|
Edited on Fri Apr-24-09 05:30 PM by originalpckelly
Virgin Mary and Jesus.
The claim: A female gave birth to a male child without having sex with a man.
The possible explanations, if we do believe it happened with the known circumstances, if we believe the claimant 100% and Joseph didn't have sex with Virgin Mary: 1. Some freak case of human parthenogenesis. 2. An act of God.
The problem with the first explanation given the statements, if believed 100%, is that Mary was a woman. A woman would only pass on XX to any offspring. This is almost like an act of God in itself.
The second is quite extraordinary, and it makes this all seem impossible.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." --Arthur C. Clarke, the third of Clarke's three laws of prediction.
Or maybe an act of God.
The first two laws are as follows: 1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. Aka nothing is impossible and saying it is so, is just setting up a situation to be proved false.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible. Aka imagination, things like science fiction.
Today, in our world, the circumstances described, if we believe them 100% are completely and totally reasonable/known to be possible with our understanding of technology, and its practical application. A woman could be a real virgin, in the sense of never having sex with anyone, and still be capable of giving birth to a male child. It's called artificial insemination.
Which is more reasonable, if we believe the statements 100%? An act of God or artificial insemination?
I'm predicting artificial insemination, but if they didn't have that technology, and didn't know how it worked down there, how could they have known?
Statements are not forms of evidence, no matter how many there are. People cannot be trusted for all kinds of reasons. We're greedy, we lie, we hate, we need attention, etc.
We're fallible, in other words. Only evidence, with first hand observation of that evidence, is really capable of proving a statement true or false beyond reasonable doubt. That or logic.
What do you think this qualifies as, why do you think it would have been done, and most importantly by whom?
If you know, then you'll know why they didn't just give all of us first hand evidence. Why they've been giving us the second hand evidence of statements.
You're going to think about the rest.
I would suggest that there are at least a three motivations for finding something out, and I think only one of them is a healthy one: 1. Curiosity 2. Ambition 3. Hatred
1. Curiosity
You can simply be curious about something, the only thing that's harmful about that is that old saying, "curiosity killed the cat." With science the only thing that can do that is to think ahead with things like rational science fiction. Like 2001: A Space Odyssey. Non-BS science fiction is a rational look ahead. I suggest curiosity is the pure pursuit of pure truth. Science fiction is the pure pursuit of the possible truth.
2. Ambition
You can be ambitious, and find something out, but if you think about it, you're doing it for the wrong reasons, you might not actually figure out things that way in a complete sense. If you want something for non-destructive power, which I suggest ambition can be defined as, then you are missing one important piece of knowledge: you shouldn't be using technology against other people who don't have it. The knowledge is that people should be free to make their own decisions, and you shouldn't trick them or force them with advanced technology. Doing so shows you lack that knowledge. It's the most important knowledge, because all other knowledge is totally pointless without it. That's inherently an unenlightened act. No nation that considers itself a democracy would allow itself to do that. If you know Star Trek, then you know why an advanced civilization that knows this wouldn't use their technology to gain power over us. It's called the Prime Directive. If you don't know about it, just Google it. You might also cause cultural shock. You could use it for deceptive purposes or to gain a foothold over someone else, for the purposes of enslavement. If you've ever heard of Stargate, that's a movie that contains this leap forward in understanding, a more advanced race used their more advanced technology to enslave humans.
3. Hatred
Ambition and hatred are different, I suggest. Ambition gained knowledge is the want for power, but not for destructive purposes, but rather for enslavement and soft control. If you want knowledge for destructive purposes, then that's knowledge/power for hatred. This again is not an enlightened search for power/knowledge. No democracy that's really enlightened would want this kind of power. Think of racism and religious bigotry, and the hateful differences between nations that cause wars. The last two, I suggest, we have to learn before we're going to pass a test. They're both irrational reasons for rational advancement. I suggest that any civilization must master these for it to survive on its own. If not, then these two things would destroy a civilization eventually, before it could go out to the stars, as that technology would probably be turned for use for these purposes, because both lack the understanding that we must all respect free will to truly understand the most important knowledge: basic morality.
You can probably guess now what it is, and you can understand why whoever did it, did it. Because we've arrived at this stage, we're now ready for the knowledge that might have frightened us and tempted them. Fear is the only rational reason you restrain yourself. It works for a reason, because you never really know without trying something. Marie Curie is thought to have accidentally killed herself finding out about radioactive substances. Doubt and knowledge of doubt is essential. However, fear can be motivated by the irrational reasons #2 and #3. Wouldn't you be tempted, if people feared you, to use it for your advantage? There may be other things that motivate a pursuit of knowledge and perhaps you will figure them out. If you do, please tell me, as I'm just curious. :-)
Even if it's BS, it's pretty interesting BS.
|