Debate and Discussion

God
zaneeba_slave at 4:56PM, Feb. 13, 2008
(online)
posts: 87
joined: 1-12-2007
Think of it more this way:

How did the pyramids get built? How did the Great Wall get built? The hanging gardens of Babylon, the leaning tower.

How could pyramids outstand a nuclear explosion? It is a great miracle of architecture.

Sure, they had help building them, but it is still impossibly amazing.



There is one thing I found that impressed me: up on a high mountain somewhere, people actually found an ancient ship; or what was left of one. The government closed down the mountain so it could prevent controversy.

No one knows how or why it was up there.


I am unsure if this is actually the Ark, but it makes you wonder.

Whether animals could live in an ark like that is a strange idea. How did the animals eat? Did they eat each other? Then there wouldnt be two of each animal, and the equation wouldnt work.

But the ancient people were far superior to us in architecture. Perhaps it WAS possible at one time.


Adam and Eve though. Why is that hard to believe? Evil came, Evil seduced, evil created, and evil stayed. Any harder than that?
I like to imagine myself as a goblin in a tuxedo. -Zaneeba_slave
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:54PM
alibaba at 6:43PM, Feb. 13, 2008
(offline)
posts: 55
joined: 2-6-2008
@zaneeba_slave:
i have to disagree with the pyramids being a miracle of architecture… they're big and unbelievably solid, but quite straightforwardly designed. also, thinking about the thousands of slaves dying while constructing them doesn't make me feel well… ^^' (was this the “help” you mentioned?)
the ancient people really were not superior to us in architecture at all, they just had two things: man-power (slaves) and time (hundreds of years). some ancient constructions may look impressive, but knowing how they were build makes them appear much less so.

and as far as that “arc” goes which was found around mount ararat, it was just a piece of deformed rock that somewhat resembled a huge ship. i just recently read an article about how a turkish scientist cleared it up (similar rocks were actually found around the same place). i'm sure its also said somewhere on the net.

and as far as whether noahs ark could be possible: no technology could do it. animals and insects are dependant on their environment and couldn't survive for countless reasons.
but not only that, if i'm not mistaken the whole world was flooded, right?
if life started from mount ararat like according to the myth, it could have been easily traced, also a flood like that would have left traces as well. not just that, but how could humans develop from just one family? heck, the story is supposed to have happened only around 6000 years ago, but we can tell without a doubt that countless cultures prospered throughout all times.
i could go on and on with reasons that make myths like this completely unplausible. its clearly just a tale with a moral, just like the adam and eve story is.
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:49AM
7384395948urhfdjfrueruieieueue at 6:45PM, Feb. 13, 2008
(offline)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
Is it hard for you to beleive that there are many gods with different powers and controls?
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:07AM
ozoneocean at 6:49PM, Feb. 13, 2008
(online)
posts: 25,056
joined: 1-2-2004
alibaba
unfortunately there are two big problems with this kind of thinking.
it certainly is not bad of an idea to try and imagine all kinds of possibilities and not restrict oneself on just that what we can see directly in front of us.
but:
1) if you do that, then you have to do it thoroughly. “god” is only one possibility, but there are countless others which make as much (or as little) sense, like multiverses, layered dimensions (or however they call it) and many more.
2) the real problem is that its only that; imagination.
as long as there are no hints in nature that make a certain hypothesis likely, there is not much reason to take it serious (since there is no way to work with it).
Sorry, I find your reasoning fallacious, and you misunderstand Eunice's point. For one thing Eunice isn't trying to justify the existence of a god, merely pointing out that it's a difficult factor to exclude totally given the inherent limitations of our perspective. And if you don't see that our perspective is limited, then I can't help you… One of the biggest lessons that learning teaches you is that there is always vastly more out there TOO learn. ;)

Your idea about learning separating us from fish is trite and silly. Fish learn, like most creatures do. What makes humans so special is that we imagine ourselves to be so, (most religions have that as a central tenant = humans special). We aren't, we're just another animal, the big thing we have is an on-going culture that's facilitated through the transferral of learned information and cultural knowledge down through generations so that it can be built on communinally and intergenerationally.

Even so, it doesn't help us transcend our inherent limitations. Our technology does to an extent though, and through that we learn how much more there is to know…
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:30PM
zaneeba_slave at 7:21PM, Feb. 13, 2008
(online)
posts: 87
joined: 1-12-2007
You guys are helpful! :)

i now have some real good questions to ask people! :D
I like to imagine myself as a goblin in a tuxedo. -Zaneeba_slave
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:54PM
alibaba at 4:18AM, Feb. 14, 2008
(offline)
posts: 55
joined: 2-6-2008
ozoneocean
Sorry, I find your reasoning fallacious, and you misunderstand Eunice's point. For one thing Eunice isn't trying to justify the existence of a god, merely pointing out that it's a difficult factor to exclude totally given the inherent limitations of our perspective.
i never said that he was trying to justify god, did i?
in fact, i didn't disagree with him at all :\ . i only said that if you want to consider the possibility of god you also have to consider everything else, or you'll just limit yourself.

