The True Origin of Reality

[Quadrivium]

What exactly are the world's consensus on the basics?

I don't know, that was a nonsense comment on my part. I just meant it wasn't my idea, rather I read it's possibility from the provided sources.

You're comparing apples to oranges, and your also forgetting the aspect of genetic mutation within gene transfer. Certain genetics evolve without "gene transfer", and our actually products of nature influencing evolution without the need for a transfer of a gene from one being to another. In these cases, a new gene is formed without being transferred from an existing organism. The same goes for culture and religion. Sometimes a culture or religion is formed without the influence of a prior culture or religions just due to the nature of the surrounding environment.

Good point. That's true for sure! It's possible, but then wouldn't it still just be a mutation/variation of a prior sequence/culture?

I'm pretty sure Outhouse is at least, familiar with the basic history of Hinduism.

Lol, I'm not that familiar with it. I'm learning as we speak.

It can be argued that many religions did not originate in a single founder. For any religion (that I can think of off the top of my head) there is significant evidence that they were not started by a single founder, a single book, or a single point in time. The contradictions within Hinduism could also arise out of it being a mixture of different philosophies being converged into one belief system. The same could definitely be said for Christianity very easily. Judaism, Pagan traditions, Roman traditions, and many more.

I agree completely. We don't have sufficient information to know for sure. And there are many possibilities of common objective histories.

Many "religious practices" come down to us from prehistoric times. Animism comes to mind, and according archaeological research, most likely predates Hinduism by a good while.

I've never heard of Animisim, Ill look it up. Plus that timelines got tons of info awesome!

 

[roger_pearse]

If Hinduism is older than Judaism, it's pretty likely that history influenced the future, as that's how timelines work.

Pardon me for being deeply sceptical, but I note a series of problems with this trivial statement.

Firstly, it contains a logical fallacy. For instance, I am older than you, but this does not mean that you are my ******* child! Truly it does not! This is the "post hoc, propter hoc" fallacy.

Secondly... it's full of woolly abstractions like "history" and "future", both spoken of as if they were people or lumps of rock. It has no testable meaning.

Finally it is full of weasel words like "influence". There is a form of trickery, in which people make banal general statements which are true but trite, and then claim that this means that any statement that might be identified with the generality is also true.

The idea you wish to propagate is a specific one - that Judaism is derived substantially from ancient Hinduism (if I understand you correctly) and that idea cannot be reasonably hidden under words like "influence". It has to be demonstrated. (And, candidly, it's bollocks).

I understand linear evolution regarding to habitat location, etc... may make this questionable.

Friend, the word "evolution" belongs to the scientific study of how new species arise. It has no applicability in the humanities. To talk as if a humanity was a biological organism is to misuse language to a shocking degree. No scientist and no scholar would endorse this kind of game.

In short, I fear that you are repeating here claims that are dishonest, even at the verbal level. I don't know what you're reading, but you need to stop and read stuff by real scholars. No valid intellectual position, no valid attack on another position, involves these kinds of games. And if Judaism can *only* be attacked by means of dishonest argument, then doesn't that mean that Judaism must be true? But I do not believe this to be the case.

Be sceptical of whatever is convenient. Failure to do so is at the root of almost all bad scholarship.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
PS: I note with amusement that the forum software has censored the legal English word for an illegitimate child. I do wish fora would not do that.

 

[outhouse]

Roger Pearse
.

:clap

Excellent post Roger.

Glad to see you here.


Having debated with Roger for years, He will be a welcome addition here.

 

[nash8]

Yea that makes sense.

But so does this other possibility I've mentioned.

If Hinduism is older than Judaism, it's pretty likely that history influenced the future, as that's how timelines work. I understand linear evolution regarding to habitat location, etc... may make this questionable. But certainly not impossible. And there's other reasons to believe in less linear evolution. I'll get around to writing about that soon, but not yet.

There's other possibilities though written in other peoples research, so I've chosen this scenario.

While I would agree that linear evolution is a logical process, it does not necessarily mean that things, especially religions and culture, evolve linearly.

