How to explain existence of God from reality

[Mr Walker 6,389]

7 minutes ago, quiXilver said:

na... I'm just sittin here watchin the wheels go round and round...

i really love to watch'em roll...

And they grind exceedingly small.  

[quiXilver 6,869]

it does seem... wherever one looks, there is something to be seen

[ChrLzs 21,776]

4 hours ago, Will Due said:

Thanks for inquiring ChrLzs. I don't think you and I have conversed yet in this forum.

There's a first time  for everything - hope you don't find me too 'terse' - many do!

4 hours ago, Will Due said:

The UB (Urantia Book) is a very unusual book. In a way, it's perhaps the most unusual 'thing' that exists in the world for several reasons I won't get into right now.

I'm not much of a reader these days, and unless it is highly recommended in 'my circles', I'll pass..

4 hours ago, Will Due said:

But I'll stick to your questions and try to address them coherently. 

I greatly appreciate that approach!

4 hours ago, Will Due said:

The UB presents the panorama of the evolution of life as being purposely instigated and directed.

Huh?  - if that's the case, then it would be the Instigator's fault IF there truly were unexplainable gaps... (and I will argue that there are no such gaps anyway - or at least I will if someone, anyone nominates the best example of a gap..)

It makes little sense to look for holes in Evolution if in fact you are defending it, no matter how you or the UB claims it arose..

 

4 hours ago, Will Due said:

It goes into great detail of how life evolved and puts it into the context of not only the planet's evolution, but the evolution of our universe and the local components important to us, such as the solar system. It goes on to describe how the various branches of life evolved as the result of the orderly unfolding of a deliberate plan and purpose, however general in its ubiquitousness as found throughout the universe but modified here on our world within certain limits of variation of the "great divisions of the animal kingdom" [and] "between the highest of the prehuman animal types and the dawn men of the human races"

That's terrifyingly non-specific.  A waste of words.  Where, exactly, is the gap, or the thing that is only explainable by a creator?  Why should a branch of the evolutionary tree be linked sideways - it makes zero sense.  Evolution is very well understood and documented, even for weird and *almost* inexplicable inventions like the eye (refer to the Cosmos series for a wonderful discussion on that one - see below).  The branches happened for good reasons - if UB claims otherwise, or that it was 'directed', they MUST be specific.  And of course they are NOT, I'll wager - you should be able to work out why.

4 hours ago, Will Due said:

The main thing about evolution that's presented in the UB, is that life never evolves to do "its own thing"

I have no idea what that means - can you please cite the relevant text?

4 hours ago, Will Due said:

however, sometimes, given the degree that the life implantation regular patterns are allowed to be modified from the norm, certain undesirable results occur that then will need to be subsequently adjusted.

Again, UB handwaving!!! (sorry!)   We need specifics.  This is a very, very common technique amongst the rather wide range of techniques that all tinfoilhattery relies on - word salad, handwaved claims, gish-galloping, appeals to 'Common Sense'..... all combined with an absolute and utter refusal to be specific and properly look at the BEST example that they can give of whatever the heck it is they are claiming...

As an example (here's me being specific) up until recently, the eye was often presented as an argument against evolution, as in "How could something this complex develop by accidental mutations?".  In truth, the term 'accidental' is misused there, but even if we accept that statement at face value, we DO now know almost exactly what process led to the development of sight, even right up to the lens and pupil.  Give the environmental conditions that life was dealing with, the eye was inevitable given time.  And the earth has had plenty of time...   Here is Neil deGrasse Tyson on that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SXHMm5I-68

4 hours ago, Will Due said:

This is my opinion. If life evolves in very small steps, as is conventionally thought I think, then why aren't there a vast myriad of different types of main groups of animals rather than just the relative few that we have now.

Because, very simply, all life relies on a few basic resources (light, heat, nutrients), and there aren't 'a vast myriad' of ways those can be arranged differently.  Thus the successful organisms will vary according to those environmental factors, and only the very best of those evolving organisms will obviously win, each occupying their own narrow niche (and probably predating on the 'losers').

May I strongly suggest you research the topic of "Food Webs" as a good starting point.