ozoneocean
And if you don't see that our perspective is limited, then I can't help you… One of the biggest lessons that learning teaches you is that there is always vastly more out there TOO learn. ;)
i agree, but our ways of thiking are completely different.
you say: we are limited and don't (can't) understand everything. (did i get you right?)
i say: we don't understand everything, but we are not limited (we can understand if we try)
if you really prefer to think that you can't understand things even if you try, then i can't help ya either ;) .
think about it: if you see david copperfield flying around do you think “that's beyond my understanding?”
no, you should rather try to think that its just a trick and if you take the time, you will understand how it works. this applies to everything in our world.

ozoneocean
Your idea about learning separating us from fish is trite and silly. Fish learn, like most creatures do.
fish have a memory span of a couple of seconds. most fish can't learn.
however, other animals surely can, but they usually simply don't want and need to learn more than necessary. also, they can't speak or write to develop their knowledge further. they can't pose questions or find answers. i can't call that real learning :-| .
but to come to the point: perhaps humans in fact are limited, perhaps there are dimensions we can't understand, even if we try. BUT: we don't know our limits.
until then, wouldn't it smarter to not limit ourself just because you have the gut feeling that there could be some limits?

ozoneocean
What makes humans so special is that we imagine ourselves to be so, (most religions have that as a central tenant = humans special). We aren't, we're just another animal, the big thing we have is an on-going culture that's facilitated through the transferral of learned information and cultural knowledge down through generations so that it can be built on communinally and intergenerationally.
yea, but this isn't “just something”, i think there are many reasons to consider humans “special” (in whatever sense), even though biologically we are just animals.

ozoneocean
Even so, it doesn't help us transcend our inherent limitations. Our technology does to an extent though, and through that we learn how much more there is to know…
again, what are those inherent limitations you mention??



Atom Apple
Is it hard for you to beleive that there are many gods with different powers and controls?
was this question targeted at me?
if it was: no, its not hard; i firmly belief in the existance of the flying spaghetti monster. it clearly answers where we came from, where we go and all other questions. j/k :D
could you be more specific with your question?
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:49AM
ozoneocean at 6:07AM, Feb. 14, 2008
(online)
posts: 25,056
joined: 1-2-2004
The first point about having to consider the possibility of a god along with everything else is precisely what Eunice and I were getting at. It is all one; whether there can be gods, parallel existences of ourselves, strange marshmallow beings, or just grey non-reality, it's all the same thing in that we are limited to out own reality and what we can perceive through our senses, or through our technology.
(Eunice is female. That name is a woman's name :) )

The idea that fish have a recall of a few seconds is a myth… Its like the idea that all unknown meat tastes like chicken, radioactive objects all glow green and the Great Wall of China being visible from the moon. In fact goldfish have a recall of over three months, -that's the species the myth was based on. As for other greater fish species… Well, like any other animal.
Ya, just learned a new thing there ;)


Humans have a hell of a lot of limitations and they're pretty well known. Man, when you think about it there's so very much more that we can't do :(
-We have lifespans of about 120 years at the absolute outside maximum, and we're only had at a high level of awareness and ability for maybe 45% of that time, that also means that our temporal experience of reality is extremely short compared to other things in our world (trees, rocks…) We can only absorb information through 5 senses, and out of those we only really optimise sight and hearing. We can only learn as fast as our brains can absorb knowledge and break it down (applying it to hypothetical situation in our minds), we can only transfer knowledge through writing, speaking, or demonstration- and we can only absorb it through reading, watching or listening. All of those are slow and very inefficient. Even our senses are limited; we can only feel a limited range of textures and vibration, we only see in a small band of radiation wavelengths (visible light), we can't see that far or clearly either compared to many other animals, we can only recognise and remember a limited number of tastes and smells, we only hear clearly within a small band of sound. We can only stand a limited range of acceleration, cold, heat, and pressure. The speed of movement is limited to our ability to withstand acceleration- so we can never even get near the speed of light (at the low acceleration level we can stand for long periods we'd be generations dead before we got there)
-We can use technology to enhance some of those.

And so many, many more… :(

You might say that our “potential” removes those limits, but the fact is simply that it's largely imaginary. Maybe we can transcend a lot of them, but we haven't. We're still at the stage where we just fantasise about it. lol!
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:30PM
alibaba at 7:40AM, Feb. 14, 2008
(offline)
posts: 55
joined: 2-6-2008
ozoneocean
The first point about having to consider the possibility of a god along with everything else is precisely what Eunice and I were getting at. It is all one; whether there can be gods, parallel existences of ourselves, strange marshmallow beings, or just grey non-reality, it's all the same thing in that we are limited to out own reality and what we can perceive through our senses, or through our technology.
no, its not “all one”.
if you talk about the possibility of a god, you aren't at the same time talking about multiverses, are you? in fact, most people who believe in god outright reject all other possibilities.
but like i said, i never disagreed with the point to think outside the box, i only don't want it to be monopolized by the god-hypothesis (like in ID).


ozoneocean
The idea that fish have a recall of a few seconds is a myth… Its like the idea that all unknown meat tastes like chicken, radioactive objects all glow green and the Great Wall of China being visible from the moon. In fact goldfish have a recall of over three months, -that's the species the myth was based on. As for other greater fish species… Well, like any other animal.
Ya, just learned a new thing there ;)
lol, okay, i learned something new XD . but the fact that only humans can state questions and pursue answers remains.

ozoneocean
Humans have a hell of a lot of limitations and they're pretty well known. Man, when you think about it there's so very much more that we can't do :(
-We have lifespans of about 120 years at the absolute outside maximum, and we're only had at a high level of awareness and ability for maybe 45% of that time, that also means that our temporal experience of reality is extremely short compared to other things in our world (trees, rocks…) We can only absorb information through 5 senses, and out of those we only really optimise sight and hearing. We can only learn as fast as our brains can absorb knowledge and break it down (applying it to hypothetical situation in our minds), we can only transfer knowledge through writing, speaking, or demonstration- and we can only absorb it through reading, watching or listening. All of those are slow and very inefficient. Even our senses are limited; we can only feel a limited range of textures and vibration, we only see in a small band of radiation wavelengths (visible light), we can't see that far or clearly either compared to many other animals, we can only recognise and remember a limited number of tastes and smells, we only hear clearly within a small band of sound. We can only stand a limited range of acceleration, cold, heat, and pressure. The speed of movement is limited to our ability to withstand acceleration- so we can never even get near the speed of light (at the low acceleration level we can stand for long periods we'd be generations dead before we got there)
-We can use technology to enhance some of those.

And so many, many more… :(

metaphorically speaking, i imagine knowledge to be like a puzzle. the pieces are more or less randomly distributed everywhere throughout the universe. we are limited to seeing only a couple of pieces at a time, but that does not mean that with time and effort we can't put the puzzle together.
sure there are things that we can't do, but there are always some workarounds; using computers and machines, etc.
one human may be limited, but humanity is clearly advancing.
even some things that we can't perceive with any of our senses have been proven to exist, therefore i don't see the point in thinking just because we have physical limits, its impossible for us to understand deeper meanings and things that are difficult to observe.

ozoneocean
You might say that our “potential” removes those limits, but the fact is simply that it's largely imaginary. Maybe we can transcend a lot of them, but we haven't. We're still at the stage where we just fantasise about it. lol!
yes, absolutely.
its only important to be aware of which things are real and which are imaginery ;) .
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:49AM
ozoneocean at 8:30AM, Feb. 14, 2008
(online)
posts: 25,056
joined: 1-2-2004
It's all one to me. I don't see any distinction between a god and any other unusual possibility. I'm not a person who is religious so your distinction doesn't apply to me. Godlike or whatever else, these are possibilities, they are all one in that these would be things outside of normal human ability to perceive.

You're making the mistake of defining the unknown in “known” ways: a “GOD” in terms of the descriptions in the scripture of some religion. Just like the idea of defining an “alien” in terms of something in Star Trek or a grey man in a flying saucer; you're starting off in a silly way.

Pursuing answers…? No, that's getting too advanced. It's not an inherent facet of our species. We DO do that but not because of what we are, but because of what we have: an on going culture, stability, transferral of knowledge that is constantly built upon. That allows us freedom and the ability TO ask questions and pursue answers. Presumably if another species were to attain a similar level of control of its environment it would pursue a similar path. -Your insistence on the ascendancy of man actually come form religious origin, whether you know it or not, that's the cultural origin of the notion.

And that's exactly what I said about technology allowing us to improve ourselves and extend our abilities… But just the fact that they are limited to begin with reduces our perception and ability, (we are not adapted to process those forms of extended input). And those are only the few ways we can easily SEE where we have limitations, what other ways are we limited? Hmm…? Very likely in many more ways we can't even imagine, so how will we transcend those? lol!
I don't know. As time goes on though, I know we'll find out more and more about them, that's what's interesting.

Your finial point is an utter nonsense. Real? WHAT? lol!
The potential ability to transcend imitations and be able to know the “true” nature of all reality IS in your imagination and no other place. That is definitely NOT real. It's part of the total fantasy of “objective reality” that came from the classical Christian culture of Western European thought.

Now, accepting the fact that we do live with a lot of limitations and that we perceive our world from an entirely subjective perspective is very real indeed. And knowing where you really stand is the first step toward finding out more about your word. - It's like when Darwin came up with evolution; in applying it to humans he had to first discard the notion that we were special creatures. When Copernicus and Galileo came up with theories about the Earth revolving about the sun they had to first discard the old notions of us being at the centre of the universe and everything…

That's what you have to keep doing, not basing your notions of reality on faulty and inadequate assumptions.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:30PM
alibaba at 10:51AM, Feb. 14, 2008
(offline)
posts: 55
joined: 2-6-2008
ozoneocean
It's all one to me. I don't see any distinction between a god and any other unusual possibility. I'm not a person who is religious so your distinction doesn't apply to me. Godlike or whatever else, these are possibilities, they are all one in that these would be things outside of normal human ability to perceive.
thats right, it may be one idea, but they are different hypothesis.

