DeepSight: But dont you think somethings display WAAAAYYYYYYYYYY too much order and fitness for purpose to be the result of a mindless process only? Such as the cell, the brain, the eye?
The brain is orders of magnitude more advanced than any computer and no one would ever think that anything resembling a computer could come about without intelligence behind it.
You are looking at the end of billions of years of reiterative natural processes based on physical laws that don't need any intelligence to operate.
Maybe if we had a billion years to perfect computers they would be greater than biological brains.
jesusjnr2020: I have already said it times without number here, that the science is in itself a proof of the Creator's existence, because science is about unravelling the hidden knowledge of the creation in order to replicate it or use it to provide solutions regarding the creation.
Therefore without the Creator, science itself wouldn't exist, because without the Creator there wouldn't be any creation for science to explore or learn from.
Therefore science itself is actually a pointer to the Creator, hence why the biggest brains or the greatest scientists in history do not just believe in the existence of the Creator but actually believe in Him, because of how fascinating His creation is, which they find themselves privileged to explore and learn a lot from.
God bless.
Science is in itself a proof of the Universe existence, because science is about unravelling the hidden knowledge of the Universe in order to replicate it or use it to provide solutions regarding the world.
Therefore without the Universe, science itself wouldn't exist, because without the Universe there wouldn't be any world for science to explore or learn from.
Therefore science itself is actually a pointer to the Universe, hence why the biggest brains or the greatest scientists in history do not just believe in the existence of the Universe but actually believe in the Universe, because of how fascinating the world is, which they find themselves privileged to explore and learn a lot from.
Kobojunkie: The content holds no elements of racism, whichever way you parse it. Pointing this out as merely a separation of concerns --- one group referred to as sheep while the other as dogs-- is meant to highlight this and, at the same time, restate the fact of what the Gospel is about. 😒😒
Then whether it was written to only Israelites or not has zero to do with it.
Kobojunkie: I don't need to because that is implicitly understood by the majority who don't worship the Greek Gods, obviously. I have personally never met a Nigerian who believes the Greek Gods are also God of Nigerians. I find, however, that I have to keep saying that the stories of the Israelites were not made for the non-Israelites when talking to the crowd of folks out there who ignore this fact. 😒😒
Kobojunkie: Why should anyone unfollow a book simply because it was not written for non-Israelites? Do you stop studying a particular subject or character merely because the subject did not agree with you or your people? The book does not say that Non-Israelites are not to read up on it or accept the statements contained in it. Instead, what it makes clear is that the content applies only to Israelites. 😒😒
I have been studying and following the stories of the Greeks and their gods, who we all know had no place for non-Greeks. Do I unfollow all that because their deities and books do not apply to me? 😒😒
But you don't keep saying the stories of the Greek was not made for non Greeks. What is the necessity of announcing that it wasn't written for non-Israelites every time you speak about the book?
Kobojunkie: I don't understand what part of what I said you are having a problem with. 😒
You keep bringing up that the books were not written for non Israelites yet you follow them. What is the point of stating that they are not for non-Israelites since you a non-Israelite are following anyway since it means anyone can follow it?
24 Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. 25 In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an impure spirit came and fell at his feet. 26 The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.
27 “First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
28 “Lord,” she replied, “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”
29 Then he told her, “For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter.”
30 She went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.......
Perhaps some leading Christians can help out here.
Kobojunkie: He isn't meant for non-Israelites. I accept that; hence, I follow what He says. 😒😒
He isn't meant for you but follow anyway? Then it doesn't matter whether books were for the Israelites alone or not since anyone like you can just follow what he says.
24 Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. 25 In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an impure spirit came and fell at his feet. 26 The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.
27 “First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
28 “Lord,” she replied, “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”
29 Then he told her, “For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter.”
30 She went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.......
Perhaps some leading Christians can help out here.
Kukutente23/ TV01/ Jesusjnr2020
I think I read an interpretation (probably in Dake's Annotated Refernce Bible) that he wasn't saying it like he was calling the woman a dog but rather in a parable format to illustrate that she was not supposed to receive the kind of gift she was seeking from him as a way to test her earnestness. And her response showed she didn't take offense and instead passed the test by recognising the lesson he was passing across.
But whatever men, the book is open to interpretation of all sorts so I won't be surprised to learn that some people would use it to buttress their own racist ideas.
Kobojunkie: I accept that the books of Israelite Scripture are meant only for Israelites, as continuously highlighted in the message of every one of the Laws and the prophets detailed in the Books.
Then why are you, a non Israelite, a follower of Jesus? Why do you hold this Israelite scripture in any esteem since it isn't meant for you?
ManirBK: 164 nations voted yes. The UK, France, Germany – all yes. Even former colonial powers said it's time to correct the map.
The United States? No. They called it "superfluous."
| The hypocrisy is breathtaking. A nation that claims to lead the world on human rights and equality – but when it comes to showing Africa at its true size, they vote no.
They say it's not necessary. But why? Because an accurate map doesn't serve their narrative?
Africa is 14 times larger than Greenland. That's not politics – that's science. And the US just voted against science.
The map is corrected. The US can stay on the wrong side of history. 🌍🇳🇬
I daresay it is a fallout of having a disguised racist administration in charge of the US. Since this administration began how many times have you heard them condemn human rights abuses?
DeepSight: There would still be. From perspective. I am just struggling to find an excellent example of what I mean to you, for thou art a rigorous taskmaster, friend.
chieveboy: Yea, they are different by reason of perspective.
This point is where I differed with the OP to even conclude that there might be no such thing as Ontological Truth to begin with so long as perception and conventions arise from personal and collective Subjectives--which are not necessarily universal even within an isolated population.
So "certainty being a barrier to truth" is correct, but then Truth is a whole different concept that is complex.
I think there are ontological truths and it is our limited perceptions that produce this relativity. If we could perceive the entirety of the universe there be no relativity.
chieveboy: When car enthusiasts are discussing cars in a leisurely and casual grounds, generally details like the physics and mathematical formula informing the design of the breaking system for instance is generally kept off the table. One wouldn't bring it up of course except if they want to be the odd one.
It changes when of course the discussion is by the design and engineering team with a goal to dissect and improve. At that point, nothing is left off, especially taken things for granted and at face value.
By now, I hope you are aware these discussions bothers on looking at the engineering behind 'Truth' and 'Reality' and not the regular casual and over simplification of what actually is not?
Exactly what I was trying to illustrate. The layers of truth here are not contradictory or unreal, they are just different by reason of perspective.
The relativity of truth however is talking about how Truth must be placed against a Point of View (PoV) or point of reference, else it may not be true or correct. This is even as nothing we term reality can exist without juxtaposing it with a PoV. In other words, for us to experience a common or shared reality or truth--even subjectively, we have to make definitions of reality or truth to go with it. This inherently means to create limits or isolations...do you agree?
In the case of Ms. Virgin hence, we must find out her definition or understanding of virginity. If she claims its something like the style...well we let her know that "no", its not the style. 'Interactus' is. At that point we would have had close encounters with definitions of virginity and how this varies based on PoV. Should we dismiss her definition because the majority defined it differently? What if someone says masturbation dis-virgins? Isn't that an additional and admissible definition?
One person in a room with ten blind men turns on the light. Is there light in the room=true. Is the light physically true=yes, but to which of the parties? To which or what point of reference, measurement? These are relativities.
While I agree that definitions should be taken into account but that just throws up the ancillary issue of equivocation. If we challenge madam born again virgin she might say she meant something different from what we think when we hear the word virgin. That to me reeks of a deliberate attempt to mislead. Nobody hears the word virgin and thinks of masturbation. If she meant masturbation why not say masturbation?
Another issue is one doesn't usually open a discussion or even just a conversation with the definitions of words, it makes discussions and conversations excessively pedantic and can often derail the entire exercise. Which is why we rely on the common meanings/usages of words. If you have your own meaning of a word or a peculiar unfamiliar meaning, then the onus is on you to supply that meaning instead of making people guess and then accuse them of being wrong because they can't read your mind.
chieveboy: OP bailed out. What do you mean though?
Lemme illustrate. It is true that gravity holds down everything on the planet to its surface but it is also true that aircraft and birds can fly off the surface and sustain their flight longer than merely throwing an object into the air could. In a sense the truths are relative because there is a change of reference which allows both to be true without contradiction.
But when some people say truth is relative, they mean they can hold mutually contradictory positions or they can hold positions that have no basis in fact or reality. For example a woman claiming she is a born again virgin. There is nothing that can erase the fact that she has already had PIV sex so her claim that it is her truth that she's a virgin again holds no water.
basilico: Do you think someone who drops on you a few hundred kilos of TNT is wishing you a belated happy birthday? It's a bloody war. . Congress needs to declare a war , presidents found a work around. Go ask Tehran Mayor how long Iran has been at war with America
Ok it is only a war when you want to call it a war. LoLz.
DeepSight: It doesn't answer his excellency LordReed. The reason he is saying that is simply because they have circumvented congress approval. And only Congress can declare war.
This is the same person that wanted to chew my head off because I said Congress didn't declare it a war.
basilico: You need Congress to declare war on a country.Obama didn't ask Congress to remove Gadaffi and place boots on the ground in his failed Syria attempt to remove Assad. He divided the two countries into sections controlled by hard core jihadists of the Islamic State .in Syria and Ansar al-Sharia in Libya. Ansar al-Sharia means supporters of Islamic Laws.
Oh you do, do you? Were you not the person who came here proving to me it was a 47year war? So now it is no longer a war? LoLz.
Lovelink1991: A Nigeria based Canada woman narrated how she was desperately in need of baby after being childless for many years. What she has was what she narrated here now
Note it is "somewhat" because it isn't self directed. It cannot seek out its own knowledge gaps and fill them. It can only use what it is brought to it. Which is just a different way of saying what I already said it can do.
QuinQ: Also AI is not static. Just few months ago you could tell which are AI photos because they had extra fingers, etc, now you can't.l tell. It is waay more than a dialogue tree. Just like a child it will incorporate this into it's pool of knowledge - a child eventually learns you don't tell a person contemplating suicide how best to do it!
Christianity Etc › Re: Sy Garte: How Science Led Militant Atheist To Jesus (video) by LordReed(m): 10:54am On Sep 06
