Caesar and his gang are a posteriori knowledge..... Lots of documentation involved and no appeals to faith.
Nobody can prove the existence of Caesar, we accept Caesar existed based on texts, artifacts and legends. Circumstantial evidence which points in Caesars direction.
that is not direct evidence for the biblical creation.
It is just as much evidence as biology is for evolution. Where once it was considered a way out, far fetched thing, all of a sudden due to science, it isn't as far fetched as it first appeared. Nothing supernatural about it at all.
Cloning would have produced a Steve... not an Eve. With no way of bringing the clone to maturity... and who uses a rib bone? That is wasteful, needlessly intrusive and a dumb place to get material.
If an alledged person had the knowledge to create the human genome from scratch using only base elements of earth, creating a women from a males rib bone would be like a walk in the park.
Whether or not it is dumb, one would have to take that up with the alledged deity, or a scientist with equal knowledge, when of course, we gain that amount of knowledge.
No we can't. We can not make matter from nothing... we can not break the laws of physics.
The base premise of any theory pertaining to the origin of the universe, starts off with this premise. Either that or we can have an effect without a cause. Two scientific improbabilities which defy the laws of physics as we currently know them.
All this says is, that mankind has to gain more knowledge in order to understand it. There is more to physics than we currently know.
I'm not arguing that. Hell, have you noticed my religious tag?
I understand your position, and have since the first time we spoke.
Again, no argument.... but it starts with a priori knowledge.
Such is your belief.
It started off with a deity, then Adam and Eve and the whole Hebrew connection. The Faith (as in religious beliefs) came after, based on the evidence (word of mouth, then later translated to text) left by generations before them. The same way which things like fire, were passed along. The same way knowledge of Caesar was passed along.
Is there evidence to support this? Well unfortunately for sceptics there is.
God per se, is alleged to have created the universe. Does the universe exist?
God per se, is alledged to have created the Sun, the Earth and the Moon. Do the Sun, the Earth and the Moon exist?
God per se, is alleged to have created Adam and Eve and from them the ancient Hebrew generated. Do the Hebrew still exist, and is there substantial evidence pertaining to the ancient Hebrew?
God per se, is alledged to have created Adam and Eve, is this possible? Do we have any evidence to support the creation of life forms, including humans?
Does science discredit the Bible and the Genesis prognosis or does science give methods which an alledged deity could have possibly used to create the wonders which it is alledged God did?
Pertaining to paths of enlightenment, these are based so as to eliminate priori knowledge, be these paths of enlightenment left by the ancient Hebrew, the ancient Asian, the ancient Indian, the ancient American Indian, the Australian aboriginal, et al.
So why do you hate a vital source of knowing for humans? Not everything is/can be a posteriori.... a priori is not a logical fallacy, its a natural source of knowledge.
Hate is a perceptional word, in this instance more relative to your belief of my thinking, than it is to mine.
To say that religion/spirituality is an a priori position, is in itself an a priori position. Born of deductive reasoning and not supported by, a posteriori demonstration. Which proves your natural source of knowledge statement. The imagination and the faith we put into it, are indeed a powerful source of knowledge especially as it starts to intermix with perceptual knowledge gained from personal life experience.
It is impossible for the human brain to associate, if it cannot relate. It cannot relate, if it has nothing to associate to. A virtual catch 22, especially for newborn children. All the knowledge of children, and a great percentage of knowledge held by adults, is held as an a priori position. I certainly do not deny it.
Religions/spirituality are nothing more than an extention of base root, ancient cultures. You do not get evidence from religions, you get it from the base root cultures or the source of the knowledge base.
You are arguing phantoms and shadows. (based on your perceptions and beliefs.)
Such is your perception, which forces your a priori position.
