Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Mans]

Well, based on my studies in some trustful sources dragons existed (not the being that fire erupts from its mouth but a giant and horrible beast)earlier or maybe they still exist somewhere on the earth, but I can't confirm this certainly. There is a probability that dragons were from the generations of dinosaurs that you say. Our knowledge about these being is not much except some fossils that were found out in the recent centuries. In fact our knowledge about old history (4000, 5000... years before) is little and we don't know before creation of Adam and Eve (the first human; our grandad and grandma), which beings lived on the earth or how the earth had been, exactly. of course scientists have tried to simulate those eras imaginary based on their researches and findings, but there are many undiscovered and inaccessible mysteries yet.

Now, we pay to the same thing that you mentioned from the very old history that is dinosaur. Surely, this type of animal was not very different with nowadays beasts. It had hand, leg, eye, ear, mouth, teeth, heart, lung and so on. Some of them ate plants and some meat just like a deer and wild cat.

Well we reach the same question again! If this Tyrannosaurus rex is just similar to the same big historical predator that scientists narrate to us and have drawn its shape approximately, who has created it??

[Steve3007]

So there are these real patterns in nature that are more observed than shaped by the senses.

Yes. And this is where mathematical descriptions are often so powerful in showing the similarities in form across phenomena that previously might have appeared to be completely unrelated.

It's what makes reality work - the imperfect homogeneity of fields resulting in relative areas of concentration becoming more so and, as they become more relatively dense, they exert ever greater influence on their environments.

Yes. That's positive feedback - any situation in which the result of a process tends to magnify the force that leads to the process - the opposite of a swinging pendulum. It applies to diverse fields from the gravitational collapse of interstellar dust clouds to the accumulation of power by the rich.

These areas of concentration interact, accidentally competing in a battle to persist. Once the dust has settled, "winners" emerge and they exert influence on any less massive entities around them to the point of systematisation. This dynamic appears at all scales, in just about every arena.

Yes.

Another such objective dynamic, not entirely subject to perception or imagination, is branching. Branching is also found everywhere, from trees, to rivers, to mind maps, to social communities, to microbial communities, to the cosmic web, to the spread of coronavirus.

Yes, and mathematically that one is represented by fractals.

On a trivial level, the powers attributed to God by religious literalists are skin to those of the father of a boy who says, 'Oh yeah? My Dad could easily beat up your Dad!'.

God here is painted as super-duper in the extreme - omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. Unbeatable by any two-bit deity concocted by believers of "false religions"....

(I presume you meant "akin" and not "skin" ). Yes, I think that's one of the reasons for creating Gods.

...To that end, they can't accept the obviousness of evolution, because creation is clearly not perfect, no matter the clever rationalisations of the ID crowd. No, God got everything right. Any faults are our own. Basically God is like a corporation claiming that all care will be taken but no responsibility can be accepted.

And in the oft-repeated arguments between ID/Creationism and Evolution, that's why things like the bacterial flagella and the recurrent laryngeal nerve regularly come up.

The eye is one of the earlier examples held up by Creationists as an example of something that they say is too complex to have evolved - that was deemed to be "irreducibly complex" ("you can't have half an eye" was a common refrain). It was then pointed out that, yes, you can have half an eye, or less than half. And there are many examples of creatures, both extant and extinct, that do. That example was then dropped by most Creationists and the "irreducible complexity" of bacterial flagella was used (popularized by well known Creationists like Michael Behe).

The recurrent laryngeal nerve is one example often used by people critiquing ID/Creationism of "bad design" - i.e. something that, due the non-forward-looking nature of Evolution, seems bizarre from a design standpoint, but is perfectly understandable when considering the morphological changes that happened to the bodies of animals as the evolved. The human childbirth process is another!

PS. I just noticed a typo in my earlier post - I meant "invent" rather than "invest". Perhaps Freudian, considering the analogy. It reminds me of when Mum wrote to her publisher and inadvertently addressed the envelope to "Anus & Robertson"

[Mans]

God points to Big Bang!


