Inconsistencies within atheistic evolution

I probably shouldn't be budding my nose into this but I've been reading all the replies in this post with much interest. Even though I'm no scientist in any sense of the word I think I somewhat understand both sides of this discussion. Of course I won't bet on it I'll start off with a comment someone made, and I may be misunderstanding it.*Philosophy 101: we Know nothing. Squat. Zero. I've put Know in bold with a capital because I mean it in the very specific sense of know with absolute, 100% certainty and can demonstrate this to be so. I'm amused by those who casually throw around meta-physics but seem to have missed this really basic point.*I didn't take Philosophy but if I'm understanding you correctly you're saying we know nothing as in ,for example, we don't even know if we exist? I know you didn't say that but if you're saying we can't know anything with 100% certainty than can I conclude that you're also saying that we can't know for sure that even we exist with 100% certainty? I think I may be misunderstanding your meaning because it's just too ridiculous to think that that's what you meant. By the way how can you know with 100% certainty that you "can demonstrate this to be so"?The other thing is the idea that Language and Logic fall into the same category somehow. I know language is the use of symbols written or spoken to enable us to communicate with one another. But if I don't have any symbols to describe "earth" for example, it doesn't mean that the earth doesn't exist just because I don't have any symbols to describe it. Id say that was obvious.So in a similar regard I liken Logic as something that exists, like earth, and is an absolute whether we have the language to describe it or not. That wasnt the best analogy by any stretch but my point is that language is used to describe our reality not give us one. 2=2 are just symbols to describe an amount of something which obviously equals or means that same amount. That, I would say, is logical. I can't believe some dispute this. You might as well dispute whether WE exist or not. Some, it appears, are saying that 2=2 can also be looked upon as illogical depending on what the consensus says about that. So that if the world agrees that 2=3 THAT now becomes the logic the world adheres to. But just because the consensus says 2=3 doesn't mean that it does. Just because the consensus says that I don't really exist doesn't mean I don't. As science continues to make discovery after discovery theyll eventually understand that 2 does NOT equal 3 but in fact equals the same value or mean the same thing. That absolute reality is then discovered and corrects our previous misunderstanding. But you see the misunderstanding never changed the reality of 2=2. I think, more or less, that's what Grace2u is trying to say. That 2=2 whether you think it's logical or not is irrelevant because 2=2 is an absolute, you can't break it no matter how many ways you try to reason around it or what symbols the consensus uses to describe or communicate around that. You can't say you don't exist no matter how many different ways you try to prove or show otherwise, that would be based on illogical thinking.I think some are getting hung up on the "symbols" used for our language or semantics. I find that strange. I mean their just tools, letters, symbols, that we've all reached a consensus and agreement to use for the sake of properly communicating with each other. Some seem to be insinuating that logic follows the same or similar rules to language. Of course, again, I may be misunderstanding. 2 equaling 2 is not a system of a rule it simply is the obvious result of an amount equaling itself or meaning itself. I mean this is just simple common sense. How can anyone dispute that? You can, but that wouldn't be logical. You can dispute the existence of yourself but that wouldn't be logical and you may need a nice comfy padded room. Geometry says that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. You can't break that logic no matter what you try, it's pretty self evident.What does it matter if humans use =, ^, + symbols to "communicate" with? I use the letters E, A, R, T and H to explain where I live or what I'm standing on to describe a "Reality". How the heck else are we to communicate ANYTHING if we don't use something, anything to do so? Language DESCRIBES our reality it doesn't make it reality. The reality is that EARTH exists and so how do I express that reality? I use symbols! But there seems to be an insinuation that without the symbols to describe the reality of EARTH then that means earth somehow doesn't exist. Because ,I quote: "Symbols are not the reality. Not only that, they don't necessarily refer to reality." That first part I'd agree with but the next sentence is just plain Nonsense! (no offence) Symbols are what we use TO DESCRIBE REALITY! How else are we to "describe", "express", etc. that I or the EARTH exist if I don't use something, anything to communicate that to someone else who's agreed on the "symbols" to be used to describe it? 2=2 whether you want to use other symbols for 2 and = it doesn't matter because "I" will always equal "I", or me. Because the earth is the earth whether I change the symbols or not I have to call it something. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line whether I know that or not or whether I have the symbols to communicate that or not. And so it is with logic.If we don't drink water and eat we will eventually die, I'd say that's absolute. The earth, for lack of a better symbol or symbols, is "round". If you want to use the symbol "square" to mean something circular that's fine but just because you use a different set of symbols doesn't make the earth a different shape. You just call that shape something else. I think this is what Grace2u is trying to say. That Logic is absolute. Doesn't matter what symbols ,or semantics ,we use to describe the logic of 2=2 or *=*, the symbols used are irrelevant to that obvious equation or reality.Morality is another. The consensus can say "murder anyone you want" there's nothing wrong with it. "Abuse anyone you want", who care's. "Don't show love to anyone". "Don't be caring". Why isnt THIS morality the consensus? I think Grace2u is saying that an atheist can NOT talk about good vs. evil or right vs. wrong because in their world those concepts really don't exist. In their world, what makes one thing "wrong" and the other "right"? Who's to say?Some might say, well because it would be chaos otherwise. But so what? Why does there have to be order, or logic? Why can't we just do as WE please in accordance to MY morality? Who is anyone to tell ME what is right and what is wrong (if there is such a thing) and what I can or cannot do? I can do whatever I want to whomever I please. Why should I even care? Caring, whats that? The consensus may dictate what things are right and what things are wrong, but what if I disagree? Why should an atheist have a problem if I want to take a life away? What makes him/her more right than me? In their world what does "right" mean anyway? Just the result of what the consensus is? I think Grace2u means to say (and I didnt mean to be speaking for you Grace2u I'm just trying be sure I understand where you're coming from) is that morality has provided a world that is for the most part civil because "most" countries share in the same types of laws or morals thereby showing evidence for God's existence. So that theists can talk in terms of right and wrong based on the belief that there is a higher power that has given us this morality but atheist's can not because right and wrong are not concepts that make sense in their world. Also morality like logic exists whether or not people want to acknowledge that it does. Just because you may think that their is nothing wrong with murder or murdering doesn't mean it isn't wrong.Again, I could be misunderstanding both views. Im just throwing in my longwinded 2cents observation. [This message has been edited by Milagros, 11-16-2003]

lol...sidelined
Of course...I can still go "through" the sphere in a straight line.