Wells Hall Off Topic Board

he exists over on wells.

I can - through Constructivism. But it would take awhile...

Primitive people had very little understanding of science and the functioning of the universe. They needed something to explain why what they didn't understand existed and invented gods as the source. The belief in many gods gradually gave way to one all powerful god. No proof of the gods or God's existence has ever been shown of course since it is always 'taken on faith' that he or they exist in the physical sense. Nowadays it's even considered a crime by a lot of people to question it. The myth has created the life so to speak.

I've always said, if you have a sincere question about religion the best to go for answers is an internet posting board...

There's a theory that covers this very well...you should read up on it!...fascinating stuff.

Like, not really. Sounds like you know too. Please clue us all in....

Alpha and Omega

All of the rest of us are at least tangentially familiar with the theory.

How about you do some reading on your own, then if you have specific questions post them for the board?

You get any number of folks who will try and answer as best we can...but the first step is getting and understanding of the theory yourself.

Okay, first of all - my interpretation of the Theory of Constructivism. You find something that you have no history of, make a logical conclusion of what happened. For example,

A geologist performs several rock cores and finds a 4-inch layer of volcanic ash distributed throughout the area. Based on the geologist's experience, he concludes a volcanic eruption deposit volcanic ash. The ash didn't get there by wind, river sediment, etc.

Another example:

A police officer enters a home and finds a man crumpled on the floor. His hands are duct-taped behind his back. He has a small hole entering his forehead, and a larger hole on the back of his head. He finds blood and bits/pieces of brain matter on the adjoining wall. Based on the police officer's experience, he's dealing with a homicide.

That's constructivism - you find data, and "construct" what happened.

Taking this further, the police officer tries to determine "why"? First, he checks the mans pockets and finds a wallet stuffed with $450 cash. He rules out robbery. His experience tells him a thief would steal that money.

But the clincher with constructivism is it's constantly changing. The police rule out robbery, right?

But then the police find out the man is very wealthy, and discover he opened a private safe 5 minutes before his death. Is that a coincidence? Perhaps there was something of large value in the safe, worth millions of dollars? If so, $450 in his wallet is not worth the effort. Suddenly robbery is back on the table as a motive.

Would you agree that constructivism makes sense and can be used to form logical conclusions based on good data and experience?

Ah...time is a challege for all of us my friend

If you're interested enough you'll find the time to do the reading.

Let us know if you have any specific questions....Roberta published an interesting list the other day.

Constructivism is an epistemology (theory of knowledge) and learning theory. As an epistemology, it is often associated with post-modernism which boils down to the idea that absolute Truth is unattainable (or at least we cannot know with certainty if we have attained it) and instead knowledge is culturally and situationally relative. Here's a brief history (and no, it is not oversimplified at all ):

Plato - Truth is remembering what I once knew before drinking from the River of Forgetfulness. Reason is how I come to remember. (Rationalism)

Aristotle - Truth comes from observing and studying the world (Empiricism).

Popper - Well, it seems can't ever prove anything True in an absolute sense, but science can at least prove things false. (Falsification)

Quine - Yeah, we can't even do that. Rationalism breaks down to Empiricism and Empiricism can't provide a sure foundation for truth. We have to accept that all our knowledge exists within constructed frameworks of knowledge and we never step out of these frameworks and get "God's eye perspective."

What does this have to do with OP? I'm not really sure. But I will say this. Philosophy has evolved to focus on rational/empirical ways of knowing while jettisoning all metaphysics (theories of knowing based on things like revelation from God). This is probably a good move because it helped us develop scientific ways of knowing and understand the limits of such knowing. However, this does not mean that metaphysical ways of knowing don't exist. Science and modern philosophy does not say that God cannot speak directly to individuals or provide evidence of His existence through personal confirmations through the spirit, but such ways of knowing lie outside the realms of modern science and philosophy. So, I would that if you want explore the existence of God, you will not be able to prove His existence or non-existence from the perspective of science and modern philosophical reasoning. You will have to consider other forms of knowing.

Information has interesting definitions. You can browse the internet and find different descriptions. But there’s one general rule that does define information – it must have an intelligent source.

Even very basic information has an intelligent source. For example, say you’re walking through the jungle and find a scratched up tree and a pile of jaguar dung. This is a relatively simple message that states “This is my territory, fellow jaguars stay out!”

Now consider a Boeing 777, the first airplane designed in a “paperless” environment. Massive amounts of information was assembled and coded into computers. Using this information, you can build one of the most complex machines on earth.

Information, in its many forms, is vast and extensive. But can a rock provide information? Now, I’m not talking about the study of rocks – I understand you can classify rocks based on hardness, color, mineral content, etc. But can a rock give you information? Of course not.

In fact, can you provide even one example of inanimate object ever providing/creating information? This does not include, say a calculator (made by man) providing solutions to math problems. This leads to…

TRUTH #1 – Information comes from intelligence

Based on the information at hand, you can get a general idea of the intelligence of those who created it. For example:
Scratching a tree and taking a dump to send a message = relatively primitive life form.
Building a 777 = very advanced intelligence. We’re talking rocket science.

TRUTH #2 – You can make a judgment on the intelligence of the information source based on the information you’re observing

Any argument with this?