I'd generally refrain from persuading another to believe in the superiority or supremacy of a given faith. At least in the context of a particular view, and this, yes, means with respect to any personal view, namely concerning a particular belief...as I believe from a reasoning standpoint is not likely to be found...or if you asked God to prove to you Self existence, I imagined the question 'How?' might arise. I say this from a sort of absurdly problematic standpoint, or namely, if we are able to self identify with other humans, one could infer to judge another human relative another human, but we still as of yet might have difficulty in identifying alien life elsewhere unless it were that we stumbled upon clearly a given alien planet and it were teeming and ever so abundantly clear to us that such life existed in the obvious sense, and even then, one should wonder that all doubt were removed in the context of logic and science without measure isolating and differentiating such life relatively so. This also raising the question as to how God Himself could ever prove that He were as He were? Of course, biblically speaking, God should prove this were so by leaping from a cliff, and hence being received at the bottom of a cliff without harm...to Satan this seems acceptable, but general to man and the sciences this would still be unlikely so! Or we think argumentatively in the notion of miraculous, and we might infer the use of example such as cargo cult that simultaneously makes appropriation of human sociological nature and a given limitation of knowledge. There is after all the possibility that in a given future man, for instance, might fashion technologies that make feasible something of the miracles of yesterday, and wholly this would seem miraculous but need this come from God alone?!
There might be explanation of the a sun seemingly dancing around in the sky if it were literally true and one believed this to be so. For instance, could it possible that in such a future the warping of space time curvature leads to strange phenomenon of optics...of course we know that in terms of vast cosmological distances, gravitational lensing is possible although in terms of smaller scales certainly one should have less reason to believe this were possible in the same dramatic context, let alone human civilizations fashioning technologies which could make such case possible. Thus it seems there always arises the logical problem of a given unexplained phenomenon and how a given view of it is made. In so far as 'faith' some choose to believe and others not, and likely one should imagine that the occurrence of such an event constitutes a given truth.
I think of the case example of the scientist, In terms of a popular science fiction film Contact, whom drops into a wormhole only to seemingly vanish from their perspective but from others not, and then such scientist given the task of proving by evidence a given claim of experience. Of course, in such narrative suppression of a truth conceals information which seems to make more valid a claim, but often times, I wonder how so much clear cut even in the lack of suppression of evidence that a truth should seem obvious. Even if it were so that additional minutes of supposed 'white noise' infer the truth of a claim, could there be other reasons for such evidence? Without parsing infinitum all possibilities for an arising skepticism, one could offer that hoaxing data is possible in such a day...and to this extent ruling out that such data were legitimately and faithfully recorded by such a machine. Of course, exhaustible research of equipment yields that the machines hadn't been tampered with or that any pre or post existing damage has occurred, yet still the possibility is left open that what ever phenomenon having arisen given the nature of a given machine hadn't ruled out the possibility that erroneous collection of data might not have occurred, and then given lack of an obvious state which could be re verified, or in the case funding which appropriates the re use of such technology verifying any atypical phenomenon, it seems easier the inclination towards the potential dismissal of an event having ever occurred.
One might be demanded to believe by the presence of a 'miraculous' event alone, but in terms of science or a given logic, and any given limitation otherwise, I am not certain what makes clear the truth that God should exist, and perhaps, to some degree maybe the question of proving is entirely absurd from a logical standpoint as no proof could ever exist in one way or the other. Certainly one arrives at the condition of believing by way of 'faith' as it were ever so much like the condition of believing that the world might not vanish in the next given day and that continued peace should exist in so far as the conditions of world wars. While behavioral conditioning might aid profoundly a given belief system with respect to an any state existence of a given environment or likely concerning the course of world affairs, at least then it seems a muddling occurs with respect to ideals as to what exactly 'faith' is comprised of...here I find myself considering use in the rational and reasoned sense that faith if ever clearly differentiated could amount to some irrationality given rational precedence otherwise. That is, that despite bombs falling all around, I believe that I will be saved, or at least this could be given to some proximity of events, 'faith' could at times could be perceived irrational with respect to likelihoods or probable outcomes, or even defying any potential conditioning that directs one to believe in a given way...although potentially another might claim that such a person well composed in the face of extreme duress were truly crazy all the same. From this we add other terms 'love' which potentially could give rise to bio chemical reduction isms, and yet we may be inclined in refrain to find something of reducibility to such terminology. That is, that 'love' itself must be attached to biochemical reactions, or living biology alone, or as posited in the manner of theoretic s it may even be possible that machines experience the amalgamation of an experience that sentient biologies experience as 'love'. Even while the manifest truth of rarer abstract things imagined illicit something of a critique concerning the existence or non existence of such imagination, the square, for instance, must seem purely a platonic device, and yet it is still at least equally true even if it is as likely left to imagination or intelligent creation by anything, and then to say that 'love' itself is reducible, defies the possibility that its creation as imagined irreducible is at least conceived true, and while the square lends itself to something in explaining any number of fundamental forces (inverse square laws), yet there appears something incomplete by such description alone. It seems one could have reticence in tossing the square likewise, that is, in stating something like classical mechanics should go into dis use...one might be persuaded that teaching the myriad of mathematics, for instance, involved outside the ideal and abstract rules of simplification need not burden minds as much, or at least lives weren't dependent upon knowing the much more complicated model of things, and where the arrival of an answer that posits enough accuracy. Thus, for ideal, purposes, yes, some picture might be incomplete through the co opted use of, for instance, ideal geometries in say classical mechanics, yet on the other hand these could be indispensable when relating and understanding fundamental things at certain levels.
Analogously even if seemingly the picture of incompleteness seemingly arises according to the ideal descriptions posited through the use of ideal concepts, on the other hand, it seems we may be freed of something of the burdens entailed relative to the more complicated view of things, and this is readily done so in the teaching of sciences all the time.
More so I wonder outside of the more obvious condition that I prove myself human in such a day where seemingly irreducible one's nature, and then given the at times investment of the human mind in so far as incomprehensibly small differences given otherwise in so far as genetics. This is to say, I could look every bit as human, feel as human as any, neither have skin peeling away to reveal something dark, sinister and alien, bleed and suffer as a human, but does this ever prove that I am truly human? Should the word 'human' also be an abstract ideal concept fitting for biological classifications? Considering that modern day genetics affording such classification (even given the range of differences found among populations) should be indispensable, it weren't, for instance, so long ago that people of different races were considered inhuman after all and that those in the name of scientific and/or religious view points were given to claiming such differences. More so given the inclination of the world to move in the way of ideals, the downside of this could be in the degree of parsing much greater differences than really exist.
There might be explanation of the a sun seemingly dancing around in the sky if it were literally true and one believed this to be so. For instance, could it possible that in such a future the warping of space time curvature leads to strange phenomenon of optics...of course we know that in terms of vast cosmological distances, gravitational lensing is possible although in terms of smaller scales certainly one should have less reason to believe this were possible in the same dramatic context, let alone human civilizations fashioning technologies which could make such case possible. Thus it seems there always arises the logical problem of a given unexplained phenomenon and how a given view of it is made. In so far as 'faith' some choose to believe and others not, and likely one should imagine that the occurrence of such an event constitutes a given truth.
I think of the case example of the scientist, In terms of a popular science fiction film Contact, whom drops into a wormhole only to seemingly vanish from their perspective but from others not, and then such scientist given the task of proving by evidence a given claim of experience. Of course, in such narrative suppression of a truth conceals information which seems to make more valid a claim, but often times, I wonder how so much clear cut even in the lack of suppression of evidence that a truth should seem obvious. Even if it were so that additional minutes of supposed 'white noise' infer the truth of a claim, could there be other reasons for such evidence? Without parsing infinitum all possibilities for an arising skepticism, one could offer that hoaxing data is possible in such a day...and to this extent ruling out that such data were legitimately and faithfully recorded by such a machine. Of course, exhaustible research of equipment yields that the machines hadn't been tampered with or that any pre or post existing damage has occurred, yet still the possibility is left open that what ever phenomenon having arisen given the nature of a given machine hadn't ruled out the possibility that erroneous collection of data might not have occurred, and then given lack of an obvious state which could be re verified, or in the case funding which appropriates the re use of such technology verifying any atypical phenomenon, it seems easier the inclination towards the potential dismissal of an event having ever occurred.
One might be demanded to believe by the presence of a 'miraculous' event alone, but in terms of science or a given logic, and any given limitation otherwise, I am not certain what makes clear the truth that God should exist, and perhaps, to some degree maybe the question of proving is entirely absurd from a logical standpoint as no proof could ever exist in one way or the other. Certainly one arrives at the condition of believing by way of 'faith' as it were ever so much like the condition of believing that the world might not vanish in the next given day and that continued peace should exist in so far as the conditions of world wars. While behavioral conditioning might aid profoundly a given belief system with respect to an any state existence of a given environment or likely concerning the course of world affairs, at least then it seems a muddling occurs with respect to ideals as to what exactly 'faith' is comprised of...here I find myself considering use in the rational and reasoned sense that faith if ever clearly differentiated could amount to some irrationality given rational precedence otherwise. That is, that despite bombs falling all around, I believe that I will be saved, or at least this could be given to some proximity of events, 'faith' could at times could be perceived irrational with respect to likelihoods or probable outcomes, or even defying any potential conditioning that directs one to believe in a given way...although potentially another might claim that such a person well composed in the face of extreme duress were truly crazy all the same. From this we add other terms 'love' which potentially could give rise to bio chemical reduction isms, and yet we may be inclined in refrain to find something of reducibility to such terminology. That is, that 'love' itself must be attached to biochemical reactions, or living biology alone, or as posited in the manner of theoretic s it may even be possible that machines experience the amalgamation of an experience that sentient biologies experience as 'love'. Even while the manifest truth of rarer abstract things imagined illicit something of a critique concerning the existence or non existence of such imagination, the square, for instance, must seem purely a platonic device, and yet it is still at least equally true even if it is as likely left to imagination or intelligent creation by anything, and then to say that 'love' itself is reducible, defies the possibility that its creation as imagined irreducible is at least conceived true, and while the square lends itself to something in explaining any number of fundamental forces (inverse square laws), yet there appears something incomplete by such description alone. It seems one could have reticence in tossing the square likewise, that is, in stating something like classical mechanics should go into dis use...one might be persuaded that teaching the myriad of mathematics, for instance, involved outside the ideal and abstract rules of simplification need not burden minds as much, or at least lives weren't dependent upon knowing the much more complicated model of things, and where the arrival of an answer that posits enough accuracy. Thus, for ideal, purposes, yes, some picture might be incomplete through the co opted use of, for instance, ideal geometries in say classical mechanics, yet on the other hand these could be indispensable when relating and understanding fundamental things at certain levels.
Analogously even if seemingly the picture of incompleteness seemingly arises according to the ideal descriptions posited through the use of ideal concepts, on the other hand, it seems we may be freed of something of the burdens entailed relative to the more complicated view of things, and this is readily done so in the teaching of sciences all the time.
More so I wonder outside of the more obvious condition that I prove myself human in such a day where seemingly irreducible one's nature, and then given the at times investment of the human mind in so far as incomprehensibly small differences given otherwise in so far as genetics. This is to say, I could look every bit as human, feel as human as any, neither have skin peeling away to reveal something dark, sinister and alien, bleed and suffer as a human, but does this ever prove that I am truly human? Should the word 'human' also be an abstract ideal concept fitting for biological classifications? Considering that modern day genetics affording such classification (even given the range of differences found among populations) should be indispensable, it weren't, for instance, so long ago that people of different races were considered inhuman after all and that those in the name of scientific and/or religious view points were given to claiming such differences. More so given the inclination of the world to move in the way of ideals, the downside of this could be in the degree of parsing much greater differences than really exist.
No comments:
Post a Comment