Every so often ideas percolate up to my mind - that might actually be something useful.
Consider a moment the discoveries brought by the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). Marvels unknown before its existence have been brought to the scope of human knowledge.
The current HST is living on borrowed time. Soon a gyroscope will fail and it will no longer be usable.
But the designs for the telescope still exist. The infrastructure to build another HST exist.
You might think - for a moment - so what? After all there are new Earth-based telescopes that are now beginning to rival the HST's resolution. Do we really need to replace it?
The answer to that question is a clear no. It would cost a lot of money and deliver no more than the most sophisticated Earth-based telescopes.
But there is a reason why we could and should biuld another HST.
Using the knowledge gained in Deep Space 1 of the ionic drive and automatic navigation and the technology of HST - we can and should build an HST capable of leaving the solar system at as high a speed as we can get it to move.
It may be that Earth-based telescopes are approaching the HST is magnification, but a HST that is located off the plane of our Solar System and far away from the sun would be far more powerful than any near-term Earth-based telescope could hope to achieve.
The sun is like a giant flashlight drowning out the rest of the universe that we can see from Earth and even Earth orbit.
But if we were to launch a new HST powered by an economical ion drive after a significant boost from orbit with chemical rockets - the sun is far dimmer even just outside the orbit of Neptune and Pluto.
Such a telescope on its way out of the solar system could be turned towards Earth to map the Near Earth Objects.
I think it would only require minor modifications to the HST design to make something like this work.
Then, the best thing would be to have two new HSTs. Exiting our solar system from different directions. They would be useful as two telescopes, of course, but combined together they would create a single telescope with incredible clarity of pictures.
Now, that is something to hope for to be done in the future.
Abwägen
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Gay Marriage
I do not want to go on this topic in great detail.
Simply put, I believe homosexual people have the right to seek happiness in any form they want to as long as no harm is done directly acutely or chronically to anyone else.
Harm being defined as actual physical trauma or death or even the fundamentalist "destruction of society" angle. Certainly if something were to cause the destruction of society I think any moral person would act to stop that cause.
The fundamentalist and more religious in the United States posit the hypothesis that gay marriage will result in the destruction of the basic social unit of society, the family. With the destruction of the basic unit of society our society itself will be destroyed.
National Geographic published a small item called "Geo Quiz" and the topic is marriage. There are 18 questions - and the answers are also contained on the page. You read the question, attempt to answer it yourself and turn the magazine upside-down and read the answer.
Issue February 2005 - excerpt - National Geographic- page ???
6. What two countries were the first to legalize same-sex marriages?
Answer:
The Netherlands in 2001 and Belgium in 2003.
Now, we can simply test the hypothesis of the fundamentalist - that homosexual marriage will bring about the destruction of society.
Perhaps someone will be helpful out there and provide some solid statistical data to back or refute my assertion that Belgium and the Netherlands appear to be just as stable as they have ever been in modern times.
I certainly have not read any news reports declaring those countries hotbeds of anarchy and lawlessness.
So, approximately 4 years after making homosexual marriage legal in the Netherlands - they seemed to have survived.
And approximately after 2 years of homosexual marriage being legal in Belgium - society seems to be working nicely enough.
There is little information to indicate that allowing homosexual marriage is any more or less detrimental to society than allowing marriage between heterosexual partners.
Abwägen
Added on 2005 02 23:
Here is an article about a book produced by the Pope. In his book and paraphrased in this article is the view that gay marriage is "an ideology of evil" ...
"It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man," he writes.
Funny, how in the face of direct evidence that gay marriage is niether evil nor detrimental to society the Pope, supposed benevolent representative of a benevolent god, advocates the suppression of an entire group of people and restriction of their rights.
And the reality is that people of religious bent are a mixed group - and there are segments that having this official advocacy of the restriction of rights of a small group of people - will take it that those people should not have rights. And in the extreme some will say that gay people should be removed from existence. (either physically or by re-education - depending on your point of view which one of those is worse).
In the same book, the Pope also makes it sound like abortion is similar to the extermination of the Jews during WWII. Funny how both abortion is legal and in a couple of countries gay marriage is legal - and there is no mass extermination of fetuses or massive failure of society.
People need to recognize when statements contain no validity - no matter how much authority the source claims.
CNN article is here: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/23/pope.book.reut/index.html
Abwägen
Simply put, I believe homosexual people have the right to seek happiness in any form they want to as long as no harm is done directly acutely or chronically to anyone else.
Harm being defined as actual physical trauma or death or even the fundamentalist "destruction of society" angle. Certainly if something were to cause the destruction of society I think any moral person would act to stop that cause.
The fundamentalist and more religious in the United States posit the hypothesis that gay marriage will result in the destruction of the basic social unit of society, the family. With the destruction of the basic unit of society our society itself will be destroyed.
National Geographic published a small item called "Geo Quiz" and the topic is marriage. There are 18 questions - and the answers are also contained on the page. You read the question, attempt to answer it yourself and turn the magazine upside-down and read the answer.
Issue February 2005 - excerpt - National Geographic- page ???
6. What two countries were the first to legalize same-sex marriages?
Answer:
The Netherlands in 2001 and Belgium in 2003.
Now, we can simply test the hypothesis of the fundamentalist - that homosexual marriage will bring about the destruction of society.
Perhaps someone will be helpful out there and provide some solid statistical data to back or refute my assertion that Belgium and the Netherlands appear to be just as stable as they have ever been in modern times.
I certainly have not read any news reports declaring those countries hotbeds of anarchy and lawlessness.
So, approximately 4 years after making homosexual marriage legal in the Netherlands - they seemed to have survived.
And approximately after 2 years of homosexual marriage being legal in Belgium - society seems to be working nicely enough.
There is little information to indicate that allowing homosexual marriage is any more or less detrimental to society than allowing marriage between heterosexual partners.
Abwägen
Added on 2005 02 23:
Here is an article about a book produced by the Pope. In his book and paraphrased in this article is the view that gay marriage is "an ideology of evil" ...
"It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man," he writes.
Funny, how in the face of direct evidence that gay marriage is niether evil nor detrimental to society the Pope, supposed benevolent representative of a benevolent god, advocates the suppression of an entire group of people and restriction of their rights.
And the reality is that people of religious bent are a mixed group - and there are segments that having this official advocacy of the restriction of rights of a small group of people - will take it that those people should not have rights. And in the extreme some will say that gay people should be removed from existence. (either physically or by re-education - depending on your point of view which one of those is worse).
In the same book, the Pope also makes it sound like abortion is similar to the extermination of the Jews during WWII. Funny how both abortion is legal and in a couple of countries gay marriage is legal - and there is no mass extermination of fetuses or massive failure of society.
People need to recognize when statements contain no validity - no matter how much authority the source claims.
CNN article is here: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/23/pope.book.reut/index.html
Abwägen
Sunday, February 20, 2005
Food, Waste and poison
Just a quick blog entry to ask a question?
Is the appearance of food worth dying for?
http://www.itv.com/news/britain_1708997.html
Beyond the article about a carcinogen being placed in food to improve appears I want you to think a little deeper about this.
1) All the Dyes in our foods are created; therefore, waste is created in transporting these dyes and in the creation of these dyes - just to make the color of food look "appropriate".
2) We are polluting our bodies with substances that are there solely for the appearance of the food. This can be a non-obvious carcinogen or there are possible allergic reactions or worse - long-term ill-health effects that we simply do not know about at present.
3) Damage to the environment is caused in the creation of these dyes. Either they are formed chemically, in which the by-products of creating these dyes is unknown and could be everywhere - poisoning our environment or they are created through the growth of plants - that would probably be better used either as forested land or growing food that contributes to the human body rather than aids the way our food looks.
Personally, I think that dyes should not be in our food. They are unnecessary.
Abwägen
--Added 2005 02 21
So, now the entire scope of the contaminated foods becomes known.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/PA_NEWCONSUMERDyemo19cancerdye?source=&ct=5
The above article indicates that Crosse and Blackwell worcestor sauce contains an ingredient that is normally used for material objects and coloration - and is illegal for food products.
That sauce was then used by many other food providers - to create their products.
So, I reiterate: coloring of food is not necessary. I personally do not care what color my food is as long as it tastes good. Green macaroni and cheese would at least make things interesting. For even one person to have their lives threatened over the looks of a food product - is rediculous.
I prefer not to be poisened by my food. I prefer not to even have the possibility of being slowly poised by my food exist. This means that artificial coloration of food is not relevant and is indeed a cause for questioning of a people's sanity that coloration of food is more important than health.
Abwägen
Is the appearance of food worth dying for?
http://www.itv.com/news/britain_1708997.html
Beyond the article about a carcinogen being placed in food to improve appears I want you to think a little deeper about this.
1) All the Dyes in our foods are created; therefore, waste is created in transporting these dyes and in the creation of these dyes - just to make the color of food look "appropriate".
2) We are polluting our bodies with substances that are there solely for the appearance of the food. This can be a non-obvious carcinogen or there are possible allergic reactions or worse - long-term ill-health effects that we simply do not know about at present.
3) Damage to the environment is caused in the creation of these dyes. Either they are formed chemically, in which the by-products of creating these dyes is unknown and could be everywhere - poisoning our environment or they are created through the growth of plants - that would probably be better used either as forested land or growing food that contributes to the human body rather than aids the way our food looks.
Personally, I think that dyes should not be in our food. They are unnecessary.
Abwägen
--Added 2005 02 21
So, now the entire scope of the contaminated foods becomes known.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/PA_NEWCONSUMERDyemo19cancerdye?source=&ct=5
The above article indicates that Crosse and Blackwell worcestor sauce contains an ingredient that is normally used for material objects and coloration - and is illegal for food products.
That sauce was then used by many other food providers - to create their products.
So, I reiterate: coloring of food is not necessary. I personally do not care what color my food is as long as it tastes good. Green macaroni and cheese would at least make things interesting. For even one person to have their lives threatened over the looks of a food product - is rediculous.
I prefer not to be poisened by my food. I prefer not to even have the possibility of being slowly poised by my food exist. This means that artificial coloration of food is not relevant and is indeed a cause for questioning of a people's sanity that coloration of food is more important than health.
Abwägen
Friday, February 18, 2005
Posts on Mars exploration
I've decided to eliminate this post. There are other people's names in it (although not their whole names) and I think I shouldn't be posting that information - other people's writings to their names - without explicit permission.
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Heaven
I have problems with the idea of Heaven.
A good article on Heaven and its problems is written by philosopher Michael Martin (whose book I have read "The Big Domino in the Sky") and is located here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/heaven.html .
Here is a link to "The Big Domino in the Sky"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/1573921114/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/103-4608745-1821468?%5Fencoding=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n=507846
Michael Martin is a philosopher and his work is thorough.
And before I read the whole thing I want to put down my thoughts on Heaven.
#1 : Heaven is basic avoidance of the simple fact that when you die - your consciousness ceases to exist - totally and completely.
#2 : Heaven is a selfish idea. I am not a theist - so perhaps I get the point of life from their perspective wrong - but it certainly seems to me that the point of a theist's life is to get in to Heaven. This shapes what they do in terms of right and wrong. Can anything be morally correct if it is done merely because of the anticipation of future reward? It seems that I need to offer some reason for doing things that are morally correct in place of this idea of Heaven. And I have one. I believe in the human species. I want it to survive - and thrive - and always have a better future than the past. Actions that contribute to the survival of humanity and increase its abilities are morally correct. Things that subtract from the stability of humanity or promise to make the future less able than the present are morally incorrect. (and no, I am not talking about the pursuit of "perfection", please note that there is no such thing as perfection - and that perfection is a juvenile idea at best)
#3 : Heaven offers for no growth of the individual "soul" that goes there. There is little offered about what happens in Heaven. Only that you will be there forever. Perhaps this idea is appealing to some people, but not for me. There is no mention of yet another level above Heaven that the sould in Heaven might aspire to be a part. There is in fact little mention about what "Heaven" might be.
#4 : Heaven - access is allowed or disallowed by the theists god. And we do not know anything about the decision making process of such a god - if that god exists. I can easily think of different "tests" that might be applied to gain access to Heaven. For example, god might want people around him that are not blind followers - because those people use their minds. There was one science fiction story I read where a person died and got to meet god because he was a scientist that discovered something very important about the universe. Later our scientist found out that "god" had existed an unknown amount of time and was tired of existence. It wanted to die, but could not die since the universe was an integral part of itself and its death would result in the end of everything. It ended with the scientist for perfectly benevolent reasons - working to kill god - without destroying the universe.
So, like I said, Heaven is a problematic idea at best - and I am not the only one to say so.
Abwägen
A good article on Heaven and its problems is written by philosopher Michael Martin (whose book I have read "The Big Domino in the Sky") and is located here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/heaven.html .
Here is a link to "The Big Domino in the Sky"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/1573921114/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/103-4608745-1821468?%5Fencoding=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n=507846
Michael Martin is a philosopher and his work is thorough.
