Syed's Mega-Thread

[funinspace]

As this thread really doesn't have much of a theme to start with....

of course adult will teach baby just like we teach baby now

So what you're saying is that suffering is not necessary for learning. A baby who did not suffer can go to heaven and learn as much as anyone who has suffered an entire lifetime of the most abject misery imaginable.

You've nuked your entire argument, but that's pretty much par for the course.

Per the Bible, humans are essentially lobotomized, as they can't care about loved ones any more, and spouses are no more. Much like the robot notion that Syed is all worried about. But it will be fancy, and one gets to feast and drink wine.

Out of curiosity, does the Qumran provide any more details of this fabled imaginary heaven, than the pretty useless Bible?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

My answer to what? To your daft question? OK, I'll bite. Here you go:
No, I don't believe that humans would have learned about cancer if there was no such thing as cancer. Obviously. Just like we've never learned about fadoogly, because humans don't get afflicted by fadoogly.

the differences between human and animals IS that human knows our own existence who and what created us while animals DONT

human are special god creation

evolution theory can not explain why human become learning creature

Yes it can. A mutation in a gene that controls the strength of the muscles in our jaw led to lower jaw strength. The lower jaw strength allowed for a larger cranium because the skull bones didn't need to fuse as tightly to allow for the structural support of the stronger jaw muscles. Larger cranium, means bigger brain. Bigger brain means more thinking power, though some refuse to use it.

 

[Sajara]

do you believe that human have learn about cancer if there was NO cancer in human body?

I admit, we probably would not have learned about something that doesn't exist.

But then, I can't imagine why we would want to.

Well, we know how to cure vampirism and lycanthropy...or outright kill those diseases...and humanity made that up too...so...probably might have?

 

[Infinite Monkey]

do you believe that human have learn about cancer if there was NO cancer in human body?

I'll answer this in a different way than others here have. (I'm not a scientist, so if I'm wrong I'd appreciate any corrections from people who have actually studied biology/cancer.)

Yes, we would have learned about cancer if there was no cancer in human bodies. We would be able to study cancer in the bodies of animals, since nearly all animals are vulnerable to cancer, with only a few species like elephants and naked mole rats being resistant. (According to a quick Google search.)

In addition, even if no creatures on Earth were vulnerable to cancer, we could extrapolate the idea of cancer as a concept, since all creatures are made up of cells that reproduce. Cancer, in its many, many forms, is the result of errors in cell production. Normally the rate of cell production is controlled, but the problem is that the cellular mechanisms that control growth/division rates must also be copied from earlier cells. This is not a problem if whatever method used to copy those mechanisms is absolutely, 100% perfect at all times and under all circumstances, but we know that flaws in copying do happen when living cells replicate. Imperfectly copied cells may start dividing and replicating much faster than they should, and all of the subsequent cells will have the same flaw. Soon, this single error in replication can result in the affected organism being riddled with cancer cells.

Now, cells are not the only kind of self-replicator. You can simulate self-replicating entities through software (and there are many reasons for doing so that have absolutely nothing to do with biology, cancer, pain or suffering in general.) If the same thing were to happen in a simulation- a set of instructions governing the rate of reproduction becoming lost or corrupted in a single entity, than all the subsequent entities created from that original will also have the lost/corrupted instructions. Those entities will then continue to replicate at a different rate from the original unchanged entities.

So, yes, as soon as humans understand the concept of self-replication, we could "learn about cancer" as a concept. If we had cells in which the mechanisms governing replication rates absolutely NEVER failed to copy over to new cells perfectly, we'd probably be very happy about it, as the idea of our own cells growing out of control in places and ruining the body's ability to function correctly would be a very frightening "science fiction" concept.

 

[Gila Guerilla]

I want you to use your imagination, Syed . . .

So, Syed, you need to change the statement . . .


. . . to something like :-

Even with suffering and with pleasure, we are robot-like, because "God" decided so long ago, before we were born, and even before we were supposedly "created", exactly what we would do, when and how, and we are not able to deviate our behaviour from "God's" script, because "God" has perfect knowledge, and knows how he planned our births, our deaths, and all of our actions in life.


According to your belief, Syed - if I have it correct, we are robots that are pushed and pulled and shoved by pain and pleasure, and it was laid down by your "God", and you must follow the details of "God's" lines of robot code, that "he" decided, when "he" was pondering how "he' would have the universe run, BEFORE he made anything, when there was just "God" and nothing else. It might seem as though we are free, and not robots, but, (according to your belief Syed - if I have it correct), it just has to be an illusion. I challenge you to do anything tomorrow, which is not already in your "God's" script or program, for how you, and all of the universe will be, and run.

If I must act, then I will act, but the inverse is untrue; moreover, although I will if I must, it's not so that I must if I will.

Knowledge is independent of truth. Knowing what I will do does not imply that I must do what you know I will. How so? Actuality implies possibility, but the inverse is not so.

An analysis of the JTB Theory of Knowledge does not support your contention. If you know what I will do, then there is still the possibility of mistake, for the implication of the theory is not that I must do as you know I will; rather, the limited implication is that I will do what you know I will. However, you're human, and as with all of humanity, there is the possibility of mistake, but even if you could (like God) not be mistaken and know what you do with the impossibility of mistake, nothing about your knowledge transforms contingent truths into necessary truths, for as I said earlier, truth is independent of knowledge.

If God knows I will kill someone, then I will someone, but it's not true that I must kill someone merely because it's impossible for Him to be mistaken. His knowledge (acknowledged as certainty) does not mean the contingent truth is a necessary truth. I have the real choice to not kill. God's great knowledge does not alter that. It simply means that He will know with certainty what choices I will willingly make. My free will is not compromised by His knowledge of my choices.

But you have ignored a major part of my argument, fast, (although not rigorously presented, it was in there). One major part of the argument is that "God" had choice about histories, and, (if the theology is correct), then he could have chosen other histories in which I do not kill someone. "God" is sitting up in his heaven choosing between universes and histories, and thus is responsible. "He" can't be allowed, (by philosophers), to wriggle out of it. If I am to be a killer, then "God" decided that outcome, before "he" theoretically lifted a metaphorical finger in making "his creation". It is not about "God's" knowledge, but about "God's" choices and actions, and the responsibility for the total certainty and inevitability of the outcomes envisioned in that supposedly divine mind, before the action was taken.

The following is another topic, but you also seem to be making the assumption, fast, that humans have free choice, and that is not a question which has been settled, even though some theologies say that we do have free choice. On the other hand, even if we have free choice, my argument still holds - "God" is the author of every action and effect, of every thing in this universe, by virtue of choices made by "him", prior to the supposed "creation".

 

[Atheos]

As this thread really doesn't have much of a theme to start with....

So what you're saying is that suffering is not necessary for learning. A baby who did not suffer can go to heaven and learn as much as anyone who has suffered an entire lifetime of the most abject misery imaginable.

You've nuked your entire argument, but that's pretty much par for the course.

Per the Bible, humans are essentially lobotomized, as they can't care about loved ones any more, and spouses are no more. Much like the robot notion that Syed is all worried about. But it will be fancy, and one gets to feast and drink wine.

Out of curiosity, does the Qumran provide any more details of this fabled imaginary heaven, than the pretty useless Bible?

Back in the day my rationale was that we'd be so "righteous" that we'd completely understand why our loved ones had to roast in hell for all eternity, and we'd like it because it was deserved. Never mind the fact that the only thing separating the saved from the damned was the heinous crime of mere skepticism.

 

[Syed]

the differences between human and animals IS that human knows our own existence who and what created us while animals DONT

human are special god creation

evolution theory can not explain why human become learning creature

Yes it can. A mutation in a gene that controls the strength of the muscles in our jaw led to lower jaw strength. The lower jaw strength allowed for a larger cranium because the skull bones didn't need to fuse as tightly to allow for the structural support of the stronger jaw muscles. Larger cranium, means bigger brain. Bigger brain means more thinking power, though some refuse to use it.

ok what the reason other creature did not become learning creature LIKE HUMAN reading, writing and talking creature?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes it can. A mutation in a gene that controls the strength of the muscles in our jaw led to lower jaw strength. The lower jaw strength allowed for a larger cranium because the skull bones didn't need to fuse as tightly to allow for the structural support of the stronger jaw muscles. Larger cranium, means bigger brain. Bigger brain means more thinking power, though some refuse to use it.

ok what the reason other creature did not become learning creature LIKE HUMAN reading, writing and talking creature?

I just told you.

 

[Syed]

ok what the reason other creature did not become learning creature LIKE HUMAN reading, writing and talking creature?

I just told you.

you said HOW not WHY other creature did not become learning creature LIKE HUMAN?

 

[Syed]

do you believe that human have learn about cancer if there was NO cancer in human body?

I'll answer this in a different way than others here have. (I'm not a scientist, so if I'm wrong I'd appreciate any corrections from people who have actually studied biology/cancer.)

Yes, we would have learned about cancer if there was no cancer in human bodies. We would be able to study cancer in the bodies of animals, .

no, human started studying medicine for the benefit of human not animals
if human dont had disease we wont be studying medicine

 

[DBT]

If humans can learn in Heaven without the presence of evil and suffering, as you have said, then your claim that evil and suffering is necessary in order to be able to learn is a false claim.

do you believe that human have learn about cancer if there was NO cancer in human body?

What about all the people who have died of cancer but have learned nothing about cancer except that they get sick and die? What about the fact that we have diseases that are incurable and probably may be for a long time to come?

If people can learn in Heaven, as you have claimed, they can learn anything that they want to learn or needs to be learned.

Do you need to experience being shot in order to theoretically understand that getting shot is not a good thing to experience? Of course not.

And consider hypothetical constructs.....we don't have warp drives or interstellar travel, yet we can imagine these things.

Which means that your claim that humans can't learn without the presence of evil and suffering is false.

 

[Smoker]

That's the opposite of what you've been saying throughout this thread.

dead body lose weight by lost of oxygen not soul

Do you think there haven't been scientists that tested the weight of the body while people were dying, so they could test how much the soul weighs to see if it was real? The soul is probably not a real thing, because no scientist has found a way to observe it yet. If anybody could prove that a "soul" exists they would be the most famous genius that ever lived.

 

[bigfield]

I'll answer this in a different way than others here have. (I'm not a scientist, so if I'm wrong I'd appreciate any corrections from people who have actually studied biology/cancer.)

Yes, we would have learned about cancer if there was no cancer in human bodies. We would be able to study cancer in the bodies of animals, .

no, human started studying medicine for the benefit of human not animals
if human dont had disease we wont be studying medicine

Veterinary Medicine.

 

[Sajara]

no, human started studying medicine for the benefit of human not animals
if human dont had disease we wont be studying medicine

Veterinary Medicine.

http://myfwc.com/research/wildlife/sea-turtles/threats/fibropapillomatosis/

Fibropapillomatosis is a viral disease only found in sea turtles...yet we've been researching it anyway because often humans care more about animals than other humans.

You know, I never really understood that...but this thread is making me see why that might be the case.

 

[another1]

They think humans come from animals, Sajara. The animals, they're just stupid. Picture a seal. Now ask yourself WHY. Evolution is an insult, when it comes to applying it to humans. Plenty of clues that support it but what am I to believe. Personally I don't care where I came from. I'm set up in a suspiciously sweet spot in a vast, cold universe. I'm totally blessed. Suspiciously blessed.

The truth about the robots is probably so twisted, It would damage our souls to lean, Syed. Someone said the other day "maybe vegetation is growing us". It ruined my meal. What is a robot really, Syed? Are plants robots? Define robot because I'm not up on modern terminologies. What are the robots and what are they doing?

 

[Syed]

no, human started studying medicine for the benefit of human not animals
if human dont had disease we wont be studying medicine

Veterinary Medicine.

no, human did not started studying medicine for the benefit of animals

 

[bigfield]

Veterinary Medicine.

no, human did not started studying medicine for the benefit of animals

Veterinary medicine.

If human no disease human still need to farmed

Your suffering theory retarded

 

[Atheos]

Not only is it retarded it's really, really retarded. It implies that some god created cancer (since it didn't exist until he created it) specifically so we could suffer and learn about how to treat it. Then once we've got it figured out we die and go to an afterlife where cancer doesn't even exist and the knowledge so painfully gained is completely worthless.

What an idiotic worldview.



ETA: So why did human start study plant disease?

 

[James Brown]

Good point. We would never have been able to eradicate smallpox if we hadn't studied it. And we wouldn't have studied smallpox if we hadn't suffered and died from it for thousands of years. And we wouldn't have suffered from smallpox if God hadn't created it.

Show

"Thank God for smallpox!"

 

[Syed]

do you believe that human have learn about cancer if there was NO cancer in human body?

What about all the people who have died of cancer but have learned nothing about cancer except that they get sick and die? .

do you mean every human should cancer doctor?