but i still don't understand where you're getting at.
are you trying to say that there are supernatural things which humans can't explain no matter what? if so, then there is not even a point imagining them!
i really don't see the benefit in simply accepting that there is something unexplainable out there and leaving it be.

ozoneocean
You're making the mistake of defining the unknown in “known” ways: a “GOD” in terms of the descriptions in the scripture of some religion. Just like the idea of defining an “alien” in terms of something in Star Trek or a grey man in a flying saucer; you're starting off in a silly way.
you call it a silly way? how do you call the millions (or billions?) of people who actually believe in it?
what do you suggest?
should i start with something that is “uncomprehendable by our minds” and label it as a “mistery”?
you have every right to criticize me, but at least mention alternatives or a practical approach, else its neither very convincing nor constructive.


ozoneocean
Pursuing answers…? No, that's getting too advanced. It's not an inherent facet of our species. We DO do that but not because of what we are, but because of what we have: an on going culture, stability, transferral of knowledge that is constantly built upon. That allows us freedom and the ability TO ask questions and pursue answers. Presumably if another species were to attain a similar level of control of its environment it would pursue a similar path. -Your insistence on the ascendancy of man actually come form religious origin, whether you know it or not, that's the cultural origin of the notion.
if i understand you right, what you are saying is something like this:
humans are more intelligent than, say, apes, in a similar way like apes are more intelligent than, say, fish.
compared to apes, fish are limited and we, too, could be limited compared to something else.
but if in fact we are as limited as a fish in an aquarium, then it would be completely impossible for us to understand whats outside, for there are physical limits that can't be broken.
but again, if that were really the truth, then there would be no reason to imagine whats outside, because the correct answers can't be found WITHIN our mind, they have to be build upon accurate observations, natural laws, etc.

ozoneocean
And that's exactly what I said about technology allowing us to improve ourselves and extend our abilities… But just the fact that they are limited to begin with reduces our perception and ability, (we are not adapted to process those forms of extended input). And those are only the few ways we can easily SEE where we have limitations, what other ways are we limited? Hmm…? Very likely in many more ways we can't even imagine, so how will we transcend those? lol!
I don't know. As time goes on though, I know we'll find out more and more about them, that's what's interesting.
yes, thats exactly what i have been talking about all this time. even though we may have a lot of limits, by understanding them we can find ways to get around them and even break them (in which case they wouldn't be limits anymore). i agree that we have to be aware of our limitations, but we shouldn't just accept them and say: “okay, this is as far as we can go, lets go back.” XD

ozoneocean
Your finial point is an utter nonsense. Real? WHAT? lol!
The potential ability to transcend imitations and be able to know the “true” nature of all reality IS in your imagination and no other place. That is definitely NOT real. It's part of the total fantasy of “objective reality” that came from the classical Christian culture of Western European thought.
lol. i don't see how this way of thinking can possibly be constructive?
if you can verify something, for example, that this specific fork is made of iron, and then think “its actually not made of iron, its just my mind that THINKS its iron, but in reality it could be something completely different”, then you will find yourself in a loophole without progress.
it may be true that our senses aren't perfect, but reality is reality, no matter what our mind may think, a good deal of the reality around us is testable and verifiable, and if you still don't think that reality “exists”, then, well, perhaps i actually don't exist too and you are conversing with yourself. lol!
if we manage to find something out for certain, then there is no reason not to accept that as reality and build on that knowledge. a healthy dose of doubt and skepticism is always good, but complete distrust in everything can only be destructive.
in fact, the idea of subjective and objective reality is more philosophical than anything else. our senses are developed so that they can theoretically perceive reality objectively (“as it is” ), but because there are always exceptions and reality is generally too complex to be perceived completely, we have developed the concept of subjective reality, which you for some reason used to disprove my point, although it had nothing to do with that.

ozoneocean
Now, accepting the fact that we do live with a lot of limitations and that we perceive our world from an entirely subjective perspective is very real indeed. And knowing where you really stand is the first step toward finding out more about your word. - It's like when Darwin came up with evolution; in applying it to humans he had to first discard the notion that we were special creatures. When Copernicus and Galileo came up with theories about the Earth revolving about the sun they had to first discard the old notions of us being at the centre of the universe and everything…

That's what you have to keep doing, not basing your notions of reality on faulty and inadequate assumptions.
you seem to keep on missunderstanding me completely :/ . because this is just the stuff i was talking about, yet you phrase it as if i was arguing the converse.

lets look at darwin and galileo a bit closer.
where did they get their ideas from?
they surely did not magically float to them and they also didn't find them in ancient texts.
what they were doing was observing reality through unbiased eyes and simply build up on what they saw. this is exactly what i'm trying to say: we can't just come up with a plausible idea out of nothing, we HAVE to trust our senses.
and through experiments we CAN make sure that our observations are “real”.
yes, we are limited in that sense, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible to find out.
just to make it clear: if i say that humans aren't limited, then this is just my attitude. its not that i ignore physical limits (i wish i could XD), i simply believe that there always has to be a way around every obstacle and history has shown countless times that this is indeed the case.
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:49AM
kyupol at 11:10AM, Feb. 14, 2008
(offline)
posts: 3,713
joined: 1-12-2006
How did the pyramids get built?

