Pre-Adamites?

[thesometimesaint]

"The bones, tell me, nothing." (forgive the irresistible quote)

Quite literally, though, "bones", any evidence from the ground as it were, tell us very limited things. All that any of us can derive from "evidence from the ground" is that most of the Earth is layered out of our purview, containing stuff that defies categorization and even description. What we have seen, thus far, is not even a measurable percentage point of what there is, and what there Is off-world is just that much more yet to discover. Anyone who believes that they are finally onto something, finally "getting it" (at the truth) is in a state of massive hubris....

While what we do know barely scratches the surface of what there is to know. What we do know we do know.

[Questing Beast]

It's great stuff- the key though is what he means by "reality". It could be a game changer for you!

"So I say, let’s get rid of the word “reality.” Let’s have our whole discussion

without the word “reality.” It gets in the

way. It conjures up things that are rarely helpful. The word “reproducible” is a

more useful word than “real.”"

Okay, "what is reproducible"? But only in this world, the "world of humans". My 'satiable imagination can come up with endless potential worlds where humans are not considered; not in detail, of course, but the stuff of scifi, of fantasy. Anyone can do this. Suppose that what I have asserted is true: there literally is nothing we can imagine that isn't already part of "God". "God" being the only "reality" (and surely NOT "reproducible"!), gifts each of us with 'satiable imagination, sort of like a permanent cracked/incomplete/finite window into the "mind of God", for our amusement, amazement and benefit (it all leads to the Joy of Existence). Nevertheless, 'satiable imagination only leads to endless pondering on the limitless possibilities: this man, Susskind, and his kind (grin), are barking up an infinite forest of "wrong trees". "Wrong", in the sense that they are not "human" trees at all, but only fractured images gifted to us by the Infinite Mind Of God, "our kind of thinking", which, for all we have known up to this point, is unique in the world of humans. Science can reproduce effects and call them with a measure of confidence "facts" or "natural laws", etc. And we, by faith, can depend on those "laws" continuing for our benefit, forever, because "God" placed us as humans in the "world of humans", and "God" relates to us as a human being of infinite glory....

Edited June 25, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Ahab]

Now there is PRECISELY the problem and it is not with you or your fault.

If you have not taken at least upper division philosophy classes in a secular university (and how many have?) you are probably unaware of this issue.

The issue is that because science has limited itself to what is observable and verifiable to everyone, it has distorted our perception of what is "real".

What is needed is a different paradigm which includes ALL of human experience as legitimate areas of inquiry and a theory of truth which can accommodate different methods of justifying propositions based on your personal experiences.

You speak of a world BEYOND the five senses but yet it is a world you have experienced due to personal revelation. It is as "real" a world as any- but for some reason you limit your reality to only what others can verify for you scientifically.

Why not postulate that you have 6 senses- or 87 if you wish- ALL OF WHICH are "legitimate" ways of comprehending God's universe? Some of those are scientifically verifiable and others are not, yet all are "real" because all are part of human experience?

Why say that there "is a world beyond the 5 senses" when in fact the "world" is unified - not dual- into one place we can experience with ALL OF OUR SENSES including spiritual senses? (as many as you like if you want to number them!)

This is why "metaphysics is dead" because philosophers now largely agree that SUBJECTIVE experience of the world "counts" at least as much as objective experience- if not more (which is what I would argue)

All of what is called "Continental philosophy", including Existentialism and Phenomenology belong in this category as well as in Anglo-American philosophy what is know as "Pragmatism" and "Constructivism" and "Anti-realism" take this basic assumption.

So your world "beyond the senses" is just as "real" it is now just part of reality and is no longer considered "beyond the senses". Subjective experiences are just as "real" as those which are verifiable scientifically, so there is no longer a reason to postulate that such areas of inquiry are "beyond the senses".

If you want to say that the "senses" have been re-defined to include all of human experience-including spiritual- go ahead and think of it that way

So "metaphysics" is dead. All of human experience is now a legitimate area of inquiry. There is nothing "beyond" human experience to talk about- literally. The fact that we can talk about it means it is part of human experience.

On the other hand if you don't or can't experience it, it is regarded typically as a linguistic construct. So God can be seen as "real" because he can be experienced.

This explanation of course is highly simplified - I know that someone will take me to task for it on the other board, but I really don't care.

That's about the best thing I've ever heard you say and you did it all with words and facts and interpretations.

[Ahab]

"So I say, let’s get rid of the word “reality.” Let’s have our whole discussion

without the word “reality.” It gets in the

way. It conjures up things that are rarely helpful. The word “reproducible” is a

more useful word than “real.”"

