Hurricanes! Earthquakes! It’s almost 2006 (as in 666)! Yes, we’re once again being hit with a deluge of end times tripe. Over and over, for about 2000 years, Christians have been looking for and seeing the sure-signs of the End Times, or an Armageddon of some kind.I remember when they said we’d all be dead by now. Remember in 1997 when they were talking 2000? 2001? Now, guess what! It’s happening again, this time it’s imminent (and very diffferent from all those other times).
karen,
Humans are not perfect machines. Lots of emotion and personal bias will often cloud our actions and thinking. This is OKAY, and natural. Unfortunately, we are in the precarious position of being left to figure things out for ourselves … What to believe in, how to interpret the evidence, etc. It is because of this that we must—if there is any way possible—shed any flawed instincts and be totally objective when seeking to learn about things we don’t know about for sure—science. It may be considered silly to allow for a possibility of “little blue fairies”, no matter how infinitesimal. But science is not about popularity, or being pleasing, or bound by what people deem silly versus valid, it only answers to itself in the search for truth. This is why I am blunt with what it means to be totally consistent logically. When we place ourselves in the precarious position to talk about things on the edge of our understanding, we must go to the greatest lengths we can to be objective in hopes of being consistent, and therefore less prone to error. This means allowing things that we cannot beyond doubt disprove, including deities.
As I say it’s okay to state that there are no deities. There are no Pink Unicorns. It’s okay to be emotional. And to be fairly certain of your position. Just keep in mind where you draw the line for defending that position. As long as you know what science truly means in terms of objectiveness, then you will always be aware of things which you cannot offically disprove.
“This means allowing things that we cannot beyond doubt disprove, including deities.”
Does this also mean total paradoxical nonsensical gibberish is also to be given credit as possible?
Perhaps it is the case then that rocks are the smartest creatures that ever were. They’re everywhere. They’ve truimphed. They just haven’t come to life yet, but they will, someday. When that day comes, they’ll a whole nother bunch of big bangs-one for each rock.
JC
Yeah. I tend to let my right-brain do the talking on what should be left-brain matters. Pure logic is difficult for me, but I am working on it.
I remain open to the possibility of little blue fairies. I’ve met the Tooth Fairy. She was decidely right-brained also. ;_)
Thanks for the guidance. I will try to apply it.
… and when in doubt simply remain neutral. A neutral position does not indicate weakness. Don’t let theists trick you, and attempt to convince you of that. Simply state that you refuse to acknowledge the validity of any possibility without proof. There is nothing wrong with that!
As soon as you go off neutral, as theists have done, you take on the burden of proof.
Slimmins,
Don’t confuse possible with likely.
“Don’t confuse possible with likely.”
How do you discern the two?
Slimmins,
Is it possible that you will die within the next 60 seconds?
YES
Is it likely?
NO
So you base this on induction?
Slimmins,
The only thing it is based on is limited knowledge. That is the basis for allowing ridiculous possibilities in an effort to be consistent.
The earth appears flat to this day. I can imagine how it must have been for the people living before our ability to go into space and actually see the curvature for ourselves. Someone could easily have said a cylindrical, or circular shape would be a silly possibility—limited knowledge. What is the moral of this story? It is best not to make any preclusions at all, as there is really no need to. It’s safer that way. Simply go about the (easier) business of proving what you do believe to be true.
“Simply go about the (easier) business of proving what you do believe to be true.”
How about instead going about the business of proving what you can prove to be true.
“How about instead going about the business of proving what you can prove to be true.”
I don’t see the difference between this and what I said.
Let me put it to readers this way:
Pink Unicorns
1.) Can you provide verifiable proof that there is no such thing as Pink Unicorns? [Yes/No]
2.) Do you know for a fact that in every possible place in existence there is NOT a Pink Unicorn? [Yes/No]
Scientific Logic
If you answered “No” to BOTH questions boolean logic now says that there is at least an infinitesimal possibility that Pink Unicorns exist.
I know it sounds stupid. But that is how it works. Not everyone will be able to grasp this. This does not make the possibility LIKELY, it only says that we CAN’T rule it out!
SarahMB:
Really? Scarcity of food not withstanding? So are you saying that the ?natural? state of coexistence among animals is to ?play well with others? under all conditions and to ?instinctively? be good citizens and always share their resources??
Slimmins:
You may think this is a stupid question, but aside from it either was created or it wasn?t, what other logical possibilities are there to explain the existence of the universe?
karen:
Two questions: 1) If God did appear to you and demonstrated that He was indeed God, why would you need other eyewitnesses? 2) Having witnessed such an appearance and demonstration of proof, why would you only then ?consider the possibility?? (in other words, what is your threshold of acceptance?)
Explain to me why scarcity of food is an automatic given. Especially when hunting PARTIES (more than one hunter, get it?) have more success than lone hunters.
“All” is an absolute, and no, I didn’t say that. Try reading and understanding my actual words rather than making some up for me, kthanks.
jcc
Did you see this post?
1)Because of my mental illnesses, I already have “paranormal” experiences that others don’t understand. If there were’t other eyewitnesses, I would not trust my own judgment.
2)I would only consider the possibility, because this would be a way out of the ordinary experience. I would want it to be recorded, replicated, and studied to verify it was real.
My threshold of acceptance is very high. As I said before, “Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me twice, shame on me.”
“aside from it either was created or it wasn?t, what other logical possibilities are there to explain the existence of the universe?”
Well, I’ve come to discover the term logical depends on the form of rationality you choose to go with.
Why does anything necessary have to be created? In fact, what is creation? If everything is simply evolved from some previous state, where is there creation in any of this? Seems more like a mere transition of state in matter. There is movement, there is transition, yet creation is conjecture.
You have no idea how to define non-existence, because everything you know exists. Now defining existence is a huge chore altogether, considering the infinite amount of possible interpretations you slap on top of the only thing you know for sure exists, your conscious self.
Slimmins:
Well, how ’bout the ?Big Bang??
How do you know for sure that this is the case? How can we possibly simulate conditions prior to the Big Bang? How can we possibly know for sure if anything existed before that event?
Without being able to simulate prior conditions, ?a mere transition of state in matter? is also conjecture.
Nietzsche would be proud?pure solipsism. But I have a problem with that. There’s this thing called communication?a transfer of information between two ?selves??which creates the existential problem of objective reality: when two ?selves? bang their heads on the same brick wall, that wall objectively exists for both of them. Like it or not, there is an objective reality out there, and just because we interpret our perceptions of it differently doesn’t mean that it does not exist.
Well, how ’bout the ?Big Bang??
Who stated the “Big Bang” is the beginning of anything? It’s as far as science has taken people, but beyond this is still very much unknown. All that is known is that everything is a transition of matter, from a tiny infinitesimal particle state (which does not necessarily imply that all matter exists only in that small state) to a massive expansion of matter.
“… just because we interpret our perceptions of it differently doesn’t mean that it does not exist.”
So you agree that you can only interpret what exists, because everything you know, exists. Beyond this is labeling on top of this perception of existence, through which all is first done through the self, which without, you have no ability to see this.
_a list____of poisonous edible plants in colorado
_a list____of poisonous edible plants in colorado