Christianity influencing the Celtic religions of Europe is a great example. It can be easily supported that the Celtic "religious" traditions of Europe existed way prior to the existence of Christianity, so it would be somewhat logical to assume that these traditions influenced Christianity, which there is significant evidence that it did. However, there is also substantial evidence that the opposite is true. Due to the power of influence of Christianity over Roman provinces in ancient Europe, a legitimate argument can be made that Christian doctrines influenced the Celtic traditions that most likely existed far prior to the formation of Christianity. We still have documents/artifacts/etc. of Celtic religious practices, but they are filled with (possibly?) Christian doctrines intermixed within them. However, since we don't have many (any?) Pre-Christian documents/artifacts/etc. to compare them to, it's hard for us to tell what is what. But we do have records that indicate efforts were made to alter the religious practices of the Celts, so we can safely assume, not confirm, that an older religion was influenced by the beliefs/doctrines of a younger religion.

I think maybe 'Outhouse' dislikes this idea for whatever reason (maybe he holds strict dislike for Hinduism or something like a racist might) so he or she chooses to just reject it, angrily, for no reason, claiming any notion of this false no matter what.

Outhouse dislikes this idea because you have provided one piece of evidence, which I have read before, and is highly speculative and very correlative rather than causative. Find some more evidence to support your opinion. I know it's out there because I have searched the "evolution" of religion fairly thoroughly, and believe they all influence each other, and that they all derived from a common ancestor, which was basically the worship of the exact same "idea" that you present in your OP. I doubt Outhouse holds anymore dislike for Hinduism than he does for any other organized religion including Judaism.

Plus Outhouse is a scholar snob, and he only accepts evidence from scholars that he personally approves of.

In my opinion, first I would clarify that math is human interpretation and translation analogous of nature’s expression, but math is not pure or true expression of nature.

I disagree. Math is a true expression of nature. The problem is, if we tried to express nature accurately in mathematical terms, we would spend an eternity describing on "thing", as natural things are changing infinitely and/or they are infinitely continuous. If your of the opinion that nature consists of frequency, I don't see how you could say that math is not the "most accurate" description of nature, when frequency is best described by math.

When we (humans) divide by zero… I would assume the rules we've applied for dividing by relative values of the same category also apply. All values of the same category should behave pretty much the same, at least in the sense that their core essence is the same, warranting the defining of the category.

Exactly, but the problem is that the rest of those values don't work if we include 0 in the process. So you either include 0, and the rest of the process breaks down, or you leave division by 0 undefined, and the rest of the process goes on smoothly. That is unless you can find a better way to make it work, and if you do, be sure to give me some credit for inspiring you to do so.

But regardless, it all starts from zero.

I agree.

The operation of division is deducing and defining new categories from parental, or other associative categories.
You can’t divide the most fundamental category because there’s no essence to fulfill quantifying a new natural category. The only coherent output in this case is devised from, "inverse deduction".

Division is also about defining parts of a whole. And from what I am gathering, you are arguing that 0 is, in a sense, infinite, so instead of not being able to be divided into separate parts, shouldn't it be able to be divided into an infinite number of parts? This is of course assuming natural law follows the laws of mathematics and possibly vice-versa.

But just as there is no value to deduce from zero, this inversion occurs again, and again, and again, infinitely, and instantly. This event of "recursive inverse deduction" has manifest infinite value within zero, that can then be categorized infinitely, and among infinite substrates.

I would argue the opposite. That every value can be deduced from 0. When you set 0 as the whole (denominator), you can literally divide it into however many parts that you want (numerator), and you get that 0 is equal to whatever quantity of parts that you divide it into.

So when I divide by zero I believe it’s correct to say you get infinity because everything is naturally of infinity.

Agreed.

 

[nash8]

I would attempt to clarify the suggestion that human-cognitive-categorization is a unique substrate separate from pure natural expression. That one only reflects the other through a complex series of translations, or currents of existential relation.

If not, we could not be having this wonderful discussion that we are having. We would be spending all of our time accurately defining the infinite amount of definition required express one thing.

I’d suggest this level of reality is subjective perspective. From the perspective of humanity apples are apples. The same relative frequency we each analogously observe as apples, is also categorized by each of us as “apples”. But each actual frequency observed is going to vary from each other’s interpreted perspective by slight variations due to interference. They are not the exact same apple, each are different apples among of sea of potentially infinite relativity. The actual defining characteristics of relativity are subjective to each contributing factors perspective.

We generalize to make coherence and make categories. But beyond our senses and minds, all natural categories are of one totality of nature. Which I would suggest is of infinite potential, and within nothing.

I agree, but what fun would our existence be without these coherences? And as you said, the differences in frequency, is what delineates one thing from another. Just because we are all made up of the same thing, frequency, it doesn't mean we are all the same frequency.

The category of man is an analogy for a specific set of frequencies that we all relate to each others developed categories of man, or similar set of frequencies.

