What evidence would you accept for human evolution?

[Age]

...or at least an unconvinced agnostic. If there were evidence for God, what sort of thing, what sort of practical demonstration, would you recognize AS such evidence?

I am confident that everything you recognise as evidence for God, I do too.

I was going to leave you both in peace, but on this one Will I am a tad confused and it's similar to a point you made in the Shroud of Turin thread.

If you recognise anything as evidence for God, then why would you not believe that it exists?

There is 'evidence' that the earth is flat, the sun revolves around it, it is at the center of the Universe, the Universe began, and is expanding, so WHY would you not believe these things?

As can be seen, AGAIN, the adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, were SO, SO FAR BEHIND. They ACTUALLY BELIEVED 'evidence' was worth SOME thing.

In fact they would sent hundreds of thousands of human beings to prison, and even to death, based upon nothing else but 'evidence' ALONE.

And, just LOOK AT "attofishipi", here, it is, LAUGHINGLY, QUESTIONING another one WHY would they NOT BELIEVE some thing, based on NOTHING MORE than just 'evidence', ONLY.

Re the Shroud thang, I guess by your non response you are as baboozled as the scientists that have studied it.

[Age]

Does it matter if a belief conforms to reality or not?

No. People have their own reasons to believe all sorts of things that bear no relation to reality.

That may be true; but if so, it's a sad commentary on human beings.

It IS A VERY, VERY SAD commentary on you human beings. YET, here are some of you adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, INSISTING that you human beings HAVE TO BELIEVE things. Along with you "yourself" "immanuel can" BELIEVING, and ABSOLUTELY, that God HAS A PENIS and GONADS.

Which is about one the MOST SADDEST commentaries of them ALL.

[Will Bouwman]

Aesthetics is only one compartment of philosophy, and by no means the controlling one. If you argued for ontology, epistemology or logic, you might be able to defend that; aesthetics, no.

In ontology, there are all sorts of opinions expressed: materialism, idealism and dualism being examples and there are many variations of each. Philosophers try to build compelling arguments for whatever position they choose to defend. Often they will take one of two basic epistemological stances, either empiricism or rationalism, and again, there are different versions. There are even different types of logic. Where philosophers make a choice, they may well believe that their choice is rational, but in fact, the defining criterion is coherence. As the joke goes, the difference between philosophy and truth is that philosophy has to make sense. What makes a philosophy successful is not whether it is true, it is whether it is interesting, and while interesting ideas might stimulate intellectually, interest is basically an aesthetic response.

I'm merely asking you what you would accept as evidence.

Anything you submit as evidence, I will accept as evidence.

[attofishpi]

I am confident that everything you recognise as evidence for God, I do too.

I was going to leave you both in peace, but on this one Will I am a tad confused and it's similar to a point you made in the Shroud of Turin thread.

If you recognise anything as evidence for God, then why would you not believe that it exists?

There is 'evidence' that the earth is flat, the sun revolves around it, it is at the center of the Universe, the Universe began, and is expanding, so WHY would you not believe these things?

As can be seen, AGAIN, the adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, were SO, SO FAR BEHIND. They ACTUALLY BELIEVED 'evidence' was worth SOME thing.

-- --

LMAO Will!!

I started reading this reply above thinking it was you replying to me and looking forward to seeing an explanation to my question, then read the second line and thought you were taking the piss out of Age and would soon return to intelligent type...then BAM!!! It's a post from Age!!

If you wouldn't mind, perhaps we can work with Age claim re 'evidence' if you can use any as an example.

Perhaps working with: "There is 'evidence' that the earth is flat." - if that helps you as an analogy to the GOD thang?

Or, at least simply return to answering my original question of you?

[Age]

Aesthetics is only one compartment of philosophy, and by no means the controlling one. If you argued for ontology, epistemology or logic, you might be able to defend that; aesthetics, no.

In ontology, there are all sorts of opinions expressed: materialism, idealism and dualism being examples and there are many variations of each. Philosophers try to build compelling arguments for whatever position they choose to defend.

