jump to last post 1-37 of 37 discussions (265 posts)

Why Do You Need Proof?

  1. 0
    Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago

    I recall, years ago, before my advent into the world of culinary madness, a certain minister and a scientist who were the proverbial thorns in my side, especially regarding studies in Philosophy. They appeared, at the time, nothing more than self appointed heretics for and against something we'll term a "belief system", or as I prefer to define it: a syndication.

    Either way, these men were devote in their beliefs until a point came when they were caused/purposed to literally change places. The former minister became a scientist while the scientist left his practice to become a full time --and well traveled-- minister.

    The crossroads came where both wanted exactly the same result. Both desired proof of the existence of Creator. The former minister said he originally sought proof by testing the theology according to its general practices of prayer, etc. He had done this daily for over a decade. When no result came, he turned to science for proof. The same instance happened to the former scientist, who turned from the practices of over a decade of search, report, document, data with the same result as the former minister.

    When approached, I was in my prime of Philosophy. Building a very wicked case for Free Will over Choice, against them both. They argued quite a bit against their former passion/pursuits and strongly for their present passion/pursuits. When they could not reach a consensus turned and asked: how would you provide proof and solve the riddle of the crossroads?

    My first response was laughter. Laughter at the innocent request, with dangerous undertone of two well aged practices. I began by asking them both a simple question: Why Do You Want Proof? They both looked leery-eyed and impulsively/instinctively opened their mouths to reply, then stopped...

    To this day, neither has answered that question. So I prose to you, dear Hubbers of the house of Atheism and Theism: Why Do You Need Proof?

    Logic says:
    If you as a theist have understanding or some such thing, you do not have proof but rather a conviction, which does not actually solve the riddle of the crossroads, it merely convicts you of the possibility of proof after a "time times time and one half";
    If you, as an atheist, do not in any way, shape or form believe in the practices of a former conviction and cannot provide any with your new practice, you also have no proof, yet argue strongly --and quite often demand-- proof (I would state for precisely the same reason as a theist), can either of you answer this question, without rhetoric, slap-stick rebuttal or scriptural docket numbers?

    Why do You Need Proof?

    James.

    1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
      ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You bored James? lol

      1. 0
        Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        wink
        Hello Cecilia!!

        I suppose....
        But spooky is entertaining [me]. Especially in the Atheist Prayer [Garden]. big_smile

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
          ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          lol you can always rely on the forums smile

        2. couturepopcafe profile image59
          couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          James, you're such a good writer.

          1. 0
            Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Thank You, couturepopcafe.
            http://scooch.gr0w.com/scooch/emoticons/emoticon_blush.gif

    2. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      We all need proof because we are the created not the Creator;  we are the finite and not the infinite; we are the clay and not the potter; we are the selfish, not the author of Love.
      We need something outside of ourselves to give purpose to life.  God provided us that proof time and time again, both literally and Spiritually.

      1. 0
        Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        So, Brenda, if Creator already provided that proof to you --as a theist-- WHY then do you still need it? And also, from your theistic vantage point, having said the proof was provided, would you still define yourself (yourselves) as merely clay, finite, selfish?

        h.a.borcich mentioned her proof as by experience (which I would love to engage that conversation!)....

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, I am still the clay.
          Because He is still the potter.
          Yes, still selfish unless I remember His sacrifice!

          I don't still need initial proof.
          What I need (as all us oh-so-human beings need) is daily confirmation of that Proof!  And that comes from the Holy Spirit.  He lives in us, those of us who are born again.  He never leaves us nor forsakes us, though we may be tempted (and some do) to deny the facts.

          You say you're interested in Holly's response?  Then ask her!  Is she still around here?

          1. 0
            Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            What do you mean "Initial Proof" and can you explain how that proof came to be.
            Second, from the point of initiation, what more proof is "required daily" and why?

            I was waiting for Holly to reply yesterday...

            1. 0
              Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Jesus asked Nicodemus how he could grasp the concept of Spiritual things if he couldn't even grasp the facts of earthly things......

              It's about being born again, Twenty One.
              That which is earthly (natural) is first, and is proof of what we are.
              That which is spiritual is second, and is proof of what we are not, but what we can be.

              We must undertand both in order to be born again;  we must understand what we are and what we are not, and even more, what we are after we're born again.

              I would hope your two friends might both become born-again scientists!   Because the two things, science (fact, not conjecture) and Faith (evidence of unseen facts) not only can mix, but can complement each other.   I would hope that you too, Twenty One, could someday see this.

              1. 0
                Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Stop, please.
                I did not request a theological reference of Scriptural Docket numbers nor Atheistic temperamental whitewashing.
                I have far too much understanding, 'faith' and experience, to twiddle in memorized and recited words of books with absolutely no action provided by believers/readers themselves that validates what they prose from books of gods and science --not just one or three persons --but thousands. So, please, I would prefer we continue to keep the peace and not engage doctrines pro or con, yes? The term 'born again' has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity, Science, Liberal Politics or Law, and (from the theistic vantage point) everything to do with why you need proof. Something to consider, I suppose. smile

                ps, as for the melding of Science-Religion, it was that way for thousands of years! Until they split and as of late, are reunited.
                It is called Quality (of life). The New Age.

                James.

                1. 0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I see you still refuse to lay your ego aside, even for a brief moment, in order to understand the simplicity of Truth.

                  But I do detect some emotion.  Maybe that's a start.

                  Just please remember there is nothing new under the sun.  All your quest for knowledge only leads you away from that simplicity I mentioned.

                  As you wish.  It has always been an "experience" talking to you James.

                  1. 0
                    Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Brenda,
                    You are severely misreading me --and have done so from the "get-go".
                    Although highly intellectual --and yes, void of  the sensation/equation pragmatism-- am often very 'emotional'. But certainly it is not ego that I use to write/speak to you or anyone else. Ego prevents every/any one from growing --even the most devote believer or anti-believer, scientist, etc. Ego is what I am arguing against. Ego is Choice. Ego is Necessity. Necessity is the Conscious.

                    You mentioned earlier regarding 'initial' and needed affirmation --daily-- of your conviction/belief, as a brick of clay-- translated as your proof. I would highly argue that is Ego.
                    Ego is the necessity for proof by any and all measures.
                    Ego is the core root of all humanism.

                    Always a pleasure,
                    James.

    3. luv2wander profile image60
      luv2wanderposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      remember "Footprints" for then it was when i carried you... believe me for yrs of seeking and searching for the truth... the many life experiences i have endowed... in my darkest moments and earnest beconings for comfort, knowledge and peace of mind; my Father Creator God above all has heard my tears and torement. It was then He did carry me and sent help and understanding! So you tell me how is it a individual human being can respond to my needs without ever meeting? I need no proof I have my own.   Via Con Dios, jen

      1. Beelzedad profile image62
        Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Is that what you say to the plumber who fixes your pipes, or the mechanic that fixes your car, or the builder who is building your house. You never need to ask for proof from them for anything, you simply just accept everything they say, no matter what?

        smile

      2. 0
        Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Excellent reply, luv2wander.

        You are the third person to mention experience.

        James.

    4. Pcunix profile image91
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I don't need it because I have it. No god is possible. Any such creature that claims to be a god is a fraud or insane.

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
        ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        well, there many definitions of god. and if you are in the loop, you would understand it from many angles. from a buddhist, from a pagan's, from  a christian and so on. god is a metaphor for power, power to create. For buddhists god = GOD. meaning the smaller god is also the larger god, and the smaller god is man. Nameste means, the god in me recognizes the god in you. So in this context what is god? In the Judaic tradition, all the secret names of G-d are actually instructions on how to maximize human creative powers. They are invocations within the psyche.So it is not crazy. it's just another kind of jargon that many who are outside of the jargon will not understand.

        1. Pcunix profile image91
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah, right. Misdirection and weasel words.

          There are no gods. Having a belief is not the thing itself. You can't substitute the container for the thing contained.

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
            ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            it is clarifying the direction of your very statement. You can't say something is rubbish if you don't know what it is.

            1. Pcunix profile image91
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You can't  say that nonsense beings exist because you insist that a god set must include toasters.

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Literature is rich in symbolism. You cannot read at face value. WE always speak in metaphors, and our myths are actually metaphors for abstract things that available to human experience but not to intellect. The collective knowledge does expand and later on we can decode these metaphors and assign new names to it.

                But calling something rubbish without thoroughly understanding it is lazy. That's just what I think. If it persists, something resonates.

                1. Pcunix profile image91
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Again, you speak in circles that mean nothing. There are no gods no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise. It's typical theist double-speak.

      2. 0
        Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        PC,
        Could you kindly provide concrete examples of this proof you say you have
        (again, as I requested in the OP: non-rhetorical, non slip-stick, non theological docket number references. )

        James.

        1. Pcunix profile image91
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I have, in other threads and in a hub. Go find it if you must, because I feel no need to waste my fingers here.  You'll just spout jumbo jumbo and say it is not proof anyway.  But it is.

          1. 0
            just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hey pcunix, I feel for you. Not having concrete proof, but perceiving concrete proof is so difficult to explain; outside of your own head. You should just be thankful you have you own rabbit hole to explore. Many people are searching for theirs. You and me, we're just lucky.

            1. Pcunix profile image91
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              No, I do have proof that your Make Believe Buddy does not exist.

              You can bleat nonsense all day long, but that changes nothing: there are no gods and no god is logically possible.

              1. 0
                just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Bleating certainly apears to fit the bill in your posts. I'm telling you, we're peas on a pod.

                1. Pcunix profile image91
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Except your pea fantasizes about imaginary Sky Daddy.

                  1. 0
                    just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Ok, ok. Yes I have an imagination and you don't. Jealousy is so unbecoming. I'm sure there are those among us who would be willing to help you develop one. I'd offer, but I enjoy keeping my rabbit hole uncluttered.

  2. 0
    just_curiousposted 5 years ago

    I don't need proof, in a concrete form that I could point to that everyone could see, but I think if I had nothing within me that I perceived as proof for myself, it would be very difficult to stand on one side of the issue or the other firmly.

  3. Cagsil profile image84
    Cagsilposted 5 years ago

    If you have ask why, then obviously you lack the ability to understand to begin with. wink

    1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
      ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      hua hua hua hua hua! translation: lol

      My dear, don't even mess with this guy. He's not your match.

  4. h.a.borcich profile image61
    h.a.borcichposted 5 years ago

    My experiences are proof enough for me. Obviously there are those who need more, or less. And then there are those who are apparently compelled to insult anyone who even ponders matters of faith smile

    1. 0
      Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Experience...
      Now, there is something to consider.
      Care to elaborate?

      James.

  5. spookyfox profile image80
    spookyfoxposted 5 years ago

    To avoid falling into a comfortable illusion, not knowing that it is such. And to be able to keep looking for answers, which is unlikely to happen if you think you know them all to the biggest mysteries of the Universe.

    I'd ask why would you need god? And why do you need faith? And most importantly, why would you need to believe that you personal belief happens to be the absolute truth?

    Furthermore, why, if you need no proof, don't you believe in any myth and fairy tail out there, and everything you're told?

  6. 0
    Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago

    So, apart from just_curious, who poses an interesting thought, no one has replied according to the OP request, nor answered the question. Interesting that the replies are supposition, rhetorical, memorized, self ideologies at the crossroads of humanism -- which is precisely where these two gentlemen are...


    Let's simplify it further: Just answer Why You Need Proof.
    No need to explain why, just why do you need it...
    Seems harmlessly simple enough, yes?

    James.

    1. kess profile image59
      kessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      proof become necessary to justify oneself in the eyes of another....

      Justification of self become necessary because the one needing justification do not yet know Truth...

      I need no other justicfication other than myself...Because...

      I am Truth .

      1. spookyfox profile image80
        spookyfoxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "I am Truth ."

        Oh wow, how did I miss that? I'm sorry Mr. Truth. I admire your humbleness.

    2. spookyfox profile image80
      spookyfoxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You sound like a lawyer trying to twist answers. The first pharagraph of my post is what you asked for, only in the following I expand, yet you choose to ignore the whole post.

      It seems you're only looking for one response that happens to share your point of view.

      1. Cagsil profile image84
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Sounds all too familiar, such a 'bait and switch' scam. lol

  7. spookyfox profile image80
    spookyfoxposted 5 years ago

    Actually, I don't think it's much about proof or lack of it. It's what a believer considers to be proof, against what a non-believer does. For some people, the fact that everyone else thinks or says such thing is proof enough. To other people, what they might have felt constitutes proof. Others look at the Universe with a sense of awe which they call god, and the simple fact that everything is, and more importantly, that you are, and that you're able to experience the universe, is proof enough.

    Most non-believers are tired of taking other people's word for what is supposed to be the truth, or solely from within ourselves, and look more carefully at what's out there, which is essentialy the best way to learn ourselves.

    We all need proof, we just filter it differently.

    If you just want simple "I don't need it, I just felt god inside me and I know this is the absolute truth to the universe" answers then I guess you can skip my posts.

    1. 0
      Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      So, what you're arguing is you need proof because:
      #1. Truth void of sensation
      #2. Truth void of self
      #3. Truth because of what's out there
         3b. --inconclusive, as it reverts to #2.

      I am reading that correctly? To me, the above are applications toward "proof" and not "why" proof.

      And also, if this is the actual case for proof, can you -individually- attain it by the humanistic methods applied (search, report, define based on the use of mechanics, etc) ?
      Doesn't the application of said humanism negate exactly what you are seeking proof -of & for ?

      James.

      1. spookyfox profile image80
        spookyfoxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You're looking at it from a religious point of view. Truth, truth, truth. It's the search that's important. It's not about knowing EVERYTHING, it's about learning as much as we can about how things work. As Richard Feynman said, you don't have to study something to prove a previously concieved notion, you just poke around and let Nature come out the way she is. Like a kid being thrown in a play ground: while it's fun to pretend you're a superhero or whatever from time to time, it is also fun to exercise your mind and solve puzzles. And you don't need to actually believe you're a superhero to have fun pretending; nor you need to have 'finding the ultimate truth' as a goal for solving a mystery.

        I already stated "why" I need proof in the first paragraph of the post that apparently doesn't fit your standards because of the rest of it. I was just pointing out that it's not just skeptcial atheists who need proof, everyone does. For everything. If I told you I can fly, you wouldn't believe me. Even if you saw a video of a person flying, you wouldn't believe it, because we are now aware of several other explanations, which are much, much more likely than me actually flying.

