It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

page: 32
57
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
Again, you're talking apples and oranges.

No. I don't think you even know what that phrase means. I'm not comparing 2 things that are vastly different.


Natural selection is a blind, random process. It happens after the fact. It's not creating any new sequences or function which is the topic of this thread.


Keep repeating this over and over, maybe it will eventually catch on, despite being dead wrong. Natural selection isn't really even a process. It's a description of adaptation. You really have to do better than repeating your original argument over and over. I don't care what you said. You are wrong and I bet you can't find a single scientific source that says natural selection is blind or random. I know you love to repeat those words over and over as catch phrase, but seriously, at least offer a rebuttal. You are just talking out your ass.


Natural selection has nothing to do with the genetic regulatory network that regulates expression.

Yes.


It's a blind, random event that occurs after the trait has reached the environment.

No. You going to back this point up or just keep repeating it?


Tell me, what mutation created the sequence TATAAA and gave this sequence the ability to direct the transcription factors to the site of the genes to be read and the direction of these gene sequences.


More techno-babble that shows you don't know what you are talking about. I'm not explaining evolution 101 to you again.


This is why evolution is impossible without intelligent agency. Here's an excellent video called Real Mathmatician : Type of information DNA is and probability ( Ignorance of atheist exposed)


Obviously you don't understand what the word impossible means. Just because something has a low chance of happening, does not make it impossible. I will not watch your video, since you refuse to offer the same courtesy and won't offer a single rebuttal. Numerous experiments that are documented in my video show that it IS possible.


If DNA didn't directly affect people's belief system, everyone would say it was designed by an Intelligent mind. The only reason this isn't the case, is because the theory of evolution is like a Holy Sacrament for atheism, materialism and secularism. These ism's depend on evolution being without God which means without Intelligence.


More drivel that doesn't prove anything. The only belief system being affected here is yours. Otherwise you wouldn't be so adamant about evolution being wrong, and you still post no evidence whatsoever and won't address any of the evidence people have posted. That is intellectually dishonest.


So, you have this HUGE BLIND SPOT or what's called the Primary Axiom where people just accept this nonsense. Evolution without intelligent agency is impossible. It can't occur. The only reason this is accepted is because of belief.


Repeat over and over and over. It's like you guys don't have any better arguments. You are basically a parent telling a child, "because I said so" when they ask, "Why?" Where is the substance? All you do is attack others. People agree with evolution because it's logical and based on facts that you repeatedly ignore. People disagree with it because they are uber religious and it hurts them on the inside that they have been wrong all these years due to excessive brainwashing as a child.



It takes an intelligent mind to give meaning and function to sequence. This is IMPOSSIBLE for the natural world.


LMAO! How many times are you going to repeat this lie? Prove this statement.


Nature can give you a snowflake, but this snowflake will not be encoded with the information to construct other snowflakes. It will not be encoded with the information to construct the machinary to build other snowflakes.


Irrelevant non sequitur.


Again, this only occurs with an intelligent mind.


Again, you need to prove this.


If you shuffle a deck of cards and put them back into the order they were in when you first opened them, they will be ordered but there's no meaning.

Another irrelevant non sequitur. You are on a role today.


Meaning and function comes from an intelligent mind.


Normally I wouldn't respond to the same statement multiple times, but I'm doing this to highlight your dishonesty here. You are repeating catch phrases and think because you've said it multiple times that it's true. These are old preacher tactics, nothing more. Sorry, I know you've been brainwashed, but real life doesn't work like that, please offer proof that an intelligent mind is required for something to increase in complexity. Go!


Meaning and function is saying, if the first 4 cards are the four aces then x. Meaning and function is saying, if the last 4 cards are aces then x. It's an intelligent mind that gives meaning to sequence.


Another irrelevant non sequitur. There is no "meaning" in your argument.

And you repeat the TATA box bull# argument again. Prove that it means DNA couldn't have been simpler. Prove that it means evolution is impossible. Prove anything at all about anything... I don't think you can.


