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?
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?
But spooky is entertaining [me]. Especially in the Atheist Prayer [Garden].
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.
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!)....
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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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,
clay, not a brick of, but a....stone....I'll accept that.
I will become a stone, a lively stone in His kingdom. The clay that the Potter fashioned will become a rock of Faith, a stone set in His ways.
Ah, James, we both know we could argue 'til we're blue in the face and probably never reach agreement. You ask questions and I give you the Answer, and you never accept it. Do you like me or not like me for at least trying? Doesn't matter, 'cause we're both seeking the Truth, are we not?
A choice doesn't always translate into self-egotism.
A Christian doesn't boast about anything they've done or will do, even choosing Christ. For unless He draws us toward Him, we cannot even choose. (But indeed He draws ALL of us, offering us that choice). Voicing what we are now is a simple recognition that "we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them" (Ephesians 2: 10). So, if we boast, we boast only about our Lord; And if our "boasting" be considered "ego" to some, it's because they do not see what we see, that we serve an Almighty God who can take a dirty lump of clay and turn it into a vessel that has the choice to happily serve the living God.
As to your last point, I will say again yes I do need daily proof. Because I need Him daily. Every second. To know that He is here is the only peace I have in life; there is none without that. He walked the earth, with no place to really rest His head, lived a short life and died a horrid death to PROVE His Love for me. I'm eternally grateful for that.
He daily gives me that proof again! By reminding me that I'm His. No matter how shallow or foolish I am in my humanity, He never leaves me; He always wants to be with me! Now that's Love.
So, may I ask why He needs to provide you with that daily proof?
I --although understanding why-- wonder how long you or any person calling themselves a believer can remain spin doctors of the words in the book. For too long the proof has been provided, yes? Based on your statements, and thousands more. How long should that proof be yielded (to) and the words wielded (by) without application?
You are right, ego is perhaps the most powerful presentation of Choice. Because, as I said long ago, if you have to choose, you have no faith --meaning unable or unwilling to apply Free Will. If one needs to choose, they have no Free Will, only the desire to have it. That desire is necessity and where the reason of proof is born. And it means the work on either side of the House (equation/sensation) has been in vain. Humanism still controls them.
My conclusion to these two gents was the same -when you search for proof you find only wanting to get proof so you can search for more proof. But, if you dismiss the necessity and are swallowed up in the experience/application, humanism --red faced and vivid no doubt- must release you from its grasp. The ego is neutralized and wisdom (that is philo) comes flooding in. Void of mechanics, void of text, void of self.
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
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?
Excellent reply, luv2wander.
You are the third person to mention experience.
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.
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.
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.
it is clarifying the direction of your very statement. You can't say something is rubbish if you don't know what it is.
You can't say that nonsense beings exist because you insist that a god set must include toasters.
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.
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. )
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.
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.
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.
Bleating certainly apears to fit the bill in your posts. I'm telling you, we're peas on a pod.
Except your pea fantasizes about imaginary Sky Daddy.
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.
Imagination is entirely different from living a lie, isn't it?
Lies are in the eyes of the beholder. Sorry, you can't win with that argument.
Of course I can. I can prove that your imaginary friend does not exist.
Proof? Oh my gosh. I didn't know that. That is so exciting. Do tell. I'm all ears
I've already done that, in a thread you participated in: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/65568?p … ost1451308
You ignored it then and you'll ignore it again. That's what theists always do: you refuse to actually THINK about the things you believe. You never examine your beliefs logically.
"If you can't, then I ask you if any decision making can be made with only zeros and ones? I assert that it cannot, that you need a mechanism, even if it is just a simple NAND gate."
This is not proof. However it is an interesting point you need a mechanism.
