That pattern only exists in the perceiver's mind. It may or may not reflect anything else. Constellations are an example. There are no green and light blue blue stripes in the following:
Posted on 05/01/2006 8:29:14 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
If random is not possible then choice is not possible.. Random is possible.. i.e. many of mankinds choices.. drives the devil nutz..
No. See Saussure's prediction that laryngeals existed (in some Indo-European language) based on the sounds of present day European languages and the theory of language evolution. "His hypothesis was confirmed after Hittite was discovered. J. Kurylowicz in 1927 pointed out that the Hittite consonants transcribed with corresponded in some cognates to those which Saussure had suggested purely on the basis of phonological analysis of morphological patterns. " [ibid]
I've seen meteorites that were around when the earth was formed and the microwave background was there soon after the universe itself formed (albeit more macro relatively.) There are footprints in the sands of time.
Congratulations. You've managed to conflate right and wrong (good & evil) with might (coercion/force) to such an extent that you've turned their meaning on their heads. While it is surely true that right must often call on might in its defense if evil is to be defeated, it is preposterous to suggest, for instance, that we had to wait until May of 1945 to finally know that good was defined in the defeat of the Nazis.
And who, among those who witnessed the event, will e'er forget the sight of a lone unarmed man facing down the might of four T-72 tanks? Does the knowledge that Tiananmen Square ultimately brought about the shedding of the blood of several thousand patriots, somehow bring to us the belief that that blood shed for liberty must now be understood as an evil, and that the thugs who wielded the weapons which cut down those patriots must now be understood as representatives of the good?
In confusing might with good and evil, whatever your intentions, you obliterate the distinction between self-defense and naked aggression, and thereby take the right to life out of the hands of the innocent.
congratulations: in failing to apply every stringently phrased element of the given in your deliberative process, you have abjectly failed the challenge in precisely the epitome of the manner I have come to expect from your side of the aisle.
did I stutter?
This may be true but it is of no use to scientific inquiry. The same argument has been made for nearly all proposed deities; none of them are part of science for this reason. It fails to even distinguish among the competing deities. Scientific inquiry is by its own nature restricted to what humans can understand.
Likewise such an idea is of no use in political of legal decisions. "God told me to do it," is not and excuse for any action. The legal system judges (or at least ought to judge) actions, not philosophical beliefs of the actors.
If human beings detect a pattern, I am persuaded that the pattern must exist; and if it does, it has meaning. Most of the serious human beings I know do not "hallucinate" their way through life. So if there is a pattern, it must needs to be understood. By thinking human beings.
Of course I am not speaking of human beings who find comfort in "habit." I am speaking of rational people, who care very much about understanding the universe of which they are parts and participants. We humans have a great stake in getting such questions "right," for both personal and social reasons. That's where the subject of morality comes into play; for morality is ever about the order of the person (i.e., the order of the soul), and from there to the order of the society in which the person lives.
It may come as a surprise to you, but arguably, Plato was the very first explicitly political philosopher, creating the science of politics in the process. His great insight about political reality is that every "polis," or political order or "State," is nothing more than the aggregation of the most common expression of the personal soul of the people comprising the society, writ large. If the majority of souls comprising the Polis (the political State) are disordered, then the Polis itself will be disordered. And no law, no legislation can cure what would follow next.
Plato insisted that the Cosmos itself is "ordered." Which means it is not "accidental." Indeed, the Greek word kosmos means "order." He also thought that man was the "microkosmos" -- an image of the entire universe in himself, like a "child" of a Mandelbrot set if I might suggest that analogy. In other words, man recapitulates in himself all the orders of being, from the inorganic to the divine.
Notice, dear King, that we humans are not the ones who set up the categories of judgment of such questions. We did not invent logic, nor reason. Human curiosity is the very thing that keeps humans in step with the world in which they live. And so I imagine curiosity is a divine gift to humans. Along with reason and logic.
Well, my two-cents worth anyway. Thank you dear for the conversation.
God bless you for sharing this quandry, dear YHAOS. I imagine that at least some of the people who have difficulty answering your challenge may have a serious "truth problem."
But I imagine I shouldn't be so hasty. The wise course is to wait to hear what the person(s) you address have to say about the matter.
I also imagine that if they will to answer the question you pose in good faith, they'd find they first need a standard, a criterion of truth and judgment that is not their own "creation." Otherwise, there is no common ground in truth according to which society can give its just assent.
Thank you for your beautiful and perceptive post, YHAOS.
Dear, beloved Doc: There is more to life than "legal decisions." And even more to life than "scientific methodology." You already know that, and so why do I have to remind you of all this, dear friend?
That pattern only exists in the perceiver's mind. It may or may not reflect anything else. Constellations are an example. There are no green and light blue blue stripes in the following:
Congratulations in responding precisely as I expected. One additional mistake you make is to assume that I would, even for a moment, contemplate a shake and a roll of your loaded dice. I try, if at all possible, not to play in rigged games. Instead, I chose to illustrate the abject moral vacuousness that is found in the proposition you presumably venture to defend. In my opinion I succeeded with two examples. Your opinion, of course, will differ markedly.
So, for the second time this eve, you find someone telling you that they are quite content to leave to others the judgment of our respective opinions. Probably, the returns will be mixed, but unquestionably we shall remain apart on this issue. I hope with no hard feelings.
1.optical illusiuons
2. JFK assassination conspiracy theories
3.Roswell
so much for THAT
ah, you beat me to that particular rabbit-punch. good. thanks. I was thinking of the black and white reticulated field which makes the human brain synthesize non-existent grey squares at the crossings of the white lattice, but that epilepsy-inducing color field will do nicely. thanks again.
ah, arrogance AND ignorance in one package. how efficient of you!
Well, in my defense, in a society where 10% of the population are cannibals, a satire proposing the eating of the children of the poor may be open to dangerous misconstrual :-)
Excellent point; How do you know that conditions were the same before the curse as they are now? Are compounds breaking down different than compounds decaying. Could it be the difference between rust, and a catalyst?
I did not say that.
how do you know that the process of digestion constitutes decay? breaking down something into usable parts is not the same as decay. You ageing is decay of the DNA replication. Rust is decay. You are asking a different question than did fruit digest?
What you are asking is whether a real God could possibly have any genuine interaction with man. OR are you asking if God is powerfull enough to have others write accurately what he intended.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.