Slightly offtopic:

I do not believe that the ancient people in our history books with a low level of technology were responsible for the construction of pyramids. If the ancient Egyptians with a low tech level were responsible, then today we should have every Egyptian city full of pyramids. Or at least larger pyramids or more complex designs of buildings. Why not? If they done it 5000 years ago.

Why is Cairo, the supposed capital city look like every other city in the world?

http://images.google.ca/images?hl=en&q=cairo&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2


There are 2 possible explanations for the pyramids:

1) The ancient people were more advanced than us and we regressed to the stone age then evolved all the way to our current level of technology. But in reality, the ancient people millions of years ago knew all about nuclear weapons and space travel and computers. Possibly more advanced than us that our current “civilization” is a joke.

http://www.s8int.com/index.html/ = if all those so-called OOPARTS are fake, it must have taken a great amount of effort, money, and a huge number of people to be THAT motivated to fake something.



2) It could be with the help of more advanced beings. There are many stories that sort of conflict that I'm feeling the urge to dismiss the “alien built pyramid theory” as BS. Who did it? The finger is pointed at Greys, Reptoids, Annunaki, and humanoid types. All contradicting one another.



NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:25PM
ozoneocean at 11:40AM, Feb. 14, 2008
(online)
posts: 25,056
joined: 1-2-2004
alibaba
We're obviously on completely different wavelengths
Look, the first part is the most important, you've gotten way away from the original intention here… What Eunice and I were saying was that you can't simply exclude possibilities, whatever they may be, simply based on your ordinary perception of reality, because (as per the fish example), we are always shuttered in some way.

-it doesn't matter WHAT else may be out there or can exists ok? Call it what you like, it's totally irrelevant really, what's important is that the possibility exists and perceived reality is not ALL.

A prosaic example would be to put you in a field of boring single coloured flowers and then give you the ability to see in ultraviolet wavelengths. You'd see all sorts of interesting pattens covering them that you'd never have conceived of before- your reality alters. Bestow on you heightened olfactory senses and suddenly the flower landscape takes on a completely different shape to you- reality changes once more.

—————————————————–

I'll ignore the rest because it's just getting further way, but I'll come back to your take on the subjective:

Nope, you're not getting it… You're taking it as individual subjectivity.
Eeek. Obviously that's going to have a subtle influence on individual perception, but because most of us share the same senses, as well as the same sorts of brains, and culturally developed intellectual tools for comprehending and communicating about what we see, people are invariably going to see things almost exactly the same as each other.

The point about subjective perception isn't about the individual at all. It's about the human experience in general and how that would be a slanted take on actual “objective reality”.

Take your iron fork for example: You see it as something hard, smooth, shiny, sharp, used for eating… it can be bent if put under enough pressure, used as a tool or a weapon perhaps? It can conduct electricity… It was made somewhere from ore that was mined from the ground and processed.

To a pig, it's nothing but an inedible foreign object that hurts to stand on. To bacteria it's an amazingly rough, textured environment, covered in nutritious morsels of nutrients for it to feed upon, a perfect home, a whole world, permanent and eternal (due to their short lifespan). To an electron it's a vivid, vibrating, energy filled, fluid place. To an ancient sequoia tree, if in fact it could perceive the iron fork, it would appear ephemeral, flimsily, a sparkly little shape that would quickly turn brown and disappear.

Those are different subjective realities, each as valid as the next, but involve totally different ways of looking at things due to different sorts of perceptions. They don't change the “fundamental nature” of the fork, but that doesn't matter because it has a vastly different role in each one.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:30PM
alibaba at 1:24PM, Feb. 14, 2008
(offline)
posts: 55
joined: 2-6-2008
@ozoneocean: about the objective/ subjective perception of reality: here's where you missunderstood me - i did not intend to include perception when i said “its only important to be aware of which things are real and which are imaginery.”

it seems like we have different definitions of reality.
what i meant by “reality” is the physical existance and composition of everything in our universe. you can argue about the perspective from where to see a thing; it can be perceived entirely different depending upon that. but no matter what, it always is the same object. only the point of view can change, not reality.

an iron fork has its unique composition. i wouldn't be surprised if some people thought that iron is actually a very hard wood; but with our technology its possible to verify and clearly tell that it consists of metal (or whatever).
therefore, even though our senses are incomplete, we are able to tell what is real.
sure, its not always so clear, but it can be cleared up.

as opposed to this so called “reality” there is “imagination”. the difference is that the latter can't be tested and verified and usually doesn't correspond with natural laws and other observations, etc.
it can neither be proved nor disproved, you just can't practically work with it.
this doesn't mean that imagination isn't useful, quite the contrary.
but like i said at the very beginning, its just that; imagination, not “reality”.

