up to think it's something els. A child is a blank paper and the experience is the text that makes it what it is.
Psychological studies have clearly indicated that a newborn is not a blank paper and there are inherent psychological structures which guide all actions. Language itself, in humans, is a guided process.
We don't any process which creates matter/energy. We therefore must assume that the universe has no creation, but matter just exists. Interestingly this is precisely the idea Spinoza had.
Hard evidence?
How else a child would know from birth that it needs to make contact to the human around and this strange sound waves are of some importance (speech)?[/quote]
That's not evidence that's an assumption. The kid don't know that, it just mimics the surroundings, it trys to "contact" anything it see. That's why any baby/pupy/etc can be brought up to think it's something els. A child is a blank paper and the experience is the text that makes it what it is.[/quote]
Clear - and hows says the toddler that the surrounding is of any importance or that human beings are of any importance. You be aware that newer studies regarding autistic childeren show in very early age an different behaviour regarding eye contacts by the mother. There are pre-set programmes in our brains, the problem the rest of the world has with us Aspies is simple: They have a slightly different programme.
We don't any process which creates matter/energy. We therefore must assume that the universe has no creation, but matter just exists. Interestingly this is precisely the idea Spinoza had.
The universe was created at big bang, that was when the rules for the universe was set. What ever it was before was something yes, but not the universe. You can't show of a pile of clay and say that it's a vase just becouse you intend to do one of it.
Hard evidence?
How else a child would know from birth that it needs to make contact to the human around and this strange sound waves are of some importance (speech)?
That's not evidence that's an assumption. The kid don't know that, it just mimics the surroundings, it trys to "contact" anything it see. That's why any baby/pupy/etc can be brought up to think it's something els. A child is a blank paper and the experience is the text that makes it what it is.
Clear - and hows says the toddler that the surrounding is of any importance or that human beings are of any importance. You be aware that newer studies regarding autistic childeren show in very early age an different behaviour regarding eye contacts by the mother. There are pre-set programmes in our brains, the problem the rest of the world has with us Aspies is simple: They have a slightly different programme.
This has nothing to do with what you said first:
We are born with some knowledge regarding time, space or social interactions. What an Aspie makes an Aspie is the fact that this birth-given knowlegde is slightly different than of the majority of people.
What you just said is merely a question of programing. Action and the triggerd response. That is not a type of knowledge, it's just a reflex.
_________________
Sing songs. Songs sung. Samsung.
We don't any process which creates matter/energy. We therefore must assume that the universe has no creation, but matter just exists. Interestingly this is precisely the idea Spinoza had.
The universe was created at big bang, that was when the rules for the universe was set. What ever it was before was something yes, but not the universe.
I hope we are not going the slip way of the Sophists in turning the meaning of words around: What ever is cause of the universe, matter and energy existed; there no need for creation process.
The Watchmaker-"argument": Why do introduce here an intention. With a vase we have a know process by intention of transforming clay in ceramics. With the universe we do not have a know process of creating matter and energy, therefore the assumption of a creator is pointless.
This has nothing to do with what you said first:
We are born with some knowledge regarding time, space or social interactions. What an Aspie makes an Aspie is the fact that this birth-given knowlegde is slightly different than of the majority of people.
What you just said is merely a question of programing. Action and the triggerd response. That is not a type of knowledge, it's just a reflex.
Knowledge does not need awareness or consciousness: Each insect has knowledge regarding space and time, otherwise it could not navigate through the world. Our consciousness is something different: It our awareness regarding our own existence, perhaps to be called a special kind of knowledge.
We don't any process which creates matter/energy. We therefore must assume that the universe has no creation, but matter just exists. Interestingly this is precisely the idea Spinoza had.
The universe was created at big bang, that was when the rules for the universe was set. What ever it was before was something yes, but not the universe.
I hope we are not going the slip way of the Sophists in turning the meaning of words around: What ever is cause of the universe, matter and energy existed; there no need for creation process.
The what now? Do you belive in the BB-theory?
The Watchmaker-"argument": Why do introduce here an intention. With a vase we have a know process by intention of transforming clay in ceramics. With the universe we do not have a know process of creating matter and energy, therefore the assumption of a creator is pointless.
Becouse the universe has no will of its own. You have. Therefor I drew the parallel intention vs uncontroled outcome. A uncontroled now-and-then vs a controled now-and-future. And it was the simplest way to explain my point.
Fact still stand, before the universe was created itself it was something els.
I never spoke of a creator, only the creation.
This has nothing to do with what you said first:
We are born with some knowledge regarding time, space or social interactions. What an Aspie makes an Aspie is the fact that this birth-given knowlegde is slightly different than of the majority of people.
What you just said is merely a question of programing. Action and the triggerd response. That is not a type of knowledge, it's just a reflex.
Knowledge does not need awareness or consciousness: Each insect has knowledge regarding space and time, otherwise it could not navigate through the world. Our consciousness is something different: It our awareness regarding our own existence, perhaps to be called a special kind of knowledge.
This is simply a question of how to define words and it's pointless.
