Pascal's Wager, Biblical Contradition

[nittygritty]

I suppose that would do. That is the only thing that we can verify happening. So far.

 

 

 

I'm not sure what this has to do with our current discussion.

 

 

 

Why doesn't it logically make sense to you? Conjoined twins do not necessarily have identical DNA, for one thing, and they cannot have identical experiences, by definition. Just becaue they are in the same place at the same time seeing the same thing it does not follow that they will interpret it identically.

 

 

 

No offense, but I really don't think that you really DO wonder about these things. There is a great deal of research going on right now that addresses all of these things you deem "illogical" and goes a long way to explain it, yet you have availed yourself of none of it. Do you want me to give you a basic neuroscience lesson, or do you want to discuss the matter at hand? There are many better, more educated men in neuroscience who can do a much better job than I, why don't you read their stuff?

 

I recall another poster using the above at me regarding the Civil War, to score cheap rhetorical points, as if I know nothing of the subject--when in fact, I would wager I am better versed in same than he is. In this instance, I can tell by your questions that you have not made yourself aware of this work, or what any of it actually means. And that's cool, you don't have to read anything that you don't want, but your questions have been answered in those books and papers, which are readily available to you.

 

If you would like, read one, start a thread with your thoughts about it, and we'll discuss it. Until then, either post a chronicle of the Gospels that is linear and omits nothing, or ask some questions that are germane to the topic.

 

 

 

There are. You should read about it and learn what they are.

 

 

Sorry my posts perturbed you.

 

The topic of schizophrenia came up when you posed the question of how would one twin have it and not the other but I agree it was off topic.

 

I don't know which chronicles of Gospels your searching for but I found this for you on National Geographic:

 

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/timeline.html

 

Just click on their map to look at some time lines and documents.

 

Not everything that was written during biblical times was included nor has probably been found. Obviously, Judas's Gospel was ommitted.

[Moai]

Sorry my posts perturbed you.

 

They didn't, but I am by no means an expert on neuroscience or mental illness. I was merely suggesting that if you are genuinely interested, you should consult the library instead of asking me about it. In many cases (perhaps not yours) people ask questions on these threads that are easily answered elsewhere, but they don't bother to look them up.

 

I'm sorry if I came off as upset, as I am not at all.

 

The topic of schizophrenia came up when you posed the question of how would one twin have it and not the other but I agree it was off topic.

Yes, it did, but in passing. I appreciate your understanding as far as the topic at hand.

 

I don't know which chronicles of Gospels your searching for but I found this for you on National Geographic:

 

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/timeline.html

 

Just click on their map to look at some time lines and documents.

It isn't the timeline. The challenge is this: Write out a linear story regarding the stories in the Gospels that doesn't omit any event, and agrees in the length of time that Jesus was entombed. If the Bible is not contradictory, this should be simple, no?

 

Not everything that was written during biblical times was included nor has probably been found. Obviously, Judas's Gospel was ommitted.

True. Men, who are fallible, decided what was in the "Bible" and what wasn't. That is a fact that makes Biblical Literalism so silly.

[Moai]

It is, because it's in everything and everybody.

 

Uh....ok.

 

Creation and the Creator are without beginning and without end.

 

Impossible by definition. By implying "creation" you imply a time where what is wasn't.

 

You haven't experienced death in this lifetime, so how do you know what happens at that moment?

 

I can't know for certain (neither can anyone else) but I can make an educated guess. I find it funny that nobody else has any idea either, but they are certain there is a Heaven or a Hell, or reincarnation, or whatever. What is even worse is that people make decisions HERE based on what they think will happen after death.

 

Watch "goodbye" videos of Muslim suicide bombers. Read Pat RObertson's "warning" the the people of Dover, Pennsylvania after ID was thrown out of their schools. It is nonsensical, and it is time that thinking people stand up and say so.

 

We have been existing forever, time is as relative as the material world. In fact, there is no time without matter. The time is always "now".

 

No, we haven't. We appeared about 200,000 years ago.

[nittygritty]

True. Men, who are fallible, decided what was in the "Bible" and what wasn't. That is a fact that makes Biblical Literalism so silly.

 

I actually agree with you about that. Total Biblical Literalism does not make sense to me considering the authors were using other dialects and the terminology of their day to describe what they were experiencing and also what was to take place in the future. For instance, John's letter to the churches in the book of Revelations. He only had the knowledge of his time to describe what was being revealed to him.

 

It does not discount my belief in what the bible says or make me think that the events did not take place, I strongly believe they did. Nor do I believe that it is essential to my salvation to have a literal understanding of every detail that is written in the bible. However, I do believe there are essential beliefs necessary for salvation one of them being belief, faith and love for God but I won't go off topic about that in your thread anymore.

[VIP]

Impossible by definition. By implying "creation" you imply a time where what is wasn't.

