Was life on Earth created by an evil designer?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by pluto2, Jul 16, 2016.

  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    A few different theories of what the "truth" means have been touched on above. Theories include:

    1. Coherence theory
    Statements or judgments are only true if they cohere with other accepted truths.

    Logical deduction feeds into this idea. Note that facts are largely irrelevant to this theory, so a statement like "All men are tidal waves" can generate a coherent set of "truths".

    2. Correspondence theory
    Statements or judgments are true if they correspond to the facts of experience.

    Under this view, truth must connect with the "real world". So, a statement like "All men are mortal" is true in a way that "All men are tidal waves" is not.

    3. Pragmatic theory
    Under this point of view, "truth" is whatever works effectively for each individual in his/her life.

    Under this view, different people can have different "truths". Whatever floats their boat is true, so to speak.

    So, if it is useful to you to think of all men as tidal waves, then that's just fine for you.

    4. Performative theory
    This theory holds that when somebody says "That's true", they are not saying anything about the facts or the world at all, but they are merely saying something similar to "I endorse/agree with that position."

    Under this view, saying "All men are tidal waves" is not to make any statement apart from "I think/agree that all men are tidal waves."
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    An apple is what it is, regardless of what name we give it. Right?
    Or do you believe it actually changes depending on what we call it?

    Your talking nonsense. Let me help you out here.
    The object we call 'apple', remains what it is, despite what we call it. Hope that helps.

    Don't believe you. I thinks it cuts like a knife (to quote a line from a Michael Jackson song).

    What is the significance?

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    We're not talking about what it "is"; we're talking about what it is called.
    What it "is" is a philosophical question outside the scope of this thread.

    Though even at that, we still have no access to anything about it outside our bubble. There is no reason to suppose things we've defiend as "apples" (or anything at all) exists outside our bubble.

    And what, exactly do you mean by "is"? It's an intractible question.
    Well, not intractible, but subjective. There is no objective "what is an apple" without someone there to ponder the question and choose an answer.

    Example: We declare that a seed is not an apple; we declare that a sprout is not an apple. We declare that a grown collection of flesh from this tree is an apple. But the atoms don't "know" that - the universe doesn't "know" that. The only thing that distinguishes an apple from a seed is an observer (a human looking on or an animal eating) that examines its properties and categorizes them by some arbitrary set of criteria.

    This discussion is not new. A rock has no objective identity. It is merely atoms, doing collectively what atoms do. The only thing that distinguishes the atoms of a "rock" from the atoms of the "ground" is a human label and a human categorization.

    You mean you think it bothers me?
    I think you'd like it to bother me.

    I have never tried to argue any more with you than to get you to acknowledge that your beliefs are faith. That doesn't make them wrong, it doesn't even mean I think they are wrong.

    It is poorly-formed logic I rise to, not actual beliefs.

    You suggested something I wrote might have been a Freudian slip, despite the very apparent fact that - not only did I deliberately write it - I took pains to draw particular attention to it by adding quotes.
    That's kind of the exact opposite of a Freudian slip.

    It's no biggie. You were looking make what you thought was quick point in a debate; it didn't pan out.
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2016
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    I don't mind that you think it's all made up. I just don't think your being honest, because you cannot explain why it is the case.

  8. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member


    you said...

    'Yes, and you also acknowledged that your knowledge of such things has a limit.'

    ...I asked if it is true that I acknowledged the limitation had a limit.
    Can you answer that? Or at least explain why you are refusing to?

    One of the three laws of logic, The Law of Identity holds that everything 'IS' itself, and not something else. This includes apples as well as human beings.

    Now. Do you believe that logic can change?
    Do you believe that it is possible for logic to be, incorrect, or, what it is not?

  9. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    I know that the proposition that I presented placed my position beyond reasonable doubt and to now have you say that you think I am being dishonest suggests to me that you will say anything to avoid facing the facts presented and simply recognising the flaws and mistakes on the first page of the bible.

    If there is anyone indulging in dishonesty it is clearly not me.

    To claim that I have not explained my reasons is no more than an attempt on your part to ignore what has been presented.

    All you need do is open your bible and on the first page you can read the errors in cosmology that arose from the author simply making things up and if you are unable to determine that fact I suggest you are ill equipped to offer any further comment upon anything at all.

    I dont need to go back to the maggot myth, which certainly helps set the stage, or offer countless examples of made up superstitious explainations of everyday matters I only need to point you to the first page of the bible and let you see the evidence you seek.

    Of course I assume you do have a bible but I now suspect you have yet to read it.

    Jan after you read the first page please come back and tell me that you have and that you accept that you have found my explanation as to why I say it is made up to be valid or comeback and somehow explain how the author made any of the observations set out therein.

    The scriptures are made up Jan, the same way the maggot myth was made up and made up by ancient folk who had to invent explainations because they had nothing other than their imagination, which although inventive sadly caused them to develop the scriptures with no reliance on fact.

    Now Jan I dont expect you to accept any of what I say as valid because for no other reason than you dont want to, and frankly that places you in a worse position than the ancients as they did not have the opportunity of education such that they knew why maggots appeared.

    You can see how the scriptures are made up if you only look.

    You dont have to rely on made up ancient stories yet you do.

    I was going to stop but I did not like your suggestion that I was being dishonest and regard same as very poor tactics Jan and I doubt if you think I am dishonest. So you casually call me dishonest as a mere ploy. What would Jesus say about such a low blow?

  10. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    I don'tt hunk the Bible deals with cosmology which is why I posted the definition.
    It's not that I haven't read the Bible.
    I would like you to at least give some reference to the made up cosmology. Just off the top of your head if you don't have a Bible.

    I beg to differ based on you responses so far.