Do you know that chaotic light organizes in the presence of human dna? It becomes a beam. What do you think we are? The earth produced us. We are singularities of its history. Within each of us is a record of all the things that transpired on earth and even in the universe. They are all stored in our systems and they are the very things that make us move and become conscious. It is not an accident that we came out of the earth, it is deliberate. Life chose to live and it chooses to continue living by becoming more adept at adapting. The mythologies surrounding the higher power we call G-d is just a reflection of the continuing activity of life fueled by consciousness to create itself in order to retain what it knows. We are like the brain of the earth. That is a metaphor of course because the earth "looks" as if it has a different anatomy.
See, I did look into my beliefs deeply and from every perspective and I got a eureka. The ones and Zeros are representative of one light on and one light off. The binary system produces all the things a computer can do. But you need a mechanism, not just any mechanism but a mechanism for observation, in order for that information to translate into something we can use. Otherwise it is just blinking lights.
But are the blinking lights random? They look random until you have the right facility to understand them. You need an observer to determine the reality, otherwise it will appear as nothing.
It is a fact in scientific investigation that if you don't have a working theory, you cannot prove anything. A working theory is belief. You can't discover anything unless you believe there is something to discover, or else you will not even embark on the task of looking.
What I don't understand is why You are ignoring that. People think in terms of metaphors particularly if they have no tools to verbalize what they understand. You are ignoring that too. I have talked about the brain, the parallels in persistent myths. I have explained all that. But you ignore that too. They are all very logical and they do acknowledge that these mythical themes emerged as part of an adaptive trait of the human collective. It is not dismissing them as insanity but integrating them to form a picture. Any scientist that ignores a phenomenon in an assessment of a natural phenomenon will fail miserably. Myth is part of the human adaptive behavior. It serves a purpose. Now the fact that there is a collective direction that we want to go shows that consciousness exists outside of the individual. There is a collective consciousness. And our myths proves this.
It is proof.
As usual, you post gibberish and miss the point entirely: this isn't "theory", it is a logical proof that you cannot refute.
Chaotic light "organizes". Really? I guess we waste a lot of money building lasers, then: all we needed to do was shine a flashlight through human dna. Utter nonsense: I don't know what pseudo scientific twaddle you think you read, but it is not even remotely true.
really? You're not even going to ask where I read it. You are rejecting information to protect your worldview.
Let's start with algae.( you know I won't stop) : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20039035
Converting light into electricity has nothing to do with the nonsense you posted earlier.
You stated that Human dna organizes chaotic light and further posited nonsense about this being a holographic history of the universe. All complete and utter nonsense.
Address my proof. You know you cannot refute it, which is why you continue to ignore it.
No god is possible. Anything that claims to be a god is lying or is insane.
You can't make decisions with blinking lights. That's the point: you need logic gates. The need for both dualistic storage and logic gates is what proves no gods can exist.
I agree about myths and the common things among them, and that they do mean something significant. However, you said it yourself, they're metaphors, and as such, they're just representations, not reality. I have no problems with myths or any of that, except when they are in fact held as truth, and promoted as such to other people.
Is there more than we can grasp currently with science and the rational mind? Of course there is.
Should we disregard completely those things in our lives? Of course not.
Is the fact that we can't explain some things rationally proof that the myth that is used as a collective explanation is true, and therefore life should be live according to it? No.
well we are all trying to make sense of everything and every information used to form the whole picture. You don't ignore myths that are persistent and discard it. It is an essential part of humanity. It has an adaptive reason for existing.
DO we live by what the myths say? That is actually a decision that the individual must make. But as I have seen, it seems to be a way the general evolution of humanity is being sculpted.
Like for instance. love your neighbor as you love yourself has a bearing on our survival. Now if a myth says don't eat an egg that has blood, I will probably heed it because it does not cost me anything but an egg. (you do know that it turns out eggs with blood are most likely spoiled). Now if a myth says, people can walk on water if they believe. I would reserve better judgement and maybe try to understand what it is trying to symbolize (it actually means, to remain calm amidst stressful circumstances)
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.
If you have ask why, then obviously you lack the ability to understand to begin with.
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
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?
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?
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 .
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.
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.
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 ?
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?
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.
well, I'd have to say your response is simplistic too. But I get your point.
The best understanding is always simple. It is when people make it more complicated is when it becomes difficult to understand.
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.
Stop trying to figure me out, that's your first problem. Reading and understanding the words, and the meanings is always easier.
Yes, but to have even a little understanding of the one who speaks gives more depth of understanding.
Actually, it invades one's perception and possibly distorts one's view.
You're probably right, on some levels. Definitely wrong on others.
I love cats, they're very observant. Henri Cartier Bresson once said in response to the question, What can you teach aspiring photographers about photography; "What is there to teach, a cat can tell you more about it than I can."
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.
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.
"Proof is not a need"...
Proof IS the greatest of needs, else humans have two things:
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.
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...
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.
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).
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.
simple (applied) logic = humanism.
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?
h u m a n i s m is the flaw.
So long as any one is applying equation/sensation TO something it is flawed.
So long as any one is applying equation/sensation FROM something it is flawed.
That is called Duality.
So long as any one is applying equation/sensation WITH something it is flawed.
That is called Quality.
Have a g-reat day PC!
You haven't said anything.
You did not address my proof at all; you just put a longer label on it.
Funny how afraid all you theists are to touch that. I know why; you have looked at it and realized that it is true: no god can exist. That frightens you, so you shut your minds and run away.
Go ahead, show me how you can store information without at least a binary device. Show me how any decision can be made without a logic gate. Show me this, and your god can be real. Without that, it can be nothing but a naturally occurring creature, subject to and dependent upon the physics that allow it to exist. It is no god.
It's nothing to do with Humanism. It is simple logic.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
It's entirely Possible that my house did not and does not even exist if I'm not observing it[anything is possible].If,upon observation,my house has collapsed when I stopped observing it,I must consider my expectations as suspect to that temporary reality.An electron always appears where it is expected to be upon observation.
Yes I'm referring to the particle/wave thing a ma jig.
Now now now B...play nice and be nice my grand ma used to say...don't be a Meany
BTW,I'm sooo computer retarded that I can't do all those magical quote boxes.I'm still trying to figure out what driving traffic,linking etc etc.is.I just really like most of the folks here and hang out to write stuff on my mind.I'm very grateful the HP staff hasn't figured out they got my hub rank Up side down...
Laughter is the best medicine,we should all over dose.l...o...l
Sure, it just pops in and out of existence all the time. We often wonder though, what it is that's burning down when one is not there to observe it.
But if your not observing it B.How do you know it's burning down?You go home to a pile of ashes...yes.But again,those pesky expectations are still suspect.Your clearly very well educated and thank you for the fun chat.I must go now...my siren is mesmerizing me.I have great expectations of what is to come as she awakens and beckons me to approach the rocky shore of her lus...I mean love!:To all a good night and good night to all...[he follows his destiny,another prize of the sirens song].
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).
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.
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.
Actually, I wasn't refering to me. I read the other posts. I don't run away. Sometimes I go to bed. Sometimes I go to work. Sometimes I do other things. I rarely go in search of you. I thought you were going to ignore me? Why are you here? Maybe I've got the definition of the word confused. (I threw that last one in as a lead in for a joke for you. go ahead, throw it at me.)
Fair enough, but that doesn't mean reality will not remain the same for everyone, despite those perceptions.
You know there is a syndrome for missing nuances.
and you just missed another one. you are a hoot! don't ever change!
Still can't stick to the subject matter, I see, continuing to focus on the individual instead. Sad.
don't cry. it's not you, it's just your arguments. (what is a forum if you can stand everybody in it?)
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.
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.
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.
As long as we keep that ability to ask questions, even dumb ones, we as a civilization have future I think.
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?
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?
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 ?
I can prove that Richard Dawkins is confused! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi36 … re=related
I can prove he does not have a clue what to make of it:
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkin … verse.html
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
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?
Whether reality or virtualization, no gods can exist.
Thought that one out carefully, eh? The unfortunate side effect of not requiring proof is statements which bear no relevance.
Yes, I have thought it out quite carefully and my proof is relevant and you are unable to refute it.
No god is possible.
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.
No, you are wrong. I can prove that no god is possible.
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/65568?p … ost1451308
You cannot refute that.
what did you say about my twattle? It has a patent. (actually I didn't even know that so thanks to you)
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..
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.
Then you agree that there are no gods other than as imaginary fantasies in human minds?
Fine, but everything else you say about organizing light and holographic records is still nonsense.
no, i think they stand for something that equals a higher power and it is in the natural world. Its really how you see it. I see it as evidence pointing to the myths having validity and you see it as proof that there is no god. To each his own. (but for the record, I hold human fantasies in high regard because they offer insight on our awareness of where we came from. I find it fascinating)
And I really don't think you looked at the links (and the fact that they are actually being used now for industrial purposes, its kind of creepy actualy). that's okay, I didn't bother to learn how computers work either.
I looked at the links and obviously understand them much better than you can. Where is the human DNA "organizing" light? Where is the nonsense hologram it produces? Where?
hologram? I didn't say anything about a hologram. I said it organizes. This has been out for a while and has been cited by many authors.
That is complete nonsense. Human DNA does not have any magical effect on light.
No, you did not use the WORD hologram but your nonsense about the light organized by human DNA containing a complete record of our universe IMPLIES a hologram. Perhaps you just don't know enough science to understand that?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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. it was reviewed by peers in mythology http://www.jcf.org/new/index.php?catego … ;blogid=21
Peers of mythology??
Pardon me while I gasp for breath between laughing.
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.
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.
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.
No, that is what I am trying to tell you. They are born out of human consciousness and that human consciousness is using organic processes, personifies them and it becomes our myths.
It's like an old thing that writers use their own life as material for work, they can't help it. In the same way, myths are reflections of internal understanding of bodily processes or natural processes. The terminology may be primitive, but the essence is true.
There is no "internal understanding". If there were, the myths would be accurate and obviously they are not.
Your theory is just noise wrapped in science you dont even understand.
But that is just your claim. Jung is a respected meta-psychologist. There is a branch of psychology bearing his name Jungian psychology. There is an internal understanding. Dreams are internal understandings. They are symbolic but that's how store these information in our brain. You don't think you have an unconscious?
Again, more misdirection.
Let me make it easier for you: myths are not representations of reality. They are primitive and defective explanations for reality and that is all they are. That these representations affect certain humans is obvious, but that's like saying that because a Nigerian scanner was able to defraud you, the story he told you must have been real. That's nonsense.
EOT reply actually but this will go on for sure. lol.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 .
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.
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.
Oh I didn't notice this.
PC was afterall, like all myth creators, was using METAPHORS based on his reality. I really wish I noticed this. this would have proven the point that he's thick.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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 ? trust me Cecilia, even creationists will not buy this - schematic inside humans claim, let alone any person with reasoning skills.
I have been. I don't understand why you don't see all the citations I made.
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.
Really? that evolution is culturally and biological formed is not related to my claim that myths are adaptive traits?
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?.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 ?
forget about universe schematics for now.
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.
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 ?
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". 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": such stages may include being parented, initiation, courtship, marriage and preparation for death."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
Most of them don't even know what he wrote, case in point ABOVE thread. There is no knowledge in our genes, indeed as it that proves that he proved that god does not exist. TO even attempt to prove it, is weird.
Haha I didn't go back far enough in the thread. You could be right.
Established field in psychology ? Okay, let's give it shot. Tell me which psychologist or neuroscience prof goes in line of that claim ?
dreams passed on ?
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 ?
I didn't notice this. Jungian psychology and yes refer to dawkins quote about memes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Well, we are all made up of Jungian Mandelbrots, so that would make sense.
