Theist:Why do you think God does not exist what are your reasons?

[Baruch]

No, a thing outside of the confines of a thing it formed is simple logic.

You act as if existence must be limited to what is observable though we speak of origins prior to observable laws so your limits aren't accurate.



faith in selfless unity for good

Some are prejudiced to what they can see and touch.  If they can't see it or touch it ... then nada.  In metaphysics and metamathematics, the problem of dealing with things, there contain other things, yet the container and the contained are not the same ... is dealt with.  But if all you have is a materialist hammer, then you cannot escape Russell's Paradox.

[Baruch]

Yet another great point. Before man could articulate thought through writing or even speech, they could and did use symbolism.

Guess what the symbolism shows....Obviously important to ancient man. Could you call it instinctual... prior to the addition of greed, or its manipulation of the societal structure of man?

How do you argue against something that has been portraid and expressed by man since before written word?

Thanks.

You jog the mind and bring things back into the fold with your thought provoking responses.

peace

faith in selfless unity for good

Modern people have iPhones, they are the Brights ... all prior people are Dims and cave men ... who had no iPhones.

[Baruch]

Fear the consiquince of ones own actions. So fearing the keepers of the law would follow. If only the misdirected zealots would actually follow their own book they would show mercy, and realize their own inability to rightly judge while in obvious sin.

faith in selfless unity for good

That is the problem, in Islam, between the ordinary followers of Shariah, and the extraordinary followers of Suf.  The Sufis are actually closer to the real Muhammad, but are oppressed by the so called Orthodox.

[Unbeliever]

Faith in a book is bibliolatry ..

[Unbeliever]

Our regulars oppose the cave art of Stone Age France ... because it is art, and it is French.  And no, it didn't cure any diseases (of the physical sort) it was shamanism, which they oppose.

Who opposes shamanism? Not I, says me! It's about the only form of religion that has any practical benefit for its followers.

[Baruch]

Who opposes shamanism? Not I, says me! It's about the only form of religion that has any practical benefit for its followers.

Actual shamen in Bali ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW6jPKKeFBA

[Cavebear]

Yet another great point. Before man could articulate thought through writing or even speech, they could and did use symbolism.

Guess what the symbolism shows....Obviously important to ancient man. Could you call it instinctual... prior to the addition of greed, or its manipulation of the societal structure of man?

How do you argue against something that has been portraid and expressed by man since before written word?

Thanks.

You jog the mind and bring things back into the fold with your thought provoking responses.

peace

faith in selfless unity for good

What makes you think humans could not speak before they developed representational art?

[Cavebear]

Who opposes shamanism? Not I, says me! It's about the only form of religion that has any practical benefit for its followers.

Well, if you allow a placebo effect, Shamans might have made a difference.  Note that I differentiate it from surgeons who trepanned and set bones...

[popsthebuilder]

What makes you think humans could not speak before they developed representational art?

Man seems to have made an evolutionary leap at some point in the past, and though I haven't done a whole lot of research on it, I have a piece of a theory that this evolutionary gap or rather jump coincides with the aquisition of knowledge and or the introduction of some new process or capability that came about. At some point in the evolutionary line of man, he surely couldn't "speak".



faith in selfless unity for good

[Cavebear]

Man seems to have made an evolutionary leap at some point in the past, and though I haven't done a whole lot of research on it, I have a piece of a theory that this evolutionary gap or rather jump coincides with the aquisition of knowledge and or the introduction of some new process or capability that came about. At some point in the evolutionary line of man, he surely couldn't "speak".



faith in selfless unity for good

Yes, at "some point" in the past we couldn't speak in the modern sense of the word, but we were surely speaking WAY before representational art.  Best understandings of lniguistics suggest organized language started about 100,000 years ago and representational art seems to have appeared 50 to 25 K years ago. 

[Baruch]

What makes you think humans could not speak before they developed representational art?

The origin of speech is probably animal call imitations (hunting language).  Women probably developed body language ;-)  The original representational art, preceded clothing, the original clothing was body paint (woad of the Picts).  So they are both very ancient.

[Cavebear]

Ignoting Buarch's amateur ideas, studies in linguistics seem to show that speech preceded art by a long time.  I've been studying this for 15 years.  Art is hard to pin down.  Is a scratch on a wall, meaningful? But language seems older for essential tasks.

[Baruch]

Ignoting Buarch's amateur ideas, studies in linguistics seem to show that speech preceded art by a long time.  I've been studying this for 15 years.  Art is hard to pin down.  Is a scratch on a wall, meaningful? But language seems older for essential tasks.

You need to research better.  The oldest written speech is 2300 BCE.  The oldest art is 23,000 BCE.  Unless you have tape recordings of Neanderthal grunts ;-)

[Cavebear]

You need to research better.  The oldest written speech is 2300 BCE.  The oldest art is 23,000 BCE.  Unless you have tape recordings of Neanderthal grunts ;-)

Can you not tell the difference between written words and spoken ones?  I do worry about your mind sometimes.

[Baruch]

Can you not tell the difference between written words and spoken ones?  I do worry about your mind sometimes.

We know nothing about spoken language, before written texts ... except by academic reconstruction (as in Proto-Indo-European) and even that is way younger (4000 BCE) than cave art in France.  Maybe you don't like the fact that the French have always been culturally superior? ;-)