And before I read the whole thing I want to put down my thoughts on Heaven.
#1 : Heaven is basic avoidance of the simple fact that when you die - your consciousness ceases to exist - totally and completely.
#2 : Heaven is a selfish idea. I am not a theist - so perhaps I get the point of life from their perspective wrong - but it certainly seems to me that the point of a theist's life is to get in to Heaven. This shapes what they do in terms of right and wrong. Can anything be morally correct if it is done merely because of the anticipation of future reward? It seems that I need to offer some reason for doing things that are morally correct in place of this idea of Heaven. And I have one. I believe in the human species. I want it to survive - and thrive - and always have a better future than the past. Actions that contribute to the survival of humanity and increase its abilities are morally correct. Things that subtract from the stability of humanity or promise to make the future less able than the present are morally incorrect. (and no, I am not talking about the pursuit of "perfection", please note that there is no such thing as perfection - and that perfection is a juvenile idea at best)
#3 : Heaven offers for no growth of the individual "soul" that goes there. There is little offered about what happens in Heaven. Only that you will be there forever. Perhaps this idea is appealing to some people, but not for me. There is no mention of yet another level above Heaven that the sould in Heaven might aspire to be a part. There is in fact little mention about what "Heaven" might be.
#4 : Heaven - access is allowed or disallowed by the theists god. And we do not know anything about the decision making process of such a god - if that god exists. I can easily think of different "tests" that might be applied to gain access to Heaven. For example, god might want people around him that are not blind followers - because those people use their minds. There was one science fiction story I read where a person died and got to meet god because he was a scientist that discovered something very important about the universe. Later our scientist found out that "god" had existed an unknown amount of time and was tired of existence. It wanted to die, but could not die since the universe was an integral part of itself and its death would result in the end of everything. It ended with the scientist for perfectly benevolent reasons - working to kill god - without destroying the universe.
So, like I said, Heaven is a problematic idea at best - and I am not the only one to say so.
Abwägen
Binoculars
Well, I have probably used my binoculars seven times now. That lowers my cost per use down to around $47.
I find though that the costs in using the binoculars is not complete. That my computer programmer muscles are unable to hold the binoculars still for any significant amount of time.
There are many good things to using the binculars, though. Any reasonably clear night I can take them outside and view Jupiter and its moons. Tonight it was no problem only ten minutes ago to see 4 moons (Io is tough to know about for sure with 10X50s) around Jupiter.
I enjoy sometimes what I consider to be 'lay' observations of the sky. It is interesting to see how many stars there are out there - by looking towards one bright star and seeing that there are tens of stars in that area - just not visible to the naked eye.
It is even more impressive to look at a section of sky that appears to hold nothing at all - and to move back and forth and see hundreds of stars in apparently dark sky.
I understand the HST (Hubble Space Telescope) did something similar in its deep field image - picked a section of sky in which there were no objects - and revealed that indeed there are objects there - just far away and very dim.
I find though that the solar filters I have purchased are not what I could want of them. I would prefer (now with more knowledge) hydrogen alpha filters - that would reveal more of the sun's activities.
Even if I had purchased the better equipment - it seems that we are in the low end of the solar cycle for the kinds of activity that could be observed.
So, perhaps the filters will survive the years - as well as my binoculars - and I will get to see activity on the sun.
Knowing how things get destroyed in my house - I think it more likely that the money will be lost on those items - at some point in time. I will have to observe as often as I can - so that I will have a fair amount of monies worth in the use of my binoculars and the solar filters.
It seems though, that to get real good use out of the binoculars - I need to get a parrallelogram stype mount for my tripod. Then perhaps the stars will not dance so much when I try to observe them.
Abwägen
I find though that the costs in using the binoculars is not complete. That my computer programmer muscles are unable to hold the binoculars still for any significant amount of time.
There are many good things to using the binculars, though. Any reasonably clear night I can take them outside and view Jupiter and its moons. Tonight it was no problem only ten minutes ago to see 4 moons (Io is tough to know about for sure with 10X50s) around Jupiter.
I enjoy sometimes what I consider to be 'lay' observations of the sky. It is interesting to see how many stars there are out there - by looking towards one bright star and seeing that there are tens of stars in that area - just not visible to the naked eye.
It is even more impressive to look at a section of sky that appears to hold nothing at all - and to move back and forth and see hundreds of stars in apparently dark sky.