Let me repeat:


Um, your entire thread has been nothing be repeated catch phrases.


Nature can not put DNA in a sequence that regulates gene expression.

Actually nature causes the genetic mutations that change the sequences, so once again you are wrong.


if this were any other system it would be recognized as designed by Intelligence.

Based on what evidence? I think you need to look up the term "objective evidence" and read about what that means in science. It doesn't mean your personal opinion on the complexity of DNA. Humans have not once ever discovered anything not man made (or animal made) that can be conclusively linked to intelligence. There's no way to prove something like that without evidence of the intelligent designer himself. You think that complexity magically = intelligence. It doesn't.



Because it's connected to the ism of an atheist, secularist or a materialist there's a HUGE BLIND SPOT.


Wrong again. Evolution is science, not an ism, and has nothing to do with atheism, secularism or materialism. Anything else you want to lie about today? Why do so many Christian scientists agree with evolution? Jesus Christ man, do some research. If all scientists were atheists, you might have a connection, but that's far from the case in reality. You just keep ranting and raving because your religion is dying. Instead of attacking the opposition, why not learn how both evolution AND intelligent design could be true. Are you too proud to even consider something like that?

Sorry bud, your post offers zero proof of any of your claims, and you STILL have not addressed any hard evidence of evolution. You need evidence to disprove science, not conjecture.


edit on 4 18 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: CharlestonChew

Good reply - thanks for illustrating that concept for me.


No problem, man.

I bet if you sat down and thought about the human body, and the way it's built, you could figure out better design ideas for different aspects.

Like the eliminative and sex organs being the same. That's just icky.



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect

This is exactly the point. You said:

All of this information about the design and functionality of all living things had to come from some where. It doesn't appear to be random information either, in the sense that it guides the production of viable living organisms – all from a passive non-living molecule (DNA). Somehow all living things come from a non-living chemical compound. We have not a clue how.

Only an intelligent mind can encode a sequence with information that regulates gene expression. There's a whole gene regulatory network of these sequences. If DNA wasn't directly connected to "there's no God" it would easily be recognized as a system designed by intelligence. Here's another example:

I can say, if you walk into my room and my shoes are neatly lined up against my wall, then meet me at Subway. I can also say, if my shoes are neatly lined up next to my bed, meet me at Taco Bell.

I have encoded my shoes with information that has meanining and function. My shoes don't magically create these sequences that instruct another intelligent mind where to meet, it's done by intelligence.

Look at the snowflake. Nature can produce an ordered snowflake but that snowflake can't be encoded with information on how to build other snowflakes or information on how to construct the machinary to build other snowflakes.

THIS ONLY COMES FROM AN INTELLIGENT MIND.

Like I said, there wouldn't even be a conversation if DNA wasn't connected to people belief of atheism, materialism and secularism. This system would instantly be recognized as designed by intelligence.



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

theres a bit of a difference here. In science, we have Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. It's the only evolutionary theory. In regards to "creationism" you have multiple versions from YEC to OEC to Vedic to ID(which is just young earth creationism repackaged as pseudoscience) and many, many more types of "creationism". Some posters even go back and forth through all the various types as they try to pull out all the stops to support their cause. Anyone who has taken high school biology knows what MES is. When posters bring up their personal flavor of creationism, there's a lot of wiggle room because its a very wide, open and generalized topic that encompasses multiple sects of Christianity and just about every other faith on the planet.



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton

theres a bit of a difference here. In science, we have Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. It's the only evolutionary theory.


Yet scientists, separated into different rooms, will not be able to give the same definition of evolution - it has yet to receive a universal definition.


In regards to "creationism" you have multiple versions from YEC to OEC to Vedic to ID(which is just young earth creationism repackaged as pseudoscience) and many, many more types of "creationism".


People tend to compromise the truth because its easier than actually understanding it.



Anyone who has taken high school biology knows what MES is.


Yes, but so few have been properly taught the core concepts of Creation. I went to a hypocritical Catholic school, and that was a quick ticket into an atheistic youth - it is important that our bad childhood experience with organized religion does not alienate us from the truth expressed in the Original Text.



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlestonChew

I bet if you sat down and thought about the human body, and the way it's built, you could figure out better design ideas for different aspects.


I'd be convinced if you could come up with a more attractive design for the woman archetype.



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

There you have it. A long winded post full of nothing. I don't have to prove it's possible because you're the one making the claim. It's absurd to even suggestbecause there's zero evidence to support this notion. This is why your post is full of things like this:

And you repeat the TATA box bull# argument again. Prove that it means DNA couldn't have been simpler. Prove that it means evolution is impossible. Prove anything at all about anything... I don't think you can.

TATA box bull LOL? Prove that it means?

Why should have to prove your claim? YOU CAN'T PROVE IT! The reason you can't because it's ASININE to think nature can encode DNA sequences with meaning and function that regulates expression. So it's not up to me to prove it. I think it's silly but you think it's possible but you just believe it because there isn't a shred of evidence to support it.

It takes an intelligent mind to encode sequences with meaning and function that regulates expression. Here's another example:

I can say, if 3 rocks are lined up in a row in my driveway then meet me at the Foot Locker Downtown. If 5 rocks are lined up in my driveway, then meet me at the Foot Locker at the mall.

The rocks themselves don't contain this information. The way an intelligent mind put's the rocks in a sequence is encoded with this information. It takes another intelligent mind who knows what these sequences mean to decode it or the machinary that's designed to decode these sequences.

It's IMPOSSIBLE for nature to do this. This is my claim.

I prove my claim because there's no evidence to suggest otherwise. It's not up to me to prove a negative. If someone claims that flying pink Elephants exists, it's not up to me to prove that this is possible. It's up to the person making the claim that flying pink Elephants exists to provide evidence to support their claim.

Evolution without intelligent agency and flying pink Elephants are in the same boat.

Here's a debate where Oxford Mathematician John C. Lennox destroys Dawkins in a debate. Dawkins, the atheist Dawkins said, NATURAL SELECTION IS A BLIND FORCE!

So the atheist Dawkins agrees with me. The entire debate is fascinating but Dawkins talks about Natural selection starting at the 16 minute mark.



Here's another great talk from John C. Lennox if anyone is interested.



So again, you're swimming upstream without a paddle. You're making claims and then asking me to prove that these claims are possible.

My claim is that, these things are impossible and this is why I laid out the evidence throughout this thread to support this. There's not any evidence to even entertain the notion that nature can encode sequences with information and then make the machinary to decode these sequences. This is why your posts and others are essentially incoherent babble. This is because you have to ASSUME AND BELIEVE that there's some simple non living something that magically became a complex living something.

I would rather put my faith in an intelligent mind or Logos behind the universe and evolution because that's what the evidence supports, rather than this fairytale of some magical molecule or magical simple something encoding sequences with information then making the machinary to decode this information.



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlestonChew

I bet if you sat down and thought about the human body, and the way it's built, you could figure out better design ideas for different aspects.


Ya gotta love being able to act in hindsight. And let's just forget the fact that we can even sit down, and think about our own body and what might be wrong with it. Am I right? Poor design and function indeed.



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic

Only an intelligent mind can encode a sequence with information that regulates gene expression. There's a whole gene regulatory network of these sequences. If DNA wasn't directly connected to "there's no God" it would easily be recognized as a system designed by intelligence.


This is the leap that I'm not able to resolve. We simply don't have the evidence of some omnipotent intelligence, other than to make the guess that DNA is the evidence. You know, that whole blind watchmaker thing. I have issues with that idea myself since while the appearance of design may only be illusory, there's nothing illusory about the information that exists within DNA. And as far as I know the origins of this information or how it can come about naturally has not adequately been resolved. But then again I don't think this has any bearing to evolution.



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

You just repeated the same post again. Try posting something that isn't regurgitated horse manure. I asked you to prove ANY of your claims and you failed, you just repeated the same crap. Maybe you don't understand how a discussion works? You need 2 people engaging the same topic. You are repeating the same nonsense over and over again. Please prove ANYTHING you have claimed. ANYTHING.


I don't have to prove it's possible because you're the one making the claim. It's absurd to even suggestbecause there's zero evidence to support this notion.


YOU claimed that evolution is impossible.

YOU claimed that ID was valid enough to replace it.

YOU claimed that it intelligence was absolutely required for DNA to become what it is.

YOU need to post evidence of any one of these as they are YOUR claims, not mine.


It takes an intelligent mind to encode sequences with meaning and function that regulates expression. Here's another example:


Proof still needed of this claim.


I can say, if 3 rocks are lined up in a row in my driveway then meet me at the Foot Locker Downtown. If 5 rocks are lined up in my driveway, then meet me at the Foot Locker at the mall.
The rocks themselves don't contain this information. The way an intelligent mind put's the rocks in a sequence is encoded with this information. It takes another intelligent mind who knows what these sequences mean to decode it or the machinary that's designed to decode these sequences.


LMAO. yet another irrelevant non sequitur. Where is your proof that an intelligent mind is required? Made up scenarios do not prove anything. your entire response is laughable because you refuse to provide evidence to back up ANYTHING you claim.


It's IMPOSSIBLE for nature to do this. This is my claim.


Then PROVE IT!


I prove my claim because there's no evidence to suggest otherwise. It's not up to me to prove a negative. If someone claims that flying pink Elephants exists, it's not up to me to prove that this is possible. It's up to the person making the claim that flying pink Elephants exists to provide evidence to support their claim.


That's not how you prove things, sorry. I posted the evidence, you ignored it. If you claim it is impossible for evolution to occur, then you need to show how and why. Making up fake scenarios that have nothing to do with DNA do not prove anything. You need science. Also there is ZERO (that's 0) evidence of any intelligent designer or intelligent design process. Yes, that's zero. Since you have no evidence, by your standards that should prove materialism, since there's no evidence to suggest otherwise, RIGHT?


Evolution without intelligent agency and flying pink Elephants are in the same boat.


Wrong.

ID and flying pink elephants are in the same boat.

www.talkorigins.org...

Please dispute a single one of these confirmed and verified pieces of evidence for evolution. No creationist EVER does it. Maybe you'll be the first. Nah, you'll just deny it and pretend the link was never posted.


So again, you're swimming upstream without a paddle. You're making claims and then asking me to prove that these claims are possible.


You're full of so much crap, it's leaking out of your ears. The only claim I have made is that evolution is backed by scientific evidence, and I have posted this in this very post. You are appealing to ignorance and nothing more.


edit on 4 18 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Starting at 23 minutes in your video with John Lennox and Richard Dawkins you can observe John Lennox is...

using concepts borrowed from ancient philosophers in order to explain [his] beliefs

regarding the word "Logos". The quotation above is from the article "One Myth Leads to Another". In my thread about that article I also have a comment with more details as to what John Lennox is doing there. I'll see if I can quote a bit, just remember that he's conflating the Logos mentioned in the Greek scriptures with a wrong Greek philosophical meaning (something Plato is also 'famous' for spreading philosophies about, using the application "reason" for the Greek word "Logos" and even expanding on that, which is not what it means at for example John 1:1). He even conflates "reason" with "mind" as the next step in his capitalization on the ambiguity of language and bending rules of logic. Since the word "reason" is also not the same as the word "mind" (or a synonym as if you can use them interchangeably and confuse people about it and what the bible really teaches).

Justin, though claiming to reject pagan philosophy, was the first to use philosophical language and concepts to express “Christian” ideas, considering this type of philosophy “to be safe and profitable.”
...
From this point on, the strategy was, not to oppose philosophy, but to make supposed Christian thought a philosophy higher than that of the pagans. “On some points we teach the same things as the poets and philosophers whom you honour, and on other points are fuller and more divine in our teaching,” wrote Justin. Adorned with its new philosophical finery, “Christian” thought now claimed the dignity of old age. The apologists pointed out that Christian books were far older than those of the Greeks and that the prophets of the Bible lived earlier than Greek philosophers. Certain apologists even concluded that the philosophers copied from the prophets. Plato was made out to be a disciple of Moses!

Christianity Distorted

This new strategy led to a mixture of Christianity and pagan philosophy.
...
Certain teachings were greatly modified. For example, in the Bible, Jesus is called “the Logos,” meaning God’s “Word,” or Spokesman. (John 1:1-3, 14-18; Revelation 19:11-13) Very early on, this teaching was distorted by Justin, who like a philosopher played on the two possible meanings of the Greek word logos: “word” and “reason.” Christians, he said, received the word in the person of Christ himself. However, logos in the sense of reason is found in every man, including pagans. Thus, he concluded, those who live in harmony with reason are Christians, even those who claimed or were thought to be atheists, like Socrates and others.

Moreover, by forcing the tie between Jesus and the logos of Greek philosophy, which was closely linked with the person of God, the apologists, including Tertullian, embarked on a course that eventually led Christianity to the Trinity dogma.*
*= For further information on Tertullian’s beliefs, see "The Paradox of Tertullian"

Source: The Apologists—Christian Defenders or Would-Be Philosophers?
edit on 18-4-2016 by whereislogic because: addition



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   


The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design


That is not going to happen - Evolution is just an observation of events in natural history - It is difficult fo find people willing to give it an intention or meaning - If Evoution is happening as its adherents believe it is - It still says little as to why it is happening - And survival of the fittest is a weak answer.

Intelligent Design on the other hand is a philosophical - And I say even scientific observation - that states exactly what science continues to show us - All of the physical Universe is based upon scientific principles. - And if in anyway it is evolving, it is evolving according to science. - And random chance is still there but limited - In the end intelligence rules.

The fact that the words Intelligent Design are often used by those of a theistic belief systim to indicate an intelligent designer is why the concept seems to be so despised by many - especially Atheists.

But Intelligent Design - an existent universe backed by an intelligent construction to it - does not require 'a' creator - Existence may have always been and always possessed an inherent intelligence in its matrix.

Today there are some scientists who believe in ID in spite of the criticism they may receive from their fellow scientists
- But if science is to progress - and yes EVOLVE - It requires free thinkers with open minds

I believe in both Intelligent Design and Evolution, in fact I see Evolution as a form of Intelligent Design.

Let your minds evolve people and you will see the dichotomy between Evolution and Intelligent Design
is a no brainer - It doen't exist.








universalspacealienpeoplesassociation.blogspot.com...
edit on 18-4-2016 by AlienView because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

Evolution does not NEED an intention, much like Gravety, Magnetism, etc they don't have an intention. Anthropomorphising it is a common mistake.



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Again the Jehovah's witness propaganda website is not evidence or proof of anything. It has more of an agenda than any science. It proves absolutely nothing and it not a credible source.



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

This post screams, evolution is false. You can't even answer a simple question about a TATA box. I've asked you like 4 or 5 times and you keep dodging the question. One more time:

Tell me, what mutation created the sequence TATAAA and gave this sequence the ability to direct the transcription factors to the site of the genes to be read and the direction of these gene sequences.

The problem you have is, there isn't any answer to this question without intelligence.

The way Darwinist debate is, they make an ASININE statement and then they ask you to prove the ASININE statement. For instance, I will say, there has to be an intelligent mind that encodes sequences with meaning and also makes the machinary to decode the information.

This is an unremarkable statement. 99.99% of the time, this is just an obvious truth when you see a system that can encode information in a sequence and also make the machinary to decode this information.

When it comes to evolution, we're supposed to abandon all logic and say nature did it even though this is impossible. Darwinist then say, PROVE NATURE CAN'T DO THIS.

Think of how silly this sounds. Now it's my job to prove a negative. It's your claim and you can't even answer a simple question about a TATA box.

You make the ASSUMPTION based on blind belief that nature can do this. Every instance of a sequence being encoded with information and also making machinary to decode this information comes from intelligence. If you're going to make the ABSURD claim that natur can do this then you have to provide the evidence. Here's another one for you.

Tell me, what mutation created the sequence GGCCAATCT and gave this sequence the ability to signal the binding site for the RNA transcription factor.


In molecular biology, a CCAAT box (also sometimes abbreviated a CAAT box or CAT box) is a distinct pattern of nucleotides with GGCCAATCT consensus sequence that occur upstream by 60-100 bases to the initial transcription site. The CAAT box signals the binding site for the RNA transcription factor, and is typically accompanied by a conserved consensus sequence. It is an invariant DNA sequence at about minus 70 base pairs from the origin of transcription in many eukaryotic promoters. Genes that have this element seem to require it for the gene to be transcribed in sufficient quantities. It is frequently absent from genes that encode proteins used in virtually all cells. This box along with the GC box is known for binding general transcription factors. Both of these consensus sequences belong to the regulatory promoter. Full gene expression occurs when transcription activator proteins bind to each module within the regulatory promoter. Protein specific binding is required for the CCAAT box activation. These proteins are known as CCAAT box binding proteins/CCAAT box binding factors.


en.wikipedia.org...

Again, a sequence is encoded with information by intelligence and intelligence makes the machinary to decode this information. When you say Nature can do this it's no different then saying pigs can fly and have wings. There's no evidence for either of these things. The most you will get is a simple something became a complex something and this must have happened because this has to be explained without intelligent agency no matter how idiotic it sounds.
edit on 19-4-2016 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 02:14 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic



Natural selection is a blind, random process.


No.

Natural Selection is NOT random.

However, mutation is a blind, random process.


That is why it is called 'random mutation'.



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 02:17 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

God is forever



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 02:38 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic




just remember that he's conflating the Logos mentioned in the Greek scriptures with a wrong Greek philosophical meaning (something Plato is also 'famous' for spreading philosophies about, using the application "reason" for the Greek word "Logos" and even expanding on that, which is not what it means at for example John 1:1).


To quote Marx: ' Dat's the most ridiculous ting I ever hoid!.

1) Plato never used the word 'reason' in any of his writings about anything. 'Reason' is an English word. So you are arguing about the translation and probably a translation of a translation at that.

2) Plato was writing somewhere in the neighborhood of 400 years before the author of John. It is much more likely that John doesn't know what he was talking about if indeed the ideas are different.

3) It is certainly possible that John was a Hellenized Jew. Perhaps he had an imperfect understanding of the word 'logos'. On the other hand, perhaps it is you who has an imperfect understanding of the word.

For a quick primer on the Hellenistic influence on the early Christian Church see: What is Hellenism, and how did it influence the early church?

From that link:


LOGOS:. John 1:1 is one of the many examples in which Christian Scriptures use Greek concepts to explain a truth: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This "Word," referring to Jesus, is the Greek logos. Logos originally meant “an opinion, word, speech, or reason,” but the Stoics came to affiliate it with the spiritual creative force in the universe—reason within the physical. This is related to Plato's "form," which he defined as the ultimate, perfect model held in the mind or realm of the Creator on which earthly things are based. Jesus’ identification as the logos means that His teachings directly reflect the universal truths of creation.


I find it amazing that the anti-science mob arguing here against evolution even though they don't understand its most simple concepts, also don't understand the most basic ideas in their religious worldview.



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 02:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: whereislogic

1) Plato never used the word 'reason' in any of his writings about anything. 'Reason' is an English word.


oh, how surprising, you twist my words again and almost pretend I was saying that Plato used the English word "reason", but not quite exactly, so I can't expose it that well only to have you make excuses that that is not quite what you exactly said that I said. bleuahhh...


You just bring it up as if it's meaningful to bring up and as if I don't know Plato didn't talk or write his work in English or for some other motive to follow your path of argumentation and distract from my point and twist history while you're at it. Great job again at making me not wanna defend the point I was making. Hopefully not everyone falls for your twists trying to lure me into responding about it. Because I can't stand other people being deceived like this (starting with your standard ridicule routine now it seems).

Ok, some more information from wikipedia and a thesaurus online for synonyms:


cogitate
verb. think deeply about

meditate
reason

thinking
noun. thought

meditation
reason

Source: Reason Synonyms, Reason Antonyms | Thesaurus.com


Neoplatonist philosophers such as Plotinus (204/5–270 AD) used the term "Logos" in ways that drew on Plato and the Stoics,...
The Logos was a key element in the meditations of Plotinus[73] regarded as the first Neoplatonist. Plotinus referred back to Heraclitus and as far back as Thales[74] in interpreting Logos as the principle of meditation,...

Source: Logos - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And no, Plotinus didn't use the english word "meditation"(/reason) either, duh. But I take it you're not so keen in twisting the point wikipedia is making other than perhaps nag about me not quoting Plato; well, people have been spoonfed his philosophies long enough now, I'm not gonna contribute more to that wherever I can help it. It's still not what some people want to hear so it wouldn't matter if I quoted Plato directly on the subject.

Plus this isn't just about Plato, that was just an extra clue I threw in there and neither was I suggesting that Plato was interpreting bible scriptures. Nice picking it out from the rest of my point and what was mentioned in the article and further possible personal research in the available links.
edit on 19-4-2016 by whereislogic because: addition



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 04:13 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Cool, so you get stuck on what your imagination is my throw away line, and refuse to respond to the actual relevant content?

Have you no intellectual honesty at all?

The Greek word "Logos" originally meant “an opinion, word, speech, or reason”.

Plato talked about 'form' as the ultimate template or archetype in the mind of the universal creative force. It was the Stoics in the years after Plato that stretched its meaning in a metaphor to describe the universal creative force: reason out of physical chaos. Modern philosophies might describe it as 'phenomenology' - the idea that nothing exists except what we can detect with our senses, and since we cannot 'trust' our senses, then in reality nothing exists outside our own mind (a very dumbed down description and probably nowhere near perfect - my apologies to Husserl and Heidegger).

Plato was writing before both the Stoics and John and he was closest in time to the 'original' meaning of the Greek word 'logos'. On the other hand, John was seeing the Platonic concepts through a 400 year filter of the Stoics and other philosophical schools. You are reading John through a 2000 year filter of Christian philosophical gymnastics of the highest order.

How can you charge Plato with the 'crime' of using the word incorrectly? That is simply intellectual blindness. Plato didn't use the word incorrectly. The Stoics didn't use the word incorrectly. John didn't use the word incorrectly. The Gnostics didn't use the word incorrectly.

What they did was use the vocabulary they possessed to describe some highly complicated and extremely esoteric ideas. Furthermore, the translators used the vocabulary the possessed to transmit the IDEAS (of both Plato and John) into other languages. The success or failure of a particular translation is not whether or not they used words in the same way that preacher want to use those words 2 or 3 hundred years later; it is how well they transmitted the ideas of the original author from the original language to the target language.

We don't get to criticize Plato's words, or the words of his translators, but we can agree or disagree with his ideas.

Maybe if you tried to understand what Plato meant (or rather what the translator was trying to convey about Plato's meaning) when he used the word 'reason' for Logos, instead of stonewalling the concept as soon as you see a word that has meaning for you in a different context, you might find that Plato was closer to John than you might imagine.

Or not.

But at least you could then discuss his ideas instead of his vocabulary.
edit on 19/4/2016 by rnaa because: (no reason given)

edit on 19/4/2016 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join