Great Coincidence

[Atla]

You still have not got my point and has to clue [not necessary agree with] to what I am trying to convey.
I don't expect you will ever do.

The most you can claim is
We know about the evolution [common and in the scientific realist's sense] of less than 100 years.
Evolution is an inferred scientific fact.
What is a scientific fact is at best merely a polished-conjectures [tentatives] by humans [biologists].
What we determine as 'evolution' per se from the biological basis may be wrong. This is very evident because many scientific theories has been rejected upon new evidences.

There is no way you can claim the absolute unconditional truth of evolution without humans involved.
So my point is whatever is reality, existing, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity is claimed it cannot be done unconditionally; there are no standalone facts of reality without reference to humans.

Never mind if you don't get it, it is just a refresher exercise for my own sake.

Of course, you need humans to know evolution but that does not mean that evolution is not at work when there is no human! Evolution is correct, just look at the literature on this topic.

As I had stated, the above is based on common sense and the conventional sense.

In more rigorous philosophical sense, that is not the case.
In more rigorous philosophical sense, there is no evolution that had gone before humans and still going on.

The point is before humans perceive, know and describe past or present reality [evolution in this case], therein humans is prior a process of the emergence and realization of reality with the collective-of-humans.

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

That you are naturally driven to conceive something exists prior to and independent of humans is driven by psychology as Hume had alluded to re causation.
The point is whenever humans has such impulses for such inferences of mind-independent reality, it is advisable they should suspend judgment as per the pyrrhonian skeptics or even by Hume and Kant.
Humans are too fallible to jump to a conclusion of a mind-independent reality.

If you really serious into philosophy, read this whole article from Russell to get an idea of the dilemma one is faced with reality;

http://www.ditext.com/russell/rus1.html
APPEARANCE AND REALITY
IS there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it?
This question, which at first sight might not seem difficult, is really one of the most difficult that can be asked.
When we have realized the obstacles in the way of a straightforward and confident answer, we shall be well launched on the study of philosophy -- for philosophy is merely the attempt to answer such ultimate questions, not carelessly and dogmatically, as we do in ordinary life and even in the sciences, but critically after exploring all that makes such questions puzzling, and after realizing all the vagueness and confusion that underlie our ordinary ideas.
.........
.........
Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that

perhaps there is no table at all.

Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true. Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities. The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems. Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture.
.............

As such, that you think evolution [actually it is a speculation as inferred] is really-real could turn out be conjectural which is true in a way as all scientific facts are at best polished-conjectural.

Suggest you read the above short chapter to widen your philosophical vista.

Everything is a conjecture including your anti-realism. Realism is a better supported conjecture. Deal with it.

[bahman]

You still have not got my point and has to clue [not necessary agree with] to what I am trying to convey.
I don't expect you will ever do.

The most you can claim is
We know about the evolution [common and in the scientific realist's sense] of less than 100 years.
Evolution is an inferred scientific fact.
What is a scientific fact is at best merely a polished-conjectures [tentatives] by humans [biologists].
What we determine as 'evolution' per se from the biological basis may be wrong. This is very evident because many scientific theories has been rejected upon new evidences.

There is no way you can claim the absolute unconditional truth of evolution without humans involved.
So my point is whatever is reality, existing, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity is claimed it cannot be done unconditionally; there are no standalone facts of reality without reference to humans.

Never mind if you don't get it, it is just a refresher exercise for my own sake.

Of course, you need humans to know evolution but that does not mean that evolution is not at work when there is no human! Evolution is correct, just look at the literature on this topic.

As I had stated, the above is based on common sense and the conventional sense.

In more rigorous philosophical sense, that is not the case.
In more rigorous philosophical sense, there is no evolution that had gone before humans and still going on.

The point is before humans perceive, know and describe past or present reality [evolution in this case], therein humans is prior a process of the emergence and realization of reality with the collective-of-humans.

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

That you are naturally driven to conceive something exists prior to and independent of humans is driven by psychology as Hume had alluded to re causation.
The point is whenever humans has such impulses for such inferences of mind-independent reality, it is advisable they should suspend judgment as per the pyrrhonian skeptics or even by Hume and Kant.
Humans are too fallible to jump to a conclusion of a mind-independent reality.