To me, what you describe is reflexes, like when the doctor hits you on the knee with the club. A.i nothing to do with knowledge. Knowledge is something you gain and use when needed.
To show the difference: To feel hungry is not knowledge, to know you need to eat is.
Enough said about that from me.
_________________
Sing songs. Songs sung. Samsung.
Well yeah they did have to make tools in those days.
I wonder what Noah use. I'm sure God provided everything for it.
_________________
How to Know God Personally through Jesus Christ
http://www.ccci.org/
Does God Exist? Here is proof he does.
http://www.everystudent.com/features/is ... 2godMANp2w
I apologize for not using quotes, I've never gotten the hang of them.
My theory is based on a few observations, thus giving validity to it's right as a theory. The universe exists, human beings have free will, human beings have vast imaginations, the law of conservation of mass, the existence of time itself, and the arbitrary laws by which the universe is governed.
My beliefs are closer to gnostic teachings than traditional christian ones, but I reject a lot of the rigidity of gnostic structures in exchange for personal observation. Originally I was Catholic, then I became disillusioned with it's lack of evidence as I began believing more in Occam's razor. I was aethiest for a few years until I had a philosophical shift and determined that belief in the unlikely does not invalidate it's likelihood, spurred quite aptly with my diagnoses in high school not only with Asperger's syndrome, but how my psychologist described me.
"Imagine all of humanity is on a bell graph. Ordinary people are at the top of the bell. Further off the bell are less normal people and common deviations. And you- [holds hands far apart] you're way, way out here on a fringe by yourself."
I suppose I'd always known that extreme deviations could exist, but it really hit home to know I was one of them. It taught me to never doubt for the sake of doubting. It also caused me to question existence itself, no longer satisfied with the answer that if there's no evidence one shouldn't assume. It suppressed creativity and the human nature to seek out meaning and understanding.
After all, we live based on assumptions. We assume our senses are functioning correctly or at least unvarying, we assume the other people we see are truly there and not figments of our imaginations, we assume space and time as a whole exists when all of this is based solely on our own observation. People can see mirages and hear things that aren't there, have imaginary friends or voices in their heads, think in non-sequential order and do all kinds of other things that would corrupt our ability to simply observe things properly. Outside of the extremely paranoid and conspiracy theorists, we're willing to assume that these things aren't commonly happening and that the world as we know it exists.
So my explanation, until I hear a theory that seems more sound to me, is that the reason this universe is full of arbitrary rules, that humans are intelligent and imaginative, that a universe with conservation of mass is full of mass without observable explanation, and that time follows a linear sequential order is that humanity or perhaps even life itself is the right brain of a greater will, which I have chosen to dub 'God'. There are missing links in the theory. But I think this theory makes a lot more sense than the theory that the universe just happened, so I believe this one.
My theory is based on a few observations, thus giving validity to it's right as a theory. The universe exists, human beings have free will, human beings have vast imaginations, the law of conservation of mass, the existence of time itself, and the arbitrary laws by which the universe is governed.
My beliefs are closer to gnostic teachings than traditional christian ones, but I reject a lot of the rigidity of gnostic structures in exchange for personal observation. Originally I was Catholic, then I became disillusioned with it's lack of evidence as I began believing more in Occam's razor. I was aethiest for a few years until I had a philosophical shift and determined that belief in the unlikely does not invalidate it's likelihood, spurred quite aptly with my diagnoses in high school not only with Asperger's syndrome, but how my psychologist described me.
"Imagine all of humanity is on a bell graph. Ordinary people are at the top of the bell. Further off the bell are less normal people and common deviations. And you- [holds hands far apart] you're way, way out here on a fringe by yourself."
I suppose I'd always known that extreme deviations could exist, but it really hit home to know I was one of them. It taught me to never doubt for the sake of doubting. It also caused me to question existence itself, no longer satisfied with the answer that if there's no evidence one shouldn't assume. It suppressed creativity and the human nature to seek out meaning and understanding.
After all, we live based on assumptions. We assume our senses are functioning correctly or at least unvarying, we assume the other people we see are truly there and not figments of our imaginations, we assume space and time as a whole exists when all of this is based solely on our own observation. People can see mirages and hear things that aren't there, have imaginary friends or voices in their heads, think in non-sequential order and do all kinds of other things that would corrupt our ability to simply observe things properly. Outside of the extremely paranoid and conspiracy theorists, we're willing to assume that these things aren't commonly happening and that the world as we know it exists.
So my explanation, until I hear a theory that seems more sound to me, is that the reason this universe is full of arbitrary rules, that humans are intelligent and imaginative, that a universe with conservation of mass is full of mass without observable explanation, and that time follows a linear sequential order is that humanity or perhaps even life itself is the right brain of a greater will, which I have chosen to dub 'God'. There are missing links in the theory. But I think this theory makes a lot more sense than the theory that the universe just happened, so I believe this one.
I'm sorry, but isn't it more reasonable to conclude that you don't know what caused the universe? I don't think anyone is arguing that the universe "just happened". Be humble.
_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.