 

Yes, there was a time where what is material wasn't material.

 

I can't know for certain (neither can anyone else) but I can make an educated guess. I find it funny that nobody else has any idea either, but they are certain there is a Heaven or a Hell, or reincarnation, or whatever. What is even worse is that people make decisions HERE based on what they think will happen after death.

 

I cannot know for certain either, there's a lot of things we don't know for certain, we assume that it might be true based on the evidence and on our own experience. You feel that you are only a body, so that's your reality, or rather it's what you accepted as a reality. But that doesn't mean that this is the only reality.

 

No, we haven't. We appeared about 200,000 years ago.

 

Appeared from where?

[Moai]

Yes, there was a time where what is material wasn't material.

 

Then what was it? How do you know?

 

I cannot know for certain either, there's a lot of things we don't know for certain, we assume that it might be true based on the evidence and on our own experience. You feel that you are only a body, so that's your reality, or rather it's what you accepted as a reality. But that doesn't mean that this is the only reality.

 

It is the only demonstrable reality. Therefore, it is the only reality worth anything. Also, because the idea that we are just a body extrapolates to so many other things that work in "reality" i can be reasonably certain that the reality I experience is the atual one.

 

Appeared from where?

 

Earlier hominids.

[VIP]

Then what was it? How do you know?

 

Pure consciousness. I feel that this is so, and I am not the only one.

 

It is the only demonstrable reality. Therefore, it is the only reality worth anything. Also, because the idea that we are just a body extrapolates to so many other things that work in "reality" i can be reasonably certain that the reality I experience is the atual one.

 

There is also a reality that is not demonstrable. The only person who can see it is you, and it takes some effort. Because all that you are used to seeing is the outside world.

 

Earlier hominids.

 

The “missing link” that allegedly proves that humans and apes have evolved from the same animal has not been found.

[Moai]

Pure consciousness. I feel that this is so, and I am not the only one.

 

The number of people who believe in something is not indicative of its truth. Look up what an argument ad populum is.

 

There is also a reality that is not demonstrable. The only person who can see it is you, and it takes some effort. Because all that you are used to seeing is the outside world.

 

No, there isn't. How can you experience anything that is not demonstrable. Certainly one can experience an hallucination, but that doesn't mean the hallucination is real. Or worthwhile.

 

The “missing link” that allegedly proves that humans and apes have evolved from the same animal has not been found.

 

There is no such thing as a "missing link". The fossil record is not complete because fossiliation is a rare occurence, but we have MORE, not FEWER transitionals than we would expect. Moreover, DNA evidence shows that we share a common ancestor with apes. Actually, we ARE apes.

 

This is a fact. Look it up.

[JamesM]

Moreover, DNA evidence shows that we share a common ancestor with apes. Actually, we ARE apes.

 

This is a fact. Look it up.

 

I did take the time to look at some scientific sites for this. I wanted to see this "fact." And yes, according to evolutionary theory, we share a common ancestor, but let's not make the jump to "we are apes." At the common ancestor, man and ape diverged.

 

As a comparison, let us look at the carnivora family. This diverged into a number of groups including miacids. This common ancestor gave rise to all dogs, bears, seals, cats, hyenas, weasels, and civets. Now, would it be proper and correct to say that a dog is a cat? No, they may have a common ancestor, but they are not the same.

 

How can you experience anything that is not demonstrable. Certainly one can experience an hallucination, but that doesn't mean the hallucination is real. Or worthwhile.

 

Love is experienced but not always demonstrated. Yet one can have love in his or her heart. And this cannot be explained properly to someone who does not understand what love is.

 

The number of people who believe in something is not indicative of its truth. Look up what an argument ad populum is.

 

And that we agree with....100%

[VIP]

The number of people who believe in something is not indicative of its truth. Look up what an argument ad populum is.

 

I don't care how many people believe in something, it's enough that I know something is true. However if people I trust and respect had similar experiences, that proves to me, that this is not something that only I am able to experience.

 

No, there isn't. How can you experience anything that is not demonstrable.

 

That just means that you haven't experienced anything, that isn't demonstrable. And it's quite possible that you are not able to. That doesn't mean that it's impossible.

 

 

There is no such thing as a "missing link". The fossil record is not complete because fossiliation is a rare occurence, but we have MORE, not FEWER transitionals than we would expect. Moreover, DNA evidence shows that we share a common ancestor with apes. Actually, we ARE apes.

 

This is a fact. Look it up.

 

DNA is not 100% identical. That means we have always been different.

[Moai]

I did take the time to look at some scientific sites for this. I wanted to see this "fact." And yes, according to evolutionary theory, we share a common ancestor, but let's not make the jump to "we are apes." At the common ancestor, man and ape diverged.