And also, how can we judge whether your impression of how many animals there should be, is based on anything but a gut feeling?   If you feel that we don't have a 'sufficient' myriad of creatures, then may I suggest you have a good long browse of a book like this one (which used to be my bible when I managed a marine research centre...):

http://www.diversitybooks.com.au/?page=shop/flypage&product_id=5978

Are you claiming there is a 'niche' that those animals haven't got covered?  OK, name it!

As for us being so 'special', would you not concede that:

- it hasn't been long (in evolutionary timescales) since we began developing communications and technology

- that such a development is incredibly rare and entirely due to some very unique attributes of our planet (a subject for another thread..)

- that marine animals for a number of pretty obvious reasons could not develop in such a way (imagine if octopi had moved out onto land - we'd have a big competitor then..)

- that we will probably suppress any other animal that headed that way, even if only by the fact that we are overpopulating this planet to all hell..

 

Anyways, I'm happy to get all specific, but you need to come up with some actualities, not just opinions...

 

PS - to Stubbly, I think you just need to move on - there seems to be lots of talk but nothing but repeats and dead ends in that direction...

 

[Sherapy 29,957]

6 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

There's a first time  for everything - hope you don't find me too 'terse' - many do!

I'm not much of a reader these days, and unless it is highly recommended in 'my circles', I'll pass..

I greatly appreciate that approach!

Huh?  - if that's the case, then it would be the Instigator's fault IF there truly were unexplainable gaps... (and I will argue that there are no such gaps anyway - or at least I will if someone, anyone nominates the best example of a gap..)

It makes little sense to look for holes in Evolution if in fact you are defending it, no matter how you or the UB claims it arose..

 

That's terrifyingly non-specific.  A waste of words.  Where, exactly, is the gap, or the thing that is only explainable by a creator?  Why should a branch of the evolutionary tree be linked sideways - it makes zero sense.  Evolution is very well understood and documented, even for weird and *almost* inexplicable inventions like the eye (refer to the Cosmos series for a wonderful discussion on that one - see below).  The branches happened for good reasons - if UB claims otherwise, or that it was 'directed', they MUST be specific.  And of course they are NOT, I'll wager - you should be able to work out why.

I have no idea what that means - can you please cite the relevant text?

Again, UB handwaving!!! (sorry!)   We need specifics.  This is a very, very common technique amongst the rather wide range of techniques that all tinfoilhattery relies on - word salad, handwaved claims, gish-galloping, appeals to 'Common Sense'..... all combined with an absolute and utter refusal to be specific and properly look at the BEST example that they can give of whatever the heck it is they are claiming...

As an example (here's me being specific) up until recently, the eye was often presented as an argument against evolution, as in "How could something this complex develop by accidental mutations?".  In truth, the term 'accidental' is misused there, but even if we accept that statement at face value, we DO now know almost exactly what process led to the development of sight, even right up to the lens and pupil.  Give the environmental conditions that life was dealing with, the eye was inevitable given time.  And the earth has had plenty of time...   Here is Neil deGrasse Tyson on that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SXHMm5I-68

Because, very simply, all life relies on a few basic resources (light, heat, nutrients), and there aren't 'a vast myriad' of ways those can be arranged differently.  Thus the successful organisms will vary according to those environmental factors, and only the very best of those evolving organisms will obviously win, each occupying their own narrow niche (and probably predating on the 'losers').

May I strongly suggest you research the topic of "Food Webs" as a good starting point.

And also, how can we judge whether your impression of how many animals there should be, is based on anything but a gut feeling?   If you feel that we don't have a 'sufficient' myriad of creatures, then may I suggest you have a good long browse of a book like this one (which used to be my bible when I managed a marine research centre...):

http://www.diversitybooks.com.au/?page=shop/flypage&product_id=5978

Are you claiming there is a 'niche' that those animals haven't got covered?  OK, name it!

As for us being so 'special', would you not concede that:

- it hasn't been long (in evolutionary timescales) since we began developing communications and technology

- that such a development is incredibly rare and entirely due to some very unique attributes of our planet (a subject for another thread..)

- that marine animals for a number of pretty obvious reasons could not develop in such a way (imagine if octopi had moved out onto land - we'd have a big competitor then..)

- that we will probably suppress any other animal that headed that way, even if only by the fact that we are overpopulating this planet to all hell..

 

Anyways, I'm happy to get all specific, but you need to come up with some actualities, not just opinions...

 

PS - to Stubbly, I think you just need to move on - there seems to be lots of talk but nothing but repeats and dead ends in that direction...

 

Chrlz fantastic post, I love gish-galloping almost as much as I love "skeewomped" ( makes no sense) thinking. 

[Stubbly_Dooright 14,536]

11 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

As an example (here's me being specific) up until recently, the eye was often presented as an argument against evolution, as in "How could something this complex develop by accidental mutations?".  In truth, the term 'accidental' is misused there, but even if we accept that statement at face value, we DO now know almost exactly what process led to the development of sight, even right up to the lens and pupil.  Give the environmental conditions that life was dealing with, the eye was inevitable given time.  And the earth has had plenty of time...   Here is Neil deGrasse Tyson on that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SXHMm5I-68

I respect Neil deGrasse Tyson, and I found that a fascinating video. I never thought of that. That our eyes are what is the result, of being developed by our ancient ancestors in the waters. And to me, this makes sense, can't go back to the drawing board, that would make a whole different species, right? (also makes me wonder how we can look at the eyes and see how we can develop something for them to help them see better, because of what they were develop for) Maybe contact lenses, with a watery goo to see better!!   (ok, my mind is going crazy here.) 

I often wonder on the various 'items' in our bodies, that are left over from our 'ancestors' of the animal kingdom. When researching on the 'sinus' and 'sinus infection, headaches and such' ( I suffer from them ) I remember reading about how our sinuses are still in their form, when 'we' were walking on four limbs, and the sinuses were develop to drain constantly in that mode or position. I always wondered how we didn't develop the upright version of the sinus cavity, when realizing now, it just acclimated to the changes that happens in evolution. 

And the time for all of this to happen, makes a lot of sense. Of course it will. I have thought, quick changes in the body structure is more of a shock result and probably would do some damage. Well, that's me surmising there. Just surmising.  

11 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

PS - to Stubbly, I think you just need to move on - there seems to be lots of talk but nothing but repeats and dead ends in that direction...

I think, (very strongly) that you are correct.   I thought, he would understand my point of this. I mean, I thought what I was point out, made sense. I also wanted to see, if seeing someone else's point of view, in a vastly different raised environment (like mine,) which of course will happen, would have him reflect on. I honestly, do not understand how one person can just use a concept to prove something. I really was wondering why go this route. (I also wonder, if how I was raised is something that just doesn't compute to him so not be in denial that there is only one point of view in how people were raised and how they get their ideals.) 

I mean, one cannot really see what's put out there, that's different to what they aware of, and ignore it, right? And, I'm not going to lie to myself, and choose someone else's 'concept' of God, just to make them feel better. It's not my concept, and I have no concept of God. That's the honest truth of my life. Is that so hard to understand for him? Lying to myself, to make a point, is not the proper way to make a point. In the end, it's still just lying, and not proof. 

Gaaagh, I should have just said my piece of questioning how one uses a 'concept' to prove something and then go on or go off, from there, when it's not answered. Like you're saying, it is not being answered. 

And I'm sure I have asked this of the OP before, and I ask again, what is the goal of asking for shared concepts to prove something? Is it for the readers, or for the OP? 

But yeah, and to use your post to me, to make this statement, the OP either answers my question, and not say the same thing over and over again, or I'm done with is 'agenda' here. Either except that I honestly do not have a concept of God at all, or realize they're not getting anywhere. 

So, thank you, ChrLzs, for the opening.   

Though, you, LG, Sheri, and Will Due, do have a fascinating discussion going on here, so I think this thread has some merit.  

 

[ouija ouija 35,061]

22 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

I have to be honest with you now I guess, or I won't be able to explain why I've been so interested in the archeological discoveries of the ascent of man for about three decades now. Or is it the anthropological discoveries of the ascent of man.

The UB (go ahead and roll your eyes) does not support that the evolution of man originated in Africa. According to the UB, it's in Mesopotamia. 

The other thing I brought up about the missing link is also because of what the UB says about that. There aren't any missing links:

and I know using the UB to cite anything is problematic but nonetheless, what I've found over the years is that a lot of the things the UB says are being shown to be pretty accurate. 

I am intrigued and have ordered a copy of the UB from ebay!