ozoneocean
What Eunice and I were saying was that you can't simply exclude possibilities, whatever they may be, simply based on your ordinary perception of reality, because (as per the fish example), we are always shuttered in some way.
and from the beginning i agreed with that. lol.
how often did i say that its important to consider all kinds of possibilities? i never disagreed with this standpoint, i merely tried to say “be cautious with this kind of thinking” and pointed out its weaknesses.

my points were that its wrong and dangerous to hang just onto one hypothesis and blindly follow it even though it contradicts everything else (prime example again: ID).

my other point was that imagination, which isn't based on real-world facts is no more than fiction until proved otherwise.

you are perfectly free to imagine anything you want for yourself.
i simply can't stand it when people or organizations come up with fantastic and senseless BS and the masses buy it (scientology anyone?).
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:49AM
ozoneocean at 1:47PM, Feb. 14, 2008
(online)
posts: 25,056
joined: 1-2-2004
You still misjudge the fork though :(

It has nothing to do with imagination…
And not a different view of “reality” either.

You see I did outline that, here:
Those are different subjective realities, each as valid as the next, but involve totally different ways of looking at things due to different sorts of perceptions. They don't change the “fundamental nature” of the fork, but that doesn't matter because it has a vastly different role in each one.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:30PM
alibaba at 2:47PM, Feb. 14, 2008
(offline)
posts: 55
joined: 2-6-2008
@ozoneocean:
it doesn't have anything to do with imagination, but it does have to do with a different viewpoint.
you said yourself that a fork can be completely different on a microscopic level, and its different for bacteria, pigs and humans, etc.
this is what i understand under a different viewpoint, perhaps you call it a “different subjective reality”, but its the same: the object in itself does not change, only the perception of said object changes.

ozoneocean
They don't change the “fundamental nature” of the fork, but that doesn't matter because it has a vastly different role in each one.
uh, it only doesn't matter if you think inside of a subjective belief system (which is purely philosophical).

but from a practical, non-philosophical point of view each one of those “subjective realities” is only a part of this “fundamental nature” of the fork. the subjective realities only exist because every viewpoint is limited to a certain degree.
but combined they lead to the physical object like it truly is, and ultimately an “objective perception” of it.
this again is what i meant by saying that humans can learn.
we can't perceive a thing completely at one time, but we can for example study it under the microscope, different conditions, etc.
since we remember what we learned, we can gain a level of perception that is above that of the regular senses. we don't have to directly perceive it to know that it is real, if we already established that knowledge before.
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:49AM
zaneeba_slave at 3:54PM, Feb. 14, 2008
(online)
posts: 87
joined: 1-12-2007
What you are saying is that religion should not be a viewpoint?

This is the vibe I'm getting.

If you believe religion is a less than different viewpoint, then I failed in persuading you otherwise.

I only came onto this thread to try and show people that Christianity and other things has as much reason to be a logical viewpoint as everyone else's beliefs.
Not to proove God exsists. Not to proove atheist or agnostics wrong. I am just here to give the Christians a little more respect in this less then holy world.


Oh, and I am gonna look for some good answers for previous posts. :)
I like to imagine myself as a goblin in a tuxedo. -Zaneeba_slave
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:54PM
alibaba at 4:28PM, Feb. 14, 2008
(offline)
posts: 55
joined: 2-6-2008
zaneeba_slave
What you are saying is that religion should not be a viewpoint?
no, not really. i wasn't talking about religion anymore.
i must admit that this discussion railed off quite a bit ^^' .

but i already mentioned my thoughts on religion waaay before:
i think it should be considered and it has its worth, but it can't be used like a scientific theory, it simply doesn't have any scientific value. it can't be taken literal and if that was what you tried to convince us of then yes, you failed in my case.

but once again: i don't think christians are unreasonable or illogical. you can be a christian and accept scientific data.
you can accept the big bang theory and the theory of evolution and follow the bible and go to church.
science and religion don't necessarily cancel each other out, but they also can't be combined. they're completely different and incompatible. they fulfill different human needs. some people need religion more than science, for others its vice versa. but in themself, they have their own meanings and all people make use of both in daily life, even without noticing.

or so to say: if you believe in god, then that is true for you. so in a religious (spiritual) sense god can exist.
but looking at it from a scientific (material) view an omnipotent being is very unlikely.
thats it. there simply is no absolute yes or no; even if science someday manages to understand the universe 100% and doesn't find god, humans will still be able to believe (not because they're unreasonable, but because its a basic need).
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:49AM
bobhhh at 4:44PM, Feb. 14, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
zaneeba_slave
Think of it more this way:

How did the pyramids get built? How did the Great Wall get built? The hanging gardens of Babylon, the leaning tower.

How could pyramids outstand a nuclear explosion? It is a great miracle of architecture.

