(December 6, 2018 at 11:41 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(December 6, 2018 at 11:17 pm)Rahn127 Wrote: And again you would be wrong.

We share a common ancestry with all life.

The last common ancestor of plants and animals lived around 1.6 billion years ago and was a single celled organism, neither plant nor animal itself. ... All known living organisms on earth share a common ancestor.

Our closest living relative is the chimpanzee.
We have 99% shared DNA

All of this is proven science.

No, this is disputed science.

Disputed only by idiots so stupid they still prefer to believe salvation through a layabout no good meglomanical mad carpenter who died a mean and deserved death.   Such dispute is worthless even to mention.

---

(December 7, 2018 at 2:14 am)CDF47 Wrote:

(December 6, 2018 at 2:17 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Which is exactly what we do with gods.  We know that they exist, like scooby doo exists, and because of what we know about their existence we can state with confidence as a fact of the matter that neither scooby doo nor gods are running around out there solving mysteries....or designing life.

Did you see the historical Jesus post? I posted it above with a link to an article.  It's a continuation of our previous debate over this.  I think it was you debating the historicity of Jesus with me.

---

(December 7, 2018 at 2:11 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: I am sure monkeys would also deny common ancestry with you.  But the apparently agreements stems from different causes.  In your case it is out of ignorance and stupidity, in the case of monkeys it would be out of justifiable if misplaced pride.    Neither of you speaks from educated evaluation of facts.

We did not evolve from a monkey.

You did.  To the monkey’s eternal regret.

(December 7, 2018 at 2:16 am)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(December 6, 2018 at 11:41 pm)CDF47 Wrote: No, this is disputed science.

Disputed only by idiots so stupid they still prefer to believe salvation through a layabout no good meglomanical mad carpenter who died a mean and deserved death.   Such dispute is worthless even to mention.

---

(December 7, 2018 at 2:14 am)CDF47 Wrote: Did you see the historical Jesus post? I posted it above with a link to an article.  It's a continuation of our previous debate over this.  I think it was you debating the historicity of Jesus with me.

---

We did not evolve from a monkey.

You did.  To the monkey’s eternal regret.

No disputed by serious scientists.  I did not evolve from a monkey.  I descended from the first man and woman.

(December 7, 2018 at 2:35 am)CDF47 Wrote: No disputed by serious scientists.  I did not evolve from a monkey.  I descended from the first man and woman.

 You are tecnically correct... but your reasoning for such things is totally wrong/weird.

Both present day monkeys and ourselves evolved from previous ape like ancestors. Going back far enough and you'll not be able to tell/see any differeance.

Not at work.

(December 6, 2018 at 5:14 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 6, 2018 at 4:03 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Makes sense, yes.


And we can also generate new facts about Scooby.
Just like the Star Wars universe is still expanding.

But, concerning gods, the information about their (supposed) fictionality is lost to time.
Sure, we can also gather knowledge about how people relate to this entity which they have no way of knowing is real. We can observe many people behaving quite nicely towards others, mostly due to their conviction that such an entity is keeping an eye out for them.
We can philosophically consider the nature of such an entity, how it could fit in with all the traditional wisdom around it, like "all-powerful", "eternal", "creator", "perfect", etc. And many such considerations can be made to appear very convincing, very flawless... thus perpetuating the belief in the (apparent) unknowable...
But, as it is with many philosophical theses, there are people who remain unconvinced, there are people who understand philosophy as a mental exercise and always require its results to be put to a reality check. And, thus far, this reality check has yielded nothing.
The deeper we probe reality, the less divine there is.
So much so that gods are now solely a non-corporeal entity, no mass, no matter, no energy (Everena! no Energy! Energy is mass, if you had a bit of education in science, you'd know). This fact of absence of Energy poses a problem, as it is apparent that everything that we might call real has or is energy. Except empty space-time, right?.... well, science has probe deep in there and has seen how empty space-time isn't really empty and it can thus randomly generate real energy and matter - clearly we haven't observed a whole Universe being generates like this, but a few particles can be measured... look up the Casimir effect.
So, if one posits the eternity of space-time, it is not too far-fetched to consider the rare, but not impossible eventuality of the random generation of enough energy that becomes a Universe.
If this is how the Universe has actually come to be, and if space-time is indeed infinite in all 4 dimensions in all directions, then the divine entities that mankind has worshiped, that philosophers have convinced themselves are real  aren't so real after all... at least, they aren't the creators and designers of reality. Their existence is limited to the same kind of existence as Scooby Doo.

I ask you, what is the greatest assumption, to consider an ever-existing divine entity, or an ever-existing space-time?

I like your thinking, so +1 in my book.

My answer to your question is that I couldn't rule out either, and I don't think I could be intellectually honest to myself if I did.

In absolute terms, you're right.
But one must be pragmatic at some point.
Otherwise, we end up getting stuck in a never-ending need to be intellectually honest and take each and every claim as if they could be true, including claims we typically assume are fictitious, like the Force, or magic, or superman, etc...

Just like we don't devote undue effort into looking for evidence of the Force nor magic, so too I think we should expend undue effort into the question of a divine creator entity.
Clearly, if there is such an entity, the information about it was conveyed to mankind in a pre-scientific era, and even pre-written-word era. If that was done, then it can and should be reproducible in a scientific era. The fact that such conveying of information has been eluding the scientific endeavor is a hint at the fictional nature of the original information regarding the divine.

(December 6, 2018 at 5:14 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:   Maybe there's some balance between the two ideas even if the solution is currently being overlooked.  That's why I believe it's important to continue to explore things, but with limited bias.  If you take an atheist and a theist, and they work together to both determine and rule out things, then we further our capacity to have better human relationships.

Some balance, yes... but I'm not sure a 50/50 split is the most adequate course of action.

(December 6, 2018 at 5:14 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:   To say one is greater, I would need to prescribe some type of value to both, but I don't think it's necessary.  If both exist, then there may be an agreement or relationship between the two that I would want to understand. 

Well, one can apply real-world hints and extrapolations into ascertaining that value... or one can go with intuition. Traditionally, people have gone with intuition and that has led to the growth of religions and the pervasiveness of religious belief, often to the culling of those who lack such belief.

(December 6, 2018 at 5:14 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: In which case I would not only want quantitative data, but qualitative data as well.  Same thing as going into a jungle and living in a tribe of monkeys.  I could go in there and learn things, and I wouldn't have to apply any numerical value for anything, but rather observe how they treat me and how my relationship to them changes.  Maybe they adopt me as one of their own.  Maybe there's some conflict I have with the alpha.  Maybe as time goes on those relationships change.  That alpha could hate me, but conforming to him some may lead to acceptance.  So in regard to the universe or a divine entity, hopefully I can respect both, and likewise both can respect me in their own capacity.

hmm... I see your point, but... empty space-time, as far as we can tell, has no intentionality. Things just happen in their Quantum randomness (which average out to our deterministic point of view).
Without intentionality, I don't think it can respect you at all. But the people who support such a view sure can respect you, whatever your view is.

CDF - You probably have some 1st cousins, but just in case you don't, let's assume you do.

Your common ancesters are your grandmother & grandfather. You both have the same grandparents.

With 2nd cousins you both will have the same great grandparents. The great grandparents are a common ancester.

If we look at US Presidents for example. Their genealogy is well documented. If you go back far enough, you find that they all are distant cousins.

Former President Obama and Former President George Bush are 10th cousins, once removed, linked by Samuel Hinkley of Cape Cod, who died in 1662.

10th cousins mean they share a common ancester.
In this case, the have the same great great great great great great great great great grandfather.
(Samuel Hinkley)

Obama & Bush share a common ancester.

If we compared the genealogy of everyone on this forum, you'll find we are all distant cousins with some common ancester. You just have to keep tracing back.

Homo sapiens.
Homo habilis.
Homo erectus.
Homo floresiensis.
Homo neanderthalensis.
Homo heidelbergensis.
Homo rudolfensis.

These are the various species of the homo group that we all descended from.

And if you trace their lineage back you find we share a common ancester with all the great apes and our closest cousins are chimpanzees.

I'm sorry to burst this bubble, but Adam, Lilith & Eve are a work of fiction. Human beings were never created from dirt or ribs.

You have been lied to your entire life and I know that must be hard to deal with.

By the way.... No Santa Claus either.

(December 7, 2018 at 5:12 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(December 6, 2018 at 5:14 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: I like your thinking, so +1 in my book.

My answer to your question is that I couldn't rule out either, and I don't think I could be intellectually honest to myself if I did.

In absolute terms, you're right.
But one must be pragmatic at some point.
Otherwise, we end up getting stuck in a never-ending need to be intellectually honest and take each and every claim as if they could be true, including claims we typically assume are fictitious, like the Force, or magic, or superman, etc...

Just like we don't devote undue effort into looking for evidence of the Force nor magic, so too I think we should expend undue effort into the question of a divine creator entity.
Clearly, if there is such an entity, the information about it was conveyed to mankind in a pre-scientific era, and even pre-written-word era. If that was done, then it can and should be reproducible in a scientific era. The fact that such conveying of information has been eluding the scientific endeavor is a hint at the fictional nature of the original information regarding the divine.

(December 6, 2018 at 5:14 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:   Maybe there's some balance between the two ideas even if the solution is currently being overlooked.  That's why I believe it's important to continue to explore things, but with limited bias.  If you take an atheist and a theist, and they work together to both determine and rule out things, then we further our capacity to have better human relationships.

Some balance, yes... but I'm not sure a 50/50 split is the most adequate course of action.

(December 6, 2018 at 5:14 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:   To say one is greater, I would need to prescribe some type of value to both, but I don't think it's necessary.  If both exist, then there may be an agreement or relationship between the two that I would want to understand. 

Well, one can apply real-world hints and extrapolations into ascertaining that value... or one can go with intuition. Traditionally, people have gone with intuition and that has led to the growth of religions and the pervasiveness of religious belief, often to the culling of those who lack such belief.

(December 6, 2018 at 5:14 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: In which case I would not only want quantitative data, but qualitative data as well.  Same thing as going into a jungle and living in a tribe of monkeys.  I could go in there and learn things, and I wouldn't have to apply any numerical value for anything, but rather observe how they treat me and how my relationship to them changes.  Maybe they adopt me as one of their own.  Maybe there's some conflict I have with the alpha.  Maybe as time goes on those relationships change.  That alpha could hate me, but conforming to him some may lead to acceptance.  So in regard to the universe or a divine entity, hopefully I can respect both, and likewise both can respect me in their own capacity.

hmm... I see your point, but... empty space-time, as far as we can tell, has no intentionality. Things just happen in their Quantum randomness (which average out to our deterministic point of view).
Without intentionality, I don't think it can respect you at all. But the people who support such a view sure can respect you, whatever your view is.

I still like your thinking. I agree with basically everything you said. I think the issue though is with the 50/50 split.  It's hard to assign values to either, and with the assumption that some harmony may exist between the two, I think it would be even more difficult without further knowledge on the potential relationship.  But that's why I suggested a qualitative approach.  Just like that interaction I used as an example with the monkeys.  If I establish a relationship, then it should become easier to gain quantitative information later on, because I can more clearly define that relationship.  I like numbers as answers to problem, but sometimes they're not the best option, because even though they are necessary part of our lives, sometimes a 1 or 2 can't be descriptive or precise enough about human experience. If I say something was a "10" or that I was "blown away" by it, I would think in many cases the latter would better for explaining how I view an event or experience.

(December 7, 2018 at 2:35 am)CDF47 Wrote: No disputed by serious scientists.

Such as?

(December 7, 2018 at 2:35 am)CDF47 Wrote:   I did not evolve from a monkey. 

Strawman. Nobody is making that claim.

(December 7, 2018 at 2:35 am)CDF47 Wrote: I descended from the first man and woman.

No such thing. Want to claim there was? Provide evidence. You can't.

No fringe reset for you.

(December 7, 2018 at 7:05 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: I still like your thinking. I agree with basically everything you said.

(December 7, 2018 at 7:05 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: I think the issue though is with the 50/50 split.  It's hard to assign values to either, and with the assumption that some harmony may exist between the two, I think it would be even more difficult without further knowledge on the potential relationship.  But that's why I suggested a qualitative approach.  Just like that interaction I used as an example with the monkeys.  If I establish a relationship, then it should become easier to gain quantitative information later on, because I can more clearly define that relationship.  I like numbers as answers to problem, but sometimes they're not the best option, because even though they are necessary part of our lives, sometimes a 1 or 2 can't be descriptive or precise enough about human experience. If I say something was a "10" or that I was "blown away" by it, I would think in many cases the latter would better for explaining how I view an event or experience.

Human experience... many religious folk posit too much weight on this.
Human experience has many problems when one tries to ascertain how the world around us operates. It relies too much on our intuitions, which have come about through millennia of evolution at our scale. We are not equipped to deal with the quantum world, nor with the vastness of the Cosmos.
Certainly, it was a good starting point, but I think humanity now has the tools to confidently move beyond.

If you want to describe your feelings towards some event, "blown away" conveys the message quite well. But if you want to convey the event itself, so that others may appreciate it for themselves, then I think you need to be as quantitative as possible. For the quantitative scales (weight, luminosity, electrical charge, etc...) are the same for everyone, while "being blown away" isn't so.

A divine entity that is seemingly only a shared concept among believers isn't really something one can develop a relationship with, I think. Unless you're into one-way relationships. I'm sure many have gone that route for Indiana Jones or Wilma Flintstone, or even for real people like (and I'm about to show my age) Claudia Schiffer... but are those real relationships that can convey accurate information about the other entity?

(December 6, 2018 at 10:50 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(December 6, 2018 at 9:36 pm)Amarok Wrote: Then you are wrong

No, I am not.  I have been wrong before but I don't think I am in this case.  There is no common ancestry with man and monkey.

Yes you are . Yes you are . There most definitely is

(December 7, 2018 at 1:36 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 7, 2018 at 12:10 am)Rahn127 Wrote: Oh do most definitely believe that you believe it's disputed.
Kinda like how some people believe the earth is flat. Those people dispute the science as well.
You are the biological equivalent of a flat earther.

What are you talking about? Do you even know what science is?  Because what you're doing is exactly what we don't do in scientific study.  How do you equivocate what he said with "flat earther?"

Because evolution is established scientific knowledge.
It is the back bone of modern biology.

Disputing that is the equivalent of disputing the sphere like, three dimensional, gravity driven nature of the planet we live on.

Believing that we, as human beings, originated as a magical dirt Pinocchio created by a god is the equivalent of being a mother who has given birth to 10 children and still believes that a giant stork brings her baby to the hospital.