Afterlife?

friedgreencorrado wrote: Aside to Curtis73: Good shot, dude! But please recall that I was actually *disagreeing* with Yoda when I made that comment..

I know... I was using Yoda's words to express my philosophy, as had you.

The good thing is that a baby is a phenomenal sleep aid. Falling asleep will be easier than ever. The bad thing is they never let you sleep.

In reply to friedgreencorrado:

Happy to have been of service!

Aside to Javelin: I share FGC's guilt in railroading your thread, and also apologize.

Some things are hard to not say!

Salanis wrote:

SVreX wrote: Fear and guilt are tools of the enemy.

I thought "fear and guilt" was being an Irish Catholic?

1. Guilt for wrongdoing is a good thing. It's a healthy response of a good conscience.
2. Fear of hell when one has mortally sinned is a good thing. When you do gravely sin, you reject God, and without Him you have every reason to fear hell. Fear of legitimate danger in general is a healthy response.

However

1. Guilt for not doing something wrong is an issue.
2. Fear of God as if he'll punish you for something not wrong is an issue.

Furthermore

Feelings are not the point. Oftentimes feelings are false and deceptive. You need something more than feelings to base your faith upon. Have you ever "felt good" about something and been let down? Have you ever been sure that something was a failure and been surprised when it was not?

In reply to scardeal:

I'm waiting on your extra crazy stuff.

Salanis wrote: My point is, humans spent far more time without any trappings of civilization than they have since spent with them. You said that even before they had developed civilization, they had souls. Maybe they used tools then, but many animals understand and use tools.

That's part of the reason the Europeans had difficulty understanding that the natives of the Americas were humans. It's easy to look back on that time and judge them from our understanding, from our perspective. These native peoples were seemingly animalistic to them. Encountering an extraterrestrial race of early Stone Age development WOULD be hard to tell.

However, this is not the case with elephants and dolphins and apes. We've been in contact with them for a long time. We've been able to train them to do some pretty impressive stuff yes, but none shows the spark of creativity from a human.

As for my example with elephants and bones. They do not avoid elephant bones. They recognize the bones of dead elephants and show great interest in them, particularly the skulls. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8209-elephants-may-pay-homage-to-dead-relatives.html

African elephants have been observed to become highly agitated when they come across the bodies of their own, and they have been seen to pay great attention to the skull and ivory of long-dead elephants. However, this interest had not been tested experimentally.

So, not a survival instinct, but what appears to be awareness of their own mortality. Elephants have also been seen to paint. They even paint pictures of elephants, demonstrating abstract self-awareness: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He7Ge7Sogrk So... they needed some help jumpstarting things, but they seem to exhibit what you are suggesting about as well as pre-civilzed hunter/gatherer humans would. I can't interview an elephant and ask them what they think about the bones or the art because we don't share language.

Methinks you are anthropomorphizing their behavior too much. From the article: "But there is no way to tell whether the elephants are mourning their dead" They do show interest in the bones of elephants, which is interesting and unusual. Furthermore, "However, the team could not corroborate stories that elephants specifically visit the bones of dead relatives. The elephant families in their study were unable to pick out the skull of their dead matriarch from other families' dead matriarchs." You would have to show them seeking out a dead relative's last place to really show evidence that they were doing it to mourn the dead.

The painting is not spontaneous, but something that a trainer trained them to do. I've heard of similar stories with apes. The dolphins were not spontaneous in their use of symbols, but they were trained to use them by the researchers/trainers.

Not entirely related, but funny.

(hotlinked image removed because it uses cuss words)

Dolphins have been said to dance and show other forms of art naturally and because they enjoy it.

Regarding Our Lady of Guadalupe:

From the 1979 study:
1. There was an original image and later additions to the image. The later additions are characteristic of normal paintings. The additions appear to be the rays and lower portions.
2. The original image shows no evidence of an under-sketch. The under-sketch is a line drawing beneath the paint which delineates the lines of a painting. It's presence would be evidence against a miraculous occurrence. Thin dark lines which were earlier thought to be under-sketch lines were shown to be blended with the paint, and uncharacteristic of an under-sketch.
3. The pigments used in the original image were of unknown origin. Pigments of the additions are easily identifiable and have deteriorated with age. The original pigments show no signs of cracking or discoloration.
4. The coloration of the original has a quality similar to iridescence. Extremely close inspection shows different coloration than when viewed at a distance. It looks "proper" when viewed at a distance, but does not when viewed up close.

From Callahan's findings:

In terms of this infrared study, there is no way to explain either the kind of color luminosity and brightness of pigments over the centuries. Furthermore, when consideration is given to the fact that there is no underdrawing, sizing, or over-varnish, and the weave of the fabric is itself utilized to give portrait depth, no explanation of the portrait is possible by infrared techniques. It is remarkable that after more than four centuries there is no fading or cracking of the original figure on any portion of the agave tilma, which—being unsized—should have deteriorated centuries ago.

N Sperlo wrote: Dolphins have been said to dance and show other forms of art naturally and because they enjoy it.

1. That was about painting.
2. I looked through all of those, and none even got anywhere near the quality of a cave painting.

Datsun1500 wrote: So the fact that there is a painting somewhere that has not faded means the entire Bible is true? When you put it that way, I'm in.

It is not following the normal physical processes that would give the characteristic fading, cracking and deterioration. When something contradicts normal physical processes, we call that a miracle.

In reply to scardeal:

It was about art. So is it quality in the work you're looking for? I'm sure Michelangelo would have a pretty tough time painting if he had to stick out of the water and use his mouth.

Why does that have to be an under-sketch on a painting? I know several painters that don't any sketching before they start painting.

I really don't understand why people see the need to prove or disprove that there is a god. Isn't the whole point of faith to believe something which exist on a different plane of being from us?

N Sperlo wrote: In reply to scardeal: It was about art. So is it quality in the work you're looking for? I'm sure Michelangelo would have a pretty tough time painting if he had to stick out of the water and use his mouth.

That's the thing. It's NOT art. (Neither is Jackson Pollack's either.) It's scribbling. The apes, the cat, the elephants and the turtle don't fare any better.

93EXCivic wrote: Why does that have to be an under-sketch on a painting? I know several painters that don't any sketching before they start painting.

There doesn't. However, the existence of an under-sketch would be evidence that it was made by an ordinary artist.

scardeal wrote:

N Sperlo wrote: In reply to scardeal: It was about art. So is it quality in the work you're looking for? I'm sure Michelangelo would have a pretty tough time painting if he had to stick out of the water and use his mouth.

That's the thing. It's NOT art. (Neither is Jackson Pollack's either.) It's scribbling. The apes, the cat, the elephants and the turtle don't fare any better.

Are you an artist now? Jackson Pollack's work is art.

In reply to 93EXCivic:

Nope. But it's just splatters against a canvas. A kid could do that. It fails to reveal truth in the human condition.

Dali - art
Rembrandt - art
Rodin - art

Pollack - not art
Crucifix in pee - not art
Pizza box with fork in it - not art

scardeal wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: Why does that have to be an under-sketch on a painting? I know several painters that don't any sketching before they start painting.

There doesn't. However, the existence of an under-sketch would be evidence that it was made by an ordinary artist.

But the lack thereof doesn't mean it wasn't. I'm glad someone else pointed out the tortured circular logic at work.

I'm with Datsun1500 on this one, a few unexplained occurences doesn't do it for me.

I appreciate your input, but the last few pages are reaching near spam quality with trying to "prove" to people these "miracles."

In reply to scardeal:

Sorry but you are wrong.

So kids can't do art?

Datsun1500 wrote: So the fact that there is a painting somewhere that has not faded means the entire Bible is true? When you put it that way, I'm in.

I'm sure all of our top scientists had a serious go at it so, yeah. I am totally going to find a dude named jesus and love him. Hard. It says you should right in the bible.

z31maniac wrote: But the lack thereof doesn't mean it wasn't. I'm glad someone else pointed out the tortured circular logic at work. I'm with Datsun1500 on this one, a few unexplained occurences doesn't do it for me. I appreciate your input, but the last few pages are reaching near spam quality with trying to "prove" to people these "miracles."

I'm sorry you feel that way, but it's not circular logic.
1. Previous studies asserted that there was an undersketch, which would be evidence against. (contra)
2. This was disproven via the 1979 study. (disproves the contra)
3. Furthermore, it shows remarkable qualities which contradict normal physical processes. (pro)

I've shown that there are objectively documented occurrences that contradict proven laws of nature. Such instances are called miracles. I'm talking about objective occurrences that can be proven or disproven. How is that circular?

I've also reviewed the arguments of others regarding supposed creativity among animals. The evidence doesn't hold up. It's neat that they'll scribble and that they're interested in the bones of the dead, but that is far from convincing evidence that they have rational thought. Feel free to disagree with me, because it's not nearly as objective as the previous argument.

I have not proven that there is a God (that's a philosophical argument), nor that He is the Judeo-Christian God. Frankly, the only thing I've proven is that science doesn't have all the answers, that this world cannot be reduced to a set of physical processes, because physical processes don't explain everything, even everything that's objectively observable.

If art is in the eye of the beholder, an argument based on art is not winnable.

N Sperlo wrote: So kids can't do art?

Kids can and do.

N Sperlo wrote: If art is in the eye of the beholder, an argument based on art is not winnable.

There are objective qualities of art, but it is not an argument that I really have the level of expertise in to be able to argue it effectively. It's easy for me to look at art and tell whether it is art, but I don't have the training to really be able to express my objections well.

I do know this: art has to be beautiful, and it reveals truth of the human condition. If it misrepresents that the human condition or fails to be beautiful, it fails at art.