From our common perspective a man is a man. But from a purely natural sense, each "man" is unique, and not merely a category of man.

Man is unique down to what decimal place?

Yea it just depends on the defining it. Lexical issues become problematic. But "sensibility" (for lack of a better term) can allow us to do so.

But I'm unclear on your usage of "trifold synthesis" here.

By trifold synthesis, I was talking about the in/out wave synthesizing in order to make a third wave, which is what we perceive to be "matter". Is this not what you were speaking of when you spoke of tri-fold synthesis?

Similarities don't dictate influence, but can be supportive evidence. And since Abraham seems to appear after Hindu history, plus there's so many similarities, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion.

You are definitely reasoning logically, but as I, and others have stated, correlation and linear progression do not necessarily imply causation. You must be able to cite specific examples of where the correlation physically exists such as through genetic evidence, anthropological/archeological evidence that one group of people exerted influence over another group of people, etc. etc.

Another piece of reasoning I'd offer to support this possibility is in comparing the evolution of biology to the evolution of culture. Religion is human culture, and humans are biological. Though religion and biology are of different substrates, its plausible that they share qualities.

While I agree that both biology and evolution evolve, and many times because of the same factors, it is not practical to compare the two systems of evolution to one another. They are two entirely different processes.

Similar environments produce similar behaviors, even if each is isolated and of completely unique branches of lineage. This is what you describe maybe as reasoning against influence.

Exactly, and this idea would support the opinion that Judaism, and Hinduism may have evolved in similar environments, but they did not evolve because of direct influence of on or another.

The Fossa is a cat-like animal of completely different lineage and isolated on Madagascar from the rest of the world. It's not a cat at all, it's more of a mongoose, which is more of a rodent.

But what this really means is the closest common ancestor is a prehistoric type of rodent. Ultimately they still share lineage, they just branched off long time ago only to become similar again later.

True, but this would mean that you would be more likely to trace both Hinduism and Judaism to a common ancestor, rather than to one influencing the other. And even then both the Fossa, and other cats developed distinctly in accordance with their own environment, and it could not be said that one species of cat influenced another species of cat's evolution. Same goes for religions. Hinduism is indeed an old religion, and one that comes very close to describing reality as it actually is in my opinion, but as you can see there were many before it, and as far as I know, there is no evidence that the people's of the sub-continent of India interacted with the Semitic peoples of North Africa, prior to the develop of Judaism. I could be wrong on this though, as I haven't really researched this topic thoroughly.

So that's a typical vertical gene transfer contributor of evolution. But there's also horizontal gene transfer, it's a pretty simple concept. In this case viruses have the behaviors of splicing DNA from organisim to organism. Mixing up the gene pool so to speak. Influencing evolution regardless of parental lineage. This is more associative transfer.

So in the same way religion is susceptible to various influences.

Yes, there is definitely evidence of this with reference to religious practices, and I don't think any scholar would argue with you. However, I don't think there is much, if any, direct evidence that Hinduism influenced Judaism, other than maybe correlation between particular beliefs, which I could probably draw comparisons between every religion in existence.

I don't know, that was a nonsense comment on my part. I just meant it wasn't my idea, rather I read it's possibility from the provided sources.

And indeed, I will be the first to tell you to not take what scholars, experts, etc. say as fact. But in all situations it is prudent to look at the situation from both/many points of view. I, personally, have found that the truth is usually somewhere in the middle of hardcore skepticism and all out imagination. I, personally, find the universe, and all contained within it to be "logically mysterious".

Good point. That's true for sure! It's possible, but then wouldn't it still just be a mutation/variation of a prior sequence/culture?

In some aspects it would be, but in other aspects it would be totally distinct. Take for example the Fossa(?) that you spoke of earlier. Since it was in a totally different environment than say, a tiger, we can conclude at some point that they share a common ancestor, but the Fossa developed traits/actual genes, possibly new ones through genetic mutations, that are not present in the tiger. So the Fossa is a distinct species because it has different/new genes that a tiger does not have. The same goes for culture/religion. By saying that Hinduism influenced Judaism, you are in reality saying that the tiger influenced the evolution of the Fossa, without having any evidence that the tiger and the fossa ever shared the same environment, and thus never allowing the tiger to be the basis for the evolution of the Fossa. And while both the tiger and the fossa show similar characteristics, it is probably more likely this is the case because they both share a common ancestor farther down the line. The same goes for the case of Judaism and Hinduism.

Lol, I'm not that familiar with it. I'm learning as we speak.

Hinduism is definitely an interesting religion, and definitely one that I need to learn more about myself. You should look into Aghori. They are "loosely" associated with Hinduism, but they seek to reunite with Brahma through Shiva, at least from a basic generalization standpoint, as far as I can tell.

I agree completely. We don't have sufficient information to know for sure. And there are many possibilities of common objective histories.

This type of thinking will take you a long way in learning what "truth" is really out there. Being open to all possibilities is the only way you can ever really know truth as far as I am concerned.

I've never heard of Animisim, Ill look it up. Plus that timelines got tons of info awesome!

Their are a lot of anthropologist/archaeologist that believe that this was the first form of formal religion due to inanimate objects and animals being depicted in ritual burial type scenarios. Search "quantum animism" into google an a pretty interesting thread on this cite comes up. I think you will like it, and it sheds light on what we consider to be "primitive" belief systems of prehistoric peoples.

 

[nash8]

Pardon me for being deeply sceptical, but I note a series of problems with this trivial statement.

Firstly, it contains a logical fallacy. For instance, I am older than you, but this does not mean that you are my ******* child! Truly it does not! This is the "post hoc, propter hoc" fallacy.

I would argue that you are doing the same thing that you are accusing the OP of doing. Cultural/religious evolution can not be compared to direct genetic birth for one. The range of influence comparing religious/cultural exposure and effect can't be compared to the number of female women you have had intercourse with. I would wager to say that Hinduism influenced more people near the time Judaism was created, than women that you had intercourse with 9 months or so prior to the OP's birth by quite a wide margin.

But on the other hand, you being older than the OP does increase the probability that you influenced his attitude/culture/religious preference/etc., than he would have influenced you, due to the fact that you most likely developed language skills, and beliefs with regard to these subjects earlier than he did if you are older. Also, in society in general, older people generally hold a larger, more profound, effect on people than those that are younger. Of course this is not always the case, and goes in accordance with the definitions of "adulthood" in the culture in which 2 people are a part of.

Secondly... it's full of woolly abstractions like "history" and "future", both spoken of as if they were people or lumps of rock. It has no testable meaning.

While it may not be phrased properly, I think the intent of the statement could be surmised. He is saying that an older religion/culture has a higher probability of influencing a younger culture/religion. Especially, if one religion did not exist when another did. I see people try to do this all the time when debating HJ vs. MJ. They try to argue that Christianity was based on the roman Mithras tradition, when there is strong evidence that the Mithras tradition did not even develop until after the advent of Christianity.

Finally it is full of weasel words like "influence". There is a form of trickery, in which people make banal general statements which are true but trite, and then claim that this means that any statement that might be identified with the generality is also true.

I don't think there was any "trickery" intended with that statement. Given two religions without any other information. Would you say that it is more probable that an older religion influenced a younger religion or vice versa. And don't say I don't know, or anything like that, because we both know that is the right answer, but it also doesn't show which one we both know is the "most probable" situation.

The idea you wish to propagate is a specific one - that Judaism is derived substantially from ancient Hinduism (if I understand you correctly) and that idea cannot be reasonably hidden under words like "influence". It has to be demonstrated. (And, candidly, it's bollocks).

I totally agree with you on this one. One source does not a good argument make. And correlation between the two does not imply causation. And I have seen little hard evidence for the causation, granted it would be highly difficult to do so with any type of artifact. The only think I could think of that would support this would be linguistic analysis, and/or genetic analysis that the two groups of people share something in common, and as far as I know there isn't much in that area.

Friend, the word "evolution" belongs to the scientific study of how new species arise. It has no applicability in the humanities. To talk as if a humanity was a biological organism is to misuse language to a shocking degree. No scientist and no scholar would endorse this kind of game.

While I agree with you that comparing a biological organism to a humanity is not a worthwhile effort, I totally disagree with you on the usage of the word evolution. Evolution can be used to describe anything that changes over time, including the humanities.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=evolution+definition

In short, I fear that you are repeating here claims that are dishonest, even at the verbal level. I don't know what you're reading, but you need to stop and read stuff by real scholars. No valid intellectual position, no valid attack on another position, involves these kinds of games. And if Judaism can *only* be attacked by means of dishonest argument, then doesn't that mean that Judaism must be true? But I do not believe this to be the case.

