If something is not observable how does it earn credibility? For instance: What makes the invisible flying turkey from mount hoogoboogo have any credibility whatsoever if it isn't observable? Isn't it possible to envision anything you want and never need attempt to show it has credibility merely by stating it's not observable?
This would lead me to the following conclusion:
Either the people of old did observe something or they didn't and merely made basless speculations of unobservable things.
So, let's for now say they did observe the un-observable. One must ask exactly what it is they observed. And what defines something un-observed having bearing on something that is observed? Example: A guy sees a volcano erupt. He cannot explain the details of that event, but why use something un-observable to answer something that is observable? Would that be lack of knowledge about the observable event, or again creating something un-observable simply to provide a quick answer for that which is observable? If you were to say god actually did come down and was seen by the humans then we can say he is/was observable. If that's the case it would seem they only believed and wrote about the un-observable- because it was observed. If that were so, why would it be any different for modern day man? Why should i believe something unobserved? I've never observed god, the tooth fairy, or leprechauns. Kindly tell me why anyone should believe and trust something they've never observed.
These ancient people would have observed these things- but we must take into account their lack of knowledge of the world and everything on it. Or they didn't observe anything and just made groundless assumptions.
Observation vs lack of. The evidence would point one way- the lack of evidence, and lack of need for evidence points another. Ok, sure because it's unobservable doesn't make it impossible- it also doesn't lend it credibility. Testing vs no way of testing. If you can't observe it and can't test it, it might still be possible, but has no credibility. I couldn't include ghosts, mothmen etc in this- because to all intents and purposes they are observable/have been observed. What that then requires is study to work out whether the observed was delusion, error of the eyes/brain, or actual fact. What i can include in unobservable is stuff like flying lemon sorbet's that inhabit the realm of the zulu galaxy 50 gazillion light years away. It holds absolutely no weight in the realms of truth.
Ok, but the unobservable still has no credence.
Indeed and the fact that we don't know the answer does not give credibility to the unobservable.
If it is unobservable you will not get an answer- just an assumption based on nothing. As such i can't just accept that assumption, because it isn't a truth- it's an assumption. For all the worth it has i might aswell just make any old assumption i feel like and start preaching that. It would be no worse than anyone elses.
There needs to be a point? From what i've observed man just do like the animals. They reproduce and die. I feel it is this question that actually causes many hardships for people. Living but having no purpose. It's depressing, but there's still no reason to resort to the unobservable to answer it. As for your second question: again we can either head to the world of the unobservable- The abominable snowman put us here to provide sustenance for his children, the tooth fairy made us so he could get our teeth etc etc, or you could spend slightly more time looking at what is observable and find the answer from there. It does not completely count out the unobservable, but almost. Of course we'd never know, because it's unobservable.
Actually, i thought it did, but nevermind.
I can only wonder why they didn't have this technology back then, and if they didn't- what answers they would have provided. How would they have answered things without the ability to do so? How many assumptions would they have had to make? Again if they spooke of something unobservable it would have been a mere assumption, whereas if they had have observed something how accurate would it have been without the scientific knowledge, without the technology? Opinion and assumption would be chief in charge.
So any scientist who isn't willing to look into the idea of god, isn't serious?
Of course if something is unobservable- there's nothing to "look into".
Ah so now we move beyond just "serious" scientists to "eminent" scientists.. Nice. However, for the sake of argument could you please provide some details regarding these similar findings.
True in what way? That they observed something, (audibly/visually etc), and wrote it down, or wrote down about something unobservable which makes it a mere assumption. If they did observe and wrote it down we'd still be left with a question about validity. I can't simply take the word of an ancient guy because that's what he felt like writing. Considering we don't even know who 'he/they' is/are where do we begin giving them credibility? And who do we give the credibility to? The sumerians? The jews? One speaks of many gods, the copied version in the bible speaks of only one being. Did they all observe this/these being/s or was it assumption on their part? Who has more credibility in this situation? The hindu texts, sumerian, jewish, polynesian, aztec etc etc etc?
My apologies. I won several hundred £ on the lottery on saturday and have been drinking big time ever since
In response: Observable vs unobservable. You can make an unobserved assumption of what you'd do/how you'd act- but until it was observed your statement wouldn't be credible, but would be a mere assumption.
I was referring to our current level of understanding. Maybe 2000 years from now we'll have other possibilities because we'll have greater understanding.
Need or ability? I know many many people who quite honestly don't give a shit as long as chelsea win the football league. We don't 'need' to, we just have the ability to. You could ask why we have the ability to, but then you'd need to know the entire template of historical evolution. Why there used to be a day where man couldn't make computers but now they can etc... It's not that we need to make computers is just that we have evolved to a state where we are able to.
Can we set limits? I'll admit it's very depressing to know i'll be long dead before there's an answer to whether there's life on other planets. I can't speed that up, no matter how much i wish i could. It would be so handy if we had eternal life... :bugeye: However, seeings as that's unobservable it doesn't get credibility. From what is observable i'm going to die and be buried underground. When the answer does eventually arrive- i wont particularly care, because i'll be nothing but bones.
And when that scientific technology gives credibility to everything that is unobservable then we can all be happy. As i've said, i could mention a billion and one unobservable things. None of them have credibility unless observed.
As you can see, observing something is the defining characteristic. Even so, if something is observable but the why's cannot be explained, it lends no credibility to the unobservable. With further study people find out, through observation, why something does what it does etc.
As for the question: It works on the premise that there's nothing, and something "comes into being". We can't even comprehend the idea of complete nothing, so we're left with the idea that something must have always been around. From what is observable that would be molecules, atoms, gases etc... We can observe how these things mix, mingle and interact to make more complex things but the unobservable still has no place of credibility here.
It is as irrational as stating it's the flying turkey from hoogoboogo mountain. Both are completely unobservable and have no bearing in reality. Sure, they both might exist, but as long as they remain unobservable they have no credibility. What we do and can observe are gases, molecules and atoms. Why would you think the observable is irrational?
Your former statement: "The idea that everything came into existence without a cause is irrational, and…well….downright silly (imho)"
You see, it works on the premise that there was once nothing. We can't comprehend 'nothing' which for now suggests there was something thus your statement would be pointless, because nothing need come into existence without cause because it already was in existence, and as is observable, that which exists just changes, morphs, adapts and evolves.
So i see.
Eh? Your opinion stated: "We know less now than they did" Surely to make an opinion of that nature it requires some back up? Anyway, nevermind. What's WMD?
If it's openely observable and testable, yes. I can state for a fact that fossils exist. I myself have dug many up- and unless there's some gigantic conspiracy, i'd state it factual that they do exist. From what is observable i'd also state it's a fact that these are remains of creatures, (imprints of creature remains). Etc etc. What i wont do is state that this fossil i'm holding was that of an animal that used to be able to fly through space and smoked cuban cigars. Observable vs unobservable. Now we get to the evidence side.... Why in the world would anyone believe T-rex was green? When you see these dinosaurs on tv programmes etc, they're always a funny green/brownish colour. Who's to say they weren't fluorescent pink? What we have here is evidence. They are creatures with distinct reptilian "design". From what we can observe we can make claims that they were a greenish colour. However, i wouldn't sit down during jurassic park and assume that the particular shade used on the velociraptors is total and undeniable fact.
It's about the observable, (of which evidence is included), vs the unobservable.
In general though i try not to take much as fact. For instance: don't we all believe there's a bunch of planets above our heads? That is taken as fact, yet who denies it? Luckily, in general, they too are observable. I went out and bought a big ass telescope just so i could check- and yes- they are there, (the ones i could see at any rate).
However, if a guy just said there were loads of other planets but it was completely unobservable it would get no credibility. Next to the moon is another planet- completely invisible. Now tell me, how much credibility would you give to that statement?
I don't take modern day man's every word as complete fact, but if i were to do so with ancient man i wouldn't have any position with which to choose. I would have to accept them all as complete fact.
Can you cite any please? Or give a decent link? Thanks in advance.
Levels of importance? Well, if the wind stopped blowing undoubtedly people would try and work out why it stopped blowing. The wind does blow- people work out why it does. Usefulness is completely irrelevant. It might not be useful to know why the wind blows and why earthquakes occur but that doesn't stop mankind from asking and searching.
Something about brothels.
Sorry, im not exactly sure what you're trying to ask.