12 hours ago, m_m said:

if you think that you are free being atheist - all right.

Will you please elaborate? I’m not certain I am receiving your intended point.

12 hours ago, m_m said:

You can ask your questions, who will stop you?

My point was that people tend to stop asking questions and settle themselves with the false answer of goddidit.

On 7/7/2025 at 2:50 PM, pinball1970 said:

Science has found the answer to lot more questions that were not known by the Bible writers and we all have free access to them.

Available to everyone not just atheists.

Which answers do you know for sure are true?

16 hours ago, iNow said:

Will you please elaborate? I’m not certain I am receiving your intended point.

You are not a sheep, and there is no shepherd over you. That's why you can think you are free.

16 hours ago, iNow said:

My point was that people tend to stop asking questions and settle themselves with the false answer of goddidit.

This answer is not false, and you depreciate it.

35 minutes ago, m_m said:

Which answers do you know for sure are true?

If we assume Revelation was written around 100CE just to make the numbers neat then we are talking just shy of 2000 years of learning.

So in terms of Cosmology and Astronomy we have about 500 years, Biology a bit less, depends where you decide to go from.

Geology from the late 18th century.

Pretty much all of that knowledge accrued over a few hundred years contradicts statements in the Bible.

Statements about life on earth, humans, disease, mental illness the earth itself and the celestial bodies.

1 hour ago, m_m said:

Which answers do you know for sure are true?

Science doesn't look for truth. Truth is too subjective, obviously, since you can believe what you believe is true and I can say it's not. Similarly, science in general isn't interested in "proof" either. Proofs are for maths and philosophy.

Science looks for the best supported explanations. We CAN know what those are, as opposed to the "truth" from you or anyone else. Test an explanation mercilessly, examine every bit of evidence objectively, try to make it fail, assume it's wrong and try to show that. If it survives every test (only one fail is needed to show an explanation is false), then you can start trusting the explanation. You still can't say it's "true", but isn't trust an objective when it comes to knowledge?

1 hour ago, pinball1970 said:

If we assume Revelation was written around 100CE just to make the numbers neat then we are talking just shy of 2000 years of learning.

So in terms of Cosmology and Astronomy we have about 500 years, Biology a bit less, depends where you decide to go from.

Geology from the late 18th century.

Pretty much all of that knowledge accrued over a few hundred years contradicts statements in the Bible.

Statements about life on earth, humans, disease, mental illness the earth itself and the celestial bodies.

You haven't answered my question, however. What answer (at least one) do you consider to be true?

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Science doesn't look for truth. Truth is too subjective, obviously, since you can believe what you believe is true and I can say it's not. Similarly, science in general isn't interested in "proof" either. Proofs are for maths and philosophy.

Science looks for the best supported explanations.

But you contradict yourself. If science isn't looking for truth, then these explanations are beliefs, if they are not truth. And how can you say that something is false, as opposite to truth, if you are not looking for truth?

Best supported explanations? But these are agreements, though you don't like it when i say this.

It's an endless story, you can ask your questions again and again, saying "We haven't found YET". But where is the basement to stand on?, i want to ask.

Edited July 8Jul 8 by m_m

8 minutes ago, m_m said:

But you contradict yourself. If science isn't looking for truth, then these explanations are beliefs, if they are not truth.

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Do any of your beliefs have the mountains of evidence and experiments supporting evolution? No, not even close. You have a feeling, but I know nothing has defeated the explanation I have so far. You are told how things are, I get to test them.

Unfortunately, since you can't be bothered to study it, you'll never know how satisfying it is to TRUST the information you use, rather than hope it's correct, or have blind faith that it is. Science is testable.

13 minutes ago, m_m said:

And how can you say that something is false, as opposite to truth, if you are not looking for truth?

It's pretty easy. You avoid making conclusions you can't support. False is false, and it only takes one false to falsify any hypothesis. Just one and the idea doesn't work. Evidence that supports an hypothesis is treated as just that, support. Build enough support for an idea and if nothing can show that it's false, it becomes theory, the strongest explanations science has. And guess what? If you never call it true, you keep testing it, which either falsifies or strengthens the theory, but NEVER lets you simply assume it's "true" and move on. Rigor is a true friend of science, and the enemy of organized religions.

The truth is NOT the opposite to something that's false. What you call truth is anything but, and is different for every person, so why even call it truth, or Truth with a capital T?