"Real Scholars" in our not so distant past once denied the existence of particles smaller than the atom, and in the distant pass, denied that the earth was round, and that it evolved around the sun. While I agree with you that reading scholarly work is of the utmost importance, I also believe that it is important to read stuff that is not in scholarly circles so that you may be able to contrast the two, and be able to question what you find questionable in both circles. Scholarly circles are notoriously rigid for their acceptance of new material, even when there is significant evidence that supports the theory. However, on the other hand, information outside of scholarly circles is subject to no supervision, but this lack of supervision also leads to an environment that promotes creativity where scholarly circles do not. There is credence to examining both points of view in my opinion.

Be sceptical of whatever is convenient. Failure to do so is at the root of almost all bad scholarship.

Be skeptical of everything, including good scholarship. This is the only way that new ideas are formed.

PS: I note with amusement that the forum software has censored the legal English word for an illegitimate child. I do wish fora would not do that.

What influenced the censor of the legitimate word for *******?

:clap

Excellent post Roger.

Glad to see you here.

Having debated with Roger for years, He will be a welcome addition here.

I agree, I read a little bit of your stuff online upon seeing Outhouse speak so highly of you, and I definitely think you will bring some great information to a lot of the discussions that go on here. But I highly disagree with your viewpoint on Wiki.

 

[Password]

There are two kinds of truths: those of reasoning and those of facts. The truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible; the truths of fact are contingent and their opposites are possible. ~*Gottfried Wilhelm Von Leibniz

 

[nash8]

Also it seems as though there is some genetic and linguistic evidence that supports quadrivium's theory that Hinduism influenced Judaism. Aristotle, amongst other more respected historians, seemed to think that the Jew's were actually philosophers from India, and there is genetic evidence to support Jewish ancestry in India, although it is unclear whether these evidence supports Jewish migration to India or from India, as almost every ethnicity contains DNA from Middle Eastern decent. It is also likely that India was a prominent area of migration into other areas including the area's settled by many Semitic peoples.

Jews - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Flavius_Josephus

Genetic studies on Jews - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Brahmi script - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No matter which way you go, it seems as though there was some influence one way or another with regard to Semitic and Indo European language groups.

It could also be argued that "Jewish" interaction with Hinduism was present before the formation of modern Judaism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_India

http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Places/Place/339183

 

[roger_pearse]

I would argue that you are doing the same thing that <etc>

This appears to be heckling; sorry.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[Thief]

The category of man is an analogy for a specific set of frequencies that we all relate to each others developed categories of man, or similar set of frequencies.

From our common perspective a man is a man. But from a purely natural sense, each "man" is unique, and not merely a category of man.

To the notation of unique....yeah.
I believe this form was designed to produce a unique spirit on each and every occasion.

 

[factseeker88]

The category of man is an analogy for a specific set of frequencies that we all relate to each others developed categories of man, or similar set of frequencies.

From our common perspective a man is a man. But from a purely natural sense, each "man" is unique, and not merely a category of man.

Unique in body, but not unique in what he does. Most spend 95 percent of their days doing linked together routine things, and if something or somebody interrupts his routine, after it's resolved, he continues his routine like the interruption never happened.

:yes::yes::yes:

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]"Our belief or disbelief[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] [/FONT]of a thing does not alter the nature[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] [/FONT]of things” Tillotson[/FONT]


"[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]This moment is your life.” [/FONT]Omar Khayyam

 

[Desert Snake]

To the notation of unique....yeah.
I believe this form was designed to produce a unique spirit on each and every occasion.

nope, trifold synthesis would limit possible effects.

then again, I don't believe that theory.

g-day.

 

[nash8]

This appears to be heckling; sorry.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

That I am heckling you, or that you are heckling another member????

Unique in body, but not unique in what he does. Most spend 95 percent of their days doing linked together routine things, and if something or somebody interrupts his routine, after it's resolved, he continues his routine like the interruption never happened.

:yes::yes::yes:

We have been trained well indeed. But I don't believe that we were created to do that, much more than a dog was created to sit, fetch, rollover, etc.

nope, trifold synthesis would limit possible effects.

then again, I don't believe that theory.

g-day.

What is the trifold synthesis theory in your opinion?

 

[Quadrivium]

Pardon me for being deeply sceptical, but I note a series of problems with this trivial statement.

Firstly, it contains a logical fallacy. For instance, I am older than you, but this does not mean that you are my ******* child! Truly it does not! This is the "post hoc, propter hoc" fallacy.

This is not what I stated. I don't think you actually understand the concept of evolution accurately. It does not refer strictly to biology. And it's not a strictly linear process. It's actually quite common sense in a world of time and spaces. Any new bit of information resultant from prior information is an evolution of information. And new information is summed from all sorts of angles of prior inferences, or instances.

