Evolution, in any form, has never been demonstrated. Some minor adaptation, which is itself unexplained especially by Darwinian evolution, has been observed. Usually much much quicker than expected by Darwinian evolution.
IF spiritual = some emotional brainstates THEN there is perfectly logical explanation for it which is the interactions of biology and chemistry within the brain itself.
Reality - The world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
Physical Laws are descriptions of properties of matter. The empirical elements of matter inform the concepts they are brought under: physical laws.
Observation is, as you agreed, unintelligible without a concept to be brought under. If they are interdependent, then they will necessarily have to both be present with the other to convey knowledge.
There is a problem trying to take a concept alone as knowledge, because there is no way to differentiate that between what's real and what's in one's mind.
There is a gap between a concept, and knowledge about reality. That gap can only be bridged with an empirical correlate.
Evolution, in any form, has never been demonstrated. Some minor adaptation, which is itself unexplained especially by Darwinian evolution, has been observed. Usually much much quicker than expected by Darwinian evolution.
"Wouldn't "reality" according to this description be unintelligible?"
"What does it mean to "actually exist" in opposition to an idealistic or notional idea?"
"Physical Laws are defined by mathematical proof. That is, physical laws = physical laws iff they can be proven mathematically"
" Isn't knowledge in one's mind?"
"Is this an inductive argument?"
Yep, that sums up the ontological argument.The ontological argument was aimed at an illiterate, uneducated, enslaved flock. Who once upon a time, were easily duped into believing that any bull**** that came out of the mouths of clergy, was divine.....Blah de blah de blah GOD....Oh and don't forget your tithe you scumbags.Hopefully we've moved on since then.
No. As you agreed, an observation is unintelligible unless brought under a concept. I argued that they are interdependent. Reality would only be unintelligible if our observations aren't brought under a concept, but if they are, as I propose concepts must do In order to connect with reality in their own right, then they will be intelligible.
Reality - The world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
There are an infinite number of Concepts that can be brought about in one's mind. Until those concepts have something empirical to tie them to reality, then there is no way to differentiate them from any other figment of one's imagination.
The empirical element seperates the concepts that correspond to reality from those that don't.
Like I said, physical laws are properties of matter.
The fact that matter behaves consistently in controlled experiments, is the reason we can describe those properties with equations. The reason we consider those descriptions "laws" is because thet consistently make testable predictions about novel future data.
Yes, but it has to be able to be demonstrated to be called knowledge. Otherwise, one could call any wild conjecture, "knowledge". Its important to remember that knowledge that a concept exists is not the same as knowledge that that concept is true.
2. clearly show the existence or truth of (something) by giving proof or evidence.
1. evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
Idk, maybe? Probably.
Tales from Arabia.
Which the OA/OA's may or may not have pre or post dated.....Logical reasoning began?..... Who actually knows when?Not sure of your point.
Though logical reasoning is only really logical if it is based upon a sound premise.And neither "The OA" nor Tales From Arabia can actually be shown to be based upon a sound premise.....An actual, specific, identifiable GOD, that actually spoke to someone.
GODS are like Bigfoot or Yeti or Nessie etc....Loads of people have supposedly seen these mythical creatures, but none of them, as actually provided unequivocal evidence.OA's Start a a point of uncertainty and "logically" arrive at a point of assumed certainty.A perhaps?.....Ahh... B so C so D so E so F so A.Though there never was a real A in the first place...... A is only ever G......G is for gobbledygook.No actual proof of A.... So B so C so D so E so F so Gobbledygook....This is logical.
The process of evolution, which is observable in laboratory conditions up to and including speciation, as seperate from the theory of evolution is merely the sum total of small mutations over time.
The next question the above is;1} is that simple-to-complex evolution,2} complex-to-simple evolution,3} lateral evolution that is neither more complex or less complex?
Unknown at outset. In retrospect it appears evolution tends towards more and more complex organisms over time.
At the very least increased chance of birth defects yes.
Well as evolution is a process guided by the laws of physics I think we can assume there is a sort of maximum complexity limit after which complexity breaks down becoming simpler. From singularity to complex universe filled with galactic clusters to heat death. Singularity and heat death are not complex states if I understand the terms properly.
Christianity does not purport to offer such flimsy proofs regarding the biblical God and definitely does not present Him as a myth but reality. The disciples/apostles and the NT writers claim to either be eyewitnesses of the Lord Jesus Christ, who they believe is God incarnate or those who are not apostles investigated such accounts from those eyewitnesses, such as Mark and Luke. Unlike so many of these other beliefs, Christianity is steeped in recorded history, a history that includes people, places, and events that exist (in the case of places) or existed (in people and events). Many non-biblical writings confirm the historical nature of Christianity. Christianity traces its roots back to the Old Covenant and God's relationship with Israel. There is prophetic evidence that is extremely credible that most people on this social network of debates and discussions fail to discuss or investigate or fathom. Instead, they go along with the crowd of unbelieving naysayers. There is a unity in the 66 writings we call the Bible that is not found in other religions. Every OT writing has a typology or picture of the Lord Jesus Christ. Every OT writing points towards and reveals the Lord Jesus Christ. What is applied to God in the OT is also applied to Jesus in the NT! It is a very profound study. Finally, the biblical teaching is that there is only one true and living God, not a myriad of such gods. So, A does not equal B or C or D... These other gods, the Bible claims, are idols constructed by human beings. So, I see such statements above as nonsense due to ignorance and prior commitments. I believe you refuse to examine the proof mainly because of intellectual worldview biases and alternative commitments you want to justify as true. I find worldviews in opposition to Christianity are inconsistent. IMO, and from my experience, those who make such noise against Christianity run from the proofs. Those who don't want to hear the proofs show their insincerity in their inquiries and challenges, IMO. Thus, they cannot be convinced no matter how reasonable the evidence.Then, of course, we haven't even touched on the philosophical arguments for God's existence, of which I believe the moral argument is devastating to the unbeliever.Convince a man against his will he remains the same unchanged still. So, I can offer the proofs but do you really want to investigate them or do you want to decry Christianity? There is a time when a person's sincerity or lack thereof becomes apparent as to their willingness to have a reasonable discussion on the issues.Yeti, Bigfoot, and the such, are steeped in folklore and myth. They fail on a historical basis. The claim for such gods is unreasonable.Well.That's all the same old argument, that achieves no conclusion.
And I thought that we were discussing a philosophical argument.....An argument that I as a non-traditional theist, find neither morally relevant nor devastating.
And the Bible isn't steeped in folklore and myth?........That's not the way I see it.