        On the other hand, if someone told you 'I made you a sandwich', you'd just take it as proof enough that the sandwich will be there, because you have no reason to suspect otherwise.

        "And also, if this is the actual case for proof, can you -individually- attain it by the humanistic methods applied (search, report, define based on the use of mechanics, etc) ? "

        This is where I would ask you to be more specific. Could you explain and give me an example of a non-humanistic method? And do you mean if I can, for example find proof of the existence of a particular kind of insect in my backyard, by searching for it?

    2. 0
      just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Actually, you're being a little simplistic in your understanding of people who see reason to see more than the here and now. Your last sentence doesn't really describe them at all. They just look for answers on more than one plane of existence. They don't so filtering information.

      1. 0
        just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Oops.meant to say stop filtering.

      2. Cagsil profile image84
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        lol lol

        1. 0
          just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          well, I'd have to say your response is simplistic too. But I get your point.

          1. Cagsil profile image84
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The best understanding is always simple. It is when people make it more complicated is when it becomes difficult to understand. wink

            1. 0
              just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Yeh, I'm figuring that out about you slowly. But it's so much nicer when you say what you mean.

              And yes, I realize you weren't taking about yourself.

              1. Cagsil profile image84
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Stop trying to figure me out, that's your first problem. Reading and understanding the words, and the meanings is always easier. wink

                1. 0
                  just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, but to have even a little understanding of the one who speaks gives more depth of understanding.

                  1. Cagsil profile image84
                    Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Actually, it invades one's perception and possibly distorts one's view. wink

  8. TPSicotte profile image87
    TPSicotteposted 5 years ago

    I need food, shelter, and clothing. Proof is not a need. Personally, I have no interest in proof of a creator either way. However, God has a presence in humanity because so many people do believe and do things in accordance with that belief. Wanting proof is a very western rational precept. Proof of a creator, if there is any, is likely outside of rationality, or emotion for that matter.

    1. pennyofheaven profile image83
      pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes

    2. ceciliabeltran profile image85
      ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      TO HAVE TO rationally prove a belief shows you yourself are struggling with the concepts of belief and factual knowledge. Knowledge acquired versus knowledge inferred. With G-d, since the "concept" is outside the realm of human logic and yet it is collectively felt and assigned as "G-d", then it is obviously a case of knowledge inferred from the feeling of having an intelligent presence governing once life that cannot be attributed to anything rational.

      "Prove to me that there is a G-d" begs to ask the question, what are your parameters? Because I cannot prove to you that I feel loved or unloved. My feeling is entirely subjective, but it is valid. It is an emotion and therefore it affects my behavior. Does that mean that just because I cannot prove it, it is not real? It is persistent, it is widespread and it affects the way we live. It is not an illusion, it is real. The feeling of G-d is real. Now does that make G-d real? Define real. It is just goes on and on. Its chasing the mice in your head.

    3. 0
      Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "Proof is not a need"...

      Proof IS the greatest of needs, else humans have two things:
      -apathy
      -experience

      yes?

      1. TPSicotte profile image87
        TPSicotteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Proof based on the scientific method of inquiry is not a need. It is a limited concept that by its very nature is only useful for observable measurable phenomena. For people in survival mode proof is more of a luxury, whereas faith may well indeed be a need.

        1. 0
          Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          TP,

          Proof based on Scientific method is not proof, as that method is to merely Observe/Report, not engage by mechanics. If mechanics are introduced, it now becomes application. That application is equal to the application of textual theology or any textual reference within science also -mutable by the individual or collective applying said methods. Therefore, as science often deems, the proof is inconclusive. Not at all different from theistic terms of faith. So, the need exists by both, for both to continue to be, to exist, to form and fashion what it desires -more of the same. Proof remains the necessity and ultimately the thing which limits humanity and continues to enslave them to the self, the ego, the mind.

          What is charming, one fellow here says he actually has proof that Creator does not exist, while identically another says they have proof. If both have proof how can that be valid. We could argue one is lying, sure, but I am inclined to think both are -as neither has experience to provide beyond those methods/assumptions/conclusions/speculations/theories/hypothesis/books/references. The result of various applications of the need -are the need itself (the proof). And so, humanism continues...

          James.

          1. Pcunix profile image91
            Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I cannot prove that a creator (small "c") does not exist, but I can prove that any such creator has to be a natural product of some physics and cannot be a god.

            1. 0
              Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Precisely.
              So your method/result/proof is identical to the theistic method --applied ego, humanism-- nothing more, nothing less Therefore, both are invalid.

              Sidebar: I find that statement of physic and product funny, as anything physic is property (& proprietary).

              smile

              1. Pcunix profile image91
                Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                No, my proof is just very simple logic. It has no elements of humanism or anything else.  I simply prove that no supernatural being can exist.

                1. 0
                  Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  lol Exactly.

                  simple (applied) logic = humanism.

                  1. Pcunix profile image91
                    Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Putting a tag on something doesn't refute it.

                    Again: I have proved that no gods can exist.   Can you point out any flaw in the logic?

  9. Beelzedad profile image62
    Beelzedadposted 5 years ago

    Notice that the religiously indoctrinated either do not require or actually flatly refuse to accept evidence or proof. But, is it all evidence and proof? No, it is mostly evidence and proof that would question their religious indoctrination or the alleged supernatural realm.

    Do they demand evidence and proof from a mechanic when their car stops working and the mechanic says it's going to cost several thousand dollars to fix?

    Absolutely. smile

    1. 0
      just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I totally disagree with that statement. Everyone requires some degree of proof in their mind. Your definition of valid, concrete proof is simply different from the believer's definition of proof. It has nothing more to do with indoctrination than any other question you may feel the need to make a judgement call on.

      1. Beelzedad profile image62
        Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Absolutely not, I have no definition of proof or evidence, I use the standard definitions like everyone else. The fact that believers refuse to accept those definitions when it comes to their beliefs is obviously the issue.

        And of course, with my example of the mechanic, you know as well as I that believers will most definitely use the standard definitions as opposed to their rationale for believing.



        Few if any believers will admit to being indoctrinated, that is, until they have broken that cycle of indoctrination do they realize they've been brainwashed from childhood. smile

        1. 0
          just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Proof:

          conclusive evidence: evidence or an argument that serves to establish a fact or the truth of something

          test of something: a test or trial of something to establish whether it is true

          state of having been proved: the quality or condition of having been proved

          All of these definitions can be used when one searching for proof of faith, without having something concrete to hold in your hand when you have found it.

          You are right.  You don't change definitions, you just decide how you will interpret the words.

          1. Beelzedad profile image62
            Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            lol Hilarious. So, with your faith, where is the conclusive evidence that establishes fact? Where are the tests to establish facts?



            No, it's called understanding the definitions. It is you that is interpreting the words to suit your purpose. I use them as they are meant to be used. smile

            1. 0
              just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I disagree. The definition, at it's simplest stated level, does not imply anything more than evidence to one's self. There are those on both sides of the fence that are self assured enough to allow proof to stand at it's simplest level.

              I get what you are saying, but it does not hold true for everyone

              1. Beelzedad profile image62
                Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Absolutely not. Evidence and proof are of reality and have nothing to do with one's self.



