Prove that God doesn't exist.

[Zylstra]

Damn, PL caught on to my positivism and cut me off before I could have any fun at all

 

[dahermit]

Thinking on great things within one's mind.

For example, history was largely kept in the minds of the people. So was poetry.

I see...written language and written mathematics was a setback then?
Oral histories are more accurate than written? It is an impossibility for people to pass to others even the most simple statement without filtering it through their own vocabulary and though their belief system. Make up a simple story, tell it to someone else, have them tell the same story to another, and by the time it passes though several people the story will have taken on fundamental changes. And you claim that you are a Psychologist?

The ability to know what wild plants one could eat or use for medicine was also more advanced than it is today. And by more laypeople too.

Nonsense. Before modern chemistry evaluated the chemicals in different plants, it was a guessing game. Some plants did contain medicinal properties, willow produced aspirin, and another tropical tree produced quinine, but there were hundreds of "spring tonics" (sulfur and molasses), and "cures" that were are were and are useless. Cat Nip tea being one that is still used by the Amish as a "Tonic", bear gall bladders used by the Chinese, along with Tiger body parts.

Modern antibiotics date no further back than just before WWII. They came from advances in Biology and Medicine. (Pasture, Lister, Fleming)

Ancient peoples knowledge of natural medicine resulted in them dieing before they reached the age of forty.

 

[Dr.Who]

Nonetheless, there was less knowledge available back then than now. The history they knew was spotty and mainly false. The Illiad was certainly not literally true.

I agree on all points.

Nevertheless, it has been demonstrated that in the past the field of memorizing facts and opinions and organizing thoughts in your head was more advanced than it is today.

The point was to demonstrate that so called primitive people were not necessarily primitive just because they had less technology or a smaller base of facts. There is at least one way in which they were more advanced.

Might there be other ways. Necessity is the mother of invention. For all the things we have that they did not could they have found ways to be more independent? Without hospitals and X-ray machines might they have been better at setting one's own broken bones? Could it be that just about every random person walking the street was his own encyclopedia of herbology? And just a hundred years ago most people could play a musical instrument well. Today far fewer can. And two hundred years ago most could play well without sheet music.

I would not want to go back to a previous time and lose all the benefits we have. But I also don't want to be xenophobic and judge my culture and time to be best based on my own opinion of the value of technology.

Xenophobia. that is the theme of this post.

This post is relevant:

Originally Posted by Aus22 View Post
However as a historian terms like primitive,supersitious and ignorant to describe people of the past is misleading. Modern man is not necessary less ignorant in all fields of study.

Those who would first decide that technological prowess is important and then judge past less technologically advances civilizations as primitive and superstitious and ignorant are being xenophobes in the sociological sense.

As a theoretical exercise consider the mythical or real people of Adam and Eve before the fall. They were sinless and lived in harmony with nature and God. All their needs were provided for and their work was light and fulfilling. Yet they had the least amount of technology of any people to have ever walked the earth. Still, according to that description they also had the culture that should be most admired of all. If in theory we can see a people that is that technologically lacking yet is that admirable then who are we to assume that any other culture is in-admirable based on their level of technology.

If we are going to judge cultures we can do two things: we can judge their level of technology based on their level of technology and we can judge their level of admirable qualities based on their level of admirable qualities. What we cant do is judge their level of admirable qualities based on their level of technology.

 

[Dr.Who]

If I thought souls existed, I would agree with that.

That would not be logical. You might agree with that based on faith. But if your believe animals have souls based on faith then it is just as valid to believe that people have souls based on faith.

Lets look at how that sylogism would look:

Premise 1: people have soul (assumed for the sake of this exercise)
Premise 2 ( )
Conclusion: if 1 and 2 then animals have souls

What known fact logically fits in between the parenthesis that makes that logical argument work?

 

[Dr.Who]

I see...written language and written mathematics was a setback then?
Oral histories are more accurate than written? It is an impossibility for people to pass to others even the most simple statement without filtering it through their own vocabulary and though their belief system. Make up a simple story, tell it to someone else, have them tell the same story to another, and by the time it passes though several people the story will have taken on fundamental changes. And you claim that you are a Psychologist?