    Believe me when I say, that does not count as a presentation. The only fitting response to that is. There are no errors regarding "cosmology" , made up or otherwise, on the first page of the Bible.

    Firstly there was no "maggot myth", at least by those who honestly explained what they actually observed.

    Secondly, if you know the scriptures are made, and someone asks why (in a discussion forum), then you should least offer some explanation that claim so others (me) can respond.

    Not all the ancients believed that maggots spontaneously generated from meat.
    Some knew that life on comes from life.

    What a marvelous, air tight presentation.

  11. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    I do.
    However we can use another word to describe what the bible describes as the start if you like but we still run into the problem that the author got it wrong indicating, to me at the very least an impartial reader seeking the truth, that it was made up...
    I heard when listening to someone saying grace the other day.. We give thanks for our lord putting the land on the water, which is wrong it really happened the other way around, and I think similar is written on the first page... Not sure but that is clearly made up.
    I am reluctant to do that Jan for if I did I could be accused of making things up.
    Look if you read yours and find no in consistencies in your mind I doubt me pointing specific instances out will change your view when I say it was made up.
    You dont have to beg that suggests you have nothing and must rely on pity and charity to have your proposition accepted.
    I dont think claiming I am dishonest is reasonable, I can not see how you could claim such when my heart is pure and I believe in all that I present... It would be different if I believed one thing and said something else.
    I am not interested in the finer points as to how to make a presentation, I am a simple man who can only employ simple method and my apparent lack of ability in no way takes away from the observations a reasonable man must make when reading the bible that the author was not and could not have witnessed the matters of which he gives written account and it is therefore entirely clear that the author is guilty of making stuff up.
    Poor presentation, bad spelling, bad grammar or stupidity will not change the truth of my observation that the account, which I like to call cosmology was made up.
    It was made up.
    Now if you wish to take a fall back that the authors hand was guided by God we then need to ask how God got it wrong or content ourselves that the author somehow, well back to square one, made it up.
    Dont you think you should read it first?
    I cant take it further until I can quote the parts of the Bible that I can show are made up or until you read it for yourself and come to the inescapable conclusion that it was made up or state how in the absence of witnessing the events written about the authore did not make it up.
    I am all for discussion Jan I am however not skilled at beating around the bush and can only point directly at the point I make.
    I could suggest that you are making that up simply because you were not there and if you are not there any claim about the events of history can only be made up.
    You make the same mistake as the bibles author (the first page et) who was not present when the things he wrote about happened and so he made stuff up.
    Maybe you made up the maggot myth as well... How do we know and when we dont why do we make stuff up.
    I suspect you are being unkind.
    But you may be correct in pointing out my presentation is lacking.
    It is perhaps unfortunate that my skill could see my point not proven but I am not seeking to prove my point as much as having folk reading my words to take up their bible and read the first page and simply ask themselves if the author was present at the events he writes about and if not did he make up his account or not.
    I think folk generally can tell when someone is making stuff up and I am happy to let each person who takes the time to read the bible draw their own conclusion.
    And once past thefirst page co tinue to read the bible so that they can ask of what they read the simple question as to whether or not what they read is made up or not.
    The bible once was written in a language the ordinary folk could not read so they had to accept the word of those who interpreted it for them, and happily now anyonecan read it if they choose.
    Many believers dont read the bible and yet are happy to say it is authority for their belief which is so very very sad. To say you support what is in a book without reading that book must tell you something about the person... well it does unfortunately.

  12. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    I'll have to take your word for it.

    It also means to ask someone earnestly or humbly for something.

    Okay I retract it. Maybe I'm mistaken about your honesty. But I still don't think it“s right that you make these claims/comments, in discussion forum, and give no explanation at all.

    So want to take it in another direction now?

    I've read the Bible, so you don't need to keep bringing that up (for future reference).

  13. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Thank you Jan.

    Well I think I have provided a most reasonable explaination.

    Let me go over it again and I will try to keep it very simple in line with who I am.. a simple man trying to make an honest presentation.

    I claim that the author of at least page one of the bible made up his story.

    My reasoning turns upon my observation that the author was not a witness to the events he writes about.

    As he did not witness the events it is reasonable to say that he made up his account of the events.

    Now Jan if you wish to say I offer no explaination thats ok because each time you do I get to say.. Its all made up.. And I did read someplace that if you expect someone to accept a proposition foreign to their usual thinking you must repeat it no less than six times... I am happy to do that because I think I have inserted the thin edge of the wedge and I welcome opportunity to hammer away to drive deep my point... which is its all made up.

    You point out this is a discussion forum and I admit I probably don't really follow the mood expected, thru ignorance and lack of experience in that kind of arguement, but I suggest that if you think my observation that its all made up is not valid you could offer some reason why my interpretation that its all made up is possibly flawed and show reasons why its not all made up.

    Then the readers could decide if its all made up or not.

    You see if I have learnt one thing from watching religious folk opperate it is that if you say something over and over it finally gains a degree of credibility , and that applies where nonsence is repeated and so when I offer something that anyone will see to be reasonable and clearly an honest assessment that honest assessment can only benefit from it being repeated.

    I should but I feel that I need to repeat.. Its all made up.. and let that sink in before I deal with any delussions that these made up accounts came via a divine influence.

    To do so raises so many questions which frankly errode the whole notion of a God that is anything other than something that is just made up.

    Jan I am happy to hear that you have read the bible but I do find it curious that you cant lay your hands on your bible so we could address even the first few lines to see if my claim that the author was clearly not present at the events he writes about and can therefore be said to have made stuff up.

    I am 800 klms away from my bible but I will make a point of having it handy so in time I can work through it line by line to establish the parts that are made up.

    And I see a huge positive here in that maybe I can influence others to read their bible.
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2016

Share This Page