On the Necessity of Proving Things

[anthony022071]

Not at all, humans have a biological make up that allows for speech. Snakes do not. If a snake had the a biological make up that allowed for speech then what you would have would no longer be classified as a snake.

If the devil exists he can take the form of a snake,and it is possible for a snake to speak.
In any case the snake in Genesis need not be taken literally. It is an image of Satan,an evil intelligence. A figure or symbol can represent something actual just as literal language does. What matters is what is real,whether or not it is expressed or interpreted in a literal fashion or in a figurative fashion.

You’re taking the naturalistic view of things as your point of departure. But scripture acknowledges God as having power over the world he created,and supernatural and demonic intelligences interfering with the natural world. The qustion should not be whether snakes can speak but whether the supernatural and demonic exists in the world.

 

[anthony022071]

yet this fallen angel is given power like God? Why is the devil so feared when God could easily defeat him if he is all powerful and has no equal? How can you say it was not God presenting himself as temptation?

Scripture says that God does not himself tempt people to sin. And it would not make sense to attribute what is sinful to God anyway. It goes against the definition and attributes of God. God allows angels and men the freedom to do evil,but he also draws good from evil.

 

[Thing]

yet this fallen angel is given power like God? Why is the devil so feared when God could easily defeat him if he is all powerful and has no equal? How can you say it was not God presenting himself as temptation?

God cursed the serpent, the serpent was not God. Satan has been defeated;
He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me. 17 And the seventy-two returned with joy, saying: Lord, the devils also are subject to us in thy name. 18 And he said to them: I saw Satan like lightning falling from heaven. 19 Behold, I have given you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and upon all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall hurt you. 20 But yet rejoice not in this, that spirits are subject unto you; but rejoice in this, that your names are written in heaven.

 

[anthony022071]

Sorry that is just simply incorrect. I am not sure what else to tell you. If an animal was found that had all the characteristics of a snake, however it was capable of conversation you would not only have destroyed linnaean classification for you would have found an example of an animal that violates the nested hierarchies, but you would also have falsified evolution.

The Linnaen taxonomic system lumps together different species based upon their physical similarities whether or not they are related by reproductive lineage. This falsifies the classifications in regard to common descent. In the course of the 1800’s scientists began to take the Linnaen classifications literally,as if physical similarities between species were sufficient evidence of common descent. But what really matters is the reproductive history of species,not physical or biological similarities. Common descent can only be demonstrated if you have two living species that can breed together.

 

[Hooding_Trees]

Linnanean taxonomy has its own host of problems. It has certainly undergone changes because of new findings. If a snake that could talk was ever found we would simply have to change our organization of things and our theories. It is nothing new and has been done many times before in many areas of science. To ignore the possibility is historically unsound and intellectual dishonest. Our present idea of how things are and how they work is very far from perfect and if one thing is certain, it will change in the future.

To add to the point, the way that Linnaeus had originally organized organisms—Animal, Plant, Mineral—has undergone many changes due to new findings.

Yes it has undergone changes but not in the manner that you suggest, for you to claim that “If a snake that could talk was ever found we would simply have to change our organization” shows a lack of understanding about the subject.

 

[Image_of_God]

Yes it has undergone changes but not in the manner that you suggest, for you to claim that “If a snake that could talk was ever found we would simply have to change our organization” shows a lack of understanding about the subject.

If you admit that taxonomy has undergone changes, then you admit that our present classification of things is imperfect. Why would discovering a talking snake be different? If we do find a “talking snake”, the classification of a “snake” might very well be rethought out. It is what has always been done when there are discoveries. When quantum physics was discovered, physics changed forever. To suggest that there could never be a talking snake is historically and intellectually unsound. It could be that the alleged classification of snake is an incorrect one.