"we built the space (of the world) with might, and we widely extended it. (47)


Interpretation:

We widely extended it !!

Do you realize what God is point to?!

The same that astronomy scientists discovered and confessed to its reality; Big Bang occurrence and the world formation. The scientists believe the expanding of the world continue so!

Well, I bring another quote of God that points to Big Bang event and predicts what will happen for the world in ending. He says, the expanding will be changed into shrinking of the world, in future!


"on that day, we shall roll up the space like a written scroll is rolled. as we originated the first creation, so will we bring it back again. this is a binding promise on us which we shall assuredly fulfill. (104)

[Belindi]

Belindi

I don't like to fall in the trap of self-importance again. In fact I afraid to put myself in the height as I scare of flight!

(when I was younger I didn't fear of flight at all and one of my dreams was that to board an airplane. Finally ' after I saved enough money with difficulty' my dream came true and I could travel with airplane two times that was very pleasant for me, but I don't know what happened for me in the next years that now I have fear of flight! So I prefer to travel around the earth with my old and noisy car but don't step into an airplane)!

However, I have a little knowledge about supernatural and paranormal things.

That must be fun. I wish I had.

[Sy Borg]

...To that end, they can't accept the obviousness of evolution, because creation is clearly not perfect, no matter the clever rationalisations of the ID crowd. No, God got everything right. Any faults are our own. Basically God is like a corporation claiming that all care will be taken but no responsibility can be accepted.

And in the oft-repeated arguments between ID/Creationism and Evolution, that's why things like the bacterial flagella and the recurrent laryngeal nerve regularly come up.

The eye is one of the earlier examples held up by Creationists as an example of something that they say is too complex to have evolved - that was deemed to be "irreducibly complex" ("you can't have half an eye" was a common refrain). It was then pointed out that, yes, you can have half an eye, or less than half. And there are many examples of creatures, both extant and extinct, that do. That example was then dropped by most Creationists and the "irreducible complexity" of bacterial flagella was used (popularized by well known Creationists like Michael Behe).

The recurrent laryngeal nerve is one example often used by people critiquing ID/Creationism of "bad design" - i.e. something that, due the non-forward-looking nature of Evolution, seems bizarre from a design standpoint, but is perfectly understandable when considering the morphological changes that happened to the bodies of animals as the evolved. The human childbirth process is another!

There are so many issues with bodies, to list them would be impractical. Human backs are a joke (or no joke, depending on the pain). Eating and breathing through one thin tube is a good idea? How about how people's teeth tend to break down in old age? Ingrown toenails. Arthritis. Jaw disorders. Inflammation. Gastric reflux. As that's just me

The issue with evolution denial is that evolution is exactly the same process as gestation and individual life, but at biosphere scale. Everything changes over time, either complexifying or simplifying. We life forms are the most complexified parts. The atmosphere holds the most simplified bits.

Imagining that evolution does not exist in like imagining that people and other life forms arrive on the planet fully grown, and then never age or change.

PS. Given that short flagella are used for feeding, there's nothing very mysterious about them sometimes being longer and assuming a new locomotory role. The straws that ID advocates grasp, however, are becoming longer too. ID arguments evolve too, even as proponents argue against evolution.

[Angel Trismegistus]

If there is a god, why doesn't he prove that he exists? Why does he leave us without any compelling evidence of his existence?

God has nothing to prove. Or say rather that God has nothing further to prove. After all, a universe, life and consciousness are laurels enough, don't you think?

[LuckyR]

If there is a god, why doesn't he prove that he exists? Why does he leave us without any compelling evidence of his existence?

God has nothing to prove. Or say rather that God has nothing further to prove. After all, a universe, life and consciousness are laurels enough, don't you think?

An excellent example of circular logic

[Belindi]

If there is a god, why doesn't he prove that he exists? Why does he leave us without any compelling evidence of his existence?

God has nothing to prove. Or say rather that God has nothing further to prove. After all, a universe, life and consciousness are laurels enough, don't you think?

Why does God not prove

a universe, life and consciousness are laurels

are created by Him? We wonder whether or not

a universe, life and consciousness

are created by a particularly unpleasant demiurge.

[Angel Trismegistus]

God has nothing to prove. Or say rather that God has nothing further to prove. After all, a universe, life and consciousness are laurels enough, don't you think?

Why does God not prove

a universe, life and consciousness are laurels

are created by Him? We wonder whether or not

a universe, life and consciousness

are created by a particularly unpleasant demiurge.

Why wonder about a demi-urge, save that you don't care to wonder about God? Has a demi-urge proved itself to your satisfaction?
Why would an urge that's demi be more likely than an urge that's pleni to create such wonders?

[Angel Trismegistus]

God has nothing to prove. Or say rather that God has nothing further to prove. After all, a universe, life and consciousness are laurels enough, don't you think?

An excellent example of circular logic

I'm afraid I don't see the circle; I see a straight line -- a straight line between the evidence and what the evidence points to.
Can you help us see the circle you see?

[Belindi]

Why does God not prove are created by Him? We wonder whether or not are created by a particularly unpleasant demiurge.

Why wonder about a demi-urge, save that you don't care to wonder about God? Has a demi-urge proved itself to your satisfaction?
Why would an urge that's demi be more likely than an urge that's pleni to create such wonders?

When I do wonder about God my wonder includes more than Trinitarianism it includes also Zoroastrianism, and more.

If you persist in raising straw men then reading your posts may seem like wasted time.

[Angel Trismegistus]

Why wonder about a demi-urge, save that you don't care to wonder about God? Has a demi-urge proved itself to your satisfaction?
Why would an urge that's demi be more likely than an urge that's pleni to create such wonders?

When I do wonder about God my wonder includes more than Trinitarianism it includes also Zoroastrianism, and more.

If you persist in raising straw men then reading your posts may seem like wasted time.

I would appreciate your pointing out what it is in my reply to your post that you consider a straw man argument.

As for Trinitarianism, Zoroastrianism, and the rest of the religions of the world, they are not part of my brief when I write the word "God" -- I am not interested in the 1001 stories told by mankind about "God" -- I'm interested in the existence of God apart from religious belief.

[Belindi]

When I do wonder about God my wonder includes more than Trinitarianism it includes also Zoroastrianism, and more.

If you persist in raising straw men then reading your posts may seem like wasted time.

I would appreciate your pointing out what it is in my reply to your post that you consider a straw man argument.

As for Trinitarianism, Zoroastrianism, and the rest of the religions of the world, they are not part of my brief when I write the word "God" -- I am not interested in the 1001 stories told by mankind about "God" -- I'm interested in the existence of God apart from religious belief.

What do you claim all gods have in common?

[Angel Trismegistus]

I would appreciate your pointing out what it is in my reply to your post that you consider a straw man argument.

As for Trinitarianism, Zoroastrianism, and the rest of the religions of the world, they are not part of my brief when I write the word "God" -- I am not interested in the 1001 stories told by mankind about "God" -- I'm interested in the existence of God apart from religious belief.

What do you claim all gods have in common?

All the "gods" of Man (and note the scare quotes) are the stars of religious narratives about the nature of Divinity.
That God exists is almost certainly the case; what the nature of God is, is a mystery.
That's the role of religion in the world -- to unlock that mystery.

[LuckyR]

An excellent example of circular logic

I'm afraid I don't see the circle; I see a straight line -- a straight line between the evidence and what the evidence points to.
Can you help us see the circle you see?

1) The universe exists
2) Humans are part of this universe
3) Humans create the concept of gods who are capable of superhuman powers of creation, yet are undetectable
4) When queried on proof of these undetectable entities, the answer is: "see #1"