PDA

View Full Version : Must see for all atheists philosophy prof on atheism



Stizzel
07-06-2012, 02:15 PM
ukeCmR2S5Vg

Most of you stomp on theism by talking about science but don't seem to grasp the importance of philosophy or how to respond to it. I hope you find this as interesting as I do.

"philosophy offers a way for people to live free of delusion".

000350
07-06-2012, 02:20 PM
1:00:45

r0gue6
07-06-2012, 02:21 PM
ukeCmR2S5Vg

Most of you stomp on theism by talking about science but don't seem to grasp the importance of philosophy or how to respond to it. I hope you find this as interesting as I do.

"philosophy offers a way for people to live free of delusion".

Listen dipsh!t, we stomp on theism because there is no proof a God exists, and that has nothing to do with science.

Stizzel
07-06-2012, 02:21 PM
1:00:45

Every minute is excellent.

ImproperOne
07-06-2012, 02:39 PM
ukeCmR2S5Vg

Most of you stomp on theism by talking about science but don't seem to grasp the importance of philosophy or how to respond to it. I hope you find this as interesting as I do.

"philosophy offers a way for people to live free of delusion".

That's some deep sheit.

My philosophy is very simple, show me the evidence and let me decide for myself.

Stizzel
07-06-2012, 03:01 PM
Listen dipsh!t, we stomp on theism because there is no proof a God exists, and that has nothing to do with science.

Right. Which is why you hit a brick wall when encountering someone that rejects evidence for faith, or has a mangled understanding of how to apply evidence to an argument. This professor has methodologies that allow you to bridge that gap. If you can overcome your bitter angst.

Alucard545
07-06-2012, 04:16 PM
Philosophy has nothing to do with science or religion. See Plato, Aristotle, etc. It is the "3rd option". It's almost like science and religion mixed (or both being absent).

lasher
07-06-2012, 04:19 PM
Philosophy has nothing to do with science or religion. See Plato, Aristotle, etc. It is the "3rd option". It's almost like science and religion mixed (or both being absent).

lol.

wulpurgis
07-06-2012, 05:33 PM
i'm a philosopher so i am well aware of the value of philosophy. i usually end up defending philosophy in antiphilosophy threads even thought i'm hardcore into science (i think science and philosophy are continuous)

SheHadMANHands
07-06-2012, 09:15 PM
Posting to watch later. Would be helpful when posting 1hr+ youtube video to summarize it a bit in OP (major points, etc).

From youtube description:

"When he's not working, Peter spends time with his family, practices jiu jutsu, watches science fiction movies and television (Stargate Universe, Battlestar Galactica, Misfits, Fringe), and plays computer games (Star Craft 2, Fallout 3, Skyrim, Diablo III)."

Sounds like an R/Per (minus the family), LOL

tk217
07-06-2012, 09:26 PM
Right. Which is why you hit a brick wall when encountering someone that rejects evidence for faith, or has a mangled understanding of how to apply evidence to an argument. This professor has methodologies that allow you to bridge that gap. If you can overcome your bitter angst.

I disagree. Empiricism is the bottom line.

semitope
07-06-2012, 10:02 PM
lolzy op.

stomp on theism using science? Trying to use philosophy won't help you either. You fail on both fronts

tk217
07-06-2012, 10:07 PM
lolzy op.

stomp on theism using science? Trying to use philosophy won't help you either. You fail on both fronts

Good use of evidence, logic, and explanation. Would read again.

Recovered
07-06-2012, 10:12 PM
1:00:45

this. i'm a die-hard atheist but cliffs maw fuka

semitope
07-06-2012, 10:34 PM
Good use of evidence, logic, and explanation. Would read again.

Good use of evidence, logic, and explanation. Would read again.

tk217
07-06-2012, 10:39 PM
Good use of evidence, logic, and explanation. Would read again.

As I expect.

ZachSmash
07-06-2012, 10:41 PM
i would rather quote physics professors who have a rational understanding of string theory.