                What "levels" are you talking about. One either has evidence or they don't.



                Exactly, there are those who accept reality and those who refuse to accept reality. I am of the former and you are of the latter. smile

                1. cheaptrick profile image66
                  cheaptrickposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  All due respect B,I have read that there is no reality,only possibility until observation collapses it in to reality.The temporary reality returns to possibility as soon as observation is removed.I respect your use of logic and reason and know that you are familiar with the"Measurement"problem of physics.Ive actually read that reality occurs through consensus and is fluid depending upon numbers of people sharing the same perception.Here's how crazy it gets.In terms of quantum theory when people perceived the earth to be flat...It was!....Crazy Huh?

                  1. Beelzedad profile image62
                    Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Did your desk or chair or computer or house collapse after observing it?



                    Are you referring to the collapse of the wave function when observed?



                    That's not what I read. smile

                  2. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Well that is interesting because the syllabic meaning of  most holy name of G-d means,
                    I observe, and there it is (in modern language).

                2. 0
                  just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I see you were taken through the wringer after you made this statement, and since it wasn't a wringer in a concrete form you missed it, but I have to tell you reality is a whole lot more complex than you perceive.

                  1. Pcunix profile image91
                    Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Still clinging to Sky Daddy, I see.

                    You have never put anybody through any wringer. You pretend that you have, but when the chips hit the table, you run away.

                  2. Beelzedad profile image62
                    Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    lol Where?



                    Fair enough, but that doesn't mean reality will not remain the same for everyone, despite those perceptions. smile

    2. ceciliabeltran profile image85
      ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You know there is a syndrome for missing nuances.

      1. 0
        Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        lol

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
          ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          lol

          1. 0
            Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            lol

      2. Beelzedad profile image62
        Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        And...?

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
          ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          and you just missed another one. lol you are a hoot! don't ever change!

          1. Beelzedad profile image62
            Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Still can't stick to the subject matter, I see, continuing to focus on the individual instead. Sad.

            1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
              ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              don't cry. it's not you, it's just your arguments. lol (what is a forum if you can stand everybody in it?)

              1. Beelzedad profile image62
                Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                If that were the case, you would be focusing on them, but you aren't. Of course, I do understand your focus. smile

                1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                  ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  what for?

  10. skyfire profile image74
    skyfireposted 5 years ago

    To solve problems in some cases whereas in some cases you need proof to relate and create new theories that in turn can be validated for further problem solving.

    Example - If jesus uncle was really powerful then why he died to begin with ? oh wait, that was coma eh ?

    See ? You need proof to validate things like these. Else any tom-dick-n-harry can create his story of son of god and shove it on followers.

    1. 0
      Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Interesting...

  11. 0
    Home Girlposted 5 years ago

    I need food, shelter and clothing and proof of everything that is around me and in me. Because I am human and human ask questions. Why do we cry when it hurts? Why do we cry when somebody else is hurt? Why do we need proof to everything? Because we are humans. We ask questions and want answers.
    And I thing this question is dumb and provocative, sorry. We need proof to everything, it goes without a question.

    1. 0
      Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Home Girl,
      I respect your humanism.

      The emphatic answer of  "no answer" is far more provocative and dumb, yes?
      "Because" only supplies a jar of air --and of course humans in their humanism will fill it with whatever is handed to them.

      So, in part I agree. It is humanism that drives the necessity of proof.

      James

  12. 0
    Home Girlposted 5 years ago

    As long as we keep that ability to ask questions, even dumb ones, we as a civilization have future I think.

  13. cheaptrick profile image66
    cheaptrickposted 5 years ago

    I'd like to throw this in the mix.Has anyone through out history ever offered a proof that was excepted buy their constituents.I am not aware of any theologian,philosopher,or scientist who did not in the end admit the futility of proving God.Remember Kierkegaard's"Leap of faith"You either take it or you don't.Unfortunately,value judgements and accusations clouded the waters here.A good person is a good person regardless of their choice.Can you really believe an unlimited loving God would be small minded enough to punish good people who don't believe in him buy condemning them to eternal torment while believing pedophiles get to go to heaven?If there is a judgement after death it must conform to a perfect God and be fair to all people regardless of works,faith,piety,holiness,etc...a level playing field.I'd like to offer this simple three word question that would do exactly that.God will look into your heart and ask...were you trying?
    Sorry about the long,and I'm sure boring,post but I'm having espresso night and unfortunately you good people bear the brunt of my caffeine overdose....that's a joke...I hope?

    1. 0
      Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      c a f f e i n e  Dean ! How have you been ?

      1. cheaptrick profile image66
        cheaptrickposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Caffeine Dean got the Best bean...it's realll Mean!
        Came through a rough patch James but the sailing's just fine now.
        Hope your well as well...Well?

        1. 0
          Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Well, if I must tell...
          Doing good.
          Dealing with a  c o l d  NY winter. Piles of Snow.
          Can't wait til Spring! (might drop down to St Lucia again).

  14. skyfire profile image74
    skyfireposted 5 years ago

    Yeah sure, when people trashes one definition that you put up then you'll come up with another. Once you hit wall for possible definitions then you keep insisting on 'undefinable' being at the end. Is 'going in circle' with literature references means proof to you ?

  15. ceciliabeltran profile image85
    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago

    I can prove that Richard Dawkins is confused! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi36 … re=related

    1. Beelzedad profile image62
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      In other words, you support the dishonest Christians who doctored that video? That would say volumes about your own intellectual honesty. smile

  16. ceciliabeltran profile image85
    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago

    I can prove he does not have a clue what to make of it:
    http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkin … verse.html

  17. ceciliabeltran profile image85
    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago

    The thing is, you can either look at it from the point of view of chaos or complexity or simplicity and order and you'd be right either way. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 … 9038a.html

  18. ceciliabeltran profile image85
    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago

    it all depends on belief

  19. Ur Anaite profile image60
    Ur Anaiteposted 5 years ago

    Everyone has taken this away from the existence of deity, so I shall also. To assume makes an ass out of u and me... or perhaps not.
    Without assumptions nothing can be acted upon. You assume that the fridge contains what it appears to contain and act accordingly. There is no proof that what you are experiencing is reality, you could be locked up in a cell imagining this all, yet in order to continue without actually getting locked up you have to assume all is as it appears.

    that's okay, its normal. Proof provided for anything is only valid on the basis that you assume it has been presented correctly and that you assume you have received and understood it properly. Do you need proof for the wiring of your television before you turn it on each day?

    1. Pcunix profile image91
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Whether reality or virtualization, no gods can exist.

      1. Ur Anaite profile image60
        Ur Anaiteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Thought that one out carefully, eh? The unfortunate side effect of not requiring proof is statements which bear no relevance.

        1. Pcunix profile image91
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, I have thought it out quite carefully and my proof is relevant and you are unable to refute it.

          No god is possible.

          1. Ur Anaite profile image60
            Ur Anaiteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The topic is titled "Why Do You Need Proof?"
            You have just declared that I cannot prove your statement to be wrong.

            I agree, nor can it be proven to be correct.

            Everything is possible, unless you have discovered the edge of the universe already.