If you really serious into philosophy, read this whole article from Russell to get an idea of the dilemma one is faced with reality;

http://www.ditext.com/russell/rus1.html
APPEARANCE AND REALITY
IS there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it?
This question, which at first sight might not seem difficult, is really one of the most difficult that can be asked.
When we have realized the obstacles in the way of a straightforward and confident answer, we shall be well launched on the study of philosophy -- for philosophy is merely the attempt to answer such ultimate questions, not carelessly and dogmatically, as we do in ordinary life and even in the sciences, but critically after exploring all that makes such questions puzzling, and after realizing all the vagueness and confusion that underlie our ordinary ideas.
.........
.........
Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that

perhaps there is no table at all.

Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true. Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities. The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems. Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture.
.............

As such, that you think evolution [actually it is a speculation as inferred] is really-real could turn out be conjectural which is true in a way as all scientific facts are at best polished-conjectural.

Suggest you read the above short chapter to widen your philosophical vista.

Hold down, science to you is the only thing that makes morality objective but you preserve all kinds of doubts when it comes to evolution!

[Veritas Aequitas]

Of course, you need humans to know evolution but that does not mean that evolution is not at work when there is no human! Evolution is correct, just look at the literature on this topic.

As I had stated, the above is based on common sense and the conventional sense.

In more rigorous philosophical sense, that is not the case.
In more rigorous philosophical sense, there is no evolution that had gone before humans and still going on.

The point is before humans perceive, know and describe past or present reality [evolution in this case], therein humans is prior a process of the emergence and realization of reality with the collective-of-humans.

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

That you are naturally driven to conceive something exists prior to and independent of humans is driven by psychology as Hume had alluded to re causation.
The point is whenever humans has such impulses for such inferences of mind-independent reality, it is advisable they should suspend judgment as per the pyrrhonian skeptics or even by Hume and Kant.
Humans are too fallible to jump to a conclusion of a mind-independent reality.

If you really serious into philosophy, read this whole article from Russell to get an idea of the dilemma one is faced with reality;

http://www.ditext.com/russell/rus1.html
APPEARANCE AND REALITY
IS there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it?
This question, which at first sight might not seem difficult, is really one of the most difficult that can be asked.
When we have realized the obstacles in the way of a straightforward and confident answer, we shall be well launched on the study of philosophy -- for philosophy is merely the attempt to answer such ultimate questions, not carelessly and dogmatically, as we do in ordinary life and even in the sciences, but critically after exploring all that makes such questions puzzling, and after realizing all the vagueness and confusion that underlie our ordinary ideas.
.........
.........
Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that
Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true. Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities. The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems. Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture.
.............

As such, that you think evolution [actually it is a speculation as inferred] is really-real could turn out be conjectural which is true in a way as all scientific facts are at best polished-conjectural.

Suggest you read the above short chapter to widen your philosophical vista.

Hold down, science to you is the only thing that makes morality objective but you preserve all kinds of doubts when it comes to evolution!

You missed my points.

I claimed,
1. The Science FSK [at its best] is the most credible and objective at present, it generates scientific facts that has varying degrees of objectivity, e.g. theories of natural science, social and other sciences and its speculations which are of lower objectivity.
2. Basically all the above are polished conjectures.
3. The theory of evolution do not have a high degree of objectivity [in contrast to say, 'water is H20'] because it is inferred from past evidences and the process and cannot be repeated.

Re Morality,
what I claimed is, my proposed Morality-proper Framework and System will have a very reasonable degree of credibility and objectivity because all [if not, 95%] its input are to be verified and justified by science.

For example,
1. folk medicine, say anti-bacterial cure, is based traditional medicines based inputs of evidence based on experiences but are not subject to rigorous testing and verification.
Contrast the above to [2] the testing of modern medicines for use antibiotic.
Surely you can see the difference in credibility and objectivity between 1 and 2.

or take the example of weather forecast based on non-scientific interpretations [shamans, etc.] in contrast to one that is very scientific with the latest technology.
Surely you can sense the difference is credibility and objectivity between the two.

It is the same for my proposed Morality-proper Framework and System which is be solid, heavily and fully based on scientific inputs rather than the traditional moral system based on faith, intuition, philosophical inferences and what-not.
Surely you should understand the difference in credibility and objectivity between a science-based moral system and non-scientific-based moral system.

Your views??

[bahman]

As I had stated, the above is based on common sense and the conventional sense.

In more rigorous philosophical sense, that is not the case.
In more rigorous philosophical sense, there is no evolution that had gone before humans and still going on.

The point is before humans perceive, know and describe past or present reality [evolution in this case], therein humans is prior a process of the emergence and realization of reality with the collective-of-humans.

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

That you are naturally driven to conceive something exists prior to and independent of humans is driven by psychology as Hume had alluded to re causation.
The point is whenever humans has such impulses for such inferences of mind-independent reality, it is advisable they should suspend judgment as per the pyrrhonian skeptics or even by Hume and Kant.
Humans are too fallible to jump to a conclusion of a mind-independent reality.

If you really serious into philosophy, read this whole article from Russell to get an idea of the dilemma one is faced with reality;



As such, that you think evolution [actually it is a speculation as inferred] is really-real could turn out be conjectural which is true in a way as all scientific facts are at best polished-conjectural.

Suggest you read the above short chapter to widen your philosophical vista.

Hold down, science to you is the only thing that makes morality objective but you preserve all kinds of doubts when it comes to evolution!

You missed my points.

I claimed,
1. The Science FSK [at its best] is the most credible and objective at present, it generates scientific facts that has varying degrees of objectivity, e.g. theories of natural science, social and other sciences and its speculations which are of lower objectivity.
2. Basically all the above are polished conjectures.
3. The theory of evolution do not have a high degree of objectivity [in contrast to say, 'water is H20'] because it is inferred from past evidences and the process and cannot be repeated.

Re Morality,
what I claimed is, my proposed Morality-proper Framework and System will have a very reasonable degree of credibility and objectivity because all [if not, 95%] its input are to be verified and justified by science.

For example,
1. folk medicine, say anti-bacterial cure, is based traditional medicines based inputs of evidence based on experiences but are not subject to rigorous testing and verification.
Contrast the above to [2] the testing of modern medicines for use antibiotic.
Surely you can see the difference in credibility and objectivity between 1 and 2.

or take the example of weather forecast based on non-scientific interpretations [shamans, etc.] in contrast to one that is very scientific with the latest technology.
Surely you can sense the difference is credibility and objectivity between the two.

It is the same for my proposed Morality-proper Framework and System which is be solid, heavily and fully based on scientific inputs rather than the traditional moral system based on faith, intuition, philosophical inferences and what-not.
Surely you should understand the difference in credibility and objectivity between a science-based moral system and non-scientific-based moral system.

Your views??

Human is the result of evolution, or God made us, or poof we came into existence accidentally. Take your pick.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Hold down, science to you is the only thing that makes morality objective but you preserve all kinds of doubts when it comes to evolution!

You missed my points.

I claimed,
1. The Science FSK [at its best] is the most credible and objective at present, it generates scientific facts that has varying degrees of objectivity, e.g. theories of natural science, social and other sciences and its speculations which are of lower objectivity.
2. Basically all the above are polished conjectures.
3. The theory of evolution do not have a high degree of objectivity [in contrast to say, 'water is H20'] because it is inferred from past evidences and the process and cannot be repeated.

Re Morality,
what I claimed is, my proposed Morality-proper Framework and System will have a very reasonable degree of credibility and objectivity because all [if not, 95%] its input are to be verified and justified by science.

For example,
1. folk medicine, say anti-bacterial cure, is based traditional medicines based inputs of evidence based on experiences but are not subject to rigorous testing and verification.
Contrast the above to [2] the testing of modern medicines for use antibiotic.
Surely you can see the difference in credibility and objectivity between 1 and 2.

or take the example of weather forecast based on non-scientific interpretations [shamans, etc.] in contrast to one that is very scientific with the latest technology.
Surely you can sense the difference is credibility and objectivity between the two.

It is the same for my proposed Morality-proper Framework and System which is be solid, heavily and fully based on scientific inputs rather than the traditional moral system based on faith, intuition, philosophical inferences and what-not.
Surely you should understand the difference in credibility and objectivity between a science-based moral system and non-scientific-based moral system.

Your views??

Human is the result of evolution, or God made us, or poof we came into existence accidentally. Take your pick.

That is your thinking, not mine.

My approach is TOP-DOWN, i.e. based on what currently exists as real, and necessarily working backward to know [as best as possible] where things and humans came from based as far as empirical evidences conditioned upon a credible framework and system of realization and knowledge to support the conclusion.
Why should humans speculate there is a first cause, i.e. God, it has no critical significance to the future of humanity at all.

Humans should understand themselves as human beings, understand the history [to the Big Bang] as far as evidences can support it, and with this useful knowledge of past and present strive to predict the future to optimize the well beings of individuals and that of humanity.

The theists' concern for the existence of a real God is driven by primordial psychology driven by an existential crisis;

Do Buddhist believe in god?
No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origin in fear. The Buddha says:

• "Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains,
  sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines".
  Dp 188

Primitive man found himself in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes was constantly with him.
Finding no security, he created the idea of gods in order to give him comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong.
To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, you will hear them say that the belief in a god or gods gives them the strength they need to deal with life.
You will hear them explain that they believe in a particular god because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered.
All this seems to support the Buddha’s teaching that the god-idea is a response to fear and frustration.

The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change.
He replaced fear, not with irrational belief but with rational understanding.
https://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm

[bahman]

You missed my points.

I claimed,
1. The Science FSK [at its best] is the most credible and objective at present, it generates scientific facts that has varying degrees of objectivity, e.g. theories of natural science, social and other sciences and its speculations which are of lower objectivity.
2. Basically all the above are polished conjectures.
3. The theory of evolution do not have a high degree of objectivity [in contrast to say, 'water is H20'] because it is inferred from past evidences and the process and cannot be repeated.

Re Morality,
what I claimed is, my proposed Morality-proper Framework and System will have a very reasonable degree of credibility and objectivity because all [if not, 95%] its input are to be verified and justified by science.

For example,
1. folk medicine, say anti-bacterial cure, is based traditional medicines based inputs of evidence based on experiences but are not subject to rigorous testing and verification.
Contrast the above to [2] the testing of modern medicines for use antibiotic.
Surely you can see the difference in credibility and objectivity between 1 and 2.

or take the example of weather forecast based on non-scientific interpretations [shamans, etc.] in contrast to one that is very scientific with the latest technology.
Surely you can sense the difference is credibility and objectivity between the two.

It is the same for my proposed Morality-proper Framework and System which is be solid, heavily and fully based on scientific inputs rather than the traditional moral system based on faith, intuition, philosophical inferences and what-not.
Surely you should understand the difference in credibility and objectivity between a science-based moral system and non-scientific-based moral system.

Your views??

Human is the result of evolution, or God made us, or poof we came into existence accidentally. Take your pick.

That is your thinking, not mine.

My approach is TOP-DOWN, i.e. based on what currently exists as real, and necessarily working backward to know [as best as possible] where things and humans came from based as far as empirical evidences conditioned upon a credible framework and system of realization and knowledge to support the conclusion.
Why should humans speculate there is a first cause, i.e. God, it has no critical significance to the future of humanity at all.

Humans should understand themselves as human beings, understand the history [to the Big Bang] as far as evidences can support it, and with this useful knowledge of past and present strive to predict the future to optimize the well beings of individuals and that of humanity.

The theists' concern for the existence of a real God is driven by primordial psychology driven by an existential crisis;

Do Buddhist believe in god?
No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origin in fear. The Buddha says:

• "Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains,
  sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines".
  Dp 188

Primitive man found himself in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes was constantly with him.
Finding no security, he created the idea of gods in order to give him comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong.
To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, you will hear them say that the belief in a god or gods gives them the strength they need to deal with life.
You will hear them explain that they believe in a particular god because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered.
All this seems to support the Buddha’s teaching that the god-idea is a response to fear and frustration.