 

Perhaps you should have read further:

 

"Apes and humans differ from all of the other primates in that they lack. They also are more intelligent and more dependent for survival on learned behavior patterns. The apes and humans are members of the same superfamily, the Hominoidea. Until the last few years, humans were separated into their own family within this superfamily because it was believed that we are significantly different from the apes. However, recent genetic studies and discoveries from the fossil record have made it clear that some of the apes are more similar to humans than previously believed. Subsequently, the living hominoids are now commonly classified into only two families with humans grouped with the great apes "

 

These taxonomic classifications are a human construct, of course, but the fact remains that we are apes.

 

Read more here: http://anthro.palomar.edu/primate/prim_7.htm

 

As a comparison, let us look at the carnivora family. This diverged into a number of groups including miacids. This common ancestor gave rise to all dogs, bears, seals, cats, hyenas, weasels, and civets. Now, would it be proper and correct to say that a dog is a cat? No, they may have a common ancestor, but they are not the same.

 

Incorrect analogy. Dogs and cats are not in the same genus. I have no doubt that they (and we) share a common ancestor.

 

If your position was correct, tigers would not be cats, lions would not be cats, and jaguars would not be cats.

 

Love is experienced but not always demonstrated. Yet one can have love in his or her heart. And this cannot be explained properly to someone who does not understand what love is.

 

Experiencially no, but abstractly yes. I can never kow what if your experience of love is the same as mine, the same way I can never know if you see the color red the way I do. But the fact still remains that there is a such a thing as the color red.

 

And that we agree with....100%

[Moai]

I don't care how many people believe in something, it's enough that I know something is true. However if people I trust and respect had similar experiences, that proves to me, that this is not something that only I am able to experience.

 

How do you know? And in point of fact, it may not be the experience but the interpretation of it that you agree on.

 

That just means that you haven't experienced anything, that isn't demonstrable. And it's quite possible that you are not able to. That doesn't mean that it's impossible.

 

I have experienced a great many things, I just don't believein magic.

 

DNA is not 100% identical. That means we have always been different.

 

No, that is not what that means. But far be it from to to educate you, you aready know what is true. Funny how that attitude doesn't work at all in reality except in church....

[JamesM]

Perhaps you should have read further:

 

"Apes and humans differ from all of the other primates in that they lack. They also are more intelligent and more dependent for survival on learned behavior patterns. The apes and humans are members of the same superfamily, the Hominoidea. Until the last few years, humans were separated into their own family within this superfamily because it was believed that we are significantly different from the apes. However, recent genetic studies and discoveries from the fossil record have made it clear that some of the apes are more similar to humans than previously believed. Subsequently, the living hominoids are now commonly classified into only two families with humans grouped with the great apes "

 

These taxonomic classifications are a human construct, of course, but the fact remains that we are apes.

 

I did read many more besides this one, and you had me looking. What I found is semantics....but words have meaning. Read the black/bold portion from your quote, and this is how I found it stated on many websites. Men are classified WITH great apes. Apes are our closest living cousins. But this not the same as men ARE apes. And I did not find that men and apes evolved from apes. According to evolution, they evolved from the same ancestor, but about 7 million years ago, they split. To use a more correct analogy, tigers and lions are cats, but a tiger is not a lion. So, here we have that the great apes are in the same family hominids, but men are not apes and apes are not men. The closest I could come to this is the recent movement in Australia to make chimpanzees a part of the human family. You could say that humans are hominids, and some apes are hominids.

[Moai]

I did read many more besides this one, and you had me looking. What I found is semantics....but words have meaning. Read the black/bold portion from your quote, and this is how I found it stated on many websites. Men are classified WITH great apes. Apes are our closest living cousins. But this not the same as men ARE apes. And I did not find that men and apes evolved from apes. According to evolution, they evolved from the same ancestor, but about 7 million years ago, they split. To use a more correct analogy, tigers and lions are cats, but a tiger is not a lion. So, here we have that the great apes are in the same family hominids, but men are not apes and apes are not men. The closest I could come to this is the recent movement in Australia to make chimpanzees a part of the human family. You could say that humans are hominids, and some apes are hominids.

 

What is it about being an ape--or an animal for that matter--that bothers you so much?

 

We are classified WITH the great apes because we ARE a great ape. See? Lions and tigers are classified as CATS because they are CATS. Gorillas, orangutans, chimpanzees, bonobos and humans are APES. See?

 

And as I mentioned before, these classifications are a human construct we use to group similar animals together. They have no meaning beyond that. They allow us to discuss them and study them in such a way that we all know what we are talking about, but Nature doesn't care how we classify them.

 

We share a common ancestor with other great apes, meaning if you go back far enough we are related, and that we evolved from the same organism, but we are not the same organism now. This is true for all life on Earth.

[JamesM]

What is it about being an ape--or an animal for that matter--that bothers you so much?

 

 

I work so hard at appearing civilized. Of course my wife may agree with you.