A-GAME
07-06-2012, 10:42 PM
Good use of evidence, logic, and explanation. Would read again.


http://i50.tinypic.com/2s127ib.jpg

Maiar
07-06-2012, 10:43 PM
dreadful.

A-GAME
07-06-2012, 10:43 PM
dreadful.


I love you.

tk217
07-06-2012, 10:49 PM
this. i'm a die-hard atheist but cliffs maw fuka

Cliffs are basically how manipulate someone into losing faith through cognitive tactics of planting logical seeds.

semitope
07-06-2012, 10:54 PM
As I expect.

As I expect.

PaulG
07-06-2012, 11:07 PM
I tried to listen to it... But, two guys in a room speaking on random philosophical statements rather than arguments is a bias itself.

A conversation in the form of lecture. I need to set my mind differently before listening to this. I will try later.

psiconoclast
07-07-2012, 12:14 AM
Good listen.

Cliffs:
- Our natural inclinations can be faulty (especially with regard to belief)
- Philosophy is an external discipline that allows us to methodologically question our beliefs/cognition correct our mistakes
- It also allows us, when properly applied, to help others see their mistakes
- When talking to the faithful, don't be adversarial
- Don't get bogged down in metaphysics, focus on epistemology (how do we know stuff)
- Keeping the first few points in mind, use the socratic method to bring the contradictions into focus
- Done properly, this can help people overcome errors in cognition

But that really does not do it justice, especially since they model the socratic approach, which is always beneficial to listen to.

Relevant to my interests as I have been studying this very thing for quite some time.

Stizzel
07-07-2012, 12:39 AM
I disagree. Empiricism is the bottom line.

If you're having a discussion with someone, achieving a mutual understanding is the bottom line.

An example of why you're mistaken is semitope. He loves to combine cherry picked empiricism with tautological logic. So he feels he's got the evidence part down. The problem is his broken reasoning. Atheists need to focus on epistemology to and help the theist to see their own tortured logic.

mistercollie
07-07-2012, 12:46 AM
i would rather quote physics professors who have a rational understanding of string theory.Quantum physics: yes. String theory: no.

Stizzel
07-07-2012, 12:46 AM
For those that want cliffs, just make it through the first 15-20 minutes and see if you don't want to keep listening. Just google the terms they use if unfamiliar with them.

psiconoclast
07-07-2012, 12:48 AM
If you're having a discussion with someone, achieving a mutual understanding is the bottom line.

Pretty much this. Empiricism is great and all, but a person with defective epistemology won't even get there.

The approach outlined here, while not linked to neuropsychology (at least not in that talk), is essentially outlining one of the most fundamental cognitive mistakes that people make. Specifically, in this case, mistaking the subjective for the objective.

If you get someone to both admit that there is a difference between subjective and objective, AND bring their reason(s) for belief into sharp enough relief, they should experience some pretty good cognitive dissonance, and while it might not result in anything happening right then and there. . .

tk217
07-07-2012, 06:19 AM
If you're having a discussion with someone, achieving a mutual understanding is the bottom line.

An example of why you're mistaken is semitope. He loves to combine cherry picked empiricism with tautological logic. So he feels he's got the evidence part down. The problem is his broken reasoning. Atheists need to focus on epistemology to and help the theist to see their own tortured logic.

Which all comes down to empiricism. If we can't agree on semantics that is just intellectual discourse and it requires objective traits over subjective beliefs. If you claim atheists are those who don't believe in god and I say you're describing an adeist -- most get confused by what I am saying but the use of language is a major factor in understanding philosophical topics. It is especially difficult when claims to authority "the dictionary" has particular words and definitions that disagree with other dictionariess and even more elaborate doctorals and theses.

If I can show you something empirically it is hard for you to disprove that it exists outside of delusion.

Stizzel
07-07-2012, 07:26 AM
Which all comes down to empiricism. If we can't agree on semantics that is just intellectual discourse and it requires objective traits over subjective beliefs. If you claim atheists are those who don't believe in god and I say you're describing an adeist -- most get confused by what I am saying but the use of language is a major factor in understanding philosophical topics. It is especially difficult when claims to authority "the dictionary" has particular words and definitions that disagree with other dictionariess and even more elaborate doctorals and theses.

If I can show you something empirically it is hard for you to disprove that it exists outside of delusion.

Again, I agree that in that case you're correct. But the purpose of a discussion is to reach a mutual understanding. If the person you're giving a sound empirical argument to does not understand empiricism and its relevance you might as well be speaking chinese.

This whole thread of course assumes this is the atheists goal, rather than just being condescending and abrasive.

semitope
07-07-2012, 08:04 AM
This guy is crazy.

aRCaNEbrah
07-07-2012, 08:11 AM
This guy is crazy.

lol, which guy?

great vid op, very informative and thought provoking..

semitope
07-07-2012, 08:11 AM
What makes people this damn stupid? All I hear are assertions. They take their position as fact with NOTHING to support it. They just claim that crap and start insulting people and pretending to be logical. This constant use of "reason" as a default description of their beliefs is annoying. While theists go through so much to show why they believe what they do, these idiots just sit back and act superior. they are like a blind man saying he alone knows what the world looks like and belittling everyone else.

I would be disappointed but what else can i expect from atheists at this point? Your minds are broken. Honestly. Do you guys even realize that not a thing they say matters till they can actually show us their position is what they claim it is? In reality, everything they say about theists and being misguided could be turned right on them for what they believe and probably more accurately so.

sheesh. Atheists really have the worst philosophers.

Maybe i am over-reacting. It's basically intra-cult dialogue that's going on so I guess this is what I should expect.

tk217
07-07-2012, 09:51 AM
^

Oh the irony.

surf junkie
07-07-2012, 09:57 AM
Philosophy merely teaches one how to think.

Science (evidence-based thought) is a subset of knowing how to think, and is focused on how to think in relation to ones environment.

Religion is a coping method, for humans to grapple with the reality that we are just a thin smear of life on a speck of dust in our universe.

Faith is a subset of religion, and is focused on how to accept the beliefs espoused in various religious texts.

--

Religion and Philosophy are diametrically opposed.

Faith and Science, respective subsets of the above, are diametrically opposed.

surf junkie
07-07-2012, 09:59 AM
What makes people this damn stupid? All I hear are assertions. They take their position as fact with NOTHING to support it. They just claim that crap and start insulting people and pretending to be logical. This constant use of "reason" as a default description of their beliefs is annoying. While theists go through so much to show why they believe what they do, these idiots just sit back and act superior. they are like a blind man saying he alone knows what the world looks like and belittling everyone else.

I would be disappointed but what else can i expect from atheists at this point? Your minds are broken. Honestly. Do you guys even realize that not a thing they say matters till they can actually show us their position is what they claim it is? In reality, everything they say about theists and being misguided could be turned right on them for what they believe and probably more accurately so.

sheesh. Atheists really have the worst philosophers.

Maybe i am over-reacting. It's basically intra-cult dialogue that's going on so I guess this is what I should expect.

How did you come to first have faith in your respective religion?

And, how would you teach a receptive athiest to have faith?

NeoKantian
07-07-2012, 10:01 AM
i'm a philosopher so i am well aware of the value of philosophy. i usually end up defending philosophy in antiphilosophy threads even thought i'm hardcore into science (i think science and philosophy are continuous)
So you're a naturalist?

aRCaNEbrah
07-07-2012, 10:48 AM
What makes people this damn stupid? All I hear are assertions. They take their position as fact with NOTHING to support it. They just claim that crap and start insulting people and pretending to be logical. This constant use of "reason" as a default description of their beliefs is annoying. While theists go through so much to show why they believe what they do, these idiots just sit back and act superior. they are like a blind man saying he alone knows what the world looks like and belittling everyone else.

I would be disappointed but what else can i expect from atheists at this point? Your minds are broken. Honestly. Do you guys even realize that not a thing they say matters till they can actually show us their position is what they claim it is? In reality, everything they say about theists and being misguided could be turned right on them for what they believe and probably more accurately so.

sheesh. Atheists really have the worst philosophers.

