• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Adam and Eve

Paleocon said:
Can you empirically prove that only those things are true which are empirically provable?
Click to expand...

That is not what I said nor is it even where I was going. A lack of evidence of something is not proof that it does not exist. Radiation has been around since the dawn of time and yet it is only relatively recently that we've been able to detect and measure it as well as differentiate between different types. There is currently no way to prove God exist and Goddess does not. Nor the other way around. For all we know, both are "up there" watching over us. We all have different beliefs as to what is and isn't and even have personal experience as our own evidence towards the existence of what we believe in.

For example, Moses and the burning bush. There was not a single soul (no puns intended) around to verify Moses' account of what happened at that bush. It happened (I'm going with my belief that the event happen even if it is possible that details have been muddled by time and translation), Moses experienced it and he knows it happened, but there is no way to prove it. Lack of proof does not discredit existence. Having empirical evidence, particularly repeatable evidence, simply confirms existence and/or furthers understanding and comprehension.
 
maquiscat said:
That is not what I said nor is it even where I was going. A lack of evidence of something is not proof that it does not exist. Radiation has been around since the dawn of time and yet it is only relatively recently that we've been able to detect and measure it as well as differentiate between different types. There is currently no way to prove God exist and Goddess does not. Nor the other way around. For all we know, both are "up there" watching over us. We all have different beliefs as to what is and isn't and even have personal experience as our own evidence towards the existence of what we believe in.

For example, Moses and the burning bush. There was not a single soul (no puns intended) around to verify Moses' account of what happened at that bush. It happened (I'm going with my belief that the event happen even if it is possible that details have been muddled by time and translation), Moses experienced it and he knows it happened, but there is no way to prove it. Lack of proof does not discredit existence. Having empirical evidence, particularly repeatable evidence, simply confirms existence and/or furthers understanding and comprehension.
Click to expand...

But why is reason incapable of determining truths without experimental input?
 
reefedjib said:
If one's soul is genderless and if one acknowledges reincarnation (John the Baptist was Elijah) and karmic law (you reap what you sow), then we have each been reincarnated as both a man and a woman. Furthermore, our sexual identity has been both gay and straight. How does Adam and Eve fit within this personal identity?
Click to expand...

sure there have been a few deemed worthy to come back to earth to finish what has been assigned to them. But there is no evidence that everyone is reincarnated continually.
 
Paleocon said:
But why is reason incapable of determining truths without experimental input?
Click to expand...

It's not. Again you are either attempting to change what I am saying or you are simply not comprehending. Reason and logic alone are indeed capable of determining the truth. They simply are not capable to proving it beyond doubt. This of course assumes that common and agreed upon terms are being used between the one(s) doing the proving and the one(s) being proved to. What is a "truth"? We have shown in many experiments that a straight fact can be colored by one's perceptions. We've put multiple people in a room, caused an event, and afterwards asked details of the event from the people while separated from each other. All may well speak truthfully, but at times none get the truth. And that is with something that is easily measured and recorded. How do we really determine the truth of intelligent life other than on earth, the existence of souls, or many other topics. It is arrogant to say, in this case, that a souls is definitively one gender or the other. We have have people out there who possess both male and female DNA, how do you determine what their soul is? There are things that simply cannot be proven yet, no matter how true they are.
 
votemout said:
sure there have been a few deemed worthy to come back to earth to finish what has been assigned to them. But there is no evidence that everyone is reincarnated continually.
Click to expand...

There is no real evidence that such people have come back at all. Again, as I am pointing out to Paleocon, that doesn't mean that they are not, simply that it cannot be proven to others.
 
maquiscat said:
It's not. Again you are either attempting to change what I am saying or you are simply not comprehending. Reason and logic alone are indeed capable of determining the truth. They simply are not capable to proving it beyond doubt. This of course assumes that common and agreed upon terms are being used between the one(s) doing the proving and the one(s) being proved to. What is a "truth"? We have shown in many experiments that a straight fact can be colored by one's perceptions. We've put multiple people in a room, caused an event, and afterwards asked details of the event from the people while separated from each other. All may well speak truthfully, but at times none get the truth. And that is with something that is easily measured and recorded. How do we really determine the truth of intelligent life other than on earth, the existence of souls, or many other topics. It is arrogant to say, in this case, that a souls is definitively one gender or the other. We have have people out there who possess both male and female DNA, how do you determine what their soul is? There are things that simply cannot be proven yet, no matter how true they are.
Click to expand...

But why can the conclusions of reason not be proven?

Regarding hermaphrodites, if they are capable of functioning sexually as one gender or the other, they are that gender. If not, then their gender is indeterminate.
 
Paleocon said:
But why can the conclusions of reason not be proven?
Click to expand...

Because until you have the empirical evidence there simply is no proof. Through reason and logic I have determined that magic as a force does indeed exist. For that matter, my reasoning has led me to conclude that magic is the force that allows angels to perform all the superhuman feats that they are attributed and that is the reason magic is forbidden (per most Judeo-Christian religions) to be practiced by humans. Now how do I prove all this to others? I can't, at least not currently. I can convince others of my reasoning and if they agree with my logic accept it as true, but until I obtain empirical evidence there will always be the chance that I am wrong.

Regarding hermaphrodites, if they are capable of functioning sexually as one gender or the other, they are that gender. If not, then their gender is indeterminate.
Click to expand...

Not hermaphrodites. Hermaphrodites are individuals who have the physical characteristics of both male and female; e.g. penis and vagina. That does not necessarily speak to their DNA. Additionally a person who has multiple sets of DNA (known as Chimeras) may or may not display characteristics of the secondary DNA. The other set(s) ,ay even well be of the same gender genetically. A woman lost her children because the DNA in her vagina and uterus were different that that in her mouth (which is where most DNA samples are taken from) but both showed to be female. However, what happens when the sex organs develop along the lines of one DNA gender set, yet most everything else followed the plans of the other gender? Outwardly male, inwardly female (or vice versa), or maybe not even settled on one. It is these variances within the human physical structure, at levels beyond initial glance that leads me to conclude that the soul itself has no gender. Otherwise there will always be the risk of a male soul entering into a female body.
 
maquiscat said:
Because until you have the empirical evidence there simply is no proof. Through reason and logic I have determined that magic as a force does indeed exist. For that matter, my reasoning has led me to conclude that magic is the force that allows angels to perform all the superhuman feats that they are attributed and that is the reason magic is forbidden (per most Judeo-Christian religions) to be practiced by humans. Now how do I prove all this to others? I can't, at least not currently. I can convince others of my reasoning and if they agree with my logic accept it as true, but until I obtain empirical evidence there will always be the chance that I am wrong.



Not hermaphrodites. Hermaphrodites are individuals who have the physical characteristics of both male and female; e.g. penis and vagina. That does not necessarily speak to their DNA. Additionally a person who has multiple sets of DNA (known as Chimeras) may or may not display characteristics of the secondary DNA. The other set(s) ,ay even well be of the same gender genetically. A woman lost her children because the DNA in her vagina and uterus were different that that in her mouth (which is where most DNA samples are taken from) but both showed to be female. However, what happens when the sex organs develop along the lines of one DNA gender set, yet most everything else followed the plans of the other gender? Outwardly male, inwardly female (or vice versa), or maybe not even settled on one. It is these variances within the human physical structure, at levels beyond initial glance that leads me to conclude that the soul itself has no gender. Otherwise there will always be the risk of a male soul entering into a female body.
Click to expand...

maquiscat said:
Because until you have the empirical evidence there simply is no proof. Through reason and logic I have determined that magic as a force does indeed exist. For that matter, my reasoning has led me to conclude that magic is the force that allows angels to perform all the superhuman feats that they are attributed and that is the reason magic is forbidden (per most Judeo-Christian religions) to be practiced by humans. Now how do I prove all this to others? I can't, at least not currently. I can convince others of my reasoning and if they agree with my logic accept it as true, but until I obtain empirical evidence there will always be the chance that I am wrong.



Not hermaphrodites. Hermaphrodites are individuals who have the physical characteristics of both male and female; e.g. penis and vagina. That does not necessarily speak to their DNA. Additionally a person who has multiple sets of DNA (known as Chimeras) may or may not display characteristics of the secondary DNA. The other set(s) ,ay even well be of the same gender genetically. A woman lost her children because the DNA in her vagina and uterus were different that that in her mouth (which is where most DNA samples are taken from) but both showed to be female. However, what happens when the sex organs develop along the lines of one DNA gender set, yet most everything else followed the plans of the other gender? Outwardly male, inwardly female (or vice versa), or maybe not even settled on one. It is these variances within the human physical structure, at levels beyond initial glance that leads me to conclude that the soul itself has no gender. Otherwise there will always be the risk of a male soul entering into a female body.
Click to expand...

Can you prove through reason alone that 2 + 2 equals 4?

Souls do not simply enter into bodies. They form an integral part of the person's essence. So if a person has DNA which does not affect them, it will have no bearing on whether they are a man or a woman. In the case of an external pseudohermaphrodite, where the genitals are externally ambiguous, it is not possible to be certain.
 
Was there a particular reason you double quoted me or was that just cut and paste errors?

Paleocon said:
Can you prove through reason alone that 2 + 2 equals 4?
Click to expand...

If you have a point get to it. Various tools (logic, reasoning, empirical evidence) alone or in combination can be used to arrive at the truth. But when it comes to proof the empirical evidence is the key. I can through reason prove that 2+2=4, but only by empirical evidence and assuring that we are using the same definitions can I assure that you and I are using the same reasoning. I can also prove through reasoning that 1+1=5 or 3 or even 8. No I was not going for the easy out of binary where 1+1=10, but that too would illustrate where before reasoning can work one must assure that one is using a common definition and premise with the one they are trying to convince.

Souls do not simply enter into bodies. They form an integral part of the person's essence. So if a person has DNA which does not affect them, it will have no bearing on whether they are a man or a woman. In the case of an external pseudohermaphrodite, where the genitals are externally ambiguous, it is not possible to be certain.
Click to expand...

Here again you have claimed an absolute that you cannot prove. Who says souls developed in the body? When God said "I knew you before you were in the womb" (possibility paraphrased) could that not mean that He knew the soul before it was joined with the body? Indeed it could. Can you even prove that we have souls? There were followers of God among the Jews who believed that when you were dead, that was it. Game over. No afterlife. It was either the Pharisees or the Sadducee I'm sure but I'm not going to bother to look it up ATM. The point holds. Reason and logic can work in many directions. They are based upon one of more presumptions when empirical evidence is lacking, and sometimes even when it is present.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom