All interpretation is context. One can not have every answer but still have some specific beliefs that rise to the level of being "knowledge". Still one must know that even things he knows might not be true. I'm pretty sure there's a place called "Moscow" but I know it is constantly changing and moving. If Moscow exists then you can't visit it twice. This is the nature of reality.
Apparently you have very low criteria for "knowledge." For some claims, fantastical or magical claims, we skeptics demand considerable evidence.
No. That's old thinking. Experiment has shown that any result is possible.
No, experiments rule out untrue hypotheses.
Results aren't haphazard. There are rules chemistry and physics follow.
Remember if you toss a coin a million times every single result is just as likely as every other result. It is exactly as likely to come up heads every time as anything else.
No. Were you asleep during your intro to statistics class?
Other than free will no sort of determinism appears to apply to reality. All events appear to begin randomly at the subatomic level.
They may begin that way, but their expression is usually deterministic. When I step off the kerb, I don't sink into the street. My kitchen scale reliably reports the mass of what I weigh. Gasoline reliably burns in my car's engine.
No, I just ignored the claim because I believe it is unknowable. Until all relevant terms are defined it can't be studied. The concept of "God" arises from logic but our religious concept of "God" I believe arises from confusion
The concept of God is not a logical or evidence-based claim.
spawned by the tower of babel; the change in language. I certainly don't know and remarkably enough don't really have an opinion any longer. Just as there are no atheists in foxholes the incidence of atheism with age seems to decrease.
The tower of Babel is unevidenced folklore. Like evolution, language change is a slow accumulation of small changes.
There are atheists in foxholes, and my skepticism only increases with age.
You believe "rabbits" and individuals are interchangeable. Foxes don't eat "rabbits" and if they needed to they'd all starve. Individual foxes eat individual rabbits when they can catch them. They might notice one is tougher or chewier than another or one ran a little faster than most but they don't know if one is fitter than another. They pretty much all taste the same (like chicken).
The ones that escape the fox are probably "fitter."
By removing the individual from the equation you are removing every single difference and you are removing every consciousness. If consciousness is the cause of change as I maintain (remember the least rabbit like individuals survive) then you have factored the actual cause of change in species right out of "Evolution".
You mix perceived reality with "consciousness generated" reality.
You see "fitness" where it doesn't exist. You see gradual change despite the fact all observed change in all life at every level is sudden. You are simply imagining a gradual change of whales coming out of the ocean and then returning.
Warm fur really is advantageous in arctic species. Camouflaged coloration really is advantageous in small prey species.
You keep making this claim of sudden change. I'm still waiting for evidence. The evidence I, and most biologists, paleontologists, and geologists have, is for long, gradual change, in most cases.
Well.... I believe the Bible is based on literal truth. I'm specifically referring to the Old testament as I'm unfamiliar with the New Testament. Much of it will never be understood but more of it will. Believe it or not our ancestors were not sun addled bumpkins.
Why do you believe this? It seems irrational.
The ancients were ignorant of almost everything. They knew almost nothing of how the world worked. They told stories around their campfires.
But all their foundational work was based on ancient science that they couldn't understand. They copied it without change as well as they could. But this copying resulted in some very incomprehensible things that they sometimes "smoothed over" so they made sense.
What was this ancient science? Where was the observation-based hypothesis formation, exclusionary testing, and peer review?
The ancients made up stories, passed them around, and embellished them.
Ancient science was remarkable and far more advanced than perhaps even I can imagine.
There was no ancient science. There was trial and error, at best. Human knowledge and technology advanced at a snail's pace.
But it was weak in things like chemistry, mechanics, optics, and most technology. It was very strong in things like biology, "phycology", anatomy, and zoology.
They knew nothing about most of these things.
Its nature led to understanding and the ability to manipulate the environment with minimal effort.
Yet we see no evidence of this. Oxcarts were high-tech.
But its metaphysics was language itself and this became increasingly complex as knowledge increased and it had to give way in the long run to a language that ordinary people could speak.
Huh? Please name one language that's not fully developed.
The name of the event that suddenly changed the language and gave rise to homo omnisciencis is known only as the "Tower of Babel". While I'm not really a " literalist Abrahamist creationist", I do still believe the Bible is literally true from the perspective of the natural logic of the human brain.
Balderdash! The human brain is apophenic. There was no selective advantage to the development of critical, analytic skills, or the facility for abstract thinking. These are new, unnatural skills.
While it is accurate, precise, literal, and true it still must be unraveled. Unraveling it will probably require the reinvention of ancient science and applying its knowledge to the Bible.
What on Earth are you talking about?
Reality is most highly complex. It bends to our will while still reflecting everything in existence and that has been in existence.
It bends to our will?
We aren't so complex in some ways since we each see what we believe. We act on those beliefs and eventually become them.
Some of us are skeptical. The rational need evidence before they believe.