Okay, "what is reproducible"? But only in this world, the "world of humans". My 'satiable imagination can come up with endless potential worlds where humans are not considered; not in detail, of course, but the stuff of scifi, of fantasy. Anyone can do this. Suppose that what I have asserted is true: there literally is nothing we can imagine that isn't already part of "God". "God" being the only "reality" (and surely NOT "reproducible"!), gifts each of us with 'satiable imagination, sort of like a permanent cracked/incomplete/finite window into the "mind of God", for our amusement, amazement and benefit (it all leads to the Joy of Existence). Nevertheless, 'satiable imagination only leads to endless pondering on the limitless possibilities: this man, Susskind, and his kind (grin), are barking up an infinite forest of "wrong trees". "Wrong", in the sense that they are not "human" trees at all, but only fractured images gifted to us by the Infinite Mind Of God, "our kind of thinking", which, for all we have known up to this point, is unique in the world of humans. Science can reproduce effects and call them with a measure of confidence "facts" or "natural laws", etc. And we, by faith, can depend on those "laws" continuing for our benefit, forever, because "God" placed us as humans in the "world of humans", and "God" relates to us as a human being of infinite glory....

Okay. So what's your point?

[mfbukowski]

"So I say, let’s get rid of the word “reality.” Let’s have our whole discussion

without the word “reality.” It gets in the

way. It conjures up things that are rarely helpful. The word “reproducible” is a

more useful word than “real.”"

Okay, "what is reproducible"? But only in this world, the "world of humans". My 'satiable imagination can come up with endless potential worlds where humans are not considered; not in detail, of course, but the stuff of scifi, of fantasy. Anyone can do this. Suppose that what I have asserted is true: there literally is nothing we can imagine that isn't already part of "God". "God" being the only "reality" (and surely NOT "reproducible"!), gifts each of us with 'satiable imagination, sort of like a permanent cracked/incomplete/finite window into the "mind of God", for our amusement, amazement and benefit (it all leads to the Joy of Existence). Nevertheless, 'satiable imagination only leads to endless pondering on the limitless possibilities: this man, Susskind, and his kind (grin), are barking up an infinite forest of "wrong trees". "Wrong", in the sense that they are not "human" trees at all, but only fractured images gifted to us by the Infinite Mind Of God, "our kind of thinking", which, for all we have known up to this point, is unique in the world of humans. Science can reproduce effects and call them with a measure of confidence "facts" or "natural laws", etc. And we, by faith, can depend on those "laws" continuing for our benefit, forever, because "God" placed us as humans in the "world of humans", and "God" relates to us as a human being of infinite glory....

You are breaking records for catching on to this.

But what you are NOT accounting for is the Mormon view that God is an infinitely glorified HUMAN BEING- so all that is in the mind of God is part of what he AS A HUMAN can teach us about being little human embryos ourselves.

This is the key genius of Mormonism. If we postulate that all the greatness of God is a potential state for humans, then there IS no "ineffable realm" beyond what humans can know/be.

There is only one world we can know- that of humans, AND THAT INCLUDES GOD AND WHAT HE CAN TEACH US.

[Tacenda]

I use to laugh when people would say Aliens created the world. I'm starting to wonder if it's true. They are intelligent beings aren't they?

[mfbukowski]

That's about the best thing I've ever heard you say and you did it all with words and facts and interpretations.

Holy cow!

A compliment from Ahab? I must be doing something right!

[Ahab]

Holy cow!

A compliment from Ahab? I must be doing something right!

You do a lot of things that are right. The problem is when you mix in some things that are wrong when you do some things that are right, like when you say there are NO facts and only interpretations, or how you downplay the importance of words.

There actually are facts, and words can be very useful for knowing and sharing the truth.

[Ahab]

I use to laugh when people would say Aliens created the world. I'm starting to wonder if it's true. They are intelligent beings aren't they?

"They" as in aliens, in general? All are, but not all are the same degree of intelligence.

An alien chicken isn't as intelligent as an alien dolphin, for example.

[mfbukowski]

You do a lot of things that are right. The problem is when you mix in some things that are wrong when you do some things that are right, like when you say there are NO facts and only interpretations, or how you downplay the importance of words.

There actually are facts, and words can be very useful for knowing and sharing the truth.

Sigh.

I knew it could not last.

[Ahab]

Sigh.

I knew it could not last.

You still did some good. Bask in the glory of that for as long as you want.

[thesometimesaint]

I use to laugh when people would say Aliens created the world. I'm starting to wonder if it's true. They are intelligent beings aren't they?

