Evolution and a supreme being.

smash

philologos wrote: »

Any interest in discussing why you think it is a fairytale or are you just going to make an empty claim?

The belief in a god is just that, a belief. And it's an unfounded, blind belief at that. So everything the bible says is empty claims. Therefor it's my opinion and belief that it is a complete fairy tale.

I honestly can't see how with education today, how people can actually believe it.

Ghost Buster

philologos wrote: »

As a philosophy student a few years ago I had quite a number of issues.



.

Just on an unrelated aside, this line reminded me of my Grandad. Grew up in a very rural part of north Mayo, had a hard life as a farmer, lived to be 98. A very worldly, wise and wonderful man. He never swore, absolutely hated vulgarity. When he wanted to point out to someone that they were talking out their holes, talking shiet in other words he would rumble "You are talking philosophy"
Just saying

steddyeddy

robindch wrote: »

I've been involved in the skeptics movement for many years in Ireland and I can't say I recall any skeptic who's "dismissing things out of hand" all the time.

Could you give a few examples of people and things they've said so that we can understand what you mean?

Hey apologies for thr delay. As nozzferrahhtoo said below I do indeed have a problem with the human element of science and the extent to which is dictates our knowledge of science.

Im not talking about some of the most of the high profile skeptics like James Randi Im generally talking about the average skeptic on the street and the noise they make in oppistion to areas some scientists have an interest in.

Below are the examples of things that have been initially met with cynicism. I call it cynicism rather than skepticism because all of these things were refuted out of hand with no thought as to the evidence behind them and a hostility to those who investigated them.

Previously in the past scientists have been ridiculed for trying to promote the existence of the mountain Gorilla-eyewitnesses were accused of lying and a creature that size could not exist ect until a skeptic decided to find the animal and prove its existence.


The biochemical pathways for photosynthesis-There was only thought to be one photosystem until a few scientists were skeptical of the idea.

Soft inheritence-only recently evidence has come to light that this may be real (Ill go into this further below)

Im a skeptic but I see some skeptics are becoming more cynical lately and only in the last few years has this started to bother me. Ill give some modern examples below which tipped the scale for me.

Im coming from a background of biology so you'll have to excuse my examples as their mostly from that discipline!

1: For centuries locals in the phillippines reported a lizard like creature called the Bayawak. It was even seen by some from the western world. People in the skeptic (cynic imo) community called it a series of hoaxs and the islanders were guilty of misidentification. In 2004 it was found. A six foot relative of the komodo dragon.

2: A creature again reported for centuries in vietnam called the hoan keim turtle. Again the usual it cant or doesnt exist despite sightings for centuries and the animal being recorded in historical sources. Skeptics were claiming it was a biological impossibility. Cynics said the usual mantra that it couldnt exist because of the lake size, it was 2 metres at the deepest and there would have to be more than one (which no biologist was denying). It was discovered in 1967 and thought to be extinct until rediscovered in 1998.

3. This one annoys me