Care to compare the Jesus you know to the one I know?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
5. As far as "indication" goes, I want now to point out the entire reason I thought "Mark Twain" not appearing in Star Wars might be a good example of a negative that can be proved, is precisely [b]because there is no indication ("nothing to suggest" is how I'm defining "indication"😉 that Mark Twain SHOULD be there.

He was an 18th or 19th century writer, correct?

What business would he have being in a fictional place that existed "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" from our own Milky Way galaxy and our own Earth, and separate from anything remotely recognizable as Mississippi River America in his era?[/B]

Here you are blurring the meaning of the argument by the example. We can apply the reasoning you advance in this particular example, but is far from being useful for every instance of proving négatives there is.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
6. I do not understand what you mean by "indexation".
I put that into Google and only get economic terms as definitions.
I suspect it is a simple misspelling of "indication".
I suspect you unintentionally used the word because of our French/English language barrier.

But I can't be sure.

By indexation I meant, building into the form of an index. An indication is a hint, a hint is a sign, a representation and is never meant to replace the entire object of our discussion. As such, sending someone to search through an entire corpus is actually opposed to the concept of giving an indication. That's what I meant, hope this makes it clearer.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
7. I disagree with the basic premise that negatives cannot be proved.
I think the following article might make the point better than I can.
It's one a lot of people seem to disagree with, so I might make a thread concerning it as some point in the near future:

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

Oh, as I said earlier, you can prove a negative. It's just that the method doesn't consist on just bringing proof. So if you ask me for proof to prove a negative, it won't really give any conclusive answer to the argument. For most part at least.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, human used to be able to understand animals? That's not bad, I think people of the past may have been more in tune with nature, but it isn't the simplest answer. It is simpler to say that the story is a metaphor. Now you can take meaning from the story without having to explain all of its fantastic elements.

I was thinking inside the framework of the story, obviously we can't take the accounts in this text as if it was a history book back when the concept of history didn't even exist. You're right in pointing out the simplest argument.

Calling it a metaphor won't explain the logic that works inside the text though, and that logic existed in reality at some point. Something I like about my hypothesis is precisely that it implies the synchrony that primitive man might've had with nature, at least in the imagination of primitive semitic storytellers.

Originally posted by Bentley
I was thinking inside the framework of the story, obviously we can't take the accounts in this text as if it was a history book back when the concept of history didn't even exist. You're right in pointing out the simplest argument.

Calling it a metaphor won't explain the logic that works inside the text though, and that logic existed in reality at some point. Something I like about my hypothesis is precisely that it implies the synchrony that primitive man might've had with nature, at least in the imagination of primitive semitic storytellers.

The problem with the Adam and Eve story in the bible is that the story is a composite of earlier stories. I saw a program on TV some years ago talking about this subject. They pointed out the shifting of writing styles in the story (in the Torah), and speculated that the story did not have only one author. This make analyzing the story very difficult. You would have to have the original stories to know what is a product of the mixing, and what was truly intended.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
True. Still intriguing, though.

Just some thinking out loud right now, but:

a) Assuming their miniature garden environment perfectly balanced for two, the addition of children would stress resources to the point they might need to search elsewhere for food to sustain themselves.

b) Snake is a symbol of fertility and life renewal.

c) Snake is also a fairly well-known allusion to the "equipment" of some people.

d) Sex is often referred to as "forbidden fruit" in literature.

e) The Biblical term "knew" often means, demonstrably, "had sex with".

You were brought up Christian?
Or are just familiar with the story?

It's not so very promising in my view, either.

Which is why it's a good idea to investigate, whenever possible, and sometimes to whatever degree is possible.

Sometimes what we think of as the purely "scientific" way is not possible.
In fact, when investigating events that happened in the past, science is actually rarely as applicable as people seem to believe.

Then we often have to use some speculation and detective work.

That often takes the form of:

What would expect to find if "X" is true?
Conversely, what would you NOT expect to find if "X" is true?
What would you expect to find it "X" is, in fact false?
What if "X" is only partially true?

And so on.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The problem with the Adam and Eve story in the bible is that the story is a composite of earlier stories. I saw a program on TV some years ago talking about this subject. They pointed out the shifting of writing styles in the story (in the Torah), and speculated that the story did not have only one author. This make analyzing the story very difficult. You would have to have the original stories to know what is a product of the mixing, and what was truly intended.

Yes, it does raise the stakes a little bit, but keep in mind that the later versions still got corrected by religious figures for doctrinal proposes. Those last edits weren't random variations, it was supressing and adding elements that were fit for a particular point of view. Obviously, some verses from "uncalled" elements remain, but each corrector had an intention and a consistency in mind when they acted.

I think that the texts are only more rich and more interesting to study when the authors are différents and partially ignore each others agendas. They become polysemic, but at the same time we can find echos in other traditions to complement our understanding of how the texts work. Under those conditions analysis is still possible in a serious concept without falling into straight invention.

Originally posted by Bentley
...Oh, as I said earlier, you can prove a negative. It's just that the method doesn't consist on just bringing proof. So if you ask me for proof to prove a negative, it won't really give any conclusive answer to the argument. For most part at least.

Most people say that you can't prove a negative. Well, in a way that is wrong. However, there is a big problem, and that is the proof of impossibility. So, what we should really say is that it is impossible to prove a negative.

For example:

Let's say that unicorns do not dance in the spring time. To prove this we would have to examine every moment in space and time to see if unicorns are dancing and rather it is spring time. Sense this cannot be done, it is perfectly fine to say that a negative cannot be proven.

Impossibility is actually quite a beast when it comes to language, it's pretty easy to derive into a nonsensical statement when talking about impossibility.

Originally posted by Bentley
Impossibility is actually quite a beast when it comes to language, it's pretty easy to derive into a nonsensical statement when talking about impossibility.

That is why math is so wonderful. By the way, proof of impossibility is a math term.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is why math is so wonderful. By the way, proof of impossibility is a math term.

Yes, maths are uber awesome. Weird thing about them: I know they have meaning, but I'm not sure we can make sense of them.

Originally posted by Bentley
Yes, maths are uber awesome. Weird thing about them: I know they have meaning, but I'm not sure we can make sense of them.

Now this will blow your mind:

If the universe is infinite, then there has to be unicorns dancing in the spring time, somewhere, at some time.

However, if you found unicorns dancing in the spring time, then that would not prove that the universe is infinite.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Now this will blow your mind:

If the universe is infinite, then there has to be unicorns dancing in the spring time, somewhere, at some time.

However, if you found unicorns dancing in the spring time, then that would not prove that the universe is infinite.

That's a comforting thought! In such an universe finding what constitutes real fiction would be a gigantic task.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Oh don't forget the giants of the earth/children of angels, etc. procreated with Adam and Eve's children, no doubt making most of us divine.

Been looking at that as a topic of interest at random over the past few weeks.

These angel/human hybrids (Nephilim is one name for them) were mentioned in the Bible, as you and I mentioned before, in Genesis 6, just before the flood.

A lot of Bible scholars posit one reason for the flood was to destroy them.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

some things are hard to believe, but the story of Creation requires a complete
"and then magic made it all happen" mindset to be taken seriously.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider

"God".

Not "magic".

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
[list]mag·ic
ˈmajik/Submit
noun
1.
the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.[/list]

No, [b]magic.

[/B]

Magic is usually associated with witchcraft and the like.
Judaic writings make a distinction between that sort of power and God's.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Magic is usually associated with witchcraft and the like.
Judaic writings make a distinction between that sort of power and God's.

They are both supernatural.

Jesus told us about Heaven. I am eternally grateful for it.

Originally posted by Wonder Man
Jesus told us about Heaven. I am eternally grateful for it.

Unless you have talked to Jesus himself, you are talking about what is written in the bible. You do realize the Jesus never wrote anything himself, and the books of the NT were written at least a hundred years after his death. No one really knows what Jesus said about heaven.