The Bible Is Not A Historical Document

Nanophotonics

Joined Apr 2, 2009
383
I use wikipedia a lot. But how far is it accurate? I personally don't have any idea for things I can't prove. But what I appreciate with this website is that, it's not subjective. The target is to share all knowledge as much as possible and not to argue for and against. A brilliant evidence of education and wisdom. And it's free! So is AAC!

Cheers.
 

Nanophotonics

Joined Apr 2, 2009
383
If we have words that define non factual things, may we agree that these creations are just words and not things?

BoyntonStu
I might agree and I might not agree as well. As long as I haven't seen any "non-factual" thing, I might agree. But if I were to see a "non-factual" thing, then it would no longer be a "non-factual" thing to me and in that case I won't agree, but the thing is, at the same time, as soon as I would see it, the status of that "thing" would have changed from "non-factual" to being "factual", which means that, strictly speaking, non-factual things are words.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:

Thread Starter

BoyntonStu

Joined Apr 18, 2009
52
I might agree and I might not agree as well. As long as I haven't seen any "non-factual" thing, I might agree. But if I were to see a "non-factual" thing, then it would no longer be a "non-factual" thing to me and in that case I won't agree, but the thing is, at the same time, as soon as I would see it, the status of that "thing" would have changed from "non-factual" to being "factual", which means that, strictly speaking, non-factual things are words.

Cheers.

The logical way for someone who uses a term that is not understood is for that person to provide some evidence for its existence.


An example of a non factual word is "Unicorn".

"Unicorn" is a widely used arrangement of alphabet letters.

However, this manufactured word has not a single piece of data to support its reality.


Humans are quite inventive in combining letters to fabricate words.

But as the song goes, "It ain't necessarily so".


BoyntonStu
 

Nanophotonics

Joined Apr 2, 2009
383
The logical way for someone who uses a term that is not understood is for that person to provide some evidence for its existence.
Do you understand the term "God"? If it is the case that the term "God" is not understood for you, then could you please be kind enough to show me what sort of logical way would you follow to provide some evidence of "God's" existence? I would really appreciate to see your view on that matter. Now if you understood the term "God", using the same logical way, does that imply you don't have to provide evidence of God's existence? You might also ask me "understood" by who?


But as the song goes, "It ain't necessarily so".
I kindly agree.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:

Thread Starter

BoyntonStu

Joined Apr 18, 2009
52
Do you understand the term "God"? If it is the case that the term "God" is not understood for you, then could you please be kind enough to show me what sort of logical way would you follow to provide some evidence of "God's" existence? I would really appreciate to see your view on that matter. Now if you understood the term "God", using the same logical way, does that imply you don't have to provide evidence of God's existence? You might also ask me "understood" by who?




I kindly agree.

Thanks.

To understand the word "God" is to understand the word "Create" as opposed to the word "create".

I understand the word "create". For example, a person thinks of an idea, goes to Home Depot for materials, and fabricates a "creation".

Philosophers used a clock as an example of "create".

The same philosophers attempted to segue from "create" to "Create" to prove the existence of "God". That "God" "Created" the Sun , the stars, Earth, etc.

This was a smoke and mirror trick.

For "create" to occur, materials are needed.

For "Create" to occur, something must come from nothing.

Did "God" obtain materials for the Universe from the "Home Depot of the Sky"?

As I said before, I have no idea what "God" means.

Thomas Aquinas used the "Creation argument to prove "God's" existence. It was accepted for many years. When examined logically and in fine detail, it easily falls apart.



BoyntonStu
 

thingmaker3

Joined May 16, 2005
5,083
If we have words that define non factual things, may we agree that these creations are just words and not things?

BoyntonStu
Literary creations are non factual, but they are much more than words. Mythologies of numerous cultures are not factual, but are of great importance beyond the mere words which comprise them. The same is true of many songs.

Perhaps a specific word is being sought to define the "things' under discussion? If so, I nominate "metaphor."
 

Nanophotonics

Joined Apr 2, 2009
383
The same philosophers attempted to segue from "create" to "Create" to prove the existence of "God". That "God" "Created" the Sun , the stars, Earth, etc.
How do you know it's the same philosophers? To my understanding every person is unique.

something must come from nothing


I assume that's what you don't understand but you did know the definition for it. Am I right?

Thomas Aquinas believed that the concept of God is neither obvious nor unprovable. Does that sound familiar to something I said earlier?

Thanks.
 
Well, this is all pretty confusing to me...

I'm not sure that there is enough agreed upon information to prove that I even exist let alone someone else. My name is certainly just a collection of letters about which you will find very little verifiable documentation. I'm sure all of that would be questionable.
 

Thread Starter

BoyntonStu

Joined Apr 18, 2009
52
Literary creations are non factual, but they are much more than words. Mythologies of numerous cultures are not factual, but are of great importance beyond the mere words which comprise them. The same is true of many songs.

Perhaps a specific word is being sought to define the "things' under discussion? If so, I nominate "metaphor."
Metaphor: A figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them.


O.K. Let's try Metaphor.

A "Unicorn" is a metaphor for?


"God" is a metaphor for?


BoyntonStu
 
Top