 

[Hooding_Trees]

If you admit that taxonomy has undergone changes, then you admit that our present classification of things is imperfect. Why would discovering a talking snake be different? If we do find a “talking snake”, the classification of a “snake” might very well be rethought out. It is what has always been done when there are discoveries. When quantum physics was discovered, physics changed forever. To suggest that there could never be a talking snake is historically and intellectually unsound. It could be that the alleged classification of snake is an incorrect one.

Incorrect, i am not sure what else i can say. You need to research taxonomy. One of the major evidences for evolution is the nested sets of hierarchies. If you could find an animal that was such a violation of the nested sets, then you would have falsified evolution.

 

[Hooding_Trees]

But scripture acknowledges…

I have zero interest in scripture. I only take interest in that which can be demonstrated/verified. The Quran says all sorts of things too, i wonder why you don’t equally accept it. Could demographics be anything to do with it?

 

[Hooding_Trees]

The Linnaen taxonomic system lumps together different species based upon their physical similarities whether or not they are related by reproductive lineage. This falsifies the classifications in regard to common descent. In the course of the 1800’s scientists began to take the Linnaen classifications literally,as if physical similarities between species were sufficient evidence of common descent. But what really matters is the reproductive history of species,not physical or biological similarities. Common descent can only be demonstrated if you have two living species that can breed together.

Luckily for you i cannot go into detail about evolution as it is banned. However i suggest you go and open a science book for almost every word of the above ranges from incorrect to utter nonsense.

I will give you on example and try not to touch much on evolution…

Common descent can only be demonstrated if you have two living species that can breed together

Species - “is that of a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring of both genders”

In other words speciation occurs when organisms CANNOT breed together. And what this has to do with common decent? It seems you have drastically misunderstood something, to the extent that you are not even aware of what the word species actually means.

 

[Image_of_God]

Incorrect, i am not sure what else i can say. You need to research taxonomy. One of the major evidences for evolution is the nested sets of hierarchies. If you could find an animal that was such a violation of the nested sets, then you would have falsified evolution.

Unless you believe that our current theories are perfect, then I don’t see why you disagree with me. When we make a significant discovery, our theories must change with it. This is the true nature of science. Anything otherwise is a philosophical ideology.

 

[anthony022071]

I have zero interest in scripture. I only take interest in that which can be demonstrated/verified. The Quran says all sorts of things too, i wonder why you don’t equally accept it. Could demographics be anything to do with it?

If you are not interested in whether scripture is true,then how can you just dismiss what it says out of hand? You certainly can’t verify that what scripture says about the snake in Genesis is false. You can only show that snakes in common experience don’t talk.

I don’t accept the quran as true because I accept Jesus Christ and the Church he founded,and the quran and the Bible cannot both be true.
And I accept the Jesus Christ and the Church because of the lives and testimony of the saints,who do what can only be done if what the Church and scripture says about Jesus is true:that he is the Son of God,is risen from the dead,gives his Spirit to the faithful,and is present in the Eucharist. No one can live and act and be like Saint Francis or Padre Pio or Mother Theresa unless they are sustained by the Spirit of Christ and the Eucharist. People like that just didn’t exist prior to the resurrection and the Church. There was no motivation or motivating power to do so.

 

[anthony022071]

Luckily for you i cannot go into detail about evolution as it is banned. However i suggest you go and open a science book for almost every word of the above ranges from incorrect to utter nonsense.

I’ve read much about the theory of evolution and natural selection and have argued about it many times in these forums. It is based upon naturalism,which is unjustifiable to begin with and leads to a lot of non-sequiturs in regard to causation.

I will give you on example and try not to touch much on evolution…

Common descent can only be demonstrated if you have two living species that can breed together

Species - “is that of a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring of both genders”

In other words speciation occurs when organisms CANNOT breed together.

No,just that you can’t demonstrate reproductive relatedness between two different species except by having them alive to breed together. In other words,the capacity to breed together is the only demonstration of actual relatedness. It’s reproductive history that matters,and you can’t trace the reproductive acts of species through millions of years by comparative analysis of genetics and physical characteristics.