I don't know if they are intelligent or not. I have hard enough time finding intelligent life on this planet.

[Stone holm]

I use to laugh when people would say Aliens created the world. I'm starting to wonder if it's true. They are intelligent beings aren't they?

Well if Aliens didn't who did?

[ERayR]

I use to laugh when people would say Aliens created the world. I'm starting to wonder if it's true. They are intelligent beings aren't they?

I would like to see evolutionists explain the anomalies the ancient alien crowd brings to the fore.

[Questing Beast]

You are breaking records for catching on to this.

But what you are NOT accounting for is the Mormon view that God is an infinitely glorified HUMAN BEING- so all that is in the mind of God is part of what he AS A HUMAN can teach us about being little human embryos ourselves.

This is the key genius of Mormonism. If we postulate that all the greatness of God is a potential state for humans, then there IS no "ineffable realm" beyond what humans can know/be.

There is only one world we can know- that of humans, AND THAT INCLUDES GOD AND WHAT HE CAN TEACH US.

Actually I accounted for GtF = glorified man many years ago. That is the core problem I have had conceiving of "God". GtF must be more than a once-mortal man, or the most advanced "evolving" god there is in this universe. "God" must be the Necessary Cause, or Existence In The First Place. As we are all manifestations of the mind of "God", given finite character traits and personalities, strengths and weaknesses, and no two of us exactly alike, it follows that GtF is also a manifestation. In order to have faith in GtF, he must possess the whole mind of Infinity, the only One that does so in all the world/universe of humans....

[mfbukowski]

Actually I accounted for GtF = glorified man many years ago. That is the core problem I have had conceiving of "God". GtF must be more than a once-mortal man, or the most advanced "evolving" god there is in this universe. "God" must be the Necessary Cause, or Existence In The First Place. As we are all manifestations of the mind of "God", given finite character traits and personalities, strengths and weaknesses, and no two of us exactly alike, it follows that GtF is also a manifestation. In order to have faith in GtF, he must possess the whole mind of Infinity, the only One that does so in all the world/universe of humans....

But in the new paradigm, there is no such thing as a "Necessary Cause"- that is part of the old metaphysics which is dead.

One cannot experience a linguistic construction such as a "necessary cause"- it is what is known as a category error.

Instead of taking the notion of causation for granted, Hume challenges us to consider what experience allows us to know about cause and effect. Hume shows that experience does not tell us much. Of two events, A and B, we say that A causes B when the two always occur together, that is, are constantly conjoined. Whenever we find A, we also find B, and we have a certainty that this conjunction will continue to happen. Once we realize that “A must bring about B” is tantamount merely to “Due to their constant conjunction, we are psychologically certain that B will follow A”, then we are left with a very weak notion of necessity. This tenuous grasp on causal efficacy helps give rise to the Problem of Induction–that we are not reasonably justified in making any inductive inference about the world.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/

So causation is something we infer- cause is not logically connected to effect, nor is it an experience itself.

So we have to pick- do we want to keep our experiences of God as "real" or do we want to keep a metaphysics which is beyond our experience as "real"? You can't have both. If God is beyond our ability to experience him, he is ineffable and aloof and not a loving Father- he cannot communicate with us because he is beyond our experience.

If we can experience him. he must be able to be experienced, and therefore is not in some realm beyond what we experience.

You can't experience a "necessary cause"- I have no idea what that feels like, and neither does anyone else who has experienced God. It is some abstract construction beyond human experience.

[mfbukowski]

Actually I accounted for GtF = glorified man many years ago.

Yes, in your old metaphysics.

But the world has moved on. You can stay if you want, but at least understand what castles in the air are needed to be constructed with the the new information.

[thesometimesaint]

I would like to see evolutionists explain the anomalies the ancient alien crowd brings to the fore.

Anomalies are just that an http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anomaly

[Questing Beast]

But in the new paradigm, there is no such thing as a "Necessary Cause"- that is part of the old metaphysics which is dead.

One cannot experience a linguistic construction such as a "necessary cause"- it is what is known as a category error.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/

So causation is something we infer- cause is not logically connected to effect, nor is it an experience itself.

So we have to pick- do we want to keep our experiences of God as "real" or do we want to keep a metaphysics which is beyond our experience as "real"? You can't have both. If God is beyond our ability to experience him, he is ineffable and aloof and not a loving Father- he cannot communicate with us because he is beyond our experience.

If we can experience him. he must be able to be experienced, and therefore is not in some realm beyond what we experience.

You can't experience a "necessary cause"- I have no idea what that feels like, and neither does anyone else who has experienced God. It is some abstract construction beyond human experience.