In some ways written language was a great advancement and in some it was a setback.

Nonsense. Before modern chemistry evaluated the chemicals in different plants, it was a guessing game. Some plants did contain medicinal properties, willow produced aspirin, and another tropical tree produced quinine, but there were hundreds of "spring tonics" (sulfur and molasses), and "cures" that were are were and are useless. Cat Nip tea being one that is still used by the Amish as a "Tonic", bear gall bladders used by the Chinese, along with Tiger body parts.

Modern antibiotics date no further back than just before WWII. They came from advances in Biology and Medicine. (Pasture, Lister, Fleming)

Ancient peoples knowledge of natural medicine resulted in them dieing before they reached the age of forty.

I never said that they always had everything right. But they did know so much that most of us just have no clue about when it comes to natural remedies.

Here is just one A to Z list of ancient remedies that were used widely.

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/herbal.html

I have used some natural remedies sometimes with better results than I have had by seeing a doctor.

 

[samsara15]

That would not be logical. You might agree with that based on faith. But if your believe animals have souls based on faith then it is just as valid to believe that people have souls based on faith.

Lets look at how that sylogism would look:

Premise 1: people have soul (assumed for the sake of this exercise)
Premise 2 ( )
Conclusion: if 1 and 2 then animals have souls

What known fact logically fits in between the parenthesis that makes that logical argument work?

Yes, people are undeniably animals, so Perhaps I should have clarified with the statement that some other animals might have souls, depending on their level of sentience. OTOH, I never said that I believed anyone had souls, and I also never said animals had souls, but people did not, did I?

 

[samsara15]

I agree on all points.

Nevertheless, it has been demonstrated that in the past the field of memorizing facts and opinions and organizing thoughts in your head was more advanced than it is today.

The point was to demonstrate that so called primitive people were not necessarily primitive just because they had less technology or a smaller base of facts. There is at least one way in which they were more advanced.

Might there be other ways. Necessity is the mother of invention. For all the things we have that they did not could they have found ways to be more independent? Without hospitals and X-ray machines might they have been better at setting one's own broken bones? Could it be that just about every random person walking the street was his own encyclopedia of herbology? And just a hundred years ago most people could play a musical instrument well. Today far fewer can. And two hundred years ago most could play well without sheet music.

I would not want to go back to a previous time and lose all the benefits we have. But I also don't want to be xenophobic and judge my culture and time to be best based on my own opinion of the value of technology.

Xenophobia. that is the theme of this post.

This post is relevant:


Those who would first decide that technological prowess is important and then judge past less technologically advances civilizations as primitive and superstitious and ignorant are being xenophobes in the sociological sense.

As a theoretical exercise consider the mythical or real people of Adam and Eve before the fall. They were sinless and lived in harmony with nature and God. All their needs were provided for and their work was light and fulfilling. Yet they had the least amount of technology of any people to have ever walked the earth. Still, according to that description they also had the culture that should be most admired of all. If in theory we can see a people that is that technologically lacking yet is that admirable then who are we to assume that any other culture is in-admirable based on their level of technology.

If we are going to judge cultures we can do two things: we can judge their level of technology based on their level of technology and we can judge their level of admirable qualities based on their level of admirable qualities. What we cant do is judge their level of admirable qualities based on their level of technology.

I will certainly agree that the ancients were by no means stupid, and in all respects our intellectual equals. OTOH, based on the Illiad, and other existing texts from the First Intermediate Period in Egypt, I'm not sure Bronze Age morality was superior to ours, merely different.

Some writers claim to see a progression in sophistication from Old Kingdom Egyptian morality down to the Middle Kingdom and beyond. The technological ability and engineering accomplishments of the ancient world are impressive, even if their technology level was much lower than that of today.

 

[Zylstra]

In some ways written language was a great advancement and in some it was a setback.

 

[dahermit]

It about says it all about the Dr. doesn't it.

 

[Dr.Who]

Yes, people are undeniably animals, so Perhaps I should have clarified with the statement that some other animals might have souls, depending on their level of sentience. OTOH, I never said that I believed anyone had souls, and I also never said animals had souls, but people did not, did I?

I don't know what OTOH means and maybe I would understand what you are saying differently if I did.

I never thought you said that people had souls. I understood completely that your statement began with the word "if".

Why do you think there is or would be a correlation between having a soul and having sentience?

And I still don't understand why IF people had souls that you would conclude that animals do too. Is it not just as possible that if people have souls that animals do not. (though I suspect that at least some do)

 

[Dr.Who]

I will certainly agree that the ancients were by no means stupid, and in all respects our intellectual equals. OTOH, based on the Illiad, and other existing texts from the First Intermediate Period in Egypt, I'm not sure Bronze Age morality was superior to ours, merely different.

Some writers claim to see a progression in sophistication from Old Kingdom Egyptian morality down to the Middle Kingdom and beyond. The technological ability and engineering accomplishments of the ancient world are impressive, even if their technology level was much lower than that of today.

I think you phrased that very well - while they had far less to work with in terms of standing on the shoulders of giants - they were our intellectual equals.

 

[samsara15]

I don't know what OTOH means and maybe I would understand what you are saying differently if I did.

I never thought you said that people had souls. I understood completely that your statement began with the word "if".

Why do you think there is or would be a correlation between having a soul and having sentience?

And I still don't understand why IF people had souls that you would conclude that animals do too. Is it not just as possible that if people have souls that animals do not. (though I suspect that at least some do)

In part, it may simply be empathy with the animals on my part. I am equating souls with consciousness. Dogs and cats dream, for example. That implies they have mental images. One of the problems with a purely materialistic view of consciousness is demonstrating where in our brains a thought is visualized. That they dream indicates that their brain is not too different from ours.

OTOH = On the other hand

 

[Dr.Who]

Originally Posted by Dr.Who View Post
In some ways written language was a great advancement and in some it was a setback.

The invention of writing was a marvelous advancement in technology (if that is the right word) that allows us to do a lot which we could not do before.

But at the same time it allows us to fail to use our full potential in terms of using our memories.

I bet that if I start off with the first few words of any one of a hundred pop songs or jingles many of you could recognize the song and finish the rest of it. You have the ability to remember a great amount of knowledge. Yet what have you really done with that ability?

For example (for those of yo who are old enough), here is a theme song from a tv show:

"Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale, a tale of a fateful trip, That started from this tropic port, aboard this tiny ship. The mate was a ...."

How many of you know what the mate was?

At the same time how many of you can make change by "counting up" if the cash register stops working?

For those of you who are younger: What product does Tony think is Terrriffic!?

Yes we are all too good at trivia yet we fail to use our minds to it's full potential.

That is something our ancestors did not fail to do. They were "quick" or they were "dead".

 

[Dr.Who]

I would like to amend a previous post.

Where I used the word "Xenophobe" I should have used the word "ethnocentric".

 

[top gun]

How can you prove to anyone else that you exist? Come to think of it, I don't think you do. You're nothing more than some neurons firing in my mind, with no existence outside of my own brain. Those same neuron firings could be generated from my optic nerve when light hits my eye from watching an episode of the Simpsons. Are you going to tell us that Homer Simpson exists?

I don't believe you can prove that you exist, any more than I can prove that a soul exists, or that god exists. It's just something we know, or don't know.

But, if it comforts you to believe that you exist, and aren't just a figment of my imagination, and that belief makes you feel more confident and comforted, then by all means, continue in your belief.

Even though you can't prove it.

There is the testable truth and there is the philosophized or imagined truth... you're a smart fellow you know the difference.

Now there are people who don't know the difference. They are called paranoid schizophrenics. But sane people know. If human beings couldn't prove that they exist then they also couldn't prove that anyone ever dies. Yet we all know people do die don't we?

Just like there's a difference between being punched in the face in real life and being punched in the face in a dream... we know difference.

And if you think about it if we all didn't exist and were just figments of our own imaginations... those same imaginations would be making up the "soul" idea. So no points there on the soul side.

But as I've said over & over some people need supernatural beliefs. It makes them feel at ease to be in a given like group and have some sort of an explanation about the unknown.

That's each persons choice and I defend their right to do that. So as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else there's no problem with me. Now if they present the supernatural as FACT... then it's they who opened that door and they shouldn't be upset by confrontation to their story.

Or their messengers...