And what this has to do with common decent?

Evolution theory assumes that men and apes or chimpanzees have a common ancestor.

 

[anthony022071]

It seems you have drastically misunderstood something, to the extent that you are not even aware of what the word species actually means.

Then point out to me what it was about my use of the word species that led you to think that I have misunderstood it. I said was that the taxonomic system lumps together different species under the same classifications based upon their similarites rather than upon whether they are actually related by reproductive history. That is a fact.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Well, I’m not sure. I certainly do thank the moderators for the good office of keeping this thread open. Yet, then again, as I was at the Easter Vigil today, I contemplated faith and the gift that it is. My arguing here isn’t going to change most people, especially those who are stuck in a particular philosophical position (as we all are). God must offer them the gift of faith and they must accept it. But, I continue to think that even as I discuss here, that maybe one of these days, someone struggling with the notion of God might stumble upon this thread and benefit a great deal from it.

I do pray for forgiveness, for any unkindnesses I might of done anyone while debating on this thread. It is very easy to get carried away.

I’ve been reading this thread (I stumbled upon it ) and would like to thank you for pointing out that faith is a gift. I don’t have much faith. I want to, but I don’t. I agree that it is a gift and one I have been praying to receive, and will continue to pray for.

It would be wonderful if we didn’t require proof for the existence of God, but took it on faith.

Please pray for me.

*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*

 

[itinerant1]

What is the point of this discussion about snakes talking?

Snakes, like all or most animals, have means of communication, but snakes do not use language with syntax, or vocalize. They never have and never will. End of story.

I saw references in this thread to the serpent in Genesis. The Genesis story uses figurative language. Literalism (literalism as distinct from the proper regard for the literal sense) is not a legitimate method for interpreting Scripture as it leads to absurd interpretations, such as the claim that snakes can talk.

 

[Image_of_God]

What is the point of this discussion about snakes talking?

Snakes, like all or most animals, have means of communication, but snakes do not use language with syntax, or vocalize. They never have and never will. End of story.

I saw references in this thread to the serpent in Genesis. The Genesis story uses figurative language. Literalism (literalism as distinct from the proper regard for the literal sense) is not a legitimate method for interpreting Scripture as it leads to absurd interpretations, such as the claim that snakes can talk.

You might recall, I stated clearly that I didn’t take the story literally.

That’s besides the point. If you say snakes don’t use language, “the never have and never will”, I would like to see an explanation. Because, most certainly, unless you have seen every snake in history, you can only assume that they never have. And even then, you still don’t have authority to claim that they never will. That is to say, I don’t think that the apes of years far gone, if they could think at all, thought their descendants would be talking.

Of course, my position appears absurd, but not if you are ready to challenge the notion that everything in science is accepted because it is fact and that nothing in science is simply believed (with good reason).

 

[itinerant1]

You might recall, I stated clearly that I didn’t take the story literally.

That’s besides the point. If you say snakes don’t use language, “the never have and never will”, I would like to see an explanation. Because, most certainly, unless you have seen every snake in history, you can only assume that they never have. And even then, you still don’t have authority to claim that they never will. That is to say, I don’t think that the apes of years far gone, if they could think at all, thought their descendants would be talking.

Of course, my position appears absurd, but not if you are ready to challenge the notion that everything in science is accepted because it is fact and that nothing in science is simply believed (with good reason).

To state matters indelicately, your position is absurd, regardless of how one views science.

One need not examine every snake in existence, past, present, and future, to know snakes cannot talk. We know what a snake is essentially, by definition. It is, among other things, a non-human animal that possesses only sense knowledge. This fact excludes it from the possibility of talking.

Language use involves rationality and the ability to think and know via abstract concepts. This is a higher order cognitive ability than what is possessed by non-rational animals, your snakes included.

