100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: The cosmological argument | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
It seems to me that from a strictly physiological standpoint, yes I see no reason to believe that one gender or the other had some kind of a mysterious evolutionary advantage over the other. However speech might have been a "turn on" so to speak so women (who essentially pick mates) would have been more attracted to males who had a greater inclination towards vocalization and then that led to offspring that had a better perpensity for speech. I also feel that different activities played a role however.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
women was attracted to the alpha male and you didn't need vocalization skills for that ...you just need to bring home the bacon and kick some ass every now and then to maintain your position in the pecking order
the higher you were in the pecking order the better choice of the woman or women you could have and the more the woman and her offsprings would have which probably evolved today into the guy with the most money attracts the most females |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
davidben1
on
Sat 01/24/09 08:37 PM
|
|
It seems to me that from a strictly physiological standpoint, yes I see no reason to believe that one gender or the other had some kind of a mysterious evolutionary advantage over the other. However speech might have been a "turn on" so to speak so women (who essentially pick mates) would have been more attracted to males who had a greater inclination towards vocalization and then that led to offspring that had a better perpensity for speech. I also feel that different activities played a role however. in what eqaulity do women essentialy pick mates? if it's not 100% respect of mutual want, it is doomed to failure...... your in love with your self? speak it girl talk the smack...... i women do roar hear me quack........ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
women was attracted to the alpha male and you didn't need vocalization skills for that ...you just need to bring home the bacon and kick some ass every now and then to maintain your position in the pecking order the higher you were in the pecking order the better choice of the woman or women you could have and the more the woman and her offsprings would have which probably evolved today into the guy with the most money attracts the most females funches...... stimulation of mind, stimulation of time, smarter than self, big boys don't cry for help, dig deep the well, let loose the sail, shallow won't flow, the game build a mote, take the lunch drink the punch, a fire burn to cinder, melt the mind the axe to grind, only blind eyes wisdom to find....... peace |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Krimsa,
You had said this... Are you going to make little faces then? Speak up.
I feel lazy, and since I have already addressed the basic underlying principle which brought on the "little faces" in an earlier post contained in another thread, I just copied it below. Sorry for the inability to communicate complex thoughts, I am a male you know. Cut me some slack, afterall... 
When a concept is considered, the considerations should include an identification and examination of the different elements which, when combined, constitute the concept's existence. In other words, if we want to know as much as we can about a subject, then we must gain a correct understanding of all of it's parts. The success of the actual understanding of a concept depends upon the success of the individual understandings of each element of that concept.
The evidence regarding the importance of this notion has been displayed throughout mankind's existence. Attributing false cause to an observed effect can, and often has, resulted in devastating effects on future human developmental knowledge. For when a severe form of misdiagnosis attains the false virtue of being true within that society, then the shared misunderstanding can become grounds for an entire civilization to possess an illusion of understanding which increases with each additional piece of "knowledge" also based upon that falsehood. Now then, carrying your example a little farther... If hunters had to be quiet, and they most probably would, then this need itself would have to be verbalized before the hunt, would it not? Keeping in mind the absence of modern weapons, the entire group would have to have been very well coordinated in order to bring down bigger game as well. This alone would require the kind of planning that is impossible without effective communication, lest all of the hunts would be failures and the smarter women folk back at home would be starving... 
All I am saying is that the conclusion you drew earlier was based upon far too little information, not to mention the fact that gender itself plays no role in one's ability to identify, recognize, and therefore communicate thoughts and emotions in an effective manner. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sun 01/25/09 04:46 AM
|
|
When a concept is considered, the considerations should include an identification and examination of the different elements which, when combined, constitute the concept's existence. In other words, if we want to know as much as we can about a subject, then we must gain a correct understanding of all of it's parts. The success of the actual understanding of a concept depends upon the success of the individual understandings of each element of that concept.
The evidence regarding the importance of this notion has been displayed throughout mankind's existence. Attributing false cause to an observed effect can, and often has, resulted in devastating effects on future human developmental knowledge. For when a severe form of misdiagnosis attains the false virtue of being true within that society, then the shared misunderstanding can become grounds for an entire civilization to possess an illusion of understanding which increases with each additional piece of "knowledge" also based upon that falsehood. This does in no way address what I was talking about Creative. If hunters had to be quiet, and they most probably would, then this need itself would have to be verbalized before the hunt, would it not?
These prehistoric hunters would routinely go on expeditions that would sometimes extend into months. I’m not sure how much focus on developing speech it would require to leave for the hunt. Keeping in mind the absence of modern weapons, the entire group would have to have been very well coordinated in order to bring down bigger game as well.
