Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(io9)   Here's how humans really evolved   ( io9.com) divider line
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

10005 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Mar 2011 at 8:22 PM (6 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



130 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2011-03-06 05:20:45 PM  

Bevets: Why do you presume to speak for EVERYONE? Is it possible someone has discovered a universal absolute and you either have not met this person or have failed to be persuaded by Reality?


No, because that person has access to the same observational faculties as I do. They can not observe universal absolutes, as I can not, therefore they have not discovered universal absolutes.

Everything you know is man-made. It is impossible for you to know absolutes. You are using tools to observe reality, and you are mistaking the tools as being reality themselves. You are not seeing reality. You are seeing a human impression of reality.

Reset your premises and start again.
 
2011-03-06 05:28:08 PM  

bookman: >>>>If everything needs a beginning, then so does your god.

Correct.

>>>>If your god didn't need a beginning, then neither did the universe.

Ahhhh, there's the rub. check your premises.


There's nothing to check. If you believe that a god does not need a beginning but a universe does, then you're an idiot.
 
2011-03-06 05:30:43 PM  

Ishkur: Bevets: How do you know they are ALL human constructs? Is it possible that universal absolutes exist and you have not discovered them yet?

Go back and read what I wrote.

It is impossible to objectively observe anything outside of human perception and awareness, therefore we cannot know for certain that any universal absolutes exist. Everything you know comes to you through flawed, filtered, limited, biased human senses.

bookman: There has to be a "First Cause"

No there doesn't, and no there wasn't. The sum total of everything in the Universe is exactly zero, meaning it's always been here. The Big Bang is an expansion, not an explosion, not a creation; it is not something coming from nothing. It is nothing, period. Always has been.


LOL! Best expression of blind faith I've encountered in a long, long time!
 
2011-03-06 05:32:22 PM  
Ishkur:

Even things we think are universal absolutes, like logic, math and physics - they're all human constructs: Human tools built by humans

Bevets:

How do you know they are ALL human constructs? Is it possible that universal absolutes exist and you have not discovered them yet? How would you know when they have been discovered?

Ishkur:

It is impossible to objectively observe anything outside of human perception and awareness, therefore we cannot know for certain that any universal absolutes exist. Everything you know comes to you through flawed, filtered, limited, biased human senses.

Bevets:

Why do you presume to speak for EVERYONE? Is it possible someone has discovered a universal absolute and you either have not met this person or have failed to be persuaded by Reality?

Ishkur:

Everything you know is man-made. It is impossible for you to know absolutes.

There are many claims that God has revealed absolute Truths. This is logically possible. Have you disproven all of these claims with certainty?
 
2011-03-06 05:36:47 PM  

chaoswolf: bookman: >>>>If everything needs a beginning, then so does your god.

Correct.

>>>>If your god didn't need a beginning, then neither did the universe.

Ahhhh, there's the rub. check your premises.

There's nothing to check. If you believe that a god does not need a beginning but a universe does, then you're an idiot.


Really? Check your premises. Hint: different conditions presuppose different requirements and limitations for those conditions. Besides, I never said that a God would not need a beginning. On the contrary, a beginning to all things, including gods, is a logical necessity (really, really big hint there - can you figure it out?)
 
2011-03-06 05:41:39 PM  

bookman: LOL! Best expression of blind faith I've encountered in a long, long time!


It's not blind faith, it's a pretty solid explanation in the field of cosmology (watch the whole thing). Saying that the Universe is something coming from nothing implies that things were added or subtracted from it. Nothing was added. Everything that's in the Universe today was in the Universe at the Big Bang. It's the same amount of "stuff", from beginning to end. And it's quantitave value is exactly zero. The Universe is nothing coming from nothing. It's not even that (because that implies there was an equation involved). It's just nothing, period.

Orrrr.. if that sounds odd to you, you COULD say that the Universe is "something coming from something" (which is wrong, but it might help you understand). Either way, the important thing you need to wrap your head around is:

1) The Universe was not caused
2) Nothing's been added to the Universe

QED.
 
2011-03-06 05:44:27 PM  
bookman:

Really? Check your premises. Hint: different conditions presuppose different requirements and limitations for those conditions. Besides, I never said that a God would not need a beginning. On the contrary, a beginning to all things, including gods, is a logical necessity (really, really big hint there - can you figure it out?)

If Richard Dawkins hasnt read Aristotle, we should not be surprised if most farkers find themselves unfamiliar with the concept.
 
2011-03-06 05:46:18 PM  
It is not a logical necessity that the universe needed a beginning. You can state that it is until you're blue in the face, but this does not make it so.

Your speak of "things" needing a beginning. So please share with the class what non-thing out there exists.
 
2011-03-06 05:47:22 PM  
Well, I this conversation devolved.
 
2011-03-06 05:48:10 PM  
Well, I SEE this conversation devolved.
 
2011-03-06 05:48:26 PM  

Bevets: There are many claims that God has revealed absolute Truths. This is logically possible. Have you disproven all of these claims with certainty?


God is a human construct.

It is logically possible to use human reasoning applied to human experiences to claim in human terms and language that there is a human-invented God using human comprehension and understanding of a human-defined Universe.

But that is not a universal absolute nor are we capable of claiming it is.

If everyone in the world suddenly died today, there would be no God tomorrow.
 
2011-03-06 05:50:40 PM  

Bevets: bookman:

Really? Check your premises. Hint: different conditions presuppose different requirements and limitations for those conditions. Besides, I never said that a God would not need a beginning. On the contrary, a beginning to all things, including gods, is a logical necessity (really, really big hint there - can you figure it out?)

If Richard Dawkins hasnt read Aristotle, we should not be surprised if most farkers find themselves unfamiliar with the concept.


Bingo, and thank you for this post. It proves, at least to me, that you are not a Chinese Room (I had wondered, on occasion).
 
2011-03-06 05:53:44 PM  

chaoswolf: It is not a logical necessity that the universe needed a beginning. You can state that it is until you're blue in the face, but this does not make it so.

Your speak of "things" needing a beginning. So please share with the class what non-thing out there exists.


It's obvious. I'll let you figure it out. Good exercise.

Hint: From his Aristotle comment, I think Bevets knows.
 
2011-03-06 06:03:39 PM  
I don't see Bevet's comments. He proved his uselessness as a human being to me years ago.

So state it. What non-thing exists?
 
2011-03-06 06:12:03 PM  

Ishkur: bookman: LOL! Best expression of blind faith I've encountered in a long, long time!

It's not blind faith, it's a pretty solid explanation in the field of cosmology (watch the whole thing). Saying that the Universe is something coming from nothing implies that things were added or subtracted from it. Nothing was added. Everything that's in the Universe today was in the Universe at the Big Bang. It's the same amount of "stuff", from beginning to end. And it's quantitave value is exactly zero. The Universe is nothing coming from nothing. It's not even that (because that implies there was an equation involved). It's just nothing, period.

Orrrr.. if that sounds odd to you, you COULD say that the Universe is "something coming from something" (which is wrong, but it might help you understand). Either way, the important thing you need to wrap your head around is:

1) The Universe was not caused
2) Nothing's been added to the Universe

QED.


>>>>"....it's a pretty solid explanation in the field of cosmology (watch the whole thing)....."

Already did, some time ago.

>>>>>>"Saying that the Universe is something coming from nothing implies that things were added or subtracted from it."

No, it doesn't. It states that something was added to what came "before" the universe (which is actually incorrect since there could be no "before," since time is a function of the existence of the universe). Nevertheless, addition to or conversion from a "prior" state is not adding to or subtracting from the universe.

"....Nothing was added. Everything that's in the Universe today was in the Universe at the Big Bang. It's the same amount of "stuff", from beginning to end."

Correct

"...And it's quantitave [sic] value is exactly zero...."

Not correct. You are thinking to small. The quantitative value of the Multiverse is zero (another hint).

"....The Universe is nothing coming from nothing...."

No, it is something coming from nothing.

I was gonna give another hint, but decided not to. Either figure it out or go on in blissful ignorance; I really don't care.

Hey, Bevets, you got a glimmering?
 
2011-03-06 06:48:26 PM  
If you have no argument, just say so.

If you're more interested in playing stupid games because you're latching onto a piece of hidden Apologist philosophy that you're afraid to reveal because I will destroy it once stated (even though I already have earlier in this thread), that's understandable.

Either way, makes no difference to me.
 
2011-03-06 08:08:15 PM  

Ishkur: If you have no argument, just say so.

If you're more interested in playing stupid games because you're latching onto a piece of hidden Apologist philosophy that you're afraid to reveal because I will destroy it once stated (even though I already have earlier in this thread), that's understandable.

Either way, makes no difference to me.


Actually, I'm afraid to reveal it since I'm writing a book and don't want the idea stolen.

Hidden Apologist philosophy? That's a rough one, since - to my utter astonishment after I had been researching some new approaches to the whole Creation/Evolution debate for about 8 months - the key concept, the "grail" if you will, is from a pre-Christian philosopher.

To grok it to any degree you would have to have had at least one semester on him in a university level class (which I had some 40 years ago, and completely forgot about. There are subtle differences in concepts, to some of which we do not today have convenient English language equivalents.

Still, I've said enough. When/if the book gets published I'll note it here on Fark. If you want to think this is a cop out, be my guess. Money (and perhaps a certain amount of prestige) is involved, so I really don't care.
 
2011-03-06 08:18:19 PM  

Ishkur: It is impossible to objectively observe anything outside of human perception and awareness, therefore we cannot know for certain that any universal absolutes exist. Everything you know comes to you through flawed, filtered, limited, biased human senses.


This is not true. My imagination allows me to do this just fine.
 
2011-03-06 08:28:46 PM  

bookman: Actually, I'm afraid to reveal it since I'm writing a book and don't want the idea stolen.


Really? Cuz I just wrote a book on it so I'm ahead of you in that respect. You really should pay attention to what I've said in this thread.

bookman: That's a rough one, since - to my utter astonishment after I had been researching some new approaches to the whole Creation/Evolution debate for about 8 months - the key concept, the "grail" if you will, is from a pre-Christian philosopher.


Who has been soundly thrashed by the Enlightenment philosophers that I've referenced in this thread.

I suggest you brush up on your Hume and Kant before being overly reliant on Aristotle (hell, study the Ionians first before you study him. That's where most of his ideas came from anyway). His deductions are fascinating but he was working with extremely primitive principles based on erroneous assumptions. But that's okay: Human epistemology really hadn't progressed that much so its amazing how far he got as a pioneer in the field. But yeah: Mostly everything he babbled about was wrong.

"Greeks talk a pile of nonsense."
-Lucius Vorenus

At any rate, anything you could possibly think to write in the field of Christian Apology -- especially from a philosophical angle -- has probably already been covered. The field is ridiculously crowded, And they LOVE citing Aristotle. I suggest Douglas Wilson as a good start -- he actually has a masters in logic and seems to understand the futility of the debate best. The rest are just out for a quick buck. There is an incredible amount of really bad books out there full of really bad suppositions, non-logic and twisted analogies.

At any rate, let me know when your book is done, I'd love to read it and tell you whether its original or not. Probably not, but I'll give you benefit of the doubt.
 
2011-03-06 08:31:02 PM  

fisker: This is not true. My imagination allows me to do this just fine.


Your imagination is reliant on an unverifiable inference as a starting point.

Your argument is invalid. ;)
 
2011-03-06 09:10:38 PM  
Where's AngryTheist and Imjustaskingquestions guy? I know Bevets has this thread well in hand but I think they'd be a nice touch.
 
2011-03-06 09:24:49 PM  

Fano: Where's AngryTheist and Imjustaskingquestions guy? I know Bevets has this thread well in hand but I think they'd be a nice touch.


Nah, kerpal32 would be the perfect pivot man to complete the circle of derp.
 
2011-03-06 09:28:43 PM  
Ishkur:

Even things we think are universal absolutes, like logic, math and physics - they're all human constructs: Human tools built by humans

Bevets:

How do you know they are ALL human constructs? Is it possible that universal absolutes exist and you have not discovered them yet? How would you know when they have been discovered?

Ishkur:

It is impossible to objectively observe anything outside of human perception and awareness, therefore we cannot know for certain that any universal absolutes exist. Everything you know comes to you through flawed, filtered, limited, biased human senses.

Bevets:

Why do you presume to speak for EVERYONE? Is it possible someone has discovered a universal absolute and you either have not met this person or have failed to be persuaded by Reality?

Ishkur:

Everything you know is man-made. It is impossible for you to know absolutes.

Bevets:

There are many claims that God has revealed absolute Truths. This is logically possible. Have you disproven all of these claims with certainty?

Ishkur:

God is a human construct...If everyone in the world suddenly died today, there would be no God tomorrow.

You seem to be stuck in a loop of your own bare assertions (Have you considered shouting?). Perhaps it will help if I restate my case and you can pick the part(s) you disagree with. Please show your work.

If God is omniscient, He knows how to communicate Reality to humans.
If God is omnipotent, He is able to communicate Reality to humans.
If God is benevolent, He is willing to communicate Reality to humans.
Jesus claimed to be God.
Jesus demonstrated His claim to Deity through His resurrection.
Paul gives a reliable account of the resurrection (see Habermas)
Jesus upheld the Word of God
God has communicated Reality to humans.
 
2011-03-06 09:48:47 PM  

Ishkur: bookman: Actually, I'm afraid to reveal it since I'm writing a book and don't want the idea stolen.

Really? Cuz I just wrote a book on it so I'm ahead of you in that respect. You really should pay attention to what I've said in this thread.

bookman: That's a rough one, since - to my utter astonishment after I had been researching some new approaches to the whole Creation/Evolution debate for about 8 months - the key concept, the "grail" if you will, is from a pre-Christian philosopher.

Who has been soundly thrashed by the Enlightenment philosophers that I've referenced in this thread.

I suggest you brush up on your Hume and Kant before being overly reliant on Aristotle (hell, study the Ionians first before you study him. That's where most of his ideas came from anyway). His deductions are fascinating but he was working with extremely primitive principles based on erroneous assumptions. But that's okay: Human epistemology really hadn't progressed that much so its amazing how far he got as a pioneer in the field. But yeah: Mostly everything he babbled about was wrong.

"Greeks talk a pile of nonsense."
-Lucius Vorenus

At any rate, anything you could possibly think to write in the field of Christian Apology -- especially from a philosophical angle -- has probably already been covered. The field is ridiculously crowded, And they LOVE citing Aristotle. I suggest Douglas Wilson as a good start -- he actually has a masters in logic and seems to understand the futility of the debate best. The rest are just out for a quick buck. There is an incredible amount of really bad books out there full of really bad suppositions, non-logic and twisted analogies.

At any rate, let me know when your book is done, I'd love to read it and tell you whether its original or not. Probably not, but I'll give you benefit of the doubt.


>>>>"You really should pay attention to what I've said in this thread."

I am. All grist for the mill.

Hume had a few good ideas. A few. Kant went off the deep end (as did his errand boy Hegel).

My first degree was Poli Sci with a heavy minor in Philosophy.

A great number of later philosophers simply don't understand Aristotle, particularly his horribly difficult categories of Being and Cause. Reason: there are shades of meaning in the ancient Greek that simply don't translate into modern languages and have been lost. We can try and reconstruct them, but shades of meaning get lost and it sounds like gobbletigook. There are, for example, at least 8 or 9 distinct types of "cause" in ancient Greek. It's rather like if an Eskimo were asked to explain the different types of snow, but more difficult since there are no ancient Greeks around to help with the translations.

The book's genre is NOT Christian Apology. All I'm prepared to say at the moment.
 
2011-03-06 10:01:25 PM  

Bevets: If God is omniscient, He knows how to communicate Reality to humans.
If God is omnipotent, He is able to communicate Reality to humans.
If God is benevolent, He is willing to communicate Reality to humans.


This argument is based on unsubstantiated premises. You need to first verify that there is a God before verifying whether He is willing or able to communicate reality to humans.

And even if He could or would, that reality is still incomplete as it must pass through the flawed filter of human sensory input -- flawed, I might add, by God himself due to The Fall.

You have defeated your own argument.

Jesus claimed to be God.

No, the Council of Nicaea claimed Jesus was God.

Jesus demonstrated His claim to Deity through His resurrection.
Paul gives a reliable account of the resurrection (see Habermas)
Jesus upheld the Word of God
God has communicated Reality to humans.


Okay, so tell me: Which reality is the right one? Why is it you believe this particular human-invented reality about God and not other human-invented realities about God? I'm not talking about other religions, I'm talking about other equally valid sects in your own religion, like Binitarianism, Trinitarianism, Sebellianism or Modalism, Subordinationism, Arianism, Sabbatarianism, Adoptionism, Monarchianism or Unitarianism, Monophysitism, Henophysitism, Dyophysitism or Nestorianism, Docetism, Audianism, Eutychianism, Apollinarism, Patripassianism, Homoousianism, Donatism, Novatianism, Pelagianism, Semipelagianism, Montanism, Antinomianism, Legalism, Quartodecimism, Animism, Esotericism, and last but not least, the totally awesome and sensible Gnosticism.

And I won't even get into the half-Jewish Christian sects like the Nazzarenes, the Ebionites, the Marcions or the Messianic Jews.

And this is just before the year 400. After then, things start getting CRAZY!

So you're the Christian, you tell me: Which of these (sch)isms is the right one, and how can you prove it absolutely? Because there's no evidence that any of them are wrong. None of these have anything to do with God, or truth, or spiritual happiness - they're just men arguing with other men over the semantics of what men want, usually aided by ambition, political power, persuasive public speaking, and armies. But mostly armies.

You are not following God. You are following a human interpretation of God.
 
2011-03-06 10:27:55 PM  

bookman: Hume had a few good ideas. A few. Kant went off the deep end (as did his errand boy Hegel).


I like Kant (and Hobbes) because they had such a misanthropic view of human nature. Not that I'm implying anything.

bookman: My first degree was Poli Sci with a heavy minor in Philosophy.


And look at the rewarding career its given you today! (sorry...cheeky response)

bookman: Reason: there are shades of meaning in the ancient Greek that simply don't translate into modern languages and have been lost.


I don't agree with this, because ideas can be understood across languages without needing a direct translation for them. It's something English does all the time and is famously flexible for, for instance the Japanese concept of Mu. There's technically no English word for it, but it's used all the time in multi-value logic and it's aptly understood by Western philosophy.

There's a word for this kind of linguistic theft, but I forget what it's called at the moment. Greek and Latin are so heavily used in modern academia that barely ANYTHING has been lost to nuance.

If the language were some obscure New Guinea tribe, you might have a point. But this is Greek we're talking about, dude. Greek. Philosophers have been reading and dissecting the Greeks for thousands of years. Not that I'm doubting your acumen, but you'll have to excuse me if I'm a little bit skeptical that you have uncovered something that no one else could spot.

(and funny that you mention shades of meaning in Greek. Just a few days ago I was reading how the Greeks have multiple words for the specific roles in a homosexual tryst, including specific words for "top" and "bottom". These words made it into Greek translations of the Bible in passages discussion homosexuality, which of course didn't make any sense to post-Latin translators.)

bookman: It's rather like if an Eskimo were asked to explain the different types of snow


This is a factoid. Eskimos have the same number of words for snow that we do. But I get your point.

bookman: The book's genre is NOT Christian Apology. All I'm prepared to say at the moment.


Well, you're certainly putting up a hell of a (philosophical) fight for the existence of a creator in this thread, and that's all Christian Apology does these days.
 
2011-03-06 10:41:25 PM
(This comment has been removed)
 
2011-03-06 11:54:28 PM  

Bevets: SQUAWK!


Polly want a cracker?
 
2011-03-07 12:24:59 AM  

bookman: And Evolutionist is a fabricated word used by Creationists to discredit science. Stop using it.

So what word is acceptable to you?


"Scientist" works for most people.
 
2011-03-07 02:32:53 PM  

bookman:
The book's genre is NOT Christian Apology. All I'm prepared to say at the moment.


Unless your name is Robert Pirsig, I'm going to guess we won't be hearing about this book of yours. But best of luck.
 
Displayed 30 of 130 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report