I understand the HST (Hubble Space Telescope) did something similar in its deep field image - picked a section of sky in which there were no objects - and revealed that indeed there are objects there - just far away and very dim.
I find though that the solar filters I have purchased are not what I could want of them. I would prefer (now with more knowledge) hydrogen alpha filters - that would reveal more of the sun's activities.
Even if I had purchased the better equipment - it seems that we are in the low end of the solar cycle for the kinds of activity that could be observed.
So, perhaps the filters will survive the years - as well as my binoculars - and I will get to see activity on the sun.
Knowing how things get destroyed in my house - I think it more likely that the money will be lost on those items - at some point in time. I will have to observe as often as I can - so that I will have a fair amount of monies worth in the use of my binoculars and the solar filters.
It seems though, that to get real good use out of the binoculars - I need to get a parrallelogram stype mount for my tripod. Then perhaps the stars will not dance so much when I try to observe them.
Abwägen
Friday, February 04, 2005
Case Against God - Part II
In modern times we often live an existence that has paradoxical elements. Elements of different paradigms that are mutually exclusive exist in our daily lives.
Examples of two elements that are from different paradigms are the possibility of alien intelligences and the idea of god.
There are two questions in part II of my Case Against God.
The first one is: Can the idea of god exist in a universe where we believe there might be alien intelligences?
The question comes from the fact that aliens and god come from different paradigms or world views. When the idea of god came in to existence there was no idea that there was anything outside of Earth. God is a transcendent being that exists beyond what is humanly understandable. The idea of aliens comes from the modern technological era. That somewhere out in the universe there are or at least that it is possible that there are alien intelligences.
So, imagine with me for a moment that some of these alien intelligences might be much older than humanity. That indeed their technology might be far advanced of ours that they have abilities that we would consider omnipotent and omniscient.
These Alien intelligences are still subject to ethics. It would be wrong if an alien intelligence of that order came to Earth and wiped out all of humanity. It would be wrong if that alien intelligence forced us in to servitude and made us commit atrocities against one another because of differences in belief.
Something vital happened to our alien intelligence as these hypothetical beings became very powerful. It appears that humans would have difficulty distinguishing between god-like aliens and ‘God’. This is why the two ideas are incompatible.
If ‘God’ exists is it not anything more than an alien being with abilities far in excess of our own?
And would this ‘God’ being be required to be just as ethical and moral as any other being in existence?
And according to all the religious texts and our histories – if ‘God’ exists it is clear that this being is responsible for the inhumane treatment of, well humans?
The second question is: If ‘God’ exists is it responsible for the inhumane treatment of humanity documented in the religious documents as well as the inhumane activities of its followers over the centuries and in to the present?
Right from Adam and Eve you would say that telling someone not to do something is not enough. You would say that the results of making the wrong decision should be clear – just as we do in any action in the present world where a poor decision could result in very bad repercussions. Buy a house – there is a laundry list of paperwork to go through – many which document the penalties and requirements you have as a home owner.
Is it fair to punish people who have done no wrong except be the children of their parents? It is clear that is something that we as a society do not believe is moral. As the cultural beneficiaries of the United States of America should we all be charged with the destruction of the Native American Culture? Should we all be charged with crimes against humanity for jailing thousands of people in California simply because they were Japanese? I certainly did not participate in either of those activities and I think it would be wrong to punish me for actions that in some cases occurred before anyone related to me entered this continent.
Enough.
Abwägen
Examples of two elements that are from different paradigms are the possibility of alien intelligences and the idea of god.
There are two questions in part II of my Case Against God.
The first one is: Can the idea of god exist in a universe where we believe there might be alien intelligences?
The question comes from the fact that aliens and god come from different paradigms or world views. When the idea of god came in to existence there was no idea that there was anything outside of Earth. God is a transcendent being that exists beyond what is humanly understandable. The idea of aliens comes from the modern technological era. That somewhere out in the universe there are or at least that it is possible that there are alien intelligences.
So, imagine with me for a moment that some of these alien intelligences might be much older than humanity. That indeed their technology might be far advanced of ours that they have abilities that we would consider omnipotent and omniscient.
These Alien intelligences are still subject to ethics. It would be wrong if an alien intelligence of that order came to Earth and wiped out all of humanity. It would be wrong if that alien intelligence forced us in to servitude and made us commit atrocities against one another because of differences in belief.
Something vital happened to our alien intelligence as these hypothetical beings became very powerful. It appears that humans would have difficulty distinguishing between god-like aliens and ‘God’. This is why the two ideas are incompatible.
If ‘God’ exists is it not anything more than an alien being with abilities far in excess of our own?
And would this ‘God’ being be required to be just as ethical and moral as any other being in existence?
And according to all the religious texts and our histories – if ‘God’ exists it is clear that this being is responsible for the inhumane treatment of, well humans?
The second question is: If ‘God’ exists is it responsible for the inhumane treatment of humanity documented in the religious documents as well as the inhumane activities of its followers over the centuries and in to the present?
Right from Adam and Eve you would say that telling someone not to do something is not enough. You would say that the results of making the wrong decision should be clear – just as we do in any action in the present world where a poor decision could result in very bad repercussions. Buy a house – there is a laundry list of paperwork to go through – many which document the penalties and requirements you have as a home owner.
Is it fair to punish people who have done no wrong except be the children of their parents? It is clear that is something that we as a society do not believe is moral. As the cultural beneficiaries of the United States of America should we all be charged with the destruction of the Native American Culture? Should we all be charged with crimes against humanity for jailing thousands of people in California simply because they were Japanese? I certainly did not participate in either of those activities and I think it would be wrong to punish me for actions that in some cases occurred before anyone related to me entered this continent.
Enough.
Abwägen
Case Against God - Part I
Case Against God – Part I
There is a massive amount of information regarding the case against deities. There are long arguments between theists and atheists that go through exhaustive detail about philosophies and ethical points.
I am not going to do that. There is plenty of information widely available out there if you want to research the topic. I have no doubt that there are thousands of pages of information on the topic – and all text no graphics.
My premise in this case is quite simple. My philosophy is that people should ask questions and find their own answers and be ethically honest with themselves in those answers. The simple fact that people come out with different answers should not be threatening. The only thing that is threatening to anyone is when answers of a specific type are held by people that believe that no other answers are acceptable.
If you have comments – I request that you stay to the narrow scope of the question.
And here is my first question:
Belief in God is strongly tied to religious writing. In the case of Christianity it is tied to the bible. For Judaism there are the Hebrew Scriptures and the Talmud. For Muslims it is the Koran. The question is simple. The god described in all cases is described with having certain capabilities. Omnipotence, omniscience and is transcendent of humanity. If god has the capabilities of omnipotence and is omniscient how come none of the written documents allegedly produced by god or by humans through the hand of god displays any more knowledge of the universe than people who were living in the times of those writings?
Read the religious writings. Do they provide any evidence that the writer contained any special knowledge that could only have come from an omniscient being that is independently verifiable? If not do we then have to question the authenticity of the writers in being inspired by an omniscient being?
As I indicated in the beginning of this blog – any comments on this particular blog need to stay to the narrow scope of the question. Specifically, is there any evidence in the religious documents of knowledge beyond the knowledge of humanity at the time of its writing?
Abwägen
There is a massive amount of information regarding the case against deities. There are long arguments between theists and atheists that go through exhaustive detail about philosophies and ethical points.
I am not going to do that. There is plenty of information widely available out there if you want to research the topic. I have no doubt that there are thousands of pages of information on the topic – and all text no graphics.
My premise in this case is quite simple. My philosophy is that people should ask questions and find their own answers and be ethically honest with themselves in those answers. The simple fact that people come out with different answers should not be threatening. The only thing that is threatening to anyone is when answers of a specific type are held by people that believe that no other answers are acceptable.
If you have comments – I request that you stay to the narrow scope of the question.
And here is my first question:
Belief in God is strongly tied to religious writing. In the case of Christianity it is tied to the bible. For Judaism there are the Hebrew Scriptures and the Talmud. For Muslims it is the Koran. The question is simple. The god described in all cases is described with having certain capabilities. Omnipotence, omniscience and is transcendent of humanity. If god has the capabilities of omnipotence and is omniscient how come none of the written documents allegedly produced by god or by humans through the hand of god displays any more knowledge of the universe than people who were living in the times of those writings?
Read the religious writings. Do they provide any evidence that the writer contained any special knowledge that could only have come from an omniscient being that is independently verifiable? If not do we then have to question the authenticity of the writers in being inspired by an omniscient being?
As I indicated in the beginning of this blog – any comments on this particular blog need to stay to the narrow scope of the question. Specifically, is there any evidence in the religious documents of knowledge beyond the knowledge of humanity at the time of its writing?
Abwägen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)