Thus WHY hitherto, when this is being written, you human beings are taking SO, SO LONG TO catch up.

Picking "sides" and/or A 'position', and the 'trying to' defend "those sides" or 'thise positions', is what adult human beings DID, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written. Which is, EXACTLY, WHY they took SO LONG.

Often they will take one of two basic epistemological stances, either empiricism or rationalism, and again, there are different versions. There are even different types of logic. Where philosophers make a choice, they may well believe that their choice is rational, but in fact, the defining criterion is coherence. As the joke goes, the difference between philosophy and truth is that philosophy has to make sense. What makes a philosophy successful is not whether it is true, it is whether it is interesting, and while interesting ideas might stimulate intellectually, interest is basically an aesthetic response.

I'm merely asking you what you would accept as evidence.

Anything you submit as evidence, I will accept as evidence.

[Immanuel Can]

Aesthetics is only one compartment of philosophy, and by no means the controlling one. If you argued for ontology, epistemology or logic, you might be able to defend that; aesthetics, no.

In ontology, there are all sorts of opinions expressed: materialism, idealism and dualism being examples and there are many variations of each.

But most of these must necessarily be wrong, of course. That's simple enough to deduce from the fact that they're mutually contradictory, even if one doesn't know which is right, if any. So the existence of varied opinions signals nothing about ontology.

As the joke goes, the difference between philosophy and truth is that philosophy has to make sense.

That's funny.

But it's not actually true, of course. What is true will, eventually, make sense. And if it does not, then we have ever reason to keep looking.

I'm merely asking you what you would accept as evidence.

Anything you submit as evidence, I will accept as evidence.

If that were so, you'd already be a Theist: for the simplest "anything" would already have convinced you. Only knowing of no evidence at all for Theism would have preserved your skepticism for you.

So manifestly, something more is required by you...I'd just like to know what that "something more" would be. What's the bar we're trying to clear, here?

[attofishpi]

What evidence would you accept for human evolution?

Well, now that roads exist, let's see if animals evolve wheels instead of legs.

[Impenitent]

As the joke goes, the difference between philosophy and truth is that philosophy has to make sense.

That's funny.

But it's not actually true, of course. What is true will, eventually, make sense. And if it does not, then we have ever reason to keep looking.

"There are many here among us. Who feel that life is but a joke..."

-Imp

[Ben JS]

LOL So, 'what' then did the 'Thing', which the 'Universe' word is REFERRING TO, come FROM, EXACTLY?

It is your flawed expectations that demand an origin.

The 'Thing', known as the Universe, or Everything, Totality, or ALL-THERE-IS, ALSO ONLY exists BECAUSE OF 'two things' 'coming-together', or CO-EXISTING.

Consistency of thought is important.
Allow me to remind you of your initial claim, Age.

First off, EVERY thing IS, and WAS, 'created', from the 'coming-together' of at least two OTHER things.

The totality of existence (universe) is a thing, and does not adhere to your flawed thinking.

Create: 'bring into existence / cause to exist' [If this isn't your definition, please share.]

You claimed each thing was created.
Do you believe the universe was created, Age?

-

If there are two things - then two things already exist.
If there is one thing, it exists - it meets that condition in isolation.
Even as concepts, and the physical counterpart of an idea.

=

Your thinking is flawed.

Are you ever wrong, Age?
I'm wrong all the time.

Do you ever admit when you're wrong?

Perhaps there is something that blinds you...

[Will Bouwman]

As the joke goes, the difference between philosophy and truth is that philosophy has to make sense.

That's funny.

But it's not actually true, of course.

No, it actually is. Even if philosophies are mutually exclusive, it is entirely possible that they all make sense. Materialism, dualism and idealism all make sense. Materialism makes sense because it looks like there is a universe, and brains in particular, that are composed of matter. Dualism makes sense because if we accept that there is matter, it seems to be very different to ideas. Idealism makes sense because given that the only things we can know are ideas, who needs matter? There isn’t a single piece of evidence that cannot be explained in any of those contexts, so the most fundamental question of ontology is unknowable.

What is true will, eventually, make sense.

Not necessarily. There is another joke that if our brains were simple enough for us to understand, we’d be too stupid to understand them. In your own words:

…we are contingent, limited, temporal beings…

We cannot know that the truth will ever make sense to us.

And if it does not, then we have ever reason to keep looking.

Well, many people stop when they develop a philosophy that makes sense to them. The thing to do is to keep challenging philosophies that make sense to stop them stagnating into dogma.

Anything you submit as evidence, I will accept as evidence.

If that were so, you'd already be a Theist: for the simplest "anything" would already have convinced you. Only knowing of no evidence at all for Theism would have preserved your skepticism for you.

Not so. I’ve read the same Bible as you. I see the same world as you. I know the same philosophical arguments for God as you. A lot of what you call evidence for God is right there in front of me.

So manifestly, something more is required by you...I'd just like to know what that "something more" would be. What's the bar we're trying to clear, here?

Given that I am familiar with a lot of the same evidence as you, I can’t imagine what that “something more” that you are party to is. In the absence of something more, I am content that my thesis stands, and you believe in God because it pleases you to do so.

[Will Bouwman]

If you wouldn't mind, perhaps we can work with Age claim re 'evidence' if you can use any as an example.

Perhaps working with: "There is 'evidence' that the earth is flat." - if that helps you as an analogy to the GOD thang?

These are words I never thought I would write in this order: Age is right. There is evidence that the world is flat, it is just shit evidence and completely swatted aside by the overwhelming evidence that the world is an oblate sphere. A less clear cut example is that gravity is as much evidence for warped spacetime as it is gravitons. Give ‘em a lick and pick the one you find tastier. Or go for loop quantum gravity. Or string theory. Underdetermination, dontcha know?

[Immanuel Can]

As the joke goes, the difference between philosophy and truth is that philosophy has to make sense.

That's funny.

But it's not actually true, of course.

No, it actually is.

Maybe all you're saying is that the truth doesn't make sense to you. And If so, I can accept that.

Materialism, dualism and idealism all make sense. Materialism makes sense because it looks like there is a universe, and brains in particular, that are composed of matter. Dualism makes sense because if we accept that there is matter, it seems to be very different to ideas. Idealism makes sense because given that the only things we can know are ideas, who needs matter?

All this really means is that each of them describes a reductional view of some things, and fails to describe other aspects of reality. And again, if that's what you're saying, I agree...none of them is a comprehensive view of anything, least of all, of human experience of life.

There isn’t a single piece of evidence that cannot be explained in any of those contexts,

Oh, sure there is. Materialism cannot explain mind, consciousness, morality, purpose...Idealism cannot explain the firmess of reality, the transience of perception or the significance of life...Dualism cannot explain how the two connect...there's lots each cannot explain.

What is true will, eventually, make sense.

Not necessarily.

The story's not over yet. Things may change for you.

In your own words:

…we are contingent, limited, temporal beings…

We cannot know that the truth will ever make sense to us.

We are indeed; but I have also insisted that the Supreme Being is not tongue-tied. He who forged the universe with a word can surely speak a word to His creatures.

And if it does not, then we have ever reason to keep looking.

Well, many people stop when they develop a philosophy that makes sense to them. The thing to do is to keep challenging philosophies that make sense to stop them stagnating into dogma.

We also have to be cautious that this doesn't degenerate into mere unthinking cynicism. To quote Bacon, "'What is truth?' said jesting Pilate, and stayed not for an answer." We can be standing right in front of the truth, and still refuse to see it, because we imagine that being cynical will excuse our willful refusal to see.

I’ve read the same Bible as you. I see the same world as you. I know the same philosophical arguments for God as you. A lot of what you call evidence for God is right there in front of me.

Indeed it is; but I don't know what you know any of the same things I do, nor could you possibly know that. I think your assumption is very hasty, actually.

What I can assume, with perfect reasonableness, is that there is an evidence you think you lack, you and only you could say what it is. I can't tell you what you'd accept -- that, you must tell me.

[attofishpi]

If you wouldn't mind, perhaps we can work with Age claim re 'evidence' if you can use any as an example.

Perhaps working with: "There is 'evidence' that the earth is flat." - if that helps you as an analogy to the GOD thang?

These are words I never thought I would write in this order: Age is right. There is evidence that the world is flat, it is just shit evidence and completely swatted aside by the overwhelming evidence that the world is an oblate sphere. A less clear cut example is that gravity is as much evidence for warped spacetime as it is gravitons. Give ‘em a lick and pick the one you find tastier. Or go for loop quantum gravity. Or string theory. Underdetermination, dontcha know?

Evidence for Earth being flat?

I see none. The definition of flat & what we observe the Earth to be, as you state an oblate sphere, are very different.

What am I missing here? What evidence?

[Age]

LOL So, 'what' then did the 'Thing', which the 'Universe' word is REFERRING TO, come FROM, EXACTLY?

It is your flawed expectations that demand an origin.

LOL
LOL
LOL

What 'origin' are you even talking ABOUT, here.

OBVIOUSLY you have NOT YET HEARD and READ what I have SAID and WRITTEN, here, (and NOT that you were expected to), but I have NEVER EVER even REMOTELY SUGGESTED that there WAS ANY 'origin', here.

In Fact I have CONSISTENTLY SAID and CLAIMED that the Universe, Itself, IS INFINITE, and ETERNAL.

So, FROM your VERY FIRST OUTSET, and PRESUMPTION, here, that 'MY THINKING IS FLAWED', was BASED UPON ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OTHER THAN your OWN FAULTY PRESUMPTION.

Which, as I have ALSO BEEN CONTINUALLY and CONSISTENTLY SAYING and CLAIMING, it is MUCH BETTER FOR ABSOLUTELY EVERY one if ABSOLUTELY ALL that IS SAID and WRITTEN, here, IS SEEN, HEARD, and READ FROM A COMPLETELY OPEN PERSPECTIVE, which INVOLVES LOOKING and HEARING WITHOUT ANY PRE-EXISTING ASSUMPTION NOR BELIEF AT ALL.

See, what I call 'faulty or flawed thinking' is LOOKING AT and SEEING things from the ALREADY OBTAINED PRESUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

So, FOR you I WILL, here, suggest that you LOOK AT and READ MY ACTUAL WORDS WITHOUT ANY ASSUMPTIONS NOR BELIEFS, AT ALL.

That way you WILL NOT MAKE THE SAME SORT OF MISTAKE, which you have MADE, here, FROM the VERY OUTSET of your RESPONSE.

The 'Thing', known as the Universe, or Everything, Totality, or ALL-THERE-IS, ALSO ONLY exists BECAUSE OF 'two things' 'coming-together', or CO-EXISTING.

Consistency of thought is important.
Allow me to remind you of your initial claim, Age.

ALLOW 'me' TO REMIND 'you' OF 'your' INITIAL PRESUMPTION.

And, HOW it was your PRESUMPTION that was NOT CONSISTENT OF 'thought', and NOT necessarily what I was 'thinking', SAYING, nor MEANING, AT ALL.

Only THROUGH SEEKING OUT CLARITY you will FIND and UNCOVER what the ACTUAL Truth IS, and WAS, here.

First off, EVERY thing IS, and WAS, 'created', from the 'coming-together' of at least two OTHER things.

The totality of existence (universe) is a thing, and does not adhere to your flawed thinking.

Create: 'bring into existence / cause to exist' [If this isn't your definition, please share.]

The Universe IS ALWAYS EXISTING. In Fact, as long as there IS some thing, aware and/or conscious, then there can NOT be ANY OTHER WAY. The Universe HAS TO HAVE BEEN, HERE, ALWAYS.

Now, what CAUSES the Universe, Itself, TO EXIST, and TO WORK, AT the MOST FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL, are the two things OF 'matter', AND, 'space'.

Now, if you HAD SORT OUT CLARIFICATION, and CLARITY, AT FIRST, then you would have COME-T0-KNOW that 'space', AND, 'matter' are the ONLY 'things' that ACTUALLY EXIST, BECAUSE OF 'the other one', ONLY.

The two things; 'space', AND 'matter', which BOTH have ALWAYS EXISTED, (which IS A PROVABLE Fact. If and WHEN ANY one is Truly INTERESTED IN finding out HOW.), have ALWAYS CO-EXISTED TOGETHER, as One. The One being the Universe, Itself.

So, HOW 'space' AND 'matter', TOGETHER, CAUSE the Universe, TO EXIST, IS:

1. There could NOT be ANY OTHER WAY.

2. The Universe, Itself, was NOT 'brought into Existence', BUT is 'caused', or 'created' 'the way' that It IS, through the two things of 'space' AND 'matter'.

3. The Universe was NEVER 'created' at one, or at some, 'time', nor 'instance'. The Universe, INSTEAD, is IN, continual, CREATION, ALWAYS, and arguably IN ALL WAYS.

See, HOW the Universe WAS CREATED 'NOW', at ANY given moment, IS BECAUSE OF PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS. The Universe IS CREATING ITS SELF, ALWAYS, HERE - NOW.

The Universe being IN CREATION is HOW It WAS CREATED HOW It IS, NOW.

You claimed each thing was created.
Do you believe the universe was created, Age?

1. I NEITHER BELIEVE NOR DISBELIEVE ANY thing (except I BELIEVE (IN) One Thing, ONLY. Which by the way is NOT 'this', here.)

2. The Universe, and I use this word loosely, 'was' CREATED 'the way' I just POINT OUT and EXPRESSED, above, here.

If there are two things - then two things already exist.

YES, AS ABOVE.

If there is one thing, it exists - it meets that condition in isolation.

The Universe IS One Thing, existing, and It meets 'that condition', 'in isolation'.

Even as concepts, and the physical counterpart of an idea.

=

Your thinking is flawed.

ONCE MORE, what 'we' have, here, is ANOTHER PRIME example of one who has LOOKED AT what I WROTE, here, while ASSUMING some things/, and whilst HAVING, HOLDING, and MAINTAINING BELIEFS, and AS SUCH MADE Wrong, False, and/or FAULTY/FLAWED PRESUMPTIONS, which it THEN JUMPED TO A CONCLUSION, which it THEN BELIEVED IS TRUE, and RIGHT.

ALL while NEVER STOPPING TO JUST CONSIDER that its OWN ASSUMPTION OF what I am ACTUALLY SAYING, and MEANING, could BE Wrong. And, as such, 'this one' NEVER SOUGHT OUT TO GAIN and OBTAIN ACTUAL CLARIFICATION, and thus ACTUAL CLARITY, FIRST.

Look "ben js" if you REALLY WANT TO BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that it is MY THINKING that IS FLAWED, then by all means KEEP ON BELIEVING this. But, I WILL AGAIN, SUGGEST that you SEEK OUT and OBTAIN and GAIN ACTUAL CLARITY, FIRST, BEFORE you MAKE ANY ASSUMPTION, AT ALL.

See, ASSUMPTIONS CAN and DO LEAD you people ASTRAY.

Are you ever wrong, Age?

That IS A RESOUNDING, 'YES'.

I'm wrong all the time.

REALLY?

HOW could one EVER KNOW 'this', FOR SURE?

Do you ever admit when you're wrong?

YES. But, NOT WHEN people just SAY and WRITE things, like; 'Your thinking is flawed', ONLY.

SEE, I AWAIT UNTIL the PROOF IS PRESENTED, OR I NOTICE WHEN it IS PRIOR.

Perhaps there is something that blinds you...

IN REGARDS TO 'what', EXACTLY?

you have, OBVIOUSLY, NOT PRESENTED ANY ACTUAL 'thing', NOR HAVE YOU EVEN 'TRIED TO' HAVE ANY SORT OF DISCUSSION, here, WITH 'me'.

you have just SAID and CLAIMED that, 'My thinking is flawed'. Which is, OBVIOUSLY, what you BELIEVE IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE and RIGHT, and thus WHY you are BEING ABSOLUTELY CLOSED, here.

Now, LOOK AT what I have SAID and WRITTEN, above, in regards TO the Universe being One, and HOW It IS IN CREATION, and/or IS BEING CREATED, ALWAYS.

And, 'I' WILL LET 'you' KNOW that 'I' have FAR, FAR MORE IRREFUTABLE KNOWLEDGE that CAN and DOES back up and support what I have been SAYING and CLAIMING, here. That is; If you ARE CURIOUS and ARE Truly INTERESTED in have A DISCUSSION, here.

[Age]

Aesthetics is only one compartment of philosophy, and by no means the controlling one. If you argued for ontology, epistemology or logic, you might be able to defend that; aesthetics, no.

In ontology, there are all sorts of opinions expressed: materialism, idealism and dualism being examples and there are many variations of each.

But most of these must necessarily be wrong, of course. That's simple enough to deduce from the fact that they're mutually contradictory, even if one doesn't know which is right, if any. So the existence of varied opinions signals nothing about ontology.

As the joke goes, the difference between philosophy and truth is that philosophy has to make sense.

That's funny.

But it's not actually true, of course. What is true will, eventually, make sense. And if it does not, then we have ever reason to keep looking.

Just HOW Truly BLIND 'these people' were, here, can be SEEN by this CONTINUED LOOKING FOR 'the Truth'.

LOL 'The Truth IS STARTING 'them' IN THE FACE', as some would say, but because they are SO BLIND, that can NOT SEE.

And, the VERY REASON WHY 'they' ARE/WERE SO BLIND I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED.

BUT THEN, LOL, they ARE/WERE TO DEAF, TO HEAR, AS WELL.

I'm merely asking you what you would accept as evidence.

Anything you submit as evidence, I will accept as evidence.

If that were so, you'd already be a Theist: for the simplest "anything" would already have convinced you.

AGAIN, these ones ARE 'CONVINCED' BY 'evidence' ALONE.

Which IS WHY some people TAKE SO, SO LONG TO RECOGNIZE and SEE that the earth is NOT flat, the sun does NOT revolve it, it is NOT in the center of the Universe, the Universe did NOT begin, and the Universe is NOT expanding.

Instead of LOOKING FOR and SEEING ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE PROOFS, and Facts, they were SATISFIED WITH JUST 'evidence', ONLY, and ALONE.

'These posters', here, just KEEP PROVING 'me' ABSOLUTELY True AND Right in regards to WHY it IS TAKING 'them' SO, SO LONG TO FIND, UNCOVER, and/or SEE the ACTUAL Truth of things.

Only knowing of no evidence at all for Theism would have preserved your skepticism for you.

So manifestly, something more is required by you...I'd just like to know what that "something more" would be. What's the bar we're trying to clear, here?

LOOK "immanuel can", if what you BELIEVE is true is NOT, then would you WANT TO HEAR it?

Now, OBVIOUSLY, you WILL NEVER EVER ANSWER and CLARIFYING this CLARIFYING QUESTION, because of WHERE you WOULD ACTUALLY END UP. a

you would NEVER ANSWER what the 'something more' is FOR you TO SEE the OPPOSITE of what you BELIEVE, here, NOW would you EVER COME EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE TO IDENTIFYING, TO others, 'What is the bar we are trying to clear, here?'

YET you PRETEND TO EXPECT these ANSWERS and CLARIFICATIONS, FROM others, in your WAYS of 'TRYING TO' FOGGY 'the path', here, and of 'TRYING TO' HIDE your DECEPTIVE WAYS.

The ONLY thing you are REALLY WANTING TO DO, here, is JUST GET others TO BELIEVE what you DO, so that you do NOT FEEL 'left out' and/or FEEL LIKE that you are the ONLY one who WAS TRICKED, FOOLED, and DECEIVED INTO BELIEVING things, which OBVIOUSLY ARE CLEAR False and could NEVER be backed up and supported WITH PROOF.