32 minutes ago, m_m said:

Best supported explanations? But these are agreements, though you don't like it when i say this.

Agreements works for me. One of the hallmarks of our species is our cooperative nature. No animals work together as well as we do on such scale. The best supported explanations of science are made EVEN STRONGER by consensus, which is arrived at through experimentation, which is based on the property of replication. I make an hypothesis, and to support it I devise an experiment to show what I mean, in a way that you or anybody else can duplicate exactly. We all run the same experiment, and if we all got the same results, we agree!

How do you test your faith as rigorously?

37 minutes ago, m_m said:

It's an endless story, you can ask your questions again and again, saying "We haven't found YET". But where is the basement to stand on?, i want to ask.

It's certainly not to be found in Bronze Age superstitions.

You think this knowledge is some kind of bedrock, but you're willing to accept a supernatural explanation over what you can observe and test? You and I have a very different understanding of what bedrock is.

50 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The truth is NOT the opposite to something that's false. What you call truth is anything but, and is different for every person, so why even call it truth, or Truth with a capital T?

Because the Truth is the foundation you can lean on.

Ok, you trust what you trust. And everything goes as goes. Evolution and "we are animals" don't bother me anymore.

2 minutes ago, m_m said:

Because the Truth is the foundation you can lean on.

It's not though. Your Truth isn't mine, so how can it be The Truth? I can bring in three other religion proponents who would all disagree with both of us.

Is it true that the sun rises in the East every morning? No, not for some. Is it true that birds have wings that let them fly? Again, that's not true for some birds.

I think any Truth you could tell me would involve you knowing something about your unknowable god. Zealotry ignores the ironic.

And "we are simulated" as well.

1 hour ago, m_m said:

You haven't answered my question, however

Yes I did. I gave you periods of our human understanding of the universe.

You need one, how about two big ones?

We, humans, Homo sapiens evolved, there was no creation.

Our star, the sun forms 99% of our solar system. Astronomers are observing Stella formation in our own galaxy and elsewhere via Webb including the Cigar galaxy.

There was and is no creation.

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

It's not though. Your Truth isn't mine, so how can it be The Truth? I can bring in three other religion proponents who would all disagree with both of us.

Is it true that the sun rises in the East every morning? No, not for some. Is it true that birds have wings that let them fly? Again, that's not true for some birds.

I think any Truth you could tell me would involve you knowing something about your unknowable god. Zealotry ignores the ironic.

But I don't impose on you the Truth (I hope I don't). It's your choice, you are free to have your beliefs. I want to bring a quote of Paul the Apostle, for me it was like thunder "Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves." Romans 14:22

Edited July 8Jul 8 by m_m

18 minutes ago, m_m said:

And "we are simulated" as well.

I wanted you to answer a simple question I've posed. Your Truth isn't mine, so how can it be The Truth? You chose to post this instead, for which I have no reference or clarity. I don't think you argue in good faith, I think you ignore the tough questions. You have the day you deserve.

2 minutes ago, m_m said:

But I don't impose on you the Truth (I hope I don't). It's your choice, you are free to have your beliefs. I want to bring a quote of Paul the Apostle, for me it was like thunder "Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves."

You don't think Truth as an ideal is imposing a condition?! I suggest you look the word up, in a relevant context.

On 7/1/2025 at 11:17 AM, studiot said:

I notice that this has nothing to do with either the original post or my reply.

It is preaching pure and simple.

How much more off topic preaching do we have to endure.

Just now, m_m said:

I want to bring a quote of Paul the Apostle, for me it was like thunder "Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves." Romans 14:22

5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I wanted you to answer a simple question I've posed. Your Truth isn't mine, so how can it be The Truth? You chose to post this instead, for which I have no reference or clarity. I don't think you argue in good faith, I think you ignore the tough questions. You have the day you deserve.

I apologize, I didn't want to edit my post, and "we are simulated as well" was added simultaneously with your answer. I don't argue either with Evolution, or simulation.

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

How much more off topic preaching do we have to endure.

Sorry, I leave this topic.

Edited July 8Jul 8 by m_m

9 hours ago, m_m said:

Sorry, I leave this topic.

Can you address my two examples first?

32 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

Can you address my two examples first?

Well, I have some thoughts. I'll start from afar. For example, when a baby is born, we give him or her a name. Can we live (I'm talking about living, not existence) without a name in this world? No.

There are things in our world, and people give them names. Like a form for content. So atheists take this content, our fundamentals and call it in their own manner, give names, definitions. The content is true, but names have their support (since science is not interested in truth) for those who agree with them.

So these answers are valid for you, because there is some consensus. But this doesn't mean that these supported names give the essence of the content.

Edited July 9Jul 9 by m_m

3 hours ago, m_m said:

So these answers are valid for you, because there is some consensus. But this doesn't mean that these supported names give the essence of the content.

Indeed, but the protagonist is 2000 year's old, so the content and context is largely lost in the land of Ozymandias, King of kings.

Just now, m_m said:

Well, I have some thoughts. I'll start from afar. For example, when a baby is born, we give him or her a name. Can we live (I'm talking about living, not existence) without a name in this world? No.

There are things in our world, and people give them names. Like a form for content. So atheists take this content, our fundamentals and call it in their own manner, give names, definitions. The content is true, but names have their support (since science is not interested in truth) for those who agree with them.

So these answers are valid for you, because there is some consensus. But this doesn't mean that these supported names give the essence of the content.

Well it is correct that that a lable is not that which is labelled.

But what does this have to do with the topic of this thread ?

3 hours ago, m_m said:

So atheists take this content, our fundamentals and call it in their own manner, give names, definitions

I have no idea what you are talking about. Atheists do no such thing, atheists just answer the question. "Do you think there is a god?" with "No."

How humans evolved is a scientific issue, there is a mountain of data to support the fact we evolved and that data was provided by naturalists, geologists, anthropologists, zoologists and paleontologists (to name a few) over the last 180 years or so.

That story bears no resemblance whatsoever to the creation stories in the Bible.

23 minutes ago, studiot said:

But what does this have to do with the topic of this thread ?

I'm talking about knowledge, or rather a source of knowledge. And knowledge about men. I hope it doesn't sound like preaching for you.

45 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, but the protagonist is 2000 year's old, so the content and context is largely lost in the land of Ozymandias, King of kings.

Content doesn't change, but a form does. If you will say that a table is a chair, a table won't stop being one. But tables have become chairs for 2000 years somehow.

Just now, m_m said:

I'm talking about knowledge, or rather a source of knowledge. And knowledge about men. I hope it doesn't sound like preaching for you.

No it isn't preaching.

Preaching would be quoting Sunday Sermon lines from the Bible with no connection to the topic, just to initiate a conversation.

OK so you say you are talking about knowledge.

Please explain / expand on the connection between knowledge and the original question which was "what is the difference between an image and a likeness ?"

You could review my comment (that you missed earlier) that you have two hands each like the other, but they can never be an image of each other, except in a mirror.

12 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

I have no idea what you are talking about. Atheists do no such thing, atheists just answer the question. "Do you think there is a god?" with "No."

How humans evolved is a scientific issue, there is a mountain of data to support the fact we evolved and that data was provided by naturalists, geologists, anthropologists, zoologists and paleontologists (to name a few) over the last 180 years or so.

That story bears no resemblance whatsoever to the creation stories in the Bible.

I know that people call themselves animals. For me it's a tragedy.

10 minutes ago, m_m said:

I'm talking about knowledge, or rather a source of knowledge. And knowledge about men. I hope it doesn't sound like preaching for you.

Content doesn't change, but a form does. If you will say that a table is a chair, a table won't stop being one. But tables have become chairs for 2000 years somehow.

Of course it does, for instance, what would you call a table that people sit on?

Or a chair that people eat from?

9 minutes ago, m_m said:

I know that people call themselves animals.

What we call ourselves is not what I am getting at, the Bible says we were created, we were not created we evolved from ancestral primates, the Bible made it up/got it wrong.

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

OK so you say you are talking about knowledge.

Or rather a source of knowledge. I explained my point of how we obtain knowledge.

My question is about authority of science.

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

Please explain / expand on the connection between knowledge and the original question which was "what is the difference between an image and a likeness ?"

The name of the topic is a quote from the Bible, and please don't forget that we are not talking about mere image and likeness, but image and likeness of God. So, that's why it's not a technical question.

2 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

the Bible made it up/got it wrong.

In your opinion. I think it would be more useful to start posts with "I think.." Then there is no generalization.

We are subjective.