I just pressed a flashlight into my hand and hoped to see dinosaurs. Alas, I only saw age spots.
Ok, this is how you understand what I said. Not my fault.
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
You think that supports your claims? It doesn't even relate to what you asked us to swallow.
Didn't I claim that culture (which includes myths) help shape our biology? How does that not support it.
Culture only shapes biology if it kills things before they are old enough to breed.
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.
Sure we have words; imagination, delusion, intellectual dishonesty, the list goes on and on...
please, don't even start. These people are actually worth talking to.
Aw, what's wrong, did you get tired of trying to push Jung and Mandelbrot down my throat as answers to everything?
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.
Considering information on Jung and Mandelbrots are amply available for all to peruse, including myself, your point is rather pointless.
Of course, your application of that information and the conclusions drawn are what is being pointed out as flawed and contradictory.
Really? is that why there are published books about it? Archetypes and Strange Attractors, John R. Van Ernwyk. It's a direct correlation of chaos theory and jungian psychology. And what was your point other than to have something to do? Nothing. "Let's just look as if we're talking science" but really it's all about the churchgoers hate me so I'm going to hate them back reasoning.
You wouldn't know flawed if you saw it in your face as a giant pimple on your nose.
Oh no, a book published by an Episcopalian priest with a Phd! Horrors!
That's nice. I'm hopeful you'll explain what that has to do with anything.
The emotional outburst, right on time.
That is not even an argument. that's just an attack. mwahahaha, the author is a priest. He is the clinical supervisor at the Medical School of University of Washington and is a worldwide lecturer. He has a wife and daughters so I don't know who you're talking about him being a priest.( Did he become a priest after he got married or before )Its a textbook for a course. So you can mwahaha, there is still that huge pimple of flaw in your counterargument based on fallacy or false information.
My goodness, you toss out his book to me yet you didn't even know he's a priest.
You never even read his book, did you? Naughty girl.
Maybe I'll call him here and ask him for penance. http://faculty.washington.edu/jrv/
Father forgive me for I have sinned.
I quoted a priest with a PhD.
Yes, and without reading his book, too. That's classy?
no, that's you assuming that all people would do something you do.
You know what. There is a lot of opportunity for this routine sometime in the future. But I'd love to play ping pong insult with you as always, you are always game. but Have a kid to send to bed, after I practically ignored her the whole day. Ciao!
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.
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
Sorry to hear that, is there anything we can do to help you have a better understanding?
yes, you could stop distracting great discussions with your non-understanding of science and also frequent posturing of knowing what they are.
Can I at least continue to point out your flaws and contradictions in your assertions? Pretty please?
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.
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
If you're lazy to click, here it is:
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.
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.
Ok I'm done here goodluck to PC and Beelzedad. May they someday prove there isn't a god (most likely when they die.)
by Freya Cesare3 days ago
“Who Are You?” Often we heard people asked. They want you to tell them who you really are. This is really simple question, is it? Or is it not?Have you ever noticed how people can come up with different answer for...
by chaoticpsyche4 years ago
I have been having a hard time believing in God lately; well, really for quite a while. Let me preface this by saying that I believe in Heaven, Hell, and Angels. I just have a hard time believing in God. Part of me...
by pay2cEM6 years ago
This is a hypothetical question. If in fact whatever religion you happen to believe in was not true, what would it take to persuade you? Obviously, the more severe the charge, the more evidence we demand in order to...
by Jo_Goldsmith115 years ago
I have noticed that the forums have been flooded with God, and the proof if there is one or not. Why do you think people ask questions that they really don't believe in. Why do you think they just randomly pick the...
by Mahaveer Sanglikar5 years ago
In a forum, I asked a question: Why God created atheists? Now I ask, why man created God?
by John Harper4 years ago
OK, I look forward to the secular members dealing with this one!http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … ience.html"Dr Alexander describes his paradigm shift from focusing solely on the scientific make up...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.