is the Christian concept of the One from a philosophical point of view true?

[Alexis Jacobi]

We humans do seem to love our delusions. So "public trust" definitely isn't always a good thing.

Try this: offer the forum, the thread, your genuine and honest description of how the life forms of this planet did develop — a clear, concise description — and then let’s assess if it is sound or humanly delusional.

[Immanuel Can]

We humans do seem to love our delusions. So "public trust" definitely isn't always a good thing.

Try this: offer the forum, the thread, your genuine and honest description of how the life forms of this planet did develop — a clear, concise description — and then let’s assess if it is sound or humanly delusional.

You're mistaken: I'm not an Evolutionist. So I can't give you a description of how life" forms" and then "develops." I can only point you the fact that life "was formed," that is, to the fact of the unique creation of man by God, as described in Genesis 2:7 -- "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

But the other, the theory of "forming" and "developing" is a theory you can offer, if you want, since you believe in it. Why don't you explain how we "formed" ourselves, without any divine action? Start with the initial event: how did nothing become something, then how that "something" became ordered and law-bound, then how mere chemicals became "life," and work your way forward with your story. I'll be entertained, and we'll see what you've got.

[Gary Childress]

And when Oppenheimer was asked by an American military officer before the Trinity test, whether or not the possibility of destroying the world along with performing the test was 0 (zero), Oppenheimer told the general that it was not zero but "negligible", and the worried general reluctantly says, "I wish it were zero" and reluctantly gives the go ahead to push the button to initiate the test. Go watch the movie "Oppenheimer",AJ (you "disinterested genius") are your generals asking you to risk the unthinkable? See the movie and learn from America, the first country in the world to say "yes" to someone giving them the scenario of gamblimg with the unthinkable.

Listen to us and learn from us. We are not your enemy. The burden of responsibility for Hiroshima and Nagasaki have tamed our intellectuals. Unless you see that and understand what that truly means and feels like, then you will continue to read and think without appropriate context and understanding, thinking that we are a threat to you, my "disinerested observer" friend. You do not trust our politicians and I understand that.

Chomsky has not betrayed his fellow Americans but he subverted the peer review process of his peers by relaeasing his political books on his own to the average readers to interpret with their unprofessional educations-- a rogue process for sure, he acted independently and now threatens the world he is avowed to protect by allowing undemocratic leaders like Putin to take advantage of the political books Chomsky wrote to inform fellow Americans of our own crimes which has caused much cognative dissonance among us. Putin is dangerous. Unlike Americans and unknown to many Russians, Putin has not made his own crimes widely publicised so that he can also be judged by his people.

In other words, had Chomsky been a citizen of Putin's Russia instead of a US citizen, Chomsky would have been a dissident toward Putin's actions and said less about American crimes and done more broadcasting the crimes of his own leaders (had Chomsky been a Russian citizen). Under those circumstances Putin would likely have jailed him, if the fate of other Putin critics is instructive. We never jailed Chomsky. We argued with him but he's had free reign to talk to us. That is what separates America from Putin's Russia.

If you've read Chomsky at least as much as I have, then perhaps you are already aware of this, but sometimes your hubris coupled with "disinterest" concerns me, my friend.

[Alexis Jacobi]

We humans do seem to love our delusions. So "public trust" definitely isn't always a good thing.

Try this: offer the forum, the thread, your genuine and honest description of how the life forms of this planet did develop — a clear, concise description — and then let’s assess if it is sound or humanly delusional.

You're mistaken: I'm not an Evolutionist. So I can't give you a description of how life" forms" and then "develops." I can only point you the fact that life "was formed," that is, to the fact of the unique creation of man by God, as described in Genesis 2:7 -- "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

But the other, the theory of "forming" and "developing" is a theory you can offer, if you want, since you believe in it. Why don't you explain how we "formed" ourselves, without any divine action? Start with the initial event: how did nothing become something, then how that "something" became ordered and law-bound, then how mere chemicals became "life," and work your way forward with your story. I'll be entertained, and we'll see what you've got.

I would actually correct you. You say you are *not an evolutionist*, and I understand, but in actual point of fact you are not anything. Because the belief or is it a scenario that you cite, for man's creation, is an unbelievable phantasy, and so of course is all the rest of the impossible things you believe.

So, and in fact, you believe nothing that anyone could consider valid or legitimate. You are therefore in a no-man's-land where you refer to a mythological generalism.

We humans really love our delusions is a very good line. You give the best evidence that this is so. That it is possible.

You have been for me an object-lesson in man's capacity to self-deceive. And if the door to understanding self-deception is opened in one area, the horrifying thing is that it can be extended to so many things.

You are very very valuable to the forum in this sense.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But the other, the theory of "forming" and "developing" is a theory you can offer, if you want, since you believe in it. Why don't you explain how we "formed" ourselves, without any divine action? Start with the initial event: how did nothing become something, then how that "something" became ordered and law-bound, then how mere chemicals became "life," and work your way forward with your story. I'll be entertained, and we'll see what you've got.

First, there is no other explanation that I am aware of outside of slow evolution of life forms over millions of years. Unless of course one resorts to the sort of *belief* that has you in its grip: a desperate mental manouevre which, at least in your mind, solves the problem. As I declared above that is a no-solution. It says nothing, it means nothing, it answers nothing.

Those who examine the issue of the sheer improbability of life having formed, and certainly the mathematical improbability of such complex forms arising out of un-alive matter, go no further than to express their incomprehension of what life is and how it came to be. They are (to the degree that I have investigated the issue) stymied. But they do not deny processes through which biological entities evolve and adapt.

What I can say is that once the structure that is *alive* did manifest on Earth, whatever it is and whatever it was, it showed itself capable of extremely aggressive and persistent effort to shift, morph, adapt and fill ecological niches. Whatever it is, is almost beyond our ability to understand.

So, the really unbelievable thing is that life does exist -- but the realization about life is not much different about the fact of EXISTENCE existing. In my view there is no *answer* for that.

We did not 'form ourselves'. We have no part in how our bodies came to exist. And all that our bodies do is absolutely outside of our will. And yet here we are: in these bodies, and using our awareness in so many different areas.

You as well seem to grasp the fact of the impossibility of life and existence, but you resort to the Biblical explanation as a way to avoid actually having to think things through.

Your *thought* -- as I so insightfully declared -- is non-thought. You pretend to be thinking but you are not thinking at all.

I am willing to help you but it is going to cost you Immanuel.

[Immanuel Can]

...in actual point of fact you are not anything.

Well, whatever I am, I'm not you...and I'm increasingly glad of that.

[Alexis Jacobi]

...in actual point of fact you are not anything.

Well, whatever I am, I'm not you...and I'm increasingly glad of that.

Each man must be happy with what he is, and what he is not. Give yourself a pat on the back for being [what I determined is] a real ignoramus and a startlingly dedicated religious fanatic fundamentalist. That you hold this collapsing belief system together is, I will admit, really an amazing accomplishment. That you have some way or other to explain all this to yourself is also amazing. You fail absolutely in convincing even one person of your phantasies but you still keep on! That too is amazing.

You are a religiously fanatic freak show on wheels and that is extraordinary indeed!

[Immanuel Can]

But the other, the theory of "forming" and "developing" is a theory you can offer, if you want, since you believe in it. Why don't you explain how we "formed" ourselves, without any divine action? Start with the initial event: how did nothing become something, then how that "something" became ordered and law-bound, then how mere chemicals became "life," and work your way forward with your story. I'll be entertained, and we'll see what you've got.

First, there is no other explanation that I am aware of outside of slow evolution of life forms over millions of years.

Great. Then you can explain it, right? Since you understand it, I mean. You would never just take a just-so story from somebody, with no evidence.

So let's go. Start talking.

Those who examine the issue of the sheer improbability of life having formed, and certainly the mathematical improbability of such complex forms arising out of un-alive matter, go no further than to express their incomprehension of what life is and how it came to be. They are (to the degree that I have investigated the issue) stymied. But they do not deny processes through which biological entities evolve and adapt.

So you're accusing them of believing things that "stymie" them, and for which they have no reasons. They've assumed their conclusion, in other words, not shown it.

Keep going. This is good.

What I can say is that once the structure that is *alive* did manifest on Earth,

Yeah, that's not helpful. The fact that we're here now proves that, but does nothing to show us how it happened.

Whatever it is, is almost beyond our ability to understand.

So now, you believe something that not only has not been demonstrated, and was an assumed conclusion from the get-go, and now you're saying it's even "beyond our ability to understand" at all?

Terrific start. Great work.

We did not 'form ourselves'. We have no part in how our bodies came to exist. And all that our bodies do is absolutely outside of our will. And yet here we are: in these bodies, and using our awareness in so many different areas.

How astute! You've now discovered that you didn't make yourself, and that you have a body. Is there no limit to your knowledge, O Sage?

You're a total fraud. You pretend to erudition you simply do not have, and to possess certainty where you manifestly possess only confusion. But your smugness and self-satisfaction seems to know no bounds anyway.

Well, I think "His purse is empty already; all's golden words are spent," to quote Horatio in Hamlet. And like the individual of whom he spoke, the wisdom ran out long before the verbosity did. Congratulations on a true tour de force of explanatory fumbling.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Great. Then you can explain it, right? Since you understand it, I mean. You would never just take a just-so story from somebody, with no evidence.

I do not have to explain it. That does not mean that there are not explanations for the evolution of life forms over time.

But what I do have to know is that your explanation is no explanation at all.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You're a total fraud. You pretend to erudition you simply do not have, and to possess certainty where you manifestly possess only confusion. But your smugness and self-satisfaction seems to know no bounds anyway.

You are entitled to any opinion you wish. I do not propose to know *how life formed* nor even what it is, nor why. What I do say is that your explanation model has no explanatory value.

And what you are really saying is that you consider the field of science, the discipline of evolutionary studies, and the evolution of biological forms certainly, and the men who are involved in these disciplines, to be a fraudulent and frauds.

I do not think that is true.

You propose that you have another explanation-model. But what I say is that in reality you have none at all. Except a bizarre mythological one.

[Immanuel Can]

Great. Then you can explain it, right? Since you understand it, I mean. You would never just take a just-so story from somebody, with no evidence.

I do not have to explain it.

And yet, you wanted to walk me into an explanation of the very thing you now admit you are powerless to explain?

"Sauce for the goose," Charlie. It looks like you can't stand up to your own demands.

[Immanuel Can]

You're a total fraud. You pretend to erudition you simply do not have, and to possess certainty where you manifestly possess only confusion. But your smugness and self-satisfaction seems to know no bounds anyway.

You are entitled to any opinion you wish.

I know.

Good thing, too.

[promethean75]

I contest this on the following grounds: A man cannot choose to have opinions that do not naturally occur to him, also is he able to know of an opinion and wish to have it, while being unable to, e.g., he knows the movie can be thought of as 'good' and even wishes to think of it as such, but is ultimately unable becuz he thinks it sucked.

[Alexis Jacobi]

And yet, you wanted to walk me into an explanation of the very thing you now admit you are powerless to explain?

"Sauce for the goose," Charlie. It looks like you can't stand up to your own demands.

I would not say that I am completely powerless if the project is a general explanation of what is known by scientists who study life, the origin of life, evolution, adaptation, and all the rest. All of those disciplines exist. What I do say is that a) you propose that all these ideas, opinions, theories and disciplines and the people involved in them are fraudulent and frauds, and b) that you propose a real and genuine explanation in the model you present through recitation of Genesis.

What I say is that 1) the former encompasses the present state of what we know, according to the terms of the material sciences, and you can access that information as easily as I can, and 2) that I regard your explanatory model and its means to be devoid of any explanatory value.

I realize that the model you *believe in* is connected with the entire structure of Christian cosmology -- all this is crystal clear -- and to that I say a) I do not believe any of it, and b) no part of it has any genuine explanatory value except as it would support 1) obscurantist views and 2) those who require obscurantist views (and explanations) in order to hold together a larger faith-system.

That faith-system is really quite involved because the personality seems to be dependent on it, or perhaps a person's psychic and psychological stability, and I do not discount this as one of your motivators in your self-deceiving faith-system. That which I refer to as Christian fanatic fundamentalism.

The charges so far for today's help come to $783.45 Note that I have a Patreon account as well as a PayPal account. I can keep a running tab open up to $1,500.00 but at that point all overdue counseling fees must be paid in full. I'm sure you understand.

[Dubious]

What he says is plain enough, nothing profound or original; logic itself being nonessential to any argument he makes. It's the same crap theists spout over and over again...nothing new; same old, same old!

Didn't really understand it, then. Yup.

Then why don't you explain it? But of course you won't because there's nothing new to explain. The whole lecture ends in a repeat of Jesus is my saviour mantra. They teach that in kindergarten which goes to show you're never too old in accepting the same old BS being taught for generations.

...all completely understandable. Yup