Underlying Philosophy

quote:

---

Let's make this very simple for you:

​

A couple of hundred thousand years ago, Ug discovered that dropping a rock on an ostrich shell nicely broke it so that he could eat what was inside. A larger rock dropped onto small mammals would stop them running away, and they could be eaten. Later still, larger rocks smashed into the skulls of large mammals meant that not only could Ug eat today, but also tomorrow and the day after that.

​

A little bit later, this learned behaviour enabled UG's descendants to walk on the Moon.

​

Please explain where in the above scenario, any such thing as a god was required?

---

There was a joke about Darwin arguing with God about he can create life from dirt. and God agreed to challenge Darwin. when Darwin reached down to grab a handful of dirt God replied " no no, Get your own dirt.Because things are today by evolution does not mean evolution was not the design for things to survive in an ever changing environment. evolution does not kill God. understanding some things doesn't mean you understand all things. UG has been progressing because UG didn't think himself so smart he stopped learning.UG's descendants seem to believe they are the center of a universe so large their entire planet is a speck next to a single red giant in an apparently infinite area. You know that already. Does that no longer humble you?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

If your words really are capable of bringing deities into existence, then could I please ask you to speak some different words and make us a better deity.

---

LOL You think your words could kill such a diety if one you do not like DOES exist?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

Of course not. As all my theistic evolutionist scientist friends will tell you. But I was not arguing for no god. My story was simply illustrating that "deep" philosophical pondering inspired by some divinely-imbued "natural law" was not required for the scientific method.

---

You do however have to have a question before you can apply the scientific method.The deeper the pondering, the deeper the question. Asking the right question is important in science because otherwise you'll waste alot of time hitting the same rock over and over and over and over.....

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

"Did God create man or did man create god?"

---

Isn't this a question we have all asked? This question was THE question that brought me to science. however, it was asked : "IS God, or is God NOT?Most of my education in religions and science and life and philosophy all started because of that question. Had i not asked it, i would have remained happy just hanging out getting drunk being a general dick to everyone i know and a violent crap of a man useless to society.So looking at the difference of more educated now, vs ignorant, and starting at that question, I would say it is relevent.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

My apologies, i misinterpreted the point of your post concerning the individual you were debating with. you were telling him he needed proof not assertion. And i cannot argue against that.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

Very true, as evidenced again and again through-out history. One could even suggest that Christianity robbed us of, say, 1500 years of potential progress...

---

Christianity was not the robber. The greed of mankind is. In science and religion Greed has been the determining factor in what is accepted or not. IE: whoever gets the funding, MUST be right. WRONG!!!We still have to overcome that same hurdle today.We having some intelligence should always question what we do not understand and not take someones word for it. in science it took how many years before scientists went on TV and said " evolution of man showing a modern ape becoming a man is wrong because the said apes have been evolving the same time as man." ? too many for me. Science should be more careful.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

It seems to me that most never get beyond asking whether or not science can disprove the existence of god rather than considering any evidence that the concept of god was invented by humanity.

---

I don't Know a single christian who has not questioned their faith. Not if they are honest. The question your wanting people to ask is one they already have asked in most cases. So they answered it for themselves. Some to faith. Some to loss of faith.Its not a scientific question.

quote:

---

I don't think you will find much correlation between the two. I would further suggest you are extrapolating your personal experience unjustifiably.

---

You are suggesting wrong. But are entitled to your opinion. but consider, the deeper the thoughts the deeper the discoveries. so...why?

quote:

---

So looking at the difference of more educated now, vs ignorant, and starting at that question, I would say it is relevent.

​

I personally think it is an intellectually interesting and socially relevant question. But again I think you are extrapolating your own highly subjective experience as to the personal effects of asking such questions too far.

---

You cannot begin to understand or even guess how many in the history of science were led to discoveries that changed science forever that started their science from the church or from another religious establishment with only proof of God on their agenda. The truth is, neither can i.However, I do believe that question has been a deciding factor in the discoveries of science and the choice of men to become scientists. It is arrogant to assume otherwise and speculative at best. Its a good question.Why should it NOT be asked?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

All you need is a persistent curiosity.

---

Undirected curiosity leads to minimal discovery.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

Whether or not there is scientific evidence favouring god as a human invention is of course a scientific question. Why wouldn't it be?

---

The argument will end in a tie between, God was with man in the beginning until man messed up, and those who say man was amazed at the heavens and made God up. It's not provable Where the concept started.We CAN examine the concept from now with the agenda to be "knowing the truth".

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

Why? If the evidence is entirely one sided.

---

I wish that it could be. But we are discussing the origin of God on the lips of man. If you have a time machine I'd love to know. But how can we do anything but speculate such a question?To ask Whether or not God is from the current perspective is viable.

quote:

---

And so you you fall back on the inability to disprove the existence of god exactly as predicted. What can be proven? Why do we need to prove anything? Why, if the evidence strongly favours human invention over the actual existence of god, would we not legitimately draw that conclusion?

---

Because it does not strongly favor human invention. its a speculative question. Only by assumption can the start of how God became a word on the lips of man be proven or disproved. which means you can not prove or disprove that kind of assumption.a provable assumption is: I exist. why? because its verifiable.

quote:

---

How can you "know the truth"? If we only know what we can prove we know nothing at all.

​

All you can do is seek the best, most objectively evidenced, answers and work on the basis that they are the closest approximation to reality available.

​

Bertrand Russel Writes:

---

Not exactly true. Bertrand Russel either intentional or not, makes a statement here that can be a potential hazard to the growth of science. It is one thing to suggest that what we know now may change, but we must also accept what we know NOW; UNTIL sufficient evidence Say's otherwise.Today many scientists are teaching science and then teaching that none of it is definite. if none of it was definite why fund it, and where would any discovery be?Some things are just definite. you know the proof i have offered. its tangible stuff. It just hasn't reached the point of scrutiny necessary to prove or disprove what it Say's. its like America, where you have freedom of religion, yet that freedom is restricted by government separation. so on the one hand, you do have the freedom of religion, but not necessarily the freedom to exercise it.Scientists feel that way about God because they tie God only to religion. That doesn't mean that science cannot prove or disprove God exists, it just means it has been taught to ignore God as a variable to scrutinize. There is a barrier between the religious orders and science. i don't quite get why. because from a religious standpoint, God and science are not in conflict accept in the minds of men. because if God established all that is, then science and God fit perfectly and are not in conflict. yet religious orders refuse to accept science.It is my belief that my nation has taught wrong. They teach on the one hand, open your minds to science, and then teach close it to anything controversial to science. when it should be taught: open your minds to discover the truth, and ALWAYS scrutinize what is controversial to science.There are some things that are definite like i said. the vacuum of space and what it signifies is as definite as you "exist". and that signifies that space has a border or borders or an edge making it finite. And empirical data Say's our universe is expanding. That means we exist inside a larger body we have no clue about. That's definite. so what now, ignore the potential? NOT study the controversial? wait for someone else to answer the hard questions?These things are not speculative. its questions we can grab ahold of and feel. its evidence we need. so when we do find some, why ignore it? lets explore it. but don't take my word for it. i wouldn't. examine it. make a discovery. prove or disprove based on the evidence. that's science right? that's all i want to do. that's all i want others to do. and when enough people have debated the evidence maybe we'll find out more and actually have a tangible idea of God and man.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

So evidence based enquiry can tell us nothing about the past?

---

We do not think the same way as our ancestors did. If you say we do, its a terrible assumption. The pyramids are so perfect and done in such a short period of time, some propose aliens helped with their formation. Not that i agree, But it does lend some humility my way. It just is not pertinent to assume mankind today thinks the same as we used to, nor ignore the possibility that God may have been more communicative to early man.Its a futile argument. I could not win it. Its based on to much speculation.

quote:

---

Anthropology, sociology, psychology, history - These areas of evidence based investigation can tell us nothing about the sort of questions mankind is prone to asking and the sort of answers mankind is prone to inventing?

---

prone does not mean did. And modern man is prone to alot of things many ancient cultures would not dare think or do. Sociology , Psychology, These area's of science have alot of grey areas. So does anthropology. I believe their an important science, but no where near far enough along to answer such a question. perhaps one day they could. But definitely not now.

quote:

---

That is what he is saying.

---

concerning Bertrand Russel; If you interpret him to say : "accept What the data does say". Then i agree with him. But i read it that he almost seem to be putting a clause on the laws and nature of science. that those scientists who teach all science is tentative would favor him. that does an injustice to science. because some science is definite.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

So remind me what role does god play in your life and on what basis are you asserting that we are unable to question this belief in terms of evidence?