[oslove 63]

14 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

[...]

You want a concept? Ok. You want a concept you can prove? I strongly doubt it. What part of my last post, did you not get? I do not have the same concept as you do.

[...]

Don't mind at all if you don't have the concept of God as I have.

Just present it now!

Here is my concept of God:

"God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning."

When you have presented your concept, then we will proceed mutually together to explain or prove as you will, that in your concept of God, He does or does not exist.

Do you comprehend at all what I am telling you?

Here again in very simple clear English:

1. Present your concept of God no matter it is not like mine.

2. I will not now present my concept of God.

3. You and I will mutually work together to see whether God exists or not, in your concept of God.

Do you comprehend at all?

Because if you can't comprehend at all my English, I have to regrettably stop to talk with you.

Or you want to play shadow boxing all along, never getting into the debate, even with your concept of God which is not like mine: in which case I will have to stop also with my efforts to get you to talk, in re How to explain existence of God from reality.

[Essan 7,518]

As I have said in another thread, God (all and any of them) is an anthropomorphism of nature.   That is why all cultures have gods, it is how the concept of gods originated.   Nature defintely exists.   And Nature explains everything.    Ergo, God does exist.   And can be seen in the flowers of your garden and the twinkling of the stars.   But God doesnt see you as anything more special than it does a midge or flea or any of the myriad of other lifeforms on billions of other planets.   Or, indeed, a volcano.

[Guyver 4,403]

31 minutes ago, Essan said:

As I have said in another thread, God (all and any of them) is an anthropomorphism of nature.   That is why all cultures have gods, it is how the concept of gods originated.   Nature defintely exists.   And Nature explains everything.    Ergo, God does exist.   And can be seen in the flowers of your garden and the twinkling of the stars.   But God doesnt see you as anything more special than it does a midge or flea or any of the myriad of other lifeforms on billions of other planets.   Or, indeed, a volcano.

How do you know?

I mean, I see you have stated your opinions here, but you haven't provided any reasons for why you have these opinions.  How do you know how God views anyone?  I'm truly interested, because I've had this question as well.....does God view us any differently from any other life form?

You said nature explains everything.  I disagree.  I don't think nature explains anything.  Well, that's not true.  Nature explains living, dying, and suffering along the way.  The study of nature is probably much more revealing, and I would grant that.  

 

[Stubbly_Dooright 14,536]

1 hour ago, oslove said:

Don't mind at all if you don't have the concept of God as I have.

Just present it now!

 

Can't present what I don't have. (I thought that would be clear)

Quote

Here is my concept of God:

"God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning."

When you have presented your concept, then we will proceed mutually together to explain or prove as you will, that in your concept of God, He does or does not exist.

Do you comprehend at all what I am telling you?

Here again in very simple clear English:

1. Present your concept of God no matter it is not like mine.

2. I will not now present my concept of God.

3. You and I will mutually work together to see whether God exists or not, in your concept of God.

Do you comprehend at all?

Because if you can't comprehend at all my English, I have to regrettably stop to talk with you.

Dude! That's what you think. I'm thinking the opposite. And if we can just finish here and now, you can't prove anything with just a concept. That's my conclusion, so we can't 'work together' to prove whether God exists or not, whether it's my concept of a God. And since it's no concept of a God at all, then there's your conclusion. God doesn't exist.  

Heeeeeey, there you go!! We figured it out. There's no God, based on wanting to see my concept of God, and I don't have one!  You can stop now. 

And if you don't, I'm done. I'm done with your goals, (which I still wonder at, but know I aint getting no answer for my question.) 

Quote

Or you want to play shadow boxing all along, never getting into the debate, even with your concept of God which is not like mine: in which case I will have to stop also with my efforts to get you to talk, in re How to explain existence of God from reality.

Can you guess which one I think you are. 

We're done! (I've solved your debate for you.)

 

[Stubbly_Dooright 14,536]

46 minutes ago, Essan said:

As I have said in another thread, God (all and any of them) is an anthropomorphism of nature.   That is why all cultures have gods, it is how the concept of gods originated.   Nature defintely exists.   And Nature explains everything.    Ergo, God does exist.   And can be seen in the flowers of your garden and the twinkling of the stars.   But God doesnt see you as anything more special than it does a midge or flea or any of the myriad of other lifeforms on billions of other planets.   Or, indeed, a volcano.

