Posted on 06/27/2009 10:33:55 PM PDT by bdeaner
You are saying that we know humans cannot be bred for behaviour the way a dog can, when no one has ever TRIED to breed humans for 10 or 20 generations, let alone 100.
You are making a leap of faith again!
“We also don’t know why gravity is, but we know it is.”
How do we know gravity is?
Try just enjoying life and good fortune, and if you are believer, give thanks to God and put everything in his hands. Wasn't Jesus the one who said sparrows don't worry, and neither should you?
I think purpose is a reflection of man's overblown ego.
I have no clue what my purpose is and I get up in the morning and go about my business. Animals do too. The earth keeps going endlessly around the sun and the sun around the black hole in the canter of our galaxy, and our galaxy rotates around the local group of galaxies, etc. all going around in circles...for no apparent reason whatsoever.
[absolutes] I know they are necessary to fully use reason/logic in determining human decisions
I don't think they are necessary at all. If anything we sue them to force our beliefs as true and judge others as false. They are theoretical constructs that "explain" things we cannot comprehend, man-made constructs, speculative tales.
Do you think we are any lesser because we don't know why gravity exists? Or higher because we figured out why it rains? I submit it makes no difference whatsoever.
[if an absolute cannot be known by reason, by which means it is known?] You are not frozen, you have purpose and values. So you know or act as though you know absolute truth/values. Find what these, maybe one, are - a simple exercise will work - and ask yourself the same question. I think this is the most useful answer.
But they are not really absolute truth are they? They are human constructs we are crazy or even stupid enough to believe to be true. I don't know what my purpose is. Do you know what's yours? And if you do, how do you know it?
We observe what happens to bodies (i.e. falling, why we can stand 'upside down" on earth and not 'fall" off, etc). We can also measure the force. It is detectable, consistent and it is universal. We just don't know why it exists. But you are free to doubt and jump off a cliff. That's why there are not that many doubters of gravity today—they're all at the bottom of some cliff.
Closed societies with much multigenerational inbreeding (demonstrated by polydactily and certain dieseases) do not demonstrate specific behavior patters further attesting that human behavior is not 'inbred.' Lots of other things are. So, there goes your hypothesis.
I think it's time for you to let go of that strawman.
"Conclusion, That the authority of Scripture is founded on its being spoken by God..." This is your proof? Soudds like "it is because I say it is" type of "proof." If all else fails we will just use a dogmatic sledge hammer. Please, let's move on. It's obvious you don't know and can't answer it.
I think that kosta50 will make an Evangelist yet.
All except for the “there are not that many doubters” part,
that was a good description of God's Word. Post 2,765
I remember a comic book: Turns out earth is a farm for humans who are grown for their eyebrows which are of high value in making coats for an alien culture. We're only a few thousand years away from harvest.
But that's not the purpose I'm talking about. What is our purpose to ourselves in our own life?
This is tied to what we value, each conditional value dependent on another and finally an absolute one - something we value inherently, in itself. Something that, all other conditions being equal, is more valuable, better than, than its contrary - to us.
We can follow our own trail of conditional values to learn that which we value absolutely.
I would guess that for you we would likely quickly end on either truth or knowledge.
No, my hypothesis does NOT go away. IF we can breed dogs for behaviors, then behavior CAN have a genetic base. And if it can be genetic in dogs, then it can in humans.
With dogs, it takes perhaps 20-30 generations of selection to get fairly reliable results. There is no reason to believe humans are different, except singling out a behavior genetically for humans is impossible - not because genes don’t work that way, but because we cannot do the tests to prove it.
Your ASSERTION that a chasm exists between humans and other animals would rightly be laughed at by behaviorists. And, your ASSERTION is a leap of faith of your own.
If you choose to make leaps of faith, why not do so in the right direction?
You obviously misread Calvin. Scripture is no more open to proof than God is. God isn’t mathematics. God isn’t someone we dissect. God, if he exists at all, is too big for our minds.
Therefore, you believe or you do not. But reason cannot be an infallible guide, because your reason is inadequate for the task.
Please understand! I’m not even TRYING to prove Scripture is God’s Word to you. I assume it, and go from there. It is part of my belief that NOTHING I do or say will ‘prove’ God or Scripture.
Now, once one assumes Scripture is God’s Word, and infallible, then those who agree can use it for rational discussion about their beliefs.
But I have never tried to prove God or Scripture to you. That is above my pay grade. You cannot know God by reason. It takes revelation, and I’m not divine, so I can’t give it.
LOL! God is detectable, measurable, and observable?
I guess I could come up with a possible list, but these are just speculations. We have no way of knowing that because we have no way of knowing what the purpose of existence is, and I mean the whole universe. Even talking of any purpose is a speculation.
This is tied to what we value, each conditional value dependent on another and finally an absolute one - something we value inherently, in itself.
What absolute one? Purpose seems to be what people use as an excuse to justify their acts.
Something that, all other conditions being equal, is more valuable, better than, than its contrary - to us
So, it's all a human construct. It's all about us. It's narcissism, egotism, exaggerated self-value. Self-deification.
We can follow our own trail of conditional values to learn that which we value absolutely
Relativism. In the end there the only "absolute" is really relative, i.e. how it relates to us. Thus, in the name of the almighty purpose, we justify what we do for us and in our name. But if you strip it of fancy rhetoric, the purpose of the bigger fish is to eat the smaller fish. Not very exalted, is it?
Ask yourself what is all this about? And if you think you know, ask yourself how do I know that? Let me help you: we don't know. We just exist. That's about all we know. The rest is filled in with our fancy.
You are right, a hypothesis that is never tested will not go away, so your strawman has nothing to worry about. You can speculate all you want, you will never know. What we do know is that in inbred communities no specific behavior has been linked to anything genetic, unlearned, innate among humans.
There is no reason to believe humans are different, except singling out a behavior genetically for humans is impossible - not because genes don’t work that way, but because we cannot do the tests to prove it
There is every reason to believe that humans are different because they are. We can demonstrate that, even if we don't know why. You don't have to take that on blind faith. No human known complex behavior (except for some maturational reflexes such as Babinski, grasping and sucking, but they are not really 'complex') is unlearned, innate, or "instinctive". Yet in animals there are plenty of such innate behavior patterns.
Your ASSERTION that a chasm exists between humans and other animals would rightly be laughed at by behaviorists. And, your ASSERTION is a leap of faith of your own.
Leap of faith? You wish. Sorry to disappoint you: it's an assertion based on fact. Humans simply do not show the same genetically-based behavior patterns the animals do. That constitutes a functional chasm.
If you choose to make leaps of faith, why not do so in the right direction?
How do you know it;s the 'right' direction?
Excuse me, I thought God was an objective truth (or so it is claimed by the believers). Only fantasy, fairy tales and delusions are not subject to proof. Objective phenomena are verifiable, certifiable reality.
How do you put all your eggs in that unprovable basket and say you are "at peace?" That's like sticking your head under the pillow and pretending the sun doesn't shine.
Therefore, you believe or you do not. But reason cannot be an infallible guide, because your reason is inadequate for the task
Reason is inadequate, but blind faith is adequate? How revealing.
Please understand! I’m not even TRYING to prove Scripture is God’s Word to you
Well, you should because you keep asserting that they are.
I assume it, and go from there.
You assume that they are and then go around stating they are as if it were a fact? I find that somewhat misleading.
It is part of my belief that NOTHING I do or say will ‘prove’ God or Scripture
How convenient. First you assume something is God's word, then you peddle it as if it were a fact knowing that you can't prove it (because it is your own creation) but you will nevertheless continue to offer it as absolute truth and a matter of fact?
Now, once one assumes Scripture is God’s Word, and infallible, then those who agree can use it for rational discussion about their beliefs.
Sure, you can start a Pink Unicorn on Jupiter Believers Club too. You may even call it a "church" because it will be a gathering of those who believe (on an a priori assumption) that pink unicorns really live on Jupiter! And you can advertise the club as a place where people can have rational [sic] discussions about their belief in pink unicorns on Jupiter.
But I have never tried to prove God or Scripture to you. That is above my pay grade. You cannot know God by reason. It takes revelation, and I’m not divine, so I can’t give it.
I never asked you to. I simply asked you how do you know it's God you believe in (and yet none of us knows what God really is or even if he is) and how do you know scriptures are God's words. Obviously you don't know, but you believe that some entity you assume to be God is real, and that some collection of writings is this imaginary and assumed God's own infallible words. You then proceed to state this presumptive belief as something factual, real and even 'right.'
Let me say, for the sake of posterity, that I have no intention of attacking your beliefs. I have no problem with what you believe as long as you do not confuse and claim and present and state your beliefs as absolute truth and fact while knowing that you don't know that for a fact and that it is all based on an a priori assumption.
I do have a problem with the inherently deceptive way the faith is presented as something factually sound, including your last statement, namely that it takes revelation when you admit that it takes an a priori assumption.
You joined this thread somewhat late.
The thread is a discussion between Catholics and Protestants about who may be saved. Since we both accept scripture, we use it in discussion.
You then jump in after a few thousand posts, and ask for proof that God is God and Scripture is Scripture.
To which, I reply, no. God is not a mathematical theorem, to be proved or disproved by logic. God doesn’t seek your approval. He doesn’t need your acceptance. You need His.
“Only fantasy, fairy tales and delusions are not subject to proof.”
Incorrect. You think you are capable of subjecting God to proof. I look at the scope of the universe, with countless galaxies, each galaxy with countless solar systems, and say you and I are not up to the task of evaluating a creator.
You can choose to reject anything you cannot prove. I would not accept as God anything you could.
Therefor, we will have to agree to go separate ways. You think I’m a fantasist, and I think you are insane.
But what is your purpose in telling me this?
I did, and I asked a simple question. Then you joined in. So, as far as this particular discussion is concerned, you are late, not I.
The thread is a discussion between Catholics and Protestants about who may be saved. Since we both accept scripture, we use it in discussion
I know. I asked how does one know. Is there a problem with that?
You then jump in after a few thousand posts, and ask for proof that God is God and Scripture is Scripture
Not really Mr. Fingerpointer. I asked how does one know and I was told it's in the Bible. So I aksed how does one know it is so just because the Bible says so, and I was told because the Bible is the word of God. So, I asked how does one know the Bible is the word of God...and I was told because of the Holy Spirit, so I asked how does one know it's the Holy Spirit, and so on, until you showed up and told me that it's on a priori assumption (blind faith), but then you seem to change your story an tell me that it's on revelation, or just because you say it is!
You also allege things I never asked, or said, which I find curious.
To which, I reply, no. God is not a mathematical theorem, to be proved or disproved by logic
There you go with your dogmatic sledge hammer statements again. How do you know that God is not a mathematical theorem, to be proved or disproved by logic? WHAT exactly is God, an dhow do you know that?
He doesn’t need your acceptance. You need His.
How do you know that? Because you say so?
Kosta: “Only fantasy, fairy tales and delusions are not subject to proof.”
Mr Rogers: Incorrect. You think you are capable of subjecting God to proof.
You speak of God as something real. That which is real and is known/detectable can be subjected to proof. I am not asking for proof. I am merely asking how do you know God is not subject to proof? All I am getting from you is more meaningless dogmatic (better yet ideological) sweeping generalizations.
I look at the scope of the universe, with countless galaxies, each galaxy with countless solar systems, and say you and I are not up to the task of evaluating a creator
Then stop evaluating the creator. You keep telling me what God is or is not. I merely want to know how do you know all that?
Therefor, we will have to agree to go separate ways. You think I’m a fantasist, and I think you are insane
I never took the liberty of judging you or labeling you, but you not only took the liberty of labeling me "insane" (are you licensed to make medical diagnoses?), but also to suggest that you know what I think (reminder: reading minds is considered personal on this forum, sir). That's really sad for someone who claims to be a Christian.
It's an activity that, at this moment, attracts my interest. I never suggested a purpose. If you mean intent as being the "purpose" then it's curiosity and exchange of information, learning. I would call it a self-appointed goal rather than a purpose.
Why is learning better than not learning?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.