            Virtual gods do exist, but they are virtual rather than actual. A virtual rose does not have all the characteristics of a rose but is still recognisable as such and would be immediatly recognised as such.

            1. Pcunix profile image91
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              No, you are wrong.  I can prove that no god is possible.

              http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/65568?p … ost1451308

              You cannot refute that.

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                what did you say about my twattle? It has a patent. (actually I didn't even know that so thanks to you)

                http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=20464

                1. Pcunix profile image91
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  That link in no way supports your nonsense about human dna producing "organized" light or any holographic content.

                  You still avoid my proof. Do you fear it that much? You should..

                  1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I am not avoiding your proof. I am actually using your proof to prove my point. Which you are ignoring.

                    The thing is, you view gods as external powers. I don't. apparently most mystics who began various religions don't either. G-d is a metaphor for the collective consciousness. You cannot prove that gods don't exist because gods are myth language-- they are symbolic.

                    It's like saying prove to me that there is an Olympus and that the god Zues is the creator of all life in the planet and he used his lightning bolt.

                    Zues however is personification of a natural phenomenon.

                    And for the record lightning did create the conditions for light to form.
                    http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/mill … iment.html

                    You can say that Zeus is just myth. But then how do you explain this coincidence?

                    Here is how I explain it. We know what we're made of. We know our history. Because that is OUR history. Then, when we imagine how we are made, we come up with these imaginary stories that are actually surprisingly symbolic of our history. It's all in the unconscious and the only way we can access this knowledge is through myth. We don't take it literally, we study it. We don't twattle about I can prove that god does not exist because I know how computers work. It's crossing genres of thought. It takes one entire laptop to simulate one neuron. Do you know how many neurons you have in your brain?

                    So stop disproving a story, understand what it means. So the desire to prove or disprove is ignorant. You cannot prove it. We don't know enough.

              2. Ur Anaite profile image60
                Ur Anaiteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                So you have found the edge of the universe, you have found the beginning of the universe?

                You cannot prove that no god can exist. You statements are based on a few select systems which are only true - to a given value.

                In the linked discussion you asked for a being which was not created naturally, then required that its creation was explanable with natural/scientific method. Left foot, in or out.

                1. Pcunix profile image91
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  No, you fail to comprehend:  I put no requirements on the being other than it must reason. I don't even insist (as you do) that it can reason well.

                  Anything that can reason has to be a natural product of physics. It is that simply and that damning for theists.

  20. skyfire profile image74
    skyfireposted 5 years ago

    Kites ? roll

    Heard this type of BS from hinduism scriptures.

    1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
      ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Really?

      You don't think that we are first and foremost amino acids, water and electricity?
      We are star fodder, rejected matter from stars.

      Did you not follow that when you were a tiny baby barely a cell? Then you became a tadpole then you grew your little legs and hands but you had a tail? Does this sound familiar too? Creationists hate this because it proves that within the nine months a human fetus is in the womb it follows the evolution of the species.

  21. skyfire profile image74
    skyfireposted 5 years ago

    Yes, really.



    There is huge difference between humans or any other species formed out of death of star and blueprint of universe embedding into DNA of species of this planet. Your argument is similar to spiritualists who claim 'know yourself and you'll know about universe', still with that claim not a single spiritualist found any habitable planet or number of wild meteors or even another galaxy with habitable planet, let alone that blueprint inside their DNA or any other part of body. If you attempt to claim something like that then get ready to demonstrate the facts in your claim if there are any.

    1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
      ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I'm sorry, but I am only agreeing with the Rose Center for earth and space. "Journey to the Stars" as narrated by Whoopi Goldberg. If you have something against us having each "a teaspoon of starstuff". Take it up with the museum.

      Also, I don't know if you've seen my talk but it is precisely about the blueprint, and yes, it was peer reviewed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySRIvlmPbH0

      1. skyfire profile image74
        skyfireposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        1. What has TED x (community organized event video ) has to do with peer review ?

        2. Yet again with ref to rose center you didn't give me any proof about your claim of "Within each of us is a record of all the things that transpired on earth and even in the universe ".

        3. I hope you do understand the depth of you claim. For plenty of reasons  like - expanding universe, particle related to one star not being aware of any other phenomenon in other star or galaxy. Seriously if you're citing any science author then have you even thought to link up this way ?

        4. There is huge difference between giving some meaning or direction to human fantasies and reality. Your current research involves connecting myth to modern science and with claim like this, i'm sure those who live in fantasy will pick it up and cite in their books. But reality works entirely different manner, so i'll wait for proof of Within each of us is a record of all the things that transpired on earth and even in the universe ".

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
          ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          1. it was reviewed by peers in mythology http://www.jcf.org/new/index.php?catego … ;blogid=21

          1. Pcunix profile image91
            Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Peers of mythology??

            Pardon me while I gasp for breath between laughing.

            1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
              ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              lol what did he think my peers were? himself?

              1. Pcunix profile image91
                Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I'm laughing because if a treatment that takes myth as representing reality is reviewed by other fools who believe the same thing, what does that imply?  Nothing whatsoever.

                Gobbledy-gook. Theistic babble.  Feel good happy-talk. 

                Myths are nothing more than primitive minds attempting to explain things they don't understand. We have driven all but the biggest of them all out of any sane person's belief. But still the god nonsense goes on, assisted by people like you who bring pseudo scientific babble to it.

                The only reality to myths is human logic circuits seeking explanations and making major erors.

                1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                  ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Myths have shaped the culture of man and man's civilization:

                  Epic of Evolution, Seven Ages of the Cosmos: Eric Chaisson

                  "The causes of recent evolution include not only biological factors but cultural ones as well. An intricate biocultural interplay accompanied the increase in brain volume."

                  You can't dismiss a huge piece of information as part of the thing that makes us evolve further just because you can't understand it.  Mythology is the study of human imagination. It has a source in our anatomy and a function in our survival.

                  Archetypes and Strange Attractors, John R Van Eenwyk:

                  "The similarity between chaos theory and Jung's metapsychology should now be a bit easier to see. The symmetry building ability of chaotic dynamics; the self-similarity, scale variance, and fractal dimension of fractal attractors; the stable  and unstable branches of a manifold as portrayed in Hopf bifurcations, saddle points and homoclinic orbits--these all resemble Jung's description of archetypes, and symbols"

                  It's a field of study. You can ignore it. But then ignoring it still doesn't make your proof, an actual proof but an anectodal evidence. Emergent behavior does exist but not accidentally. It is a pattern in nature.

                  1. Pcunix profile image91
                    Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Myths have indeed shaped culture.  What you keep missing is that THEY ARE STILL NOT TRUE.

                    They are not "representations of reality". They are defective explanations of natural events.

  22. ceciliabeltran profile image85
    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago

    2. have you seen it? See it first.

  23. ceciliabeltran profile image85
    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago

    3. science author for what, the very basis of evolution and how life organizes? Do you want me to prove to you that your cells have your dna which was transferred from parents and parents of parents, from rhesus monkeys?

    The depth of my claim is just what science knows now. The problem is you probably don't understand the implications of evolution. life evolves from what it learns and keeps this information through genes. That's it and that's all.  I don't need to tell you have genes work. Or do I?

    first you have these self-organizing proteins that decided to balance themselves and then they got more complex, more adept at moving and then they became cells, and then communities of cells all the while retaining their adaptive programming through the transfer of genes. I don't need to quote an author. I will quote entire books beginning from The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.

    1. Pcunix profile image91
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Evolution is not a matter of life passing on what it has "learned". It's simply a matter of what survives the current environment - no "learning" except in the most warped sense.

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
        ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Really?  I didn't think you were a creationist. but apparently you are.

        The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins:
        (the million copy international bestseller)

        Chapter 3 : Immortal Coils

        "an octopus is nothing like a mouse and are quite different from an oak tree. Yet in the fundamental chemistry they are rather uniform, and the replicators that they bear, the genes, are basically the same kind of molecule in all of us..."

        True it is a selection, but we cannot survive without the adaptive breakthroughs of the first cell that figured to discard what could have been crystals to favor the DNA that we see in all lifeforms today.

        1. Pcunix profile image91
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No cell "figured it out". As I said, you plainly have no understanding of evolutionary theory.  That kind of nonsense may fly among your "peers", but it won't fly here.

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
            ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            you really are literal.

            personifications are used by scientists to explain phenomenon as well. as in the case of W. D. Hamilton:

            " a gene is being favored in natural selection"

            who favored it? favored means it was chosen. But it wasn't favored. it survived because of its appropriate adaptive skills. He used "favored" because it is more convenient to do so.

            Continue to insist you can prove god does not exist. As a matter of fact, publish it and have it peer reviewed by your IT peers. Then go to the Vatican Press and send it there. It's silly. You can pick on me, my claims, you're still silly thinking you can crack G-d.

            1. Pcunix profile image91
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              So you say. But SAYING it does not refute my proof.

              Go ahead - try to refute it - show the flaw in the logic. You cannot.

            2. Pcunix profile image91
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              No, it does not mean it was chosen. It means that the organism that had the gene survived long enough to pass it on. That is ALL that it means. As I said before, you plainly do NOT understand evolutionary theory.

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                you are quoting me out of context. ofcourse it was not chosen. the writer chose those words to simplify explanation.

                1. Pcunix profile image91
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  And you chose to misinterpret to bolster your pseudo scientific nonsense.

  24. ceciliabeltran profile image85
    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago

    4. read books about evolution, why don't you.

    1. Pcunix profile image91
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes.  Apparently you have not.

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
        ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        we can all just toss that back and forth and still not own up to you can't prove that G-d does not exist, will we?

        1. Pcunix profile image91
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          But I can.  I have. And you have not even begun to refute any part of my proof. Nor will you, ever: you'll just continue the nonsense that i "can't" prove it.

          I have. Refute the actual proof.  I have even given you the framework to do that in .

          1. Ur Anaite profile image60
            Ur Anaiteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            It's okay. The idea of the goddess scares a lot of people and everyone reacts differently. ;P

  25. ceciliabeltran profile image85
    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago
  26. ceciliabeltran profile image85
    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago

    Well, these are different fields we are talking about. I think computers are not in the same field as god. SO who is mixmatching fields here? You are using binary systems to disprove a mythological phenomenon. It's actually very silly.

    1. Pcunix profile image91
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No, I am not.  The binary is only to help you understand the necessity of at least a dualistic state to store information. The NAND gates are the same thing: to help you understand that logic gaes are the absolute MINIMUM needed to make decisions.

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
        ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Oh I didn't notice this.

        PC was afterall, like all myth creators, was using METAPHORS based on his reality. lol lol lol I really wish I noticed this. this would have proven the point that he's thick.

        1. Pcunix profile image91
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You don't know the difference between metaphor and analogy. I used an analogy.

  27. skyfire profile image74
    skyfireposted 5 years ago

    You're kidding right ? You're telling me that astrophysics+biology claim of yours is peer-reviewed by mythology folks. Do you think any serious discussion will proceed after this ? wink


    See what ? video ? or rose centers reference ?


    You're mis-directing my question to you. I want proof for your claim of 'Within each of us is a record of all the things that transpired on earth and even in the universe'. This has nothing to do with evolution unless you prove it with whatever connection and sources that you have for this astrophysics+biology related claim.


    Now this is funny. Why i should read books on evolution for your claim of 'Within each of us is a record of all the things that transpired on earth and even in the universe' when it is related to astrophysics first and then biology. You need to understand that it has nothing to do with evolution. If it is, prove it.

    1. Pcunix profile image91
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Frustrating, isn't it? I've asked her to provide proof of this twaddle also, but she ignores it and just puts out more pseudo-science that she plainly must get from some warped source.

      1. skyfire profile image74
        skyfireposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        yes it is frustrating.

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
          ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You won't actually see that line anywhere, you know. I wrote it.

          So if you want to prove to you that there is an actual record of the history is within us, this is my proof. You are made of cells with proteins, with chemicals. That in itself is a record of how life acquired life. If you cannot penetrate that. I cannot help you. You just have to understand it. If you cannot. I am not going to write an entire paper with citations for you to get that simple logic. It's very simple. You're alive now because of lightning and amino acids.

          1. Pcunix profile image91
            Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            It is not a record because intermediate genes have disappeared.

            As we keep learning, you have very little understanding of any of this.

  28. skyfire profile image74
    skyfireposted 5 years ago

    You're the one who is relating myths to modern science. We're not. We're discarding myths for what they are. Binary number system is not claiming creator of this universe, mythology does. Binary number system is not claiming blueprint of universe embed inside human DNA, mythology or some hypothesis from mythology peers does.  On that note, have ever drawn any schematics ? have you seen complexity of even microcontroller ? If you do, then you'll understand that how far fetched claim of schematic of universe inside human DNA is.

  29. skyfire profile image74
    skyfireposted 5 years ago

    Where ?


    Our body isn't as complex and vast like universe, so your claim is still not going with some initial ignition for research. Humans or any other species evolved from single cell hold the properties of related species from which they branched out (ref -speciation) Where do you see schematic of universe in this ?


    *face palm*
    I'm still not sure why are you not citing sources of any respectable scientist who proved your claim. It takes few minutes to do that right ?


    simple logic ?lol trust me Cecilia, even creationists will not buy this - schematic inside humans claim, let alone any person with reasoning skills.

    1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
      ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I have been. I don't understand why you don't see all the citations I made.

      1. Pcunix profile image91
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        We saw them. They have absolutely nothing to do with your claims.  Obviously you don't even begin to understand what they are about.  They are not even vaguely related to any of the silly stuff you try to peddle.

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
          ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Really? that evolution is culturally and biological formed is not related to my claim that myths are adaptive traits?

          1. skyfire profile image74
            skyfireposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Let me remind you claim of yours - Within each of us is a record of all the things that transpired on earth and even in the universe. <- This is where we're stuck right now.

            Trust me mythology in united states has nothing to do with me here in india. Large percentage of indian population is not even aware of what is gothic culture, gothic fairy tales etc. You need to even work on that one to make your second claim working-that evolution is culturally and biological formed is not related to my claim that myths are adaptive traits?.

            1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
              ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I did not claim that. That was lifted from a book by an MIT professor entitled Epic of Evolution. It was an exact quote.
              And myths are not what did you call them. Myths are somebody else's religion. TO christians Shiva is a hindu myth. TO Hindus the Truine G-d is a christian myth. Myths are the stories that we tell each other and the stories that shape our culture. 

              You are obviously not even aware of the Monomyth. the myth that transcends culture. We are just talking about one actual Myth you know, because all myths have a universal theme. So enough about that.

              G-d is part of world myth. It is a crucial aspect of global culture. It evolved as an adaptive trait. It cannot be discarded as nonsense. or disproven. it is pointless disprove the male propensity to have sex with a beautiful woman, even if you are gay and prefer man. You accept it and study it.

              1. Pcunix profile image91
                Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Exactly.  But they are NOT representations of reality.

                Nor is there any record of all of life in our genes.  I think you have just badly misunderstood things you have read and have built this nonsense theory of yours around basic misconceptions.

          2. Pcunix profile image91
            Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Wow!  Even farther off base.

            Evolution comes from survival. You dance around, asserting ludicrous claims and try to wrap it all up in science that you plainly have no understanding of at all. This technique plainly works with the gullible people who hang on your every word, but it doesn't stand up to direct examination.

            You have said nothing that has even a shred of evidence to support it, you have cited nothing that is even vaguely relevant to your mystical claims.

            1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
              ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              They are not ridiculous claims.  They are exact quotes from a a book about the evolution of the universe.

              I cannot write the entire book here. But if you want proof, read it.

              My mystical claims? Like what? that Myths are products of our imaginations and reflections of our biological processes?  You are distracting everybody from the fact that you are actually very silly thinking you have proven god does not exist, whereas, everywhere around you it is obvious that atleast from a cultural standpoint, G-d does.

              1. Pcunix profile image91
                Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, just like the scammeers story 'exists". 

                I have proved that no god exists.  You can't refute that, so you dance about, pointing in every direction trying to get away from that.

                I don't know what book you are referring to. Given what I know of you from here, I inane it is quite possible that you read an accurate work and completely misunderstood it. On the other hand, many very foolish books have been written, especially about religion.

                The fact remains that I can prove your god does not exist. You cannot refute my proof. Where does that leave you?

      2. skyfire profile image74
        skyfireposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        TEDx video was citation ? NO. Rose center reference was citation ? NO. Mythology folks claiming about biological evidence was citation ? No.


        For the love of galactus, can you tell me how many humans on this planet are capable of remembering even simple schematics like this on day to day basis ?

        http://www.sbprojects.com/projects/nano6802/nano6802.gif

        forget about universe schematics for now.  lol

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
          ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          well of course you cannot remember it as such. you don't have dreams skyfire? don't you dream about weird things. Well dreams are the way your brain stores what happened to you during the day. They are not stored as "I was frustrated by CeciliaBeltran", rather you store it as a door being jammed and you can't open it. And then you look at your key, and ceciliabeltran's picture is on it.

          we store emotion because emotions are chemical, and therefore we can store them in our system. Light imprints too. Hence dreams. But our undertanding of the letters we are reading. That is confined only to our mortal life. It is the emotions that we pass on, as well as the visual associations. Hence myth is goobledegook to someone who is trying to accept it at face value.

  30. skyfire profile image74
    skyfireposted 5 years ago

    Dreams are part of our memory. We don't see any abstract thing which is not related or connected to something that doesn't exist in memory. We relate things and mix things up and that is stored and shown when body goes in hibernation mode for 6-8 hours daily. For example, i may get dreams about microprocessor chasing me inside schematic of 6802. Now tell me if you don't know what 6802 is then by what chance your mind will have the same dream like me ? 0



    our mind is capable of relating things and that is what you're doing with mythology study. It has nothing to do with unseen events and it's imprint on human brain. Do you think without seeing supernova, humans are capable of picturing it in mind ? No.

    So if you claim about schematic then where it stored ? of course memory. Memory capacity isn't consistent between two human being. We have a choice of discarding information and that way memory behaves the way we guide it. Now tell me where in mind is schematic of galaxy which is 400 light years away from this planet ?

    1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
      ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      well you obviously need to be acquainted with Jung's work.

      Because you are disputing his findings.

      Just to excerpt the link:
      "According to psychiatrist Carl Jung, archetypes are innate universal psychic dispositions that form the substrate from which the basic symbols or representations of unconscious experience emerge. "The archetype is a tendency to form such representations of a motif - representations that can vary a great deal in detail without losing their basic pattern ... They are indeed an instinctive trend".[1] Thus for example "the archetype of initiation is strongly activated to provide a meaningful transition ... with a 'rite of passage' from one stage of life to the next":[2] such stages may include being parented, initiation, courtship, marriage and preparation for death.[3]"

      WHAT THIS MEANS is your dreams may have unique coding systems, so I would not know them. But once I get to know you're reality and your context, I would have an understanding.(That is why I study contexts of the ancients, to understand what they mean by their symbols. You can't simply read something written long ago and expect to fully understand what it means.)

      But the collective unconscious uses things we universally understand, like birds, snakes, skies, fire.

      These dreams are passed on, Jung said this.

      1. skyfire profile image74
        skyfireposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Dreams don't pass on unless obvious information is revealed. For example, your kids will not know the myths unless you show the book to them- either graphical or text form. Visual information requires senses to get inside memory and in turn to make some relation. You're picking the wrong direction from jung's work.

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
          ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Well actually that is what Jung found out being a psycho-analysts. Certain dreams recur that mirrors mythological themes. But again. you can twattle away and disagree with me. but first you have to understand that you are contradicting a key thought in an established field in psychology.

          1. Pcunix profile image91
            Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No, you are misintrepting and misunderstanding - all while feverishly  trying to direct attention away from the ludicrous claims you made earlier about light, human DNA and the history of life.

            1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
              ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              well I don't know what you want from me. I already gave you direct quotes from Dawkins himself. If you can't infer from that I don't know what else to do. i have to eat too.

              We are the sum total of life's acquired adaptive behaviors. the knowledge is in our genes. (so therefore, all that knowledge are in our biological processes) How else do you want me to state it other than read aloud books that you can read yourself.

              1. Pcunix profile image91
                Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You gave no quotes that support your claims in any way.

                We are one of many end products of evolution so far. We do NOT contain the history of everything that was part of that evolution.  There is no knowledge in our genes.  You have no understanding of any of this!

                1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                  ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  NO KNOWLEDGE IN OUR GENES?

                  let me educate you about what you claim to know about evolution. Your blank slate theory is OLD. debunked and tired.

                  "Gene-culture theory:
                  the theory that humans benefit from two types of inheritance. For example, as well as acquiring genes that led to our ancestors,making stone tools, they also "inherited" knowledge of how to use such tools"

                  "memes - the cultural equivalent of genes,which spread IDEAS or techniques among minds. Fashions, religions and political movements can all be thought of as based on memes that can be "inherited by children from the parents"  -quoted from 25 Big Ideas, chapter about The Selfish Gene

                  1. pennyofheaven profile image83
                    pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Dawkins is in another thread too.

          2. skyfire profile image74
            skyfireposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Established field in psychology ? lol Okay, let's give it shot. Tell me which psychologist or neuroscience prof goes in line of that claim ?

            dreams passed on ? neutral

            Even electrical engineer knows that information passing has noise attached to it when passed through any conductive media. Now only media here in our example is DNA and you're telling me that i'm refuting DNA information transfer which you're misquoting from other scientist ? and that makes my replies twattle ? roll

            1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
              ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I didn't notice this. Jungian psychology and yes refer to dawkins quote about memes.

              1. skyfire profile image74
                skyfireposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Jungian psychology doesn't apply to genes,it's psychology. Dawkins meme concept didn't claimed about information transfer related to abstract concept of dreams and information transfer. Memes are about information related to species and not their psychological condition and capacity.

                1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                  ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  this is ofcourse according to your i don't think so-sisms. Whereas I am quoting it directly verbatim and there is NO confusion that it is passed on from parent to child.

      2. Pcunix profile image91
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Dreams are not passed on.  There is no "collective unconscious". 

        You may dream about birds and snakes. I dream of words and computer code.  Jung wouldn't have understood that anymore than you will.

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
          ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          and you are ofcourse the authority on that knowing nothing about it.

          I can also say, you are a programmer not a mythologist or a cosmologist and you have no business disproving anything that is in the field of mythology or cosmology.  But then that's just talk.

          The point is, god is a crucial aspect of world mythology. It is not junk. And also it is not something you can disprove. because you don't need to disprove it, you only need understand it and decode what it means.

          1. Pcunix profile image91
            Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            But in fact I HAVE disproved it. This is a fact you conveniently continue to ignore.

            My proof is simple. It requires no great intelligence to follow it. It has nothing to do with computers; it is simple logic.  If it were flawed, you should easily be able to refute it.

            But you cannot.

          2. Beelzedad profile image62
            Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Aesops Fables are also not junk, they are valuable lessons taught with the use of animals that can think, talk and rationalize.

            But, that isn't evidence that animals can think, talk and rationalize. smile

            1. Pcunix profile image91
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              According to Cecelias logic, they can.

              And if you shine light through them, you get their history. Or maybe that only works with us, cuz we are Sky Daddy's creation, you know?

              1. Beelzedad profile image62
                Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Well, we are all made up of Jungian Mandelbrots, so that would make sense.  lol

                1. Pcunix profile image91
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I just pressed a flashlight into my hand and hoped  to see dinosaurs.  Alas, I only saw age spots.

                  1. Beelzedad profile image62
                    Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    lol

                  2. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    yes, lets use the flashlight to explain radiation and dna. that's real scientific.

              2. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Ok, this is how you understand what I said. Not my fault.

  31. ceciliabeltran profile image85
    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago

    Chaisson: Epic of Evolution

    "Physical, biological and cultural evolution span the spectrum of complexity, each forming  an essential part of cosmic evolution. Stars , planets, and life, as well as CULTURE, society and techology all contribute to a mangificently coherent story of ourselves, our world and the universe. All these systmes  amont many other examples of order and organization is richly endowed in the cosmos, share common features, common drives and a common evolutionary epic>" pg. 431

    1. Pcunix profile image91
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You think that supports your claims?  It doesn't even relate to what you asked us to swallow.

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
        ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Didn't I claim that culture (which includes myths) help shape our biology? How does that not support it.

        1. Pcunix profile image91
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Culture only shapes biology if it kills things before they are old enough to breed.

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
            ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            can you cite anything to prove this claim.

            don't be a bad sport. mythology is logical even to you. they are representatives of natural phenomenon we have no words for. that you agreed with. but are they untrue, no. they however are symbolic of something real.

            1. Beelzedad profile image62
              Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Sure we have words; imagination, delusion, intellectual dishonesty, the list goes on and on... smile

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                please, don't even start. These people are actually worth talking to.

                1. Beelzedad profile image62
                  Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Aw, what's wrong, did you get tired of trying to push Jung and Mandelbrot down my throat as answers to everything? lol

                  1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    It's not an answer to everything but definitely it's something that you haven't accepted because well you have no clue what they are or what they imply.

            2. Pcunix profile image91
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Can I cite anything to prove it?

              Do you not understand yet how evolution works? Organisms that live long enough to breed pass on genes. That's the whole of it. Culture has no affect on biology unless it kills before breeding.

              Well, there is evidence that chemicals in our environment damage genes. If that causes a difference in offspring, the viability will be determined by other factors. But that has nothing to do with your claims either.

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                very limited understanding of evolution.  I already gave you the sources, if you insist that culture is not a component of evolution, take it up with Chaisson from MIT.

                http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/e … cpubs.html

                1. Beelzedad profile image62
                  Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Sorry to hear that, is there anything we can do to help you have a better understanding? smile

                  1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    yes, you could stop distracting great discussions with your non-understanding of science and also frequent posturing of knowing what they are.

  32. skyfire profile image74
    skyfireposted 5 years ago

    Still my objection holds to it. You need to understand that we human overestimate even if we're scientist or some theorist, librarian or engineer. That quote was far fetched claim of imagination because it lacked proof.



    Nowhere i took shot on myth. My only point about myth was it's inconsistency over geographical area and human evolution. Of course we grow around myths and it's impression on our mind. But we don't relate it with reality and claim something which is just word salad.


    Sex between two gender is part of evolution and same applies to amoeba(think of it as single gender) as well. It's not myth, it's real world. G-d as world myth that religion explains has loopholes and in turn are easy target to dissection. It's foolish to study a world myth as part of reality and claiming that it can't be disapproved. With modular approach obviously it can be disapproved. But then again those who follow this myth obsessively come up with another excuse and loop goes on.

  33. ceciliabeltran profile image85
    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago

    Or PC you could write your complaints about that idea to this paper, where he publishes his claims:
    http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di … aid=163278

  34. ceciliabeltran profile image85
    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago

    If you're lazy to click, here it is:

    Abstracts:
    The Biological Universe (Dick 1996) analysed the history of the extraterrestrial life debate, documenting how scientists have assessed the chances of life beyond Earth during the 20th century. Here I propose another option – that we may in fact live in a postbiological universe, one that has evolved beyond flesh and blood intelligence to artificial intelligence that is a product of cultural rather than biological evolution. MacGowan & Ordway (1966), Davies (1995) and Shostak (1998), among others, have broached the subject, but the argument has not been given the attention it is due, nor has it been carried to its logical conclusion. This paper argues for the necessity of long-term thinking when contemplating the problem of intelligence in the universe. It provides arguments for a postbiological universe, based on the likely age and lifetimes of technological civilizations and the overriding importance of cultural evolution as an element of cosmic evolution. And it describes the general nature of a postbiological universe and its implications for the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.

    1. Pcunix profile image91
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Another religious person wrote more babble?

      How nice.

  35. ceciliabeltran profile image85
    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago

    If you notice, even PC has gone to the other thread where he could actually peddle his silliness. He could sell it here. But see no one buys it. No even you, you're just in for the ride.

  36. ceciliabeltran profile image85
    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago

    I'm done here. big_smile

    1. 0
      Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      did I miss the party,   a  g  a  i  n ?

  37. ceciliabeltran profile image85
    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago

    Ok I'm done here big_smile goodluck to PC and Beelzedad. May they someday prove there isn't a god (most likely when they die.)

    1. Beelzedad profile image62
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      C'ya! Tell your god to come visit me, we need to talk. lol

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
        ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        according to hindus, you already did. Namaste (which means the god in me acknowledges the god in you)

Closed to reply
 
working