I actually saw a PBS thing about this. The question was how did they lift those huge blockes to the top? The special I saw saw claimed they hauled only the materials up there and made the huge blocks on scaffofflds. With a bazillion slaves it wouldn't be out of the question that you could haul up bucket after bucket of mud and straw and mash them into bricks up top.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
ozoneocean at 8:35PM, Feb. 14, 2008
(online)
posts: 25,056
joined: 1-2-2004
alibaba
the object in itself does not change, only the perception of said object changes.
Which is what I said…

The fact that we can imagine other states or viewpoints, or use technology to gain an insight into them isn't central to that part of the example, but it is key to another factor. ;)

The fact is that the fork states are an example of how one simple mundane object can appear extremely different from different angles. Your “objective reality” of what the thing IS, is largely hypothetical and not as important in the normal way of things- you do not consider objects as their component parts in every day life… need I go on with that?
-besides, exploring those different aspects are KEY to understanding that objective reality.

The perceptive aspect is all. Remember, the different facets of the fork are examples of how perception changes reality from a viewpoint- as well as the thoughts, feelings, calculations, practicalities, and judgements based on them. Now apply that to everything.

-As we've agreed, after using reason, imagination, and finally technology to verify it, we can key into some of those other ways of looking at things: our world and possibility expands each time we're able to do this- we find that there's more to things than we initially thought… and so we push further.

And that's the contention. :)
-There is always more to things that can be seem from the prison or our limited perspective.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:30PM
HalJones at 8:27AM, Feb. 15, 2008
(online)
posts: 46
joined: 10-30-2007
People often pit the Bible against science. Even Paul dissed it in the NT. But the truth for me is that science is rather explaining how God did/does it. It isn't perfect, and it's good that men continue to learn, for the more they learn, the more some scientists are coming to believe in God.

On the supernatural side, science even continues, through study of electro magnetic frequencies, etc., to see that not only are multiple dimensions available, but also that there is interaction between the person in the physical reality with those things that are now hidden most of the time. Math is a device man came up with that is able to help calculate time, distances, probabilities,the stars themselves and the expanding universe, and there is no reason to doubt that man can use his devices to study the supernatural to a great degree, but it is a fledgling field for science. He is just now starting to unlock some of the secrets, and perhaps even deceptions, of the reality beyond our own; the reality that exceeds this corporeal existence. I equate the “Multiverse” with “spiritual reality” as seen from the perspective of believers.

One thing is for sure; we still have much to learn. To me it's foolishness to Discount the One who said He made the universe and who cannot lie. Nature itself speaks to His existence and His guiding hand. Yes, evolution did occur. And it happened on an earth that was quite different than ours today. It was much like a giant hyperbaric chamber where things grew to much larger sizes than what we exhibit in our current reality. The oxygen levels were much higher and the electro-magnetic field of the earth was much stronger than today; therefore, humans did have higher intelligence, greater strength and stamina, etc.

It's not so hard to believe.

As for the flood, isn't it interesting how paleologists keep finding the bones of dinosaurs in big piles (along with tribolites and eohippaie, maiasaurs, etc.) as if they were washed there, as if they collected at the mouth of a drain.
Just food for thought.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:42PM
zaneeba_slave at 9:58AM, Feb. 15, 2008
(online)
posts: 87
joined: 1-12-2007
Ooh! Thats intresting!
I like to imagine myself as a goblin in a tuxedo. -Zaneeba_slave
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:54PM
alibaba at 11:06AM, Feb. 15, 2008
(offline)
posts: 55
joined: 2-6-2008
@ozoneocean:
if i understand right, what you are basically saying is that our “standard” perception is limited, but you also say that we can expand it or find new ways to perceive things:
ozoneocean
As we've agreed, after using reason, imagination, and finally technology to verify it, we can key into some of those other ways of looking at things: our world and possibility expands each time we're able to do this- we find that there's more to things than we initially thought… and so we push further.
this is what i originally was talking about; we have limitations at the beginning, but we can transcend them. the thing is that you have been talking more directly about perception and i about potential :) .

HalJones
As for the flood, isn't it interesting how paleologists keep finding the bones of dinosaurs in big piles (along with tribolites and eohippaie, maiasaurs, etc.) as if they were washed there, as if they collected at the mouth of a drain.
Just food for thought.

i admit i can't follow…
which flood do you mean? also, which findings and which “drain”?
links please ^^ ?
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:49AM
StaceyMontgomery at 11:35AM, Feb. 15, 2008
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
I hate to quibble, but there is no evidence that oxygen levels in our atmosphere were ever higher than today. Our atmosphere is about %20 free oxygen, produced mostly by Photochemical dissociation and Photosynthesis. You can trace the levels of oxygen pretty accurately through ice core samples and the oxidation of iron in the rocks - Iron reacts strongly to oxygen - it rusts!

The evidence is pretty clear that oxygen levels were never any higher than they are now, and built up to that level slowly over time. The Earth started out with no free oxygen at all. And good thing too - you really wouldn't want to live on an Earth with lots more oxygen. Oxygen is flammable and corrosive - really high levels of oxygen would not make us big and strong, it would make us old fast and prone to flash-fires. Hyperbaric chambers can be good for some people, but they don't become bigger or super strong.

