So it really is the case that you don't know what your own video says?It´s fine by me if you don´t bother to watch the linked video as I asked.
If I had that problem, I'd be after fixing it asap.
But that's a matter for you, of course.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
So it really is the case that you don't know what your own video says?It´s fine by me if you don´t bother to watch the linked video as I asked.
What the heck has this to do with creation? It is just observation of what is cyclic in our human world. No wonder those in the past took notice of the changing seasons when their survival depended on knowledge of such but it hardly impacts on creation.And how many tools do you need in order to observe the day- and nighttime scenario and motions of the Earth and the Sky above? You just need a stick in the ground and some marker points in a circumference of this stick. Then you can mark all what´s needed to know for humans in order to follow the creation and survive.
As in finding solutions to diseases? Or what happens when we drive some species to extinction? Or understanding that defecating upstream of where one gets one's drinking water would not be wise? They knew all this?Oh yes, and then you of course generally need to connect your mind with nature on and above the Earth in order to communicate intuitively with everything.
Such that it produced astrology. Great, and valued by many, but still bunkum.Of course they all got their same mytho-astronomical convictions by observing the same motion of the Earth; the Sun; the Moon, the 5 visible planets and everything else in the Sky. If this global and collective scenario is a coincidence to you, you certainly need to spend some time in nature and get updated on nature and its myths.
I just don't see much value in such, that is all. Speculation might be useful if it leads to something useful but all too often it doesn't, and where one should keep one's mind open rather than follow lines of thinking that just lead into a mazeNo obviously, you can´t see - You even can´t see the most obvious causes to ancient common stories of creation even when it is written black on white and explained to you in plain sentences.
Yes it is a strength in science that new discoveries can be taken into account, but it is certainly a general weakness just to add unseen matters into an observation in order to get the former theory and its calculations to fit. Such things are´nt science but pure science fictions on the border line to meta-physics.That wasn't my point. My point is that it is a strength of science, not a defect, that it modifies its narrative to conform to new evidence. The galaxy thing was one example.
Native said: ↑What I said is that these myths are mutually exclusive. I reject them, which you might call excluding them, but that isn't what mutually exclusive means. It means that if any one is correct, all of the rest are wrong - a contradiction to your claim that they reinforce one another and collectively reveal some truth other than how human beings think and behave.
Whether you meant mutually exclusive or not, it does´nt really matter as you apparently exclude myths in general, which also is why you cannot tell of neither the similarities nor any differences.What I said is that these myths are mutually exclusive. I reject them, which you might call excluding them, but that isn't what mutually exclusive means. It means that if any one is correct, all of the rest are wrong - a contradiction to your claim that they reinforce one another and collectively reveal some truth other than how human beings think and behave.
Why do you disconnect science from humanities? Maybe you should study ancient myths where the "humanities" were closely connected to knowledge of nature and forget to read scientific books of speculations for some time? ;-)I conclude that ancient myths are stories with no value to science, just the humanities . . .
There the mythical ignorant goes again You just don´t agree in mythical informations because you just dismiss them all in general per mental bias. But of course you believe in all kinds of scientific faiths in theories. You just call such faiths ASSUMPTIONS so it sounds more "scientific".Why do you assume that because people don't agree with you that it is due to failure to look at the material? You seem to rule out the possibility that one can look at some of these myths and religions and justifiably reject them all as being wrong ideas about reality simply because of the process used in generating them - faith. I reject all faith-based, insufficiently evidenced claims including those in myths and religions.
I was trying to see if your logical observable sense could conclude anything from watching the two images to which you replied:That's not a logical test. A logical test would require reasoning. The answer to your question would be a list of known facts.
So far so good In cosmological science generally just speaks of "spiral galaxies" but obviously there is 2 different types of galaxies which shows up different numbers of outher arms; different central luminosity and especially different central structures.I see two spiral galaxies with different configurations of their spiral arms (shape and number) and a difference in the shape of the central areas of the two, one more circular and the other more elongated.
How would you know of relevance to me and this scientific observation compared to the myths when you apparently per bias dismiss myths. You even wouldn´t believe it IF I described the mytho-cosmological relevance as you just dismiss myths - and at the same time agrees in inserting "black stuff" when cosmos disagrees on your "science".The answer you are looking for would not be relevant to the discussion of whether myths have value or how science adapts its models to account for new, unexpected data.
You apparently have huge problems in connecting the concept of "light" to the concept of "pantheon" even as this connection is described in the creation story in the Abrahamic Bible and also in the Norse Mythology - but never mind.I don't need ancients to tell me the trivial fact that stars emit light.
And what they? Some pantheon? Sorry, but I have no reason to believe that any such thing exists. So much for truth.
Well, maybe you don´t even know what you need as you dismiss the mythical contentI see no problem here. I have no need to connect these myths to science or anything else except human nature.
I don't feel the same as you about ancients having hidden or lost knowledge of any value today.
Of course your JUDGEMENTS are quite CONSCIOUS - even when you judge matters which is UNCONSCIOUS to youMy judgments are quite conscious, evidence-based, and are connected to reality through empiricism - what we can reproducibly experience - and pragmatism - what works to help us accomplish our goals.
I´m very pleased for these informations Well, I´m STILL a member of Campbell´s Forum, although not very active these days.Actually, I have quite a bit of education and exposure to the liberal arts both in school and thereafter, as with those two cosmology books I referred to that I also read in the eighties when in a self-teaching mode. I've been through all of this decades ago. I purchased and enjoyed the entire Joseph Campbell series, The Power of Myth also in the eighties.
I can´t help it since I´ve had my part of cosmic visions which made me very enthusiastic indeed And most certainly very stubborn tooI didn't find much value in myth in my life at that time either, and your views haven't changed that any, either. I don't know what this subject does for you, or why you are so enthusiastic about it, but it does little for me.
To me the biggest problem for "non-religious" people is that they tend to discard their natural/intuitive spiritual skills too.Yeah, that is it. It varies to some extent, but the idea that e.g. fact matters, is not a fact as facts go, because you can only understand that it is a fact, that fact matters, in your mind. In a weird way that facts matter, is itself a myth in modern western mythology of with reason, logic, evidence and all the objective "magic". That facts matter, is subjective and in the mind and no where else. It is not out there in the universe.
That is what some of the "non-religious" people don't get. That facts matter, is a cultural myth and not a scientific fact.
Why on Earth would I be that stupid to invite you to a discussion on a video content if I didn´t knew its contents?So it really is the case that you don't know what your own video says?
Then please answer my questions and we can proceed.Native said: ↑
It´s fine by me if you don´t bother to watch the linked video as I asked.
Why on Earth would I be that stupid to invite you to a discussion on a video content if I didn´t knew its contents?
Don´t you think observations of the earthly and celestial motions is a part of the creation? And of course knowledge of such can have huge impacts on humans an on the creation in the human environment as we observe much these days too.What the heck has this to do with creation? It is just observation of what is cyclic in our human world. No wonder those in the past took notice of the changing seasons when their survival depended on knowledge of such but it hardly impacts on creation.
To me it is "bunkum" to invent Straw Men astrology arguments trying to ridicule a fellow debater who have said nothing about astrology at all. This is ridiculous in itself!Such that it produced astrology. Great, and valued by many, but still bunkum.
Nice replied with the maze Do you know what the personal/spiritual purpose of going into a maze is?I just don't see much value in such, that is all. Speculation might be useful if it leads to something useful but all too often it doesn't, and where one should keep one's mind open rather than follow lines of thinking that just lead into a maze
Yes it is a strength in science that new discoveries can be taken into account, but it is certainly a general weakness just to add unseen matters into an observation in order to get the former theory and its calculations to fit
Such things are´nt science but pure science fictions on the border line to meta-physics.
The creation myths are excluded by you because you don´t understand these and the astronomical and cosmological descriptions.
you apparently exclude myths in general, which also is why you cannot tell of neither the similarities nor any differences.
Why do you disconnect science from humanities?
You just don´t agree in mythical informations because you just dismiss them all in general per mental bias.
But of course you believe in all kinds of scientific faiths in theories. You just call such faiths ASSUMPTIONS so it sounds more "scientific".
You even wouldn´t believe it IF I described the mytho-cosmological relevance
You apparently have huge problems in connecting the concept of "light" to the concept of "pantheon"
Well, maybe you don´t even know what you need as you dismiss the mythical content
Native said: ↑
And how many tools do you need in order to observe the day- and nighttime scenario and motions of the Earth and the Sky above? You just need a stick in the ground and some marker points in a circumference of this stick. Then you can mark all what´s needed to know for humans in order to follow the creation and survive.
Don´t you think observations of the earthly and celestial motions is a part of the creation? And of course knowledge of such can have huge impacts on humans an on the creation in the human environment as we observe much these days too.
Native said
"Of course they all got their same mytho-astronomical convictions by observing the same motion of the Earth; the Sun; the Moon, the 5 visible planets and everything else in the Sky. If this global and collective scenario is a coincidence to you, you certainly need to spend some time in nature and get updated on nature and its myths".
To me it is "bunkum" to invent Straw Men astrology arguments trying to ridicule a fellow debater who have said nothing about astrology at all. This is ridiculous in itself!
Native said:
No obviously, you can´t see - You even can´t see the most obvious causes to ancient common stories of creation even when it is written black on white and explained to you in plain sentences.
Nice replied with the maze Do you know what the personal/spiritual purpose of going into a maze is?
Yes some of modern science is a keeper but when it comes to a scientific area which is a mix of several cosmological theories in progress, much can and shall be changed before it is worth keeping - as for instants in the case of galactic motions where gravity is out of order. (Which you forgot/ignored to comment on in my latter post ion this matter)The theory of evolution, for example, unified mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately made predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for explaining the observable fact of evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture.That's useful, and how we know that this idea is a keeper.
Why do you comment on "creationism" to me? I´m NOT a creationist but a mythologist and a very natural philosopher.Creationism, by contrast, an idea generated by mythopoeisis, is a sterile idea that can do none of that or anything else.That is how we know the idea is useless, and to discard it.
Well it´s totally up to you whether you believe on common human experiences or not.There doesn't seem to be much point in continuing with this. You seem to see some particular value in there being many creation myths which have very much the same story as if therefore they are true in some sense.
That´s just the very point in ancient common perception of creation: They´re NOT individual beliefs but empirical and COLLECTIVE since the are found all over the Earth and based on the same observations as described in my profile signature below.And I just don't see the value that you see, unless it is used as evidence for one's own belief system, in which case I would say it is false evidence
What you just agreed was a strength you then called a weakness in the same sentence. That's how science takes new discoveries into account - it acknowledges that "unseen matters" must exist to account for them if the things seen can't.
...
Well it´s totally up to you whether you believe on common human experiences or not.
That´s just the very point in ancient common perception of creation: They´re NOT individual beliefs but empirical and COLLECTIVE since the are found all over the Earth and based on the same observations as described in my profile signature below.
Claiming this ancient global heritage to be false evidences is just ignorant and there you are.
Good Grief! Are you oppositional in order just to be oppositional? Even if I believe in intuition and spiritual skills, I´ve pointed out all over the places how basic physical observations plays a main role in the stories of creation.Since you seem to believe in intuition and spiritualty and that one can somehow summon up the truth just by thinking or meditating perhaps - without actual evidence - we seem to be miles apart. I may be ignorant but at least I'm honest about it.
Good Grief! Are you oppositional in order just to be oppositional? Even if I believe in intuition and spiritual skills, I´ve pointed out all over the places how basic physical observations plays a main role in the stories of creation.
As I write in my profile signature:
We all live on the same Earth; in the same Solar System; in the same Milky Way galaxy and in the same part of the observable Universe. These facts really constitutes the cultural Stories of Creation.
You´re correct in that there is no point in our conversation - So thanks for nothing for now
galactic motions where gravity is out of order. (Which you forgot/ignored to comment on in my latter post ion this matter)
Why do you comment on "creationism" to me? I´m NOT a creationist but a mythologist and a very natural philosopher.
Claiming this ancient global heritage to be false evidences is just ignorant and there you are.
I´ve pointed out all over the places how basic physical observations plays a main role in the stories of creation.
there is no point in our conversation - So thanks for nothing for now
There is no meaning or purpose in the universe, but the universe must make sense and there must be scientific laws in the universe, because reasons... Can you spot the problem?
...
I have never said that the universe had to make sense or that there needed to be regular scientific laws. But I would say that a godless universe needs regular physical laws if it is to produce life and minds capable of making sense of the universe, and that those regular laws must be simple enough for those minds to comprehend for any of the universe to make sense.
I am tired of this. Some people use truth and science together, others don't. Some people claim science can prove metaphysical naturalism. Others claim it can't.
I know science is not like religion, but some people apparently use science without understanding what it can do. A bit like an authoritative word to win a debate: I draw the card science and I win. And no, I don't mean how some religious don't get it or pure pseudo science. I mean that science is used as an integrated part of world view without noticing what science can do as much what it can't do and in some case without a clue about the demarcation problem: What science can't do.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
So here is how I view it. Science is now so old and established as a human behavior, that some times some people learn about it, is a form of cultural hand-down of a kind of folk beliefs. Now again, I don't mean science as actual science. I mean science as a folk belief or sometimes as a result of a form of Dunning-Kruger.
So let us look at this one: "Even then, facts are subject to modification or replacement." I know and the model and the landscape. Science is not about certainty, it is about the ability to predict an outcome.
I get all these sayings about science, yet science is about constants in nature and the scientific laws of nature. What I am getting at is that science is despite all these sayings to some people an absolute certainty in some sense and how reality really is and what really matters.
So here is an example: Science is the only form of knowledge(that is not science, that is a form of philosophy) and it is not rational to believe in religion(again, that is not science, that is psychology, philosophy and what not).
So yes, science is to you not about truth and to others it is all about truth.
Regards
Mikkel
Is it that difficult to grasp?I don't know what "gravity is out of order" means. Did you mean that there isn't enough mass visible in a galaxy to account for its structure and motion?