Every noun has a universal designation, such as “tree” which refers to all trees, regardless of their genus, species, or variety. Animals possessed of sense knowledge only are limited to perceiving particular things in their phenomenal presence. They do not know “what” a thing is, they only perceive their presence and react instinctively and with added, but very limited learning.

Thus, aside from animals not possessing the proper physiology required to articulate the sounds of a language, they do not know “meanings” and hence cannot use language proper, speaking or not speaking.

In sum, your argument has no support of anything in reality. It is based on pure fantasy and lack of understanding of what is involved in language use. Sorry, to be so blunt, but your position is prima facie absurd.

Your argument is also a reductio ad absurdum, in that if a snake were to talk, then it would not be a snake at all, not by any stretch of the imagination. You can’t win.

 

[anthony022071]

To state matters indelicately, your position is absurd, regardless of how one views science.

One need not examine every snake in existence, past, present, and future, to know snakes cannot talk. We know what a snake is essentially, by definition. It is, among other things, a non-human animal that possesses only sense knowledge. This fact excludes it from the possibility of talking.

If the snake in Genesis is a figure that represents the reality of an evil intelligence,then it can talk. And if Satan is real,then he can assume the form of a snake,because he is a powerful angel.

What really matters is what really exists,whether the language used to express it is literal or figurative,and the representation of real things is not limited to literal language.

 

[itinerant1]

If the snake in Genesis is a figure that represents the reality of an evil intelligence,then it can talk. And if Satan is real,then he can assume the form of a snake,because he is a powerful angel.

What really matters is what really exists,whether the language used to express it is literal or figurative,and the representation of real things is not limited to literal language.

The serpent in Genesis is a figurative representation. The imagery is not intended to represent Satan as literally appearing as a serpent, as that would contradict the figurative expressions of the story.

A serpent was an appropriate image to use since for the ancient Hebrews, in other contexts, the serpent represents the fertility cults that were common in the ancient near east.

Also, from the idea that Satan “can” appear as a snake, it does not follow that the story is not using a figurative or symbolic description, or that Satan actually “appeared” as a serpent. Details about the Fall were unknown to the writer of Genesis 3, and that is why figurative language is being used to tell the story.

Furthermore, supposing Satan appeared as a snake, which he didn’t, it does not follow that snakes can talk, because a demon appearing as a snake is not a snake – it is a demon under false appearances. Hence, snakes cannot talk.

 

[anthony022071]

The serpent in Genesis is a figurative representation. The imagery is not intended to represent Satan as literally appearing as a serpent, as that would contradict the figurative expressions of the story.

A serpent was an appropriate image to use since for the ancient Hebrews, in other contexts, the serpent represents the fertility cults that were common in the ancient near east.

That’s the anthropological interpretation. The image of the snake represents an evil intelligence,not just a cultural context. And anyway,the temptation to sin occured before the fall of man and before Adam and Eve had descendants,so the author of Genesis could not have used the image of the snake to represent pagan fertility cults,which came about only after the fall of man. The author may have used the image of snake of fertility cults,since the cults were in effect serving Satan,but it does not follow that the image is intended to represent the fertility cults themselves.

Also, from the idea that Satan “can” appear as a snake, it does not follow that the story is not using a figurative or symbolic description, or that Satan actually “appeared” as a serpent. Details about the Fall were unknown to the writer of Genesis 3, and that is why figurative language is being used to tell the story.

Even if it is a figure or symbol (I believe it is),it still represents a real intelligence. I think that the author of Genesis did have more knowledge about the Fall,but left it out because he was writing for the people. There are other Hebrew books dealing with the Genesis story that go into greater detail.

Furthermore, supposing Satan appeared as a snake, which he didn’t, it does not follow that snakes can talk, because a demon appearing as a snake is not a snake – it is a demon under false appearances. Hence, snakes cannot talk.

Satan is himself a snake,in the same sense that Jesus is the Lamb of God and bread from heaven. There’s no way to know if Satan did not appear as a snake.