No doubt. This particular organization could have easily been accomplished by the use of non-verbal commands. I guess you have never been hunting? You want to be as quiet as possible in order to ensure the success of your hunt. This alone would require the kind of planning that is impossible without effective communication, lest all of the hunts would be failures and the smarter women folk back at home would be starving...
For one thing, I never once stated that women were smarter. I did however say that the activities that women would have been engaged in would have been more conducive to chatter. Also, the women were responsible for probably around 80% or more of the food gathering and storage. How often do you really think the men folk were bringing home a protein source? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sun 01/25/09 05:07 AM
|
|
It seems to me that from a strictly physiological standpoint, yes I see no reason to believe that one gender or the other had some kind of a mysterious evolutionary advantage over the other. However speech might have been a "turn on" so to speak so women (who essentially pick mates) would have been more attracted to males who had a greater inclination towards vocalization and then that led to offspring that had a better perpensity for speech. I also feel that different activities played a role however. in what eqaulity do women essentialy pick mates? if it's not 100% respect of mutual want, it is doomed to failure...... your in love with your self? speak it girl talk the smack...... i women do roar hear me quack........ If you feel that anything I have said is "smack" then please address this theory and abstain from the use of parables or else I can not debate with you effectively. Thank you in what eqaulity do women essentialy pick mates?
Women had picked men as procreative partners based on their talent at song and dance, more than likely women now picked men for their talent at this new marvel, speech, because of its ability to evoke feelings-of-something-larger-than-the-self. This would have led to offspring with a greater perpensity for speech. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
funches...... stimulation of mind, stimulation of time, smarter than self, big boys don't cry for help, dig deep the well, let loose the sail, shallow won't flow, the game build a mote, take the lunch drink the punch, a fire burn to cinder, melt the mind the axe to grind, only blind eyes wisdom to find....... peace DavidBen" ...geez..yet another parable...I wonder what the females think about your vocalization skills let me guess ....when you ask a female or perhaps a male for sex do you say something like I like to perform a samll biological function neccessary for mental and physical stimulation so that I don't have to partake in the sexual gratification of sex manipulation of the genitals |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Sun 01/25/09 07:50 AM
|
|
Can we start another thread on the development of language? I have plenty to say on that topic, but do not want to further side track this conversation.
Truly I await the apologists here and hope they will not be scared off by all this smart talk . . . lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes that was my intent and then Creative responded. I am saying now, drop this discussion and go back to the original topic. It’s not even a debate because this is theory. Take it or leave it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I started a thread for it over in the science forum, I find it interesting.
I think there are all kinds of social factors that make men and woman specialize in various tasks, we tend to do this even when we are conscious of doing so and there is a desire of equality. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sun 01/25/09 08:37 AM
|
|
Everyone had to specialize. It wasn’t as if women were superior or men were superior. Hunting required a GREAT deal of skill and patience. It would not have been practical for women to hunt and in many cases I’m sure it was forbidden. It would have been impractical with breasts and lactation and caring for infants. Some women might have hunted when necessary. Especially homo sapien females. “Clan of the Cave Bear” depicts this. It wasn’t the norm. I’m sure some men stayed behind and cared for infants. This might have happened due to injury. Everyone had to pull their weight or we would have not made it as a species. These early humans had hard lives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good, now that, that's done - just a reminder of the OP
The other thread was a little too broad for the purposes of properly espousing the various nuances of this argument.
quotes taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument Plato's demiurge and Aristotle's Prime Mover each referred to a being who, they speculated, set in motion an already existing essence of the Cosmos.
Hmm, already existing essence of the universe, lets hold on to that idea for a minute. Aquinas's argument from contingency is distinct from a first cause argument, since it assumes the possibility of a Universe that has no beginning in time. It is, rather, a form of argument from universal causation. Aquinas observed that, in nature, there were things with contingent existences. Since it is possible for such things not to exist, there must be some time at which these things did not in fact exist. Thus, according to Aquinas, there must have been a time when nothing existed. If this is so, there would exist nothing that could bring anything into existence. Contingent beings, therefore, are insufficient to account for the existence of contingent beings: there must exist a necessary being whose non-existence is an impossibility, and from which the existence of all contingent beings is derived.
The thing that these ancient philosophers lacked was current understanding of physics. We now understand that there is an internal essence to the universe: energy. It can change, it can even cease to be energy in the standard way of thinking of energy, it can become matter, which in my mind is an exotic form of energy, but it can never cease to exist, nor would it follow that it would begin to exist. Energy is fundamental. "In esse" and "in fieri"
The difference between the arguments from causation in fieri and in esse is a fairly important one. In fieri is generally translated as "becoming", while in esse is generally translated as "in existence". In fieri, the process of becoming, is similar to building a house. Once it is built, the builder walks away, and it stands on its own accord. (It may require occasional maintenance, but that is beyond the scope of the first cause argument.) In esse (in existence) is more akin to the light from a candle or the liquid in a vessel. George Hayward Joyce, SJ, explained that "...where the light of the candle is dependent on the candle's continued existence, not only does a candle produce light in a room in the first instance, but its continued presence is necessary if the illumination is to continue. If it is removed, the light ceases. Again, a liquid receives its shape from the vessel in which it is contained; but were the pressure of the containing sides withdrawn, it would not retain its form for an instant." This form of the argument is far more difficult to separate from a purely first cause argument than is the example of the house's maintenance above, because here the First Cause is insufficient without the candle's or vessel's continued existence.[11] Thus, Aristotle's argument is in fieri, while Aquinas' argument is both in fieri and in esse (plus an additional argument from contingency). This distinction is an excellent example of the difference between a deistic view (Aristotle) and a theistic view (Aquinas). Leibnitz, who wrote more than two centuries before the Big Bang was taken for granted, was arguing in esse. As a general trend, the modern slants on the cosmological argument, including the Kalam argument, tend to lean very strongly towards an in fieri argument. Now if you posit that god is merely this eternal energy, then sure we agree god created the universe and I accept that god exists . . . . But what is a god that is only energy. If god had no say in its creation, can it be called a god or is it just a natural property of existence? It is true, either the universe had a first cause or it was eternal. But to claim the reason the universe is not eternal is because there is an eternal universal creative consciousness just pushes back the problem one step further, it answers nothing. We must then apply this same argument to the first cause of this being, or accept an infinity of time before god decided to create this universe . . . The fact that energy is eternal in one form or another seems to me to show the truth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The fact that energy is eternal in one form or another seems to me to show the truth.
I'm not so sure about this. This is based on the law of physics that says that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. But that's actually false physics. Or I should say that it's incomplete physics. The idea that energy is conserved within the universe in its "current state" is a law of physics that works very well in the lab, and in experiments. However, is it the true nature of the universe? Inflation theory suggests otherwise. Inflation theory suggests that the universe truly is a 'free lunch' that was indeed created from a very small amount of energy. Infinitesimally small! The reason that there is so much energy around today be because of gravity! Gravity ultimately offsets energy. Gravity can be thought of as negative energy (or even anti-energy). Inflation Theory suggests that the sum total energy of the universe is basically zero. So according to Inflation Theory energy was indeed created during the big bang Now if you posit that god is merely this eternal energy, then sure we agree god created the universe and I accept that god exists . . . .
But what is a god that is only energy. If god had no say in its creation, can it be called a god or is it just a natural property of existence? The important thing to recognize here is that YOU are energy! This always comes right back to the philosophical question: "Are we the form, or the thing taking the form?" The question isn't whether or not we want to call energy 'god'. The real question is what are we? Are we a form, that has experiences? Or are we the thing that is taking the form, that has experiences? This is truly the fundamental question between atheism and pantheism. If we are the form, then when our form ceases to exist so do we. (i.e. we cease to exist when our body dies) If we are the thing that is taking the form, then when the form ceases to exist we continue to exist, because we were never the form to begin with, we were always that thing that was taking the form. I think either answer to the question has possiblity. But how can we test it? How can we determine with absolute certainty which is truly the case? I've always intuitively felt that I am the thing that is taking the form. Of course intuitively feelings don't could for diddly squat. However, after listening to Deepak's video, "How to Know God" I think he raised some very interesting issue concerning the human brain and memory. Deepak is an MD and is highly educated in the science of physics and medicine and neurology. He suggests that how the brain stores or reconstructs memory images at will is not even remotely close to being understood. Moreover, he suggest that there are reasons to believe that it is not done in the normal temperal ways that could be explained using physics. Studies suggest that the brain functions much like the quantum world. In other words, Deepak is suggesting that the brain is actually a direct interface to the quantum field. And if we are thinking of the quantum field as the mind of God, then we are all connected to the same underlying quantum field as everyone, and everything else. In other words, our true nature is that we are the quantum field experiencing form. When the form vanishes, the quantum field that is our true essence remains. We are the mind of God. I'm sold.
And here owl bet you thought I was the salesman. 
|
|
|
|
|