---

God is existence, and Existence plays any role it wants.i am asserting that: to conclude that we can say "God was invented by mankind", is impossible to claim; accept only your chosen belief to accept it; based on no real evidence.

quote:

---

Once again you fall back on demands for proof which are as pointless and futile as they are irrelevant. Lack of proof either way does nothing to stop us comparing the evidence that favours the conclusion that god was invented by humanity with the evidence that god actually exists. On this question the evidence is entirely one sided

---

i disagree. "god was invented by humanity" is an opinion. and when it comes to scrutinizing the evidence you are looking at it with suspicion. now, since you'll quote the sources of proof having the base of psychology, That mankind has needs, Your own need is trying to rationalize the opposing position, because the data that Say's God IS, is insufficient. so which one is correct under suspicion?examine suspicion then:The was a man who hired a young man to help him cut wood. The next day the man awoke and went to cut more wood, but could not find his axe. he thought about yesterdays events and decided the young man had stolen the axe.
The young man did come over later that day and as he approached, he approached just like he had stolen the axe. when he spoke, he spoke exactly the way he would if he had stolen the axe. and when he left, the man knew he had stolen the axe by the very way he walked.
As the man headed back to his house fuming he tripped over something in the grass. It was his axe, and right then he remembered that he had dropped it there yesterday.You see, the boy did not change, the man's suspicion was all that changed._____________________You can only suggest mankind invented God, and Evidence of God is plentiful enough for those who know how to look. Where is the evidence accept by desire and suspicion, That mankind invented God? Your only evidence is that God does not obey men. But God does not obey men. Men can obey or disobey, and God decides in the end.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

The supernatural explanation has been posited for a multitude of observed phenomenon throughout the ages. Never once in the entire history of mankind has the supernatural explanation been borne out. In every single case where the supernatural explanation has gone head to head with the natural explanation there has only ever been one victor.

---

I agree natural explanations will always beat supernatural. because supernatural means : YOU DONT UNDERSTAND IT.My position has always been that what you are calling supernatural today, will be considered natural one day. BUT: NOT if people don't open their minds and begin to explore "supernatural" things with a natural position.finally: We all would love to see our beliefs verified. regardless of what they are. So chase evidence. But do NOT ignore the findings.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

So how do you explain your own belief in god?

---

that's what I'm doing here. My belief came from proof. you cannot have faith in something you do not know is. and to know you need proof. i found what i needed, and I'm debating it.

quote:

---

So chase evidence. But do NOT ignore the findings.

​

Good advice. And the psychological, sociological, anthropological and historical evidence says that the best explanation for your belief in god is - what?

---

well..you ask a tall order.psychology is interesting when we find people like Edgar cayce. there isn't any explanation for his minds abilities or its apparent weakness to suggestion. the subconscious mind works with what is definite. that says something in itself, but i haven't had time to really dig to analyze what. i could go real deep in the psychology department but the arguments from it would never end. so ill leave it at that for psychology.Sociology is also pretty difficult. because although human kind can all say that we interact with others to survive, the interactions can be so different from culture to culture. God is a recurring theme from every culture i have studied or seen. That has its own significance. The reason for that is open to debate and a very long argument. usually no winners, since socially, accepted faiths will not allow contradiction individually, which hinders collective acceptance.anthropological evidence that i have actually studied supports evolution. which is good for me because evolution is my very proof of God. Although i do not agree with the assessment that early man was an ape. But that early man was early man.Historical evidence is varied . varied topics. varied assessments. varied ideas. Our past is important. We can learn from it. But also lets observe that it is past. and not let it be the foundation for the knoledge of today, but a stepping stone, for the knoledge of tomorrow.The best explanation for my belief in God is my own personal observations of how beautiful and how varied and how perfect the natural order is.The best explanation for my faith in God is in Science and God. For in science i found the proof, after asking honestly from my heart for faith.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

This is a field I have studied.

​

Early man was early man, but what about a hundred years before that? And a thousand years before that? 100,000? 1,000,000? 5,000,000?

​

There are a lot of fossil critters out there that anthropology suggests that are ancestral to "early man." You don't want to call them apes.

---

lol you got me. i was thinking archeology. i know nothing really of anthropology. But i do believe it is a good aid to archaeologist in their quest to understand the behaviors of past civilizations.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides