A Human Paradox

[Valka D'Ur]

And like I said, you are still waiting for you vehicle to evolve over millions of years, instead of accepting the fact you can purchase a fully assembled one from a creator who is capable of given you a finished product.

Are you really this obtuse, or is this a case of you sitting back in your chair, giggling at those of us who value reason over made-up stories?

There's a hell of a difference between a solar system forming out of the remnants of long-dead stars - a natural occurrence - and a bunch of people on an assembly line doing their individual jobs to assemble a car.

I know cars don't "evolve." The reason they've changed over time is because humans decided to make changes. Change was for increased mileage, increased safety, increased capability to function in certain environments or on specific types of surfaces, or for purely aesthetic reasons.

Stop pretending that evolution of lifeforms is the same as manufacturing a car. That's one of the most common, most obnoxious fallacies straight out of just about any evangelical preacher's handbook.

And the only reason is because you say it is made up, and you do not believe there is something that can create a universe from nothing. You do not even accept like Berzerker that God already had obtained all the universal material from a universal materials producer.

I don't accept what Berzerker accepts because what he accepts is pure nonsense that makes even less sense than the crap I cast aside when I started studying anthropology and taking copious science courses in high school and college. When I think of the stuff I used to believe, I feel ashamed that I was that stupid.

And my guess is because other humans ruined the whole aspect of this God being. I accept the point that (to you) such a being is absurd and allegedly man made. Else you would not be able to reconcile the notion in your thought processes. Otherwise it also proves that some humans can evolve unable to accept this God, and thus precluding that humans are truly free to follow their own thoughts without being forced to accept something that may never be a reality to them. I am sure others have put it in a far less friendly choice of words.

I'm sure that others have put it in a far more coherent choice of words. You've typed a word salad that doesn't actually say anything. What does that even mean?

So the reality is plausible that a car or solar system can be put together in a timely fashion, even if it seems absurd to do so.

Cars are manufactured in factories. Solar systems put themselves together, depending on the availability of raw materials and whether the local conditions are suitable. Not all stars have planets.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The scientific method does not actually prove reality. It just confirms reality functions in a predictable manner.

And like I said, you are still waiting for you vehicle to evolve over millions of years, instead of accepting the fact you can purchase a fully assembled one from a creator who is capable of given you a finished product.

And the only reason is because you say it is made up, and you do not believe there is something that can create a universe from nothing. You do not even accept like Berzerker that God already had obtained all the universal material from a universal materials producer.

And my guess is because other humans ruined the whole aspect of this God being. I accept the point that (to you) such a being is absurd and allegedly man made. Else you would not be able to reconcile the notion in your thought processes. Otherwise it also proves that some humans can evolve unable to accept this God, and thus precluding that humans are truly free to follow their own thoughts without being forced to accept something that may never be a reality to them. I am sure others have put it in a far less friendly choice of words.

So the reality is plausible that a car or solar system can be put together in a timely fashion, even if it seems absurd to do so.

The scientific method organizes what we see or experience as reality into something we can understand and use. It ignores some things.

To oversimplify and diagram this:
Choose whether or not you believe that god is real.
If no, stop.
If yes, choose what kind of god you believe in. What are its characteristics? How can or does it act? My choice is the correct one, all others are wrong? What is the relationship between god and me? etc.
These early choices will set you on a path that may or may not end up in one of the mainstream religions or on a different path. They also set the rules by which you are willing to accept or deny other things as true or not, even if those things are not directly related to religion and god. Some paths are more open and accepting than others.

Whether or not a 14 billion year old universe is absurd is tied directly your fundamental choices and whether or not you fully accept the scientific method given its limitations. Generally, non believers can easily accept science as a reasonable path to understanding reality. Belief in god tends to interfere with that thinking, because it has a different agenda. It can be difficult for believers in god to accept things that reduce the viability or need of such a belief. Your definition of god seems to include (among other things of course) an active consciousness that participates in the physical world and will try to fool people or otherwise confuse them.

 

[timtofly]

Are you really this obtuse, or is this a case of you sitting back in your chair, giggling at those of us who value reason over made-up stories?

There's a hell of a difference between a solar system forming out of the remnants of long-dead stars - a natural occurrence - and a bunch of people on an assembly line doing their individual jobs to assemble a car.

I know cars don't "evolve." The reason they've changed over time is because humans decided to make changes. Change was for increased mileage, increased safety, increased capability to function in certain environments or on specific types of surfaces, or for purely aesthetic reasons.

Stop pretending that evolution of lifeforms is the same as manufacturing a car. That's one of the most common, most obnoxious fallacies straight out of just about any evangelical preacher's handbook.


I don't accept what Berzerker accepts because what he accepts is pure nonsense that makes even less sense than the crap I cast aside when I started studying anthropology and taking copious science courses in high school and college. When I think of the stuff I used to believe, I feel ashamed that I was that stupid.


I'm sure that others have put it in a far more coherent choice of words. You've typed a word salad that doesn't actually say anything. What does that even mean?

Cars are manufactured in factories. Solar systems put themselves together, depending on the availability of raw materials and whether the local conditions are suitable. Not all stars have planets.

I am not insinuating that cars evolve, nor am I ruling out the reality of evolution. As you pointed out even the technology surrounding cars is constantly changing over time, and yet that does not prelude that cars themselves evolve. So that an entity can manufacture an evolving universe is not that much of a difference. The only difference is we do not allow vehicles to evolve with their own DNA and the ability to replicate. To say that it is just magic is just avoiding the point that it is possible for such an entity to exist. It really has nothing to do with the makeup, and the way reality exhibits itself.

I even think that the ancients who put into writing their thoughts, recognized the ability of an entity to artificially create that which also can evolve biologically. They just viewed it in a totally different age and perspective that we do not have today, and it is foreign and alien to the way we think and process reality today.

Your definition of god seems to include (among other things of course) an active consciousness that participates in the physical world and will try to fool people or otherwise confuse them.

Actually I do not. That seems to be an excuse for there not to be a God. That God can manipulate thought is a given. Why that is done is merely speculation.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I am not insinuating that cars evolve, nor am I ruling out the reality of evolution.

The bolded text is in contradiction to this:

And like I said, you are still waiting for you vehicle to evolve over millions of years, instead of accepting the fact you can purchase a fully assembled one from a creator who is capable of given you a finished product.

And you just keep on going, here:

As you pointed out even the technology surrounding cars is constantly changing over time, and yet that does not prelude that cars themselves evolve.

Make up your mind. They either evolve or they don't. Evolution is a natural process, not something that occurs on an assembly line. When I talk about how my skills in 3-D needlepoint improved from when I started to over a decade later when I was selling in several craft shops around town, at craft fairs, and some of the things I made ended up overseas, I don't say that the magnets, bookmarks, coasters, and Christmas ornaments "evolved." I say that my skills improved. The objects themselves had no part in the process. My craft items were not busily having sex and producing babies (would have been nice if they did; it would have saved me many hours of work).

So that an entity can manufacture an evolving universe is not that much of a difference. The only difference is we do not allow vehicles to evolve with their own DNA and the ability to replicate. To say that it is just magic is just avoiding the point that it is possible for such an entity to exist. It really has nothing to do with the makeup, and the way reality exhibits itself.

Groovy. Let's see the evidence.

I even think that the ancients who put into writing their thoughts, recognized the ability of an entity to artificially create that which also can evolve biologically. They just viewed it in a totally different age and perspective that we do not have today, and it is foreign and alien to the way we think and process reality today.

The ancients believed in gods, goddesses, and a slew of other supernatural things, even though they never actually saw any of them.

In that respect, for most of the planet, this hasn't changed. And now that they should know better, they still cling to the notion that some invisible old man in the sky made everything. You're clinging to that with every paragraph you type.

That God can manipulate thought is a given. Why that is done is merely speculation.

So which lab did the research to confirm this? Why wasn't the person who discovered this awarded the Nobel Prize for proving that God exists?

It's a "given" for you. I need proof that your God exists, never mind that this invisible supernatural character in a bunch of stories can manipulate my thinking.

 

[Berzerker]

Try playing Civ. Even Civ I would help explain this "paradox."

It's called "discovering new technology and new ways in which it can be applied."

What technology did homo erectus discover to leave Africa?

So if I went to an alien planet, told the natives the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears, and then took off and made sure not to leave a single physical trace that I'd ever been there, that children's story would be ironclad proof that I'd been there, rather than some story that the natives themselves could easily have made up?

SERIOUSLY???

Myth - the world was covered by water before dry land and life appeared
Science - the world was covered by water before the continents (plate tectonics) and life appeared

If it was so simple, why are we just figuring it out? In your analogy the story is evidence of your visit if the natives could not have made it up. The Enuma Elish (and many other sources) display a knowledge of our solar system and our home more advanced than our own.

No. Artifacts are tangible, physical things. You're claiming a mentifact as an artifact, and they are not the same. Mentifacts are what people think and believe, and those are not physical.

There's a reason I put quotes around artifact, the information is the evidence of alien knowledge and the means of transmission was 'artifacts'. The rock art, clay tablets, papyri, books, all are artifacts. The evidence you want has been recorded over eons by people all over the world. And you toss it away with disdain...

Where's the contradiction? You seem to be treating humans as gas particles and Africa as a leaky valve. You can't just say there's a critical population density above which people migrate and below which they don't. It's a bit more complicated than that. You haven't pointed out a contradiction so there's not much more I can do that say "that's not a contradiction".

Well, you could keep repeating it a few more pages. Weren't you guys (maybe not you) arguing population density drove migration from Africa? I agreed in the OP its possible, but I think something else was in play - something slowed us down. And I think the myths can tell us what happened. We were slaves and the plantation was in Africa. Then God took the man he made eastward to his Garden to work. The plantation expanded and we went with it... Anyway, there is a contradiction in the argument population density drove expansion, density decreased when we left but we expanded much faster. Maybe we not only got permission, we got instructions. Be fruitful and fill the land...

 

[Valka D'Ur]

What technology did homo erectus discover to leave Africa?

Your implication is that only supernatural or alien intervention could be responsible for the progress humans have made.

If it was so simple, why are we just figuring it out? In your analogy the story is evidence of your visit if the natives could not have made it up. The Enuma Elish (and many other sources) display a knowledge of our solar system and our home more advanced than our own.

Re-read my post. That's not what I said. You prefer to take an unsubstantiated story as proof. I never said anything about the natives not being able to make up a story. I did refer to tangible evidence that the natives could not have made themselves.

Please just stop with this drivel about ancient Babylonians knowing about planets they couldn't possibly have known about. Telescopes were invented millennia after the Babylonians existed, and they weren't used for astronomical observations until 1609, when Galileo tried it out and discovered all sorts of things that nobody knew before.

There's a reason I put quotes around artifact, the information is the evidence of alien knowledge and the means of transmission was 'artifacts'. The rock art, clay tablets, papyri, books, all are artifacts. The evidence you want has been recorded over eons by people all over the world. And you toss it away with disdain...

I've got books that recount the legend of Robin Hood, King Arthur, and while I don't own any Harry Potter books, I do have several different editions of the Bible.

All of the stuff in these books is worthless as evidence without tangible proof to back it up. They're entertaining stories, but that's not evidence. Your stance is essentially "Everything in the bible is true because the bible said so, and the bible is the proof."

By that "logic" I could say "Unicorns and Noah's Ark existed because the Irish Rovers' most famous song is about the unicorns playing in the rain instead of getting on the ark and the proof is the song."

It's just a song - a very cute one that most Canadians older than about 30 have at least heard, if not able to sing the chorus and most of the verses. But it's certainly not evidence of either Noah's Ark or unicorns.

We were slaves and the plantation was in Africa. Then God took the man he made eastward to his Garden to work. The plantation expanded and we went with it... Anyway, there is a contradiction in the argument population density drove expansion, density decreased when we left but we expanded much faster. Maybe we not only got permission, we got instructions. Be fruitful and fill the land...

Oh, for crying out loud...

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Anyway, there is a contradiction in the argument population density drove expansion, density decreased when we left but we expanded much faster. Maybe we not only got permission, we got instructions. Be fruitful and fill the land...

I have no idea if population density drove expansion out of Africa. I would guess no-one can know that for sure, even if it's a popular theory. But even if it is, it's limited to that event. The population denisty in [the inhabited regions of] Africa triggered the population to expand out of Africa in that particular event. It's not a general statement that this is the only thing that can ever trigger population movement. So if those groups who left Africa then continued to expand and move around to other places, for different reasons, then this is not a contradiction. Again, these are people with agency, who are making decisions informed by climate, geography, local resources, politics, individual whims etc. Not gas particles expanding in a uniform system according to well-defined laws.