I disagree that they are mutually exclusive. Both concepts overlap. That is because "God" Is IN the world of humans as well as transcending it Infinitely. "God" Is in me, and every other living thing. But "God" Is also removed in a very real way, because otherwise I would possess no free will. That "God In Total" is incomprehensible does not make "God" dispassionate or "aloof". The argument fails on its own logic: to assert that the lack of comprehension in the smaller intellect proves the "aloofness" of the parent mind. Nothing is easier to demonstrate, and our own experiences with children must mirror "God's" relationship to we finite creatures. A very small child, an infant, is no less human than the adults responsible for its care. The infant mind cannot determine "aloofness" in the parent mind, but might assert the concept to be reality vis-a-vis the parent mind. Yet nothing is further from the truth.

A concept where "God" Is incomprehensible as Infinity does not lead to "God is aloof", it leads to "God is ineffable". They are not the same thing. Especially because we have continual, overwhelming evidence that "God" does in fact care intimately about every living thing. The world of humans is set up to promote life and the pursuit and acquiring of Joy. If it were not so, then "God" could get a "high" from our misery much easier by creating situations where the torture of living things goes on forever by denying death. Instead we have the briefest of mortal spans and are released back to immortality, where we are perfect and kept safely away from the "quarantined" experiences of mortality, while at the same time having learned invaluable things about what Joy Is and is not. It makes increasing sense to me, so I will continue to pursue this line of reasoning....

[ERayR]

Anomalies are just that an http://www.merriam-w...tionary/anomaly

How deep must they be piled before must be accounted for instead of dismissed with snide remarks?

[Ahab]

Actually I accounted for GtF = glorified man many years ago. That is the core problem I have had conceiving of "God". GtF must be more than a once-mortal man, or the most advanced "evolving" god there is in this universe. "God" must be the Necessary Cause, or Existence In The First Place. As we are all manifestations of the mind of "God", given finite character traits and personalities, strengths and weaknesses, and no two of us exactly alike, it follows that GtF is also a manifestation. In order to have faith in GtF, he must possess the whole mind of Infinity, the only One that does so in all the world/universe of humans....

When you say "God' it would help others to understand you if you would clarify whether or not you're referring to only one person or to anyone who is that kind of being. We often use the word God to refer to GtF, so it can be a bit confusing.

This statement of yours is pretty clear and I can see that you're not correct on this thought, though: In order to have faith in GtF, he must possess the whole mind of Infinity, the only One that does so in all the world/universe of humans....

There are others who are as perfect as he is, others who are the One we refer to as God.

[Questing Beast]

When you say "God' it would help others to understand you if you would clarify whether or not you're referring to only one person or to anyone who is that kind of being. We often use the word God to refer to GtF, so it can be a bit confusing.

This statement of yours is pretty clear and I can see that you're not correct on this thought, though: In order to have faith in GtF, he must possess the whole mind of Infinity, the only One that does so in all the world/universe of humans....

There are others who are as perfect as he is, others who are the One we refer to as God.

That makes no logical sense: how can GtF be "the only One" that possess the whole mind of Infinity "in all the world/universe of humans", yet "There are others ... who are the One we refer to as God"?

When I put "God" into quotes, I am specifically referring to "God the Necessary Cause Of Existence In The First Place". Existence cannot simply, mindlessly BE. It must be Infinitely Sapient, or else our own sapience has arisen out of a cause/existence that possesses not sapience, which is an ex nihilo of the greatest magnitude, requiring more faith than I can muster....

[thesometimesaint]

How deep must they be piled before must be accounted for instead of dismissed with snide remarks?

There is no magic number for that to happen. There are some that claim the moon landings were a hoax, and they present a number of evidences they feel substantiates their claims. History and the facts say otherwise. Whom do you believe?

Since when is it a snide remark to use the dictionary definition of a word?

[bcuzbcuz]

I would like to see evolutionists explain the anomalies the ancient alien crowd brings to the fore.

As has been stated here many times, evolution only explains the changes that occur as specifies develop or survive due to changes in the environment. The whole survival of the fittest thing. If you want aliens to have started the whole process, that's up to you, but it has nothing to do with evolution or with current evidence.

[ERayR]

There is no magic number for that to happen. There are some that claim the moon landings were a hoax, and they present a number of evidences they feel substantiates their claims. History and the facts say otherwise. Whom do you believe?

Since when is it a snide remark to use the dictionary definition of a word?

What has a moon land hoax theory have to do with evolution? You have a knack for ridicule with irrelevancies.