TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Support that claim.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Life From Dirt?
- Thread starter Jimmy
- Start date
Support that claim.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
No, it has nothing to do with ego.
It has to do with bias from a priori beliefs and the fact that "common sense" can only take into account things that are already known but not the things that are still unknown.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
You can transcend bias, and access a deeper level of understanding which is universal and innate, but first you have to silence the clamour in your head.
Last edited:
Except the one voice - the inner one?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
The problem is as always that you in effect treat knowledge as only one version per your understanding, which has no problems, because only all other versions have problems, but yours don't have any problems as in general for knowledge.
In effect it is a form of special pleading.
As a general skeptic I can point out the limit of your version, but in effect that is irrelevant to you, because your beliefs work for you, but other beliefs don't work for you, but your beliefs are special, because they are special in a postive sense as they work for you.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, in Western secualar philosophy it is the concepts of authentic and episteme in some sense.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
The one that speaks in silence, and not to the intellect but directly to the soul.
Well perhaps you haven't found your inner voice to be in error but I have, and I've mentioned it before, so as not to trust such all the time, even if it behaves most of the time. I also have another incident where it misbehaved. But then my inner voice might not be the same as yours or of lower quality. My soul apparently refuses to speak to me.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Correct if science did not know its problems. Science knows them precisely, and is working on them. One needs to wait for the answers to come up. It may happen in the next decade or next century. Just being skeptic hardly helps. Scientists also are skeptic of each others' view points. Einstein did not accept Quantum Mechanics. But that does not stop the search.
I'm querying how one can tell one voice amongst the many - as being always true - unless one has enough experience to always know this. After seven decades I have evidence as to mine misbehaving.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Yes. And you do so by testing your ideas / beliefs.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Well perhaps you haven't found your inner voice to be in error but I have, and I've mentioned it before, so as not to trust such all the time, even if it behaves most of the time. I also have another incident where it misbehaved. But then my inner voice might not be the same as yours or of lower quality. My soul apparently refuses to speak to me.
I'm intrigued as to how you feel you were led astray by your inner voice. You don't have to explain, of course, but I'd be interested to hear more.
Did you act on guidance you subsequently decided was ill-judged? Sometimes our actions don't have the desired results, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were the wrong actions for us at the time. We live and learn.
Hey, YoursTrue, hope you are doing well.
I have something for you to consider: do you know the Bible supports the idea that some changes have occurred within the genome of some plants? And this is how we know…
Remember that Jehovah told Adam that he could eat from “every” / “all” seed-bearing / green vegetation, right? Genesis 1:29,30.
But we can’t do that today, because some have turned very deadly, now.
Examples are the Castor bean, poison ivy, nightshade, etc. (Certainly Jehovah didn’t create them that way!)
So while I agree that evolution isn’t the force that science wants it to be — its scope is limited — some of its mechanisms have caused changes within the genome of various organisms. What some may prefer to call “adaptation”.
Where the Bible says that Jehovah created different animals, it always adds, “according to their kinds”, doesn’t it?
That probably corresponds to the “Family” taxa levels in science’s classification system of taxonomy.
(Generally, Taxonomy classification is described as:
Kingdom,
Phylum,
Class,
Order,
Family,
Genus,
Species.)
All organisms would stay within their Families….
Like the Felidae (cat) family, or the Canidae (dog) family…
That would still allow for a lot of varied adaptations & changes!
New species may emerge from within those families — as they adapt to new surroundings — but they’re still Felidae… or Canidae.
Really, when you think about God’s purpose for us as humans, to enjoy living forever, we can appreciate how Jehovah has designed life, and arranged for us to eventually see new & different animal forms / species, as we live forever.
Some people claim, “I’d get bored living forever.” Not the way Jehovah designed things, to be under His guidance, of course.
Do you follow me?
Just thought you might find this interesting.
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
You confuse function with truth. And thus you lie to yourself by thinking that if a theory functions, it must be the truth. This is the fatal flaw of scientism. Real scientists are careful not to make this mistake, but the scientism crowd wants to believe that they have the fountain of truth within their grasp, so they refuse to accept that science is not it. And as is the case with religious self-righteousness, this phony scientific self-righteousness is addicting. To the point where the denial required to maintain it becomes absurd.
Last edited:
No, there was no action involved, in either case, but when one's inner voice tells one that the job is yours - during an interview but where I also knew other things contradicted this (and were proven correct) - one has to suspect voices in one's head. Not that I had such that often at the time. And the other incident was a love-at-first-sight moment, but where such was just so inappropriate - given the (legal) age differences. This might not be seen as an inner voice rather than an inner feeling - given it was the only time I ever felt such - but just so wrong. So more a case of what I might have wanted to hear than the truth, and seemingly coming from my subconscious mind.
Last edited:
Well, truth always functions and falsehoods fail occasionally, so functioning is a very good filter for ideas.
Can you come up with a truth that does not function or something that functions under testing that we wouldn't say is true?
Also, as I have said many times, science cannot address many crucial questions. Such things as morality, aesthetics, and personal taste are simply not questions science can address (it can inform, but not resolve).
Absolutely. And that is where intuition comes in. But, since intuition can (and usually does) fail, we still need to test those ideas.
Intuition is the first step (a crucial one, I agree), but it is far from being the last step. Intuition is also involved in figuring out how to construct experiments that will effectively test ideas.
And I think that is your ego talking.
Well, I am sure you can convince yourself you can do that. But whether you actually *can* do that must be tested and confirmed (by trying to show it is false).