Maybe i am over-reacting. It's basically intra-cult dialogue that's going on so I guess this is what I should expect.

why do smarter people than you or i look over the same evidence and conclude that a belief in a god is not a worthwhile venture?

wulpurgis
07-07-2012, 11:09 AM
So you're a naturalist?

naturalism is the way to go. the last refuge of non-naturalism, ethics, is now increasingly subject to naturalism as well.

A-GAME
07-07-2012, 11:21 AM
naturalism is the way to go. the last refuge of non-naturalism, ethics, is now increasingly subject to naturalism as well.


http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/101/781/Y0UJC.png

ImproperOne
07-07-2012, 11:33 AM
naturalism is the way to go. the last refuge of non-naturalism, ethics, is now increasingly subject to naturalism as well.


Expand on your thoughts, won't you, funny man.

:D

wulpurgis
07-07-2012, 12:15 PM
[Img]http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/101/781/Y0UJC.png[/mg]

strong new tactic?


Expand on your thoughts, won't you, funny man.

:D

well historically non-naturalism dominated science and philosophy. you basically had to sit and think about topics like "what is man? what is good? what is knowledge?" and so on.

increasingly, with the advent of the scientific method, there was a turn towards "natural science" and "natural philosophy". instead if sitting in a room and thinking, you can put stuff under a microscope. so, if you want to know what a man is, you go and study man. if you want to know what knowledge is, you go and study knowledge.

the question was "how do we study "right" or "good"?" with modern advanced in neuroscience there are a brand of moral psychologists out there. they scan people's brains when people make moral / ethical judgements.

the results are interesting. i can go into as much detail as you want....

basically, people who make "deontological judgements" make emotional snap decisions which they refuse to abandon in the face of evidence or reason; people who make "consequentialist judgements" make slower decisions which they readily abandon in the face of evidence or reason. deontologists don't allow for context, but consequentialists do.

the "snap decisions" that most people make, and which deontologists rely on, are emotional in nature. it's an evolutionary device to keep you alive. if i throw a ball at your head you duck, you don't ponder what to do! sadly, people end up saying things like "abortion is murder" or "Obama is a socialist" and will refuse to back down, because they have a "gut feeling" which doesn't care about proof. and we can watch that go on inside of brains.

what happens, then, is that people have "snap decisions" and then use "reason" to justify them AFTER THE FACT. so it is 'rationalization' and not reason. like a girl turns you down, so you conclude "she's a lesbian". that's exactly how deontology works!

that means that we can conclude that consequentialism is the superior ethical system, since it's unlikely that our emotions are truth-tracking, but it is highly likely that like with science, an intersubjective system which shifts given new evidence and given context can advance us towards ideal truth.

Prinz, J. J. (2007). The Emotional Constuction of Morals, Oxford University Press, New York,
NY.
http://david.brax.nu/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/prinz-450x450.jpg

Greene, J. D. (2007). “The secret joke of Kant's soul,” in Moral Psychology, Vol. 3: The
Neuroscience of Morality: Emotion, Disease, and Development, W. Sinnott-Armstrong, Ed.,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
http://mitpress.mit.edu/images/products/books/9780262693554-f30.jpg

Stizzel
07-07-2012, 01:05 PM
What makes people this damn stupid? All I hear are assertions. They take their position as fact with NOTHING to support it. They just claim that crap and start insulting people and pretending to be logical. This constant use of "reason" as a default description of their beliefs is annoying. While theists go through so much to show why they believe what they do, these idiots just sit back and act superior. they are like a blind man saying he alone knows what the world looks like and belittling everyone else.

I would be disappointed but what else can i expect from atheists at this point? Your minds are broken. Honestly. Do you guys even realize that not a thing they say matters till they can actually show us their position is what they claim it is? In reality, everything they say about theists and being misguided could be turned right on them for what they believe and probably more accurately so.

sheesh. Atheists really have the worst philosophers.

Maybe i am over-reacting. It's basically intra-cult dialogue that's going on so I guess this is what I should expect.

It takes a special kind of moron to call syllogistic reasoning an assertion.

Stizzel
07-07-2012, 01:09 PM
lol, which guy?

great vid op, very informative and thought provoking..

Glad its helpful to you.

Stizzel
07-07-2012, 01:15 PM
strong new tactic?



well historically non-naturalism dominated science and philosophy. you basically had to sit and think about topics like "what is man? what is good? what is knowledge?" and so on.

increasingly, with the advent of the scientific method, there was a turn towards "natural science" and "natural philosophy". instead if sitting in a room and thinking, you can put stuff under a microscope. so, if you want to know what a man is, you go and study man. if you want to know what knowledge is, you go and study knowledge.

the question was "how do we study "right" or "good"?" with modern advanced in neuroscience there are a brand of moral psychologists out there. they scan people's brains when people make moral / ethical judgements.

the results are interesting. i can go into as much detail as you want....

basically, people who make "deontological judgements" make emotional snap decisions which they refuse to abandon in the face of evidence or reason; people who make "consequentialist judgements" make slower decisions which they readily abandon in the face of evidence or reason. deontologists don't allow for context, but consequentialists do.

the "snap decisions" that most people make, and which deontologists rely on, are emotional in nature. it's an evolutionary device to keep you alive. if i throw a ball at your head you duck, you don't ponder what to do! sadly, people end up saying things like "abortion is murder" or "Obama is a socialist" and will refuse to back down, because they have a "gut feeling" which doesn't care about proof. and we can watch that go on inside of brains.

what happens, then, is that people have "snap decisions" and then use "reason" to justify them AFTER THE FACT. so it is 'rationalization' and not reason. like a girl turns you down, so you conclude "she's a lesbian". that's exactly how deontology works!

that means that we can conclude that consequentialism is the superior ethical system, since it's unlikely that our emotions are truth-tracking, but it is highly likely that like with science, an intersubjective system which shifts given new evidence and given context can advance us towards ideal truth.

Prinz, J. J. (2007). The Emotional Constuction of Morals, Oxford University Press, New York,
NY.
http://david.brax.nu/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/prinz-450x450.jpg

Greene, J. D. (2007). “The secret joke of Kant's soul,” in Moral Psychology, Vol. 3: The
Neuroscience of Morality: Emotion, Disease, and Development, W. Sinnott-Armstrong, Ed.,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
http://mitpress.mit.edu/images/products/books/9780262693554-f30.jpg

Yep, the research on this is very conclusive. People start with conclusions and then cherry pick data to support that conclusion. The sub concious then convinces itself the conclusion was reached objectively.

The methods described by the professor aren't specific to religion, destroying religious paradigms is incidental. Its a way to discipline your thought patterns to avoid these mistakes.

wulpurgis
07-07-2012, 01:20 PM
Yep, the research on this is very conclusive. People start with conclusions and then cherry pick data to support that conclusion. The sub concious then convinces itself the conclusion was reached objectively.

The methods described by the professor aren't specific to religion, destroying religious paradigms is incidental. Its a way to discipline your thought patterns to avoid these mistakes.

that's why research methods matter! and yes, people tend to make these inferences a lot, including "i took the stairs so i can have cake" or "i was drunk so i'm not a slut".

presumably, however, public education should be helping to make us better than all that.........

Stizzel
07-07-2012, 04:22 PM
that's why research methods matter! and yes, people tend to make these inferences a lot, including "i took the stairs so i can have cake" or "i was drunk so i'm not a slut".

presumably, however, public education should be helping to make us better than all that.........

Yep. In terms of empiricism its the difference between using the scientific method and rolling dice to reach conclusions. There's a huge benefit to be had here.

GregariousWolf
07-07-2012, 04:44 PM
Watched it because semitope didn't like it.

Reason = virtue = happinesss

wulpurgis
07-07-2012, 04:55 PM
Watched it because semitope didn't like it.

Reason = virtue = happinesss

if you look at my sigs in my thread, you will see the Western tradition was:

thinking = thanking

you receive thoughts as a gift, and are thankful for having received them

because you are thankful, you are grateful, which means you feel pleased

so when you think, you feel happy

so the key to being happy is to live in the presence of thoughts


and you can likewise do the same with sensations. Leonidas lived like that, he was happy because he lived in the presence of things.

Stizzel
07-07-2012, 09:09 PM
Watched it because semitope didn't like it.

Unintentional endorsements ftw.

tk217
07-07-2012, 09:13 PM
if you look at my sigs in my thread, you will see the Western tradition was:

thinking = thanking

you receive thoughts as a gift, and are thankful for having received them

because you are thankful, you are grateful, which means you feel pleased

so when you think, you feel happy

so the key to being happy is to live in the presence of thoughts


and you can likewise do the same with sensations. Leonidas lived like that, he was happy because he lived in the presence of things.

I like getting pie as a gift.

IAMRED
07-07-2012, 10:12 PM
If you're having a discussion with someone, achieving a mutual understanding is the bottom line.

An example of why you're mistaken is semitope. He loves to combine cherry picked empiricism with tautological logic. So he feels he's got the evidence part down. The problem is his broken reasoning. Atheists need to focus on epistemology to and help the theist to see their own tortured logic.

Is this why you ran away when I challenged empiricism? Coward.

:)

A-GAME
07-07-2012, 10:21 PM
if you look at my sigs in my thread, you will see the Western tradition was:

thinking = thanking

you receive thoughts as a gift, and are thankful for having received them

because you are thankful, you are grateful, which means you feel pleased

so when you think, you feel happy

so the key to being happy is to live in the presence of thoughts


and you can likewise do the same with sensations. Leonidas lived like that, he was happy because he lived in the presence of things.


Horse 5hit. Thoughts and the mind are the cause of all your problems. Stop thinking and see how happy you are naturally.

pacer90
07-07-2012, 10:37 PM
What makes people this damn stupid? All I hear are assertions. They take their position as fact with NOTHING to support it. They just claim that crap and start insulting people and pretending to be logical. This constant use of "reason" as a default description of their beliefs is annoying. While theists go through so much to show why they believe what they do, these idiots just sit back and act superior. they are like a blind man saying he alone knows what the world looks like and belittling everyone else.

I would be disappointed but what else can i expect from atheists at this point? Your minds are broken. Honestly. Do you guys even realize that not a thing they say matters till they can actually show us their position is what they claim it is? In reality, everything they say about theists and being misguided could be turned right on them for what they believe and probably more accurately so.

sheesh. Atheists really have the worst philosophers.

Maybe i am over-reacting. It's basically intra-cult dialogue that's going on so I guess this is what I should expect.


http://gifsforum.com/images/image/Rustled%20my%20Jimmies/grand/Rustled-my-Jimmies-eccbc87e4b5ce2fe28308fd9f2a7baf3-1323.jpg

A-GAME
07-07-2012, 10:55 PM
Is this why you ran away when I challenged empiricism? Coward.

:)

http://mlkshk.com/r/1E8J

Stizzel
07-07-2012, 11:21 PM
Is this why you ran away when I challenged empiricism? Coward.

:)

Who are you?

IAMRED
07-07-2012, 11:27 PM
Who are you?

Iamred. Would have thought the name is self-explanatory.

Stizzel
07-08-2012, 05:33 PM
Iamred. Would have thought the name is self-explanatory.

Okay. I don't remember going over anything with you before. Plus you're not red. I think you're fraudin'.

IAMRED
07-08-2012, 05:53 PM
Okay. I don't remember going over anything with you before. Plus you're not red. I think you're fraudin'.

Starting with post 34 (http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=146199193&page=2).

Stizzel
07-08-2012, 07:38 PM
Starting with post 34 (http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=146199193&page=2).

Oh yeah, the everything is subjective (except my post) guy.

IAMRED
07-08-2012, 08:03 PM
Oh yeah, the everything is subjective (except my post) guy.

Actually, the "everything is subjective on empiricism" guy. I'm not an empiricist.

persistent2012
07-08-2012, 08:07 PM
ukeCmR2S5Vg

Most of you stomp on theism by talking about science but don't seem to grasp the importance of philosophy or how to respond to it. ......................................

I had originally written the post below in response to an inquiry in a different thread, but the post would be appropriate in this context as well.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First and foremost, to respond to the allegations that it requires one to conjure "faith" to stipulate the existence of god, is in itself a misconstrued statement.

The existence of god can be substainiated through 'signs', or 'miracles' as its contemporary denoted as, to allow us, as humans to logically deduce that they (i.e. the miracles) are the work of the creator only.

However, for it to be a validated method of approach, the original source that contained the 'information' about the miracle, must in itself be authentic and unaltered throughout the course of history.

Full disclaimer: I am not a Christian, though I do profess a different monotheistic religion.

So to clarify the concept, consider the following example; imagine an individual in 1 A.D. to claims that the shape of the Earth is that most closely resembled to that of an ostrich's egg. An ostrich's egg is spherical (almost), and flat at the poles, which is parallel to the modern definition of the Earth's geometric shape.

In conjunction with the fact that the contemporary belief at the time of 1 A.D. (and in fact until many centuries onwards) was that, nay, the Earth geometric shape was that of a flat surface.

Now, imagine dozens of other "miracles" or "signs" like this, that the individual of the time period of 1 A.D. produced to validate that, yes, this "individual" possesses ultimate power and claims 'itself' to be the ultimate creator of all creations on not only the Earth but the whole Universe.

That in itself should satisfy the necessity of having to logically deduce that, yes, there is this one 'individual', or 'creator' that has proved what 'he' or 'it', is in fact the ultimate creator. The key is then for us as individuals to extrapolate from there on, and stipulate that the remaining statements of the individual or 'creator' must also be true. To illustrate this phenomena, think of a multiple choice question, if in MORE THAN ONE instance the statement is true, then the entire set of statements must be true.

However, one can simply refute this entire deduction of logic by stating that, what if the 'individual' or so, his 'followers' changed the original information of the source to reflect the modern and contemporary scientific discoveries?

In layman's terms, whose to say that someone didn't just go back and scratch out the part of the Earth being flat (continuing with example from above) and wrote in its place, "spherical, with flat poles exception".

One could dictate that with the utilization of modern technology, it would need to invoke just very little effort to do so, and would be virtually impossible for one to differentiate between the original and modified version (think of adobe Photoshop and etc.)

This is one of the main differences between the Abrahamic religions, in that the religion I personally profess, came into existence with its main intention to combat just this very issue.

The solution? Make the effort to increase the literacy rates to 100%.

Why?

The idea behind it is not only eloquent, but quite simple as well. If a person is able to read and write the scripture (or the "set of information sent from the creator to man") then every single individual can copy the original source for himself, and if they choose to do so, they can send it not only to their next generations, but rather they can share it with everyone else, so there's no "one mastercopy" so to say, in that, everyone has a master copy.

But why is this effective? Remember in the context of almost everyone being literate (read and write abilities), people can continually compare and contrast to see if there are any differences between the versions they possess, to that what they're comparing to. Remember, there shouldn't be any difference, because if there is, it will get rooted out very quickly.

Think of 100000 people having a book that says one thing, and one person with a slight alteration.

Another measure is also taken to reassure the content of the original 'scripture' is consistent and never changed in the course of time, which is there is a global effort, on behalf of those who profess this religion, to memorize the content of the entire 'scripture' or 'book'.

Once again, it becomes impossible for one to alternate or modify the content of the original source if everyone has a personal copy of it, and EVERYONE has the content memorized.

At this point, I would recommend re-reading the first few paragraphs again to get an idea as to why I went into detailing these method of verification and maintaining consistency. It was about an individual putting forth a claim, or making the attempt to validate that 'it' or 'he' is the creator through providing examples of miracles that were clearly out of reach of the human intellectual capacity of the time (example used was the shape of Earth to be spherical except flat at poles).

I still recommend re-reading the first few paragraphs again, and if time permits this once again to be to clarify any possible confusion.

Once again, Full Disclaimer: I am not a Christian, though I do profess a different monotheistic religion.