Secondly... it's full of woolly abstractions like "history" and "future", both spoken of as if they were people or lumps of rock. It has no testable meaning.

Actually on the contrary, I could say the same about this comment you reply with. "Testable meaning" is very much not a useful term of description from my point of view. But history and future are descriptive of something, specially time in relation to us now. And no one mentioned anything of lumps of rock except for you. So I hardly can respond to this utterance.

Finally it is full of weasel words like "influence". There is a form of trickery, in which people make banal general statements which are true but trite, and then claim that this means that any statement that might be identified with the generality is also true.

Whatever disagreement you may hold over best possible words chosen to express ideas could be valid. But assuming my intent is weaselly or too general as suggested is by no means a dismissal for any of the reasoning.

The idea you wish to propagate is a specific one - that Judaism is derived substantially from ancient Hinduism (if I understand you correctly) and that idea cannot be reasonably hidden under words like "influence". It has to be demonstrated. (And, candidly, it's bollocks).

I disagree. Jewish culture can be traced back to ancient Egyptian culture which can be traced to Ethiopian culture, also which migrated and traded with the Vedas of Ancient Hindu, which are descended from various Australoid peoples, descended from various Congoloid peoples, and then further back to more primitive ape ancestry. You can debate this but it doesn't matter. I don't need a video of historical interactions to prove or understand rather, the dynamics of human systems.

Friend, the word "evolution" belongs to the scientific study of how new species arise. It has no applicability in the humanities. To talk as if a humanity was a biological organism is to misuse language to a shocking degree. No scientist and no scholar would endorse this kind of game.

This is simply false. And kind of ignorant to think that comparison of various aspects of the world have no weighing of validity.

In short, I fear that you are repeating here claims that are dishonest, even at the verbal level. I don't know what you're reading, but you need to stop and read stuff by real scholars. No valid intellectual position, no valid attack on another position, involves these kinds of games. And if Judaism can *only* be attacked by means of dishonest argument, then doesn't that mean that Judaism must be true? But I do not believe this to be the case.

No one is attacking Judaism. Understanding it's true origin is not an attack on it. If anything its the opposite. I'm playing no games. So I fail to understand your attitude towards the subject. And claiming that the references I provide are not valid, is in itself not valid. Which references are not valid? All of them... lol. I don't have to prove anything about source legitimacy. You can choose to believe whatever you wish. It doesn't change the truth or facts about the reference and likelihood of the suggested events.

Be sceptical of whatever is convenient. Failure to do so is at the root of almost all bad scholarship.

I'd suggest you take your own advice before jumping to conclusions simply because your opinion may differ on superficial grounds. I can honor legitimate questioning, but I hardly honor pessimistic assumption.

 

[outhouse]

Plus Outhouse is a scholar snob, and he only accepts evidence from scholars that he personally approves of

.

Not really that picky about scholars. They all have different opinions on certain topics that do not agree with one another.

There is no way to follow them all in total. It is impossible.

 

[outhouse]

"Real Scholars" in our not so distant past once denied the existence of particles smaller than the atom, and in the distant pass, denied that the earth was round, and that it evolved around the sun.

.

Appeal to ignorance.

And it wont be tolerated, and you will end up being ignored by those with educations on the topics.

 

[outhouse]

Also it seems as though there is some genetic and linguistic evidence that supports quadrivium's theory that Hinduism influenced Judaism.

There is not.

Nor have you demonstrated it by posting links.

 

[Thief]

nope, trifold synthesis would limit possible effects.

then again, I don't believe that theory.

g-day.

And this denial works in what way?
Your body will produce a unique spirit.
It can do nothing else.

 

[Quadrivium]

There is not.

Nor have you demonstrated it by posting links.

No it does a fair job of presenting information noted by others supporting a possibility. You must not understand correctly is all. But your comprehension is irrelevant to actuality in this sense, except for perhaps, in the case of studying the psychology of one who is in denial.

 

[outhouse]

No it does a fair job of presenting information noted by others supporting a possibility. You must not understand correctly is all. But your comprehension is irrelevant to actuality in this sense, except for perhaps, in the case of studying the psychology of one who is in denial.

Your original statement does not hold.

Religions started in Mesopotamia and Egypt every bit as early as Hindu religions.

Yet we only see regional influences to Israelites from the Canaanite patheon of religions. Then later the Meopotamian influences after the exile.


Your position remains unsubstantiated