It is certainly true that the Earth's magnetic field varies over time, but I believe it's been pretty stable during the period that humans have lived on the Earth. There's certainly no reason to think that strong magnetic fields would make us smarter - lots of people work in strong EM fields all day, and they aren't getting any smarter!

last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
zaneeba_slave at 11:58AM, Feb. 15, 2008
(online)
posts: 87
joined: 1-12-2007
Oxygen does not ignite. If you had oxygen and you lit a match, the match wouldnt explode. It may make the flame of the match brighter, but oxygen is not flammable enough to light anything on fire. It'd just make a bon-fire a little more shiny.

And he never said anything about making things super-strong or super smart. He said they were smarter and stronger.

You would be denying everything if you were to believe that there werent things much larger then they are now back then. People have found ancient remains of giant humans, giant penguins, and many other giant creatures of the world.
I like to imagine myself as a goblin in a tuxedo. -Zaneeba_slave
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:54PM
StaceyMontgomery at 12:59PM, Feb. 15, 2008
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
Of course, I was wrong to call oxygen flammable - fire is a form of oxidation, but oxygen is not properly seen as the fuel of a fire. My mistake.

However, my point remains - And There is still no evidence that oxygen levels were ever higher than they are now.

While it is true that some large animals existed at various times in the past, there's no reason to say that there was some quality in the past that made things bigger. There were large and small animals in the past, just as there are now. The largest animal we know of, the blue whale, lives now in modern times.

And I still see no evidence that humans in the past were smarter than humans alive today, or that any combination of increased oxygen or magnetic fields will make people smarter.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
Doplegager at 7:28PM, Feb. 15, 2008
(offline)
posts: 62
joined: 7-12-2007
]You would be denying everything if you were to believe that there werent things much larger then they are now back then. People have found ancient remains of giant humans, giant penguins, and many other giant creatures of the world.[/quote
They've also found little humans and miniature animals. I could be wrong, but my impression was that, in general, the human race has been becoming larger over the mellinnia. Though, that said, I think it might be fair to say that we've been doing a fairly good job of domesticating ourselves, which might be negatively reflected in our intelligence and overall robustness.
Scifi Thriller/Drama: Third Side, updated MTWThFS

Existential Fantasy Horror: A Chance in Hell, updated MWF
Blog: The Rambling Path, updated irregularly
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:13PM
zaneeba_slave at 8:04PM, Feb. 15, 2008
(online)
posts: 87
joined: 1-12-2007
Actuallt, you are right. Back when Christ was alive, people were surprisingly shorter than we are used to now. Jesus would be like…. 4' 2"

And I dont deny small animals were found, but as I recal, the small humans were actually just plain monkeys. It was just a misunderstanding.
I like to imagine myself as a goblin in a tuxedo. -Zaneeba_slave
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:54PM
alibaba at 3:31AM, Feb. 16, 2008
(offline)
posts: 55
joined: 2-6-2008
zaneeba_slave
And I dont deny small animals were found, but as I recal, the small humans were actually just plain monkeys. It was just a misunderstanding.

i don't think you mean it in a bad way here, but this is the kind of thing that gets me annoyed… ^^'

there were never any real fossils of giant humans found. they all either pretty clearly resembled apes or were in fact other animals… or hoaxes (quite a lot).

yet creationists talk about “giants”, which fit their cause, as if the evidence was clear and about “gnomes”, which don't aid their cause, as “missunderstandings”.
and what do they do with the millions of fossils that have been found exactly where the theory of evolution suggested, as well as some new-found missing links? right, they claim that most fossils are unreliable, say they are manipulated by scientists to “fit into the theory of evolution because they fear to embarass themself” and so on…

wasn't there a story in the bible with a similar moral? (i can't remember where i heard it): a wealthy, good-hearted man meets a beggar, he invites him into his home, gives him to eat, fresh clothes and talks to him like to an equal. but what does the beggar do? he takes a knife and stabs it in the back of the good man.

this is what some creationists do: look at the scientific data which so many scientists worked on so hard, take what fits their cause, leave out everything else and claim scientists to be liars!

btw, in my opinion there is a very good reason why giant creatures died out. they were simply slower and less “effecient” than smaller ones. they were never “more intelligent” than we (because they wouldn't go extinct in that case).



i'm sorry for the rant and don't mean to offend any creationists or you, zaneeba, i just had to say this because i can't stand missinformation -_- .
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:49AM
zaneeba_slave at 7:36AM, Feb. 16, 2008
(online)
posts: 87
joined: 1-12-2007
The reason why I said that was because I heard of this “Hobbit” skeleton they found, and scientists were absolutely possitive it was a small man who originated back millions and millions of years. They found out the fossil was only 11,000 years old, and was just a normal monkey.

I never meant to hit a nerve, Ali, it was just what I have heard.
I like to imagine myself as a goblin in a tuxedo. -Zaneeba_slave
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:54PM
alibaba at 7:47AM, Feb. 16, 2008
(offline)
posts: 55
joined: 2-6-2008
yes, i imagined something like this.
i just have to vent sometimes, don't think i blame you or something XD .
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:49AM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved