Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2023 5:27 am
Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 5:49 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 5:07 am
the Homo genus is evidenced by the appearance of H. habilis over 2 mya, while anatomically modern humans emerged in Africa approximately 300,000 years ago.
Is it far-fetched to think of Earth as a fertile garden that has been continually amended and tweaked, bringing it to the incredible diverse complexity that it has?
Just like the way that birds can unexpectedly drop seeds into your yard, and then suddenly you have a bunch of sunflowers. If the Universe is much more flowing and connected like a stream (which makes sense), rather than only being comprised of objects separated by distances as it appears to us (because of our own limited forms), then our garden may be continually receiving expansions and influences. And these additions fit into our 'human puzzle' exactly because ALL is connected with common signs/traits, even what we haven't yet experienced.
It does not make sense that Earth is an isolated occupied rock in an immensely vast field of unoccupied disconnected rocks.
It is our limited perception, tuned to a physical reality of a linear model, that prevents us from considering broader dimensions.
As I had mentioned, it is possible, so, not impossible.
However, possibility is always within a continuum from "not-likely" to "verified as real" depending on the credibility, reliability and objectivity of the specific human-based FSK of which the scientific-FSK is the most reliable thus the standard for all FSK.
The SO-CALLED 'scientific-fsk' CLAIMS that the Universe BEGUN, (just like some religions do by the way). BUT the Universe did NOT BEGIN, as CLAIMED by the people who do 'science', and the people who DO 'religion'. So, this so-called 'scientific-fsk' is NOT very 'reliable' AT ALL, when one LOOKS AT 'it', REALLY.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2023 5:27 am
The positive point is your speculation is based on elements and variables which are empirically possible thus cannot be rejected.
As such, it is a matter of getting the empirical evidences to be justified and verified then to be confirmed as real or not.
Based on our current state of knowledge this speculation is possible but we have to be agnostic [very] on it.
BUT WHY CONTINUE TO ASSUME 'things', and THEN LOOK to SEE if THE ASSUMPTION is right and correct?
WHY NOT JUST LOOK AT ONLY
what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct, FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, SOLELY and ONLY?
'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, REALLY DID DO some 'things' VERY BACKWARDS.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2023 5:27 am
In contrast the speculation that God exists as a real being with omni-qualities, is empirically impossible.
Here we have ANOTHER PRIME example of WHEN one MAKES the DEFINITIONS of words 'FIT IN WITH' what 'it' is CURRENTLY BELIEVING IS TRUE.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2023 5:27 am
Thus there is no possibility at all for God to exists as real.
BUT 'God', in ANOTHER 'sense', IS IRREFUTABLY REAL, AND True.
'you', "veritas aequitas", just can NOT SEE 'this' BECAUSE 'you' ARE SO CLOSED and BLIND. As I have been POINTING OUT and SHOWING here, and as I have also been POINTING OUT and SHOWING the VERY REASONS WHY.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2023 5:27 am
It is a
non-starter as on the question of whether a real God exists or not.
"veritas aequtitas" could NOT provide here BETTER examples of 'confirmation bias' AT WORK, and AT PLAY. AND, be a BETTER example of WHY it took these human beings, BACK THEN, SO LONG to PROGRESS and MOVE FORWARD.