I find that interesting. I think, I have seen philosophies questioning the same close characteristics of man to their gods. Does it even figure, that God, gods, higher powers, may have something totally different from them? I kind of feel that my higher power is that. *shrugs* 

16 minutes ago, Guyver said:

How do you know?

I mean, I see you have stated your opinions here, but you haven't provided any reasons for why you have these opinions.  How do you know how God views anyone?  I'm truly interested, because I've had this question as well.....does God view us any differently from any other life form?

You said nature explains everything.  I disagree.  I don't think nature explains anything.  Well, that's not true.  Nature explains living, dying, and suffering along the way.  The study of nature is probably much more revealing, and I would grant that.  

 

But yeah, I think there's still a lot that is yet to be discovered. 

 

[MauriOra 4,880]

3 hours ago, ouija ouija said:

I am intrigued and have ordered a copy of the UB from ebay!

Yeah cool. I wondered where I could get it from because I am also intrigued about this UB too...

[Hammerclaw 27,966]

It's yours with a click of the mouse.                 http://truthbook.com/urantia-book/urantia-book-online                             

[DieChecker 26,227]

On 10/7/2017 at 9:59 AM, Mystic Crusader said:

The only thing I attribute the Abrahamic God making is his rank spirit in others. You actually consider mankind to be friendly?

 

Oh? If Christians get their hatred from God... Then where does Atheist's hatred come from?

I think if atheists have proven anything it is that a human doesn't have to be a Christian to be an ass hat.

Edited October 12, 2017 by DieChecker

[DieChecker 26,227]

On 10/10/2017 at 8:19 AM, Will Due said:

Then why is it always reported that "man evolved out of Africa" when there's still so much evidence that's missing?

Why are scientists so biased?

Actually, I read an article here on UM not too long ago that they found fossils that could show that hominids may have evolved in Southern Europe, and then moved into Africa.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/05/22/europe-birthplace-mankind-not-africa-scientists-find/

Scientists are bias, not science. Scientists are like any other human and prone to developing opinions and holding on to them for dear life. 

[Essan 7,518]

14 hours ago, Guyver said:

How do you know?

I mean, I see you have stated your opinions here, but you haven't provided any reasons for why you have these opinions.  How do you know how God views anyone?  I'm truly interested, because I've had this question as well.....does God view us any differently from any other life form?

You said nature explains everything.  I disagree.  I don't think nature explains anything.  Well, that's not true.  Nature explains living, dying, and suffering along the way.  The study of nature is probably much more revealing, and I would grant that.  

 

By studying humans and their religions - how and why people come to believe in gods.

If "God" is an anthropomorphism of nature, "it" obviously doesn't view humans as any different from anything else in the universe.   We are totally inconsequential.    Which, of course, is one of the reasons why people choose to follow religions and believe in an anthropomorphic God ..... because they don't want to be inconsequential.  They want to be special. To have greater meaning and purpose than just some random bio-chemical reactions.

[oslove 63]

Dear Essan, you seem to have a sort of weird grasp of something about God, which I like very much to exchange ideas with you about.

First, I like very much to ask you to clarify your ideas, because they are all confusedly thrown up in your mind, indication of no order in your manner of thinking at all.

You want to talk about God, shouldn't you first get to know what is the concept of God with the humans who are most concerned with God?

That is the logic in talking about God at all, unless you just want to talk to yourself for your very own private entertainment of making fun of God.

While yo go about without ever finding out what is the concept of God among the rest of mankind who do  have  a most crucial quest for relationship with God.

That is not at all any kind of intelligent and logical talk about God, the way you go about it.

As you are I assume a person in the Christian west, you must have some ideas about God as known and worshipped in the West for two millennia already.

So, see if you at all know what is the concept of God among humans making up the peoples of what I call Christendom in the West.

____________________

 

I will no longer talk with Stubbly, because he is into nothing but shadow boxing.

 

23 hours ago, Essan said:

As I have said in another thread, God (all and any of them) is an anthropomorphism of nature.   That is why all cultures have gods, it is how the concept of gods originated.   Nature defintely exists.   And Nature explains everything.    Ergo, God does exist.   And can be seen in the flowers of your garden and the twinkling of the stars.   But God doesnt see you as anything more special than it does a midge or flea or any of the myriad of other lifeforms on billions of other planets.   Or, indeed, a volcano.

 

[ouija ouija 35,061]

[Stubbly_Dooright 14,536]

2 hours ago, ouija ouija said:

I know.     I thought I made it clear. Well, it's just as well. It's easier to not be noticed then, if he's looking for a guy. 

Meanwhile, I'll just stand over here.  

Well, I'll be honest. Age this lady about thirty years, and then you got me. (I wouldn't eat something at this moment, is my best advice.) 

[Sherapy 29,957]

2 hours ago, ouija ouija said:

[jmccr8 19,605]

5 hours ago, oslove said:

Dear Essan, you seem to have a sort of weird grasp of something about God, which I like very much to exchange ideas with you about.

First, I like very much to ask you to clarify your ideas, because they are all confusedly thrown up in your mind, indication of no order in your manner of thinking at all.

You want to talk about God, shouldn't you first get to know what is the concept of God with the humans who are most concerned with God?

That is the logic in talking about God at all, unless you just want to talk to yourself for your very own private entertainment of making fun of God.

While yo go about without ever finding out what is the concept of God among the rest of mankind who do  have  a most crucial quest for relationship with God.

That is not at all any kind of intelligent and logical talk about God, the way you go about it.

As you are I assume a person in the Christian west, you must have some ideas about God as known and worshipped in the West for two millennia already.

So, see if you at all know what is the concept of God among humans making up the peoples of what I call Christendom in the West.

____________________

 

I will no longer talk with Stubbly, because he is into nothing but shadow boxing.

 

 

The concept of god is as varied as the people that believe in god. It is a personal experience that people in very different environments and circumstances have and even though they may have a fellowship that they belong to god will not be the same their perception of god will be unique to them even though they read the same doctrine and practice the same rituals.

The question that you are pursuing is a fools gold and rather than inferring that there is one truth you should understand that everyone holds a part of a truth. For me that is part of why we are all god.

jmccr8

[Guyver 4,403]

4 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I know.     I thought I made it clear. Well, it's just as well. It's easier to not be noticed then, if he's looking for a guy. 

HEY, a mancrush is a real thing alright?  Let's not be so "judgy" OK?        

[Guyver 4,403]

15 hours ago, Essan said:

By studying humans and their religions - how and why people come to believe in gods.

If "God" is an anthropomorphism of nature, "it" obviously doesn't view humans as any different from anything else in the universe.   We are totally inconsequential.    Which, of course, is one of the reasons why people choose to follow religions and believe in an anthropomorphic God ..... because they don't want to be inconsequential.  They want to be special. To have greater meaning and purpose than just some random bio-chemical reactions.

Well, I certainly agree that "descriptions" of God are anthropomorphic at times.....but this is not universally the case.  People do believe all kinds of things, and all kinds of "gods" and this does seem quite natural.....sure grant that. But, there are alot of Buddhists in the world and they don't view God like that.  

In any event, we ARE special.  Nobody thinks like we do, and no other species has as much ability to do as much Good or Evil to this planet.  At least not that I know, but I'm no microbiologist so my understanding of pathogens is limited.  

[Stubbly_Dooright 14,536]

43 minutes ago, Guyver said:

5 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I know.     I thought I made it clear. Well, it's just as well. It's easier to not be noticed then, if he's looking for a guy. 

HEY, a mancrush is a real thing alright?  Let's not be so "judgy" OK?        

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep!!   

 

 

[Stubbly_Dooright 14,536]

Here is what has me a bit confused of the 'purpose' of this thread. I look at the title and subtitle of this thread. 

How to explain existence of God from reality

How I have come to the certainty of God existing from investigating the reality of existence.

So, if I'm reading this right, we're talking a difference of reality and what is considered as not reality. Is the goal is to prove God as reality? That doesn't seem like what the title of this thread says. Or, so it seems to my perception anyways.  

And what I find really confusing, is thinking that one can prove a concept, by comparing other concepts. Granted, inventions, ventures, and other things, start with a concept. But, a concept is the start of something, no the sole exercise of something. Or, so I feel is happening with the original goal of this thread. 

Yeah, I could be wrong.