The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change.
He replaced fear, not with irrational belief but with rational understanding.
https://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm

Take your pick!

[Veritas Aequitas]

Human is the result of evolution, or God made us, or poof we came into existence accidentally. Take your pick.

That is your thinking, not mine.

My approach is TOP-DOWN, i.e. based on what currently exists as real, and necessarily working backward to know [as best as possible] where things and humans came from based as far as empirical evidences conditioned upon a credible framework and system of realization and knowledge to support the conclusion.
Why should humans speculate there is a first cause, i.e. God, it has no critical significance to the future of humanity at all.

Humans should understand themselves as human beings, understand the history [to the Big Bang] as far as evidences can support it, and with this useful knowledge of past and present strive to predict the future to optimize the well beings of individuals and that of humanity.

The theists' concern for the existence of a real God is driven by primordial psychology driven by an existential crisis;

Do Buddhist believe in god?
No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origin in fear. The Buddha says:

• "Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains,
  sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines".
  Dp 188

Primitive man found himself in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes was constantly with him.
Finding no security, he created the idea of gods in order to give him comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong.
To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, you will hear them say that the belief in a god or gods gives them the strength they need to deal with life.
You will hear them explain that they believe in a particular god because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered.
All this seems to support the Buddha’s teaching that the god-idea is a response to fear and frustration.

The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change.
He replaced fear, not with irrational belief but with rational understanding.
https://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm

Take your pick!

You have run out of views to counter?

[Age]

Hold down, science to you is the only thing that makes morality objective but you preserve all kinds of doubts when it comes to evolution!

You missed my points.

I claimed,
1. The Science FSK [at its best] is the most credible and objective at present, it generates scientific facts that has varying degrees of objectivity, e.g. theories of natural science, social and other sciences and its speculations which are of lower objectivity.
2. Basically all the above are polished conjectures.
3. The theory of evolution do not have a high degree of objectivity [in contrast to say, 'water is H20'] because it is inferred from past evidences and the process and cannot be repeated.

Re Morality,
what I claimed is, my proposed Morality-proper Framework and System will have a very reasonable degree of credibility and objectivity because all [if not, 95%] its input are to be verified and justified by science.

For example,
1. folk medicine, say anti-bacterial cure, is based traditional medicines based inputs of evidence based on experiences but are not subject to rigorous testing and verification.
Contrast the above to [2] the testing of modern medicines for use antibiotic.
Surely you can see the difference in credibility and objectivity between 1 and 2.

or take the example of weather forecast based on non-scientific interpretations [shamans, etc.] in contrast to one that is very scientific with the latest technology.
Surely you can sense the difference is credibility and objectivity between the two.

It is the same for my proposed Morality-proper Framework and System which is be solid, heavily and fully based on scientific inputs rather than the traditional moral system based on faith, intuition, philosophical inferences and what-not.
Surely you should understand the difference in credibility and objectivity between a science-based moral system and non-scientific-based moral system.

Your views??

Human is the result of evolution, or God made us, or poof we came into existence accidentally. Take your pick.

Are you aware that I could, and have already, fitted all three in perfectly together with one another to form One Unified view or perspective?

Which, by the way, no one could actually refute?

[bahman]

That is your thinking, not mine.

My approach is TOP-DOWN, i.e. based on what currently exists as real, and necessarily working backward to know [as best as possible] where things and humans came from based as far as empirical evidences conditioned upon a credible framework and system of realization and knowledge to support the conclusion.
Why should humans speculate there is a first cause, i.e. God, it has no critical significance to the future of humanity at all.

Humans should understand themselves as human beings, understand the history [to the Big Bang] as far as evidences can support it, and with this useful knowledge of past and present strive to predict the future to optimize the well beings of individuals and that of humanity.

The theists' concern for the existence of a real God is driven by primordial psychology driven by an existential crisis;

Take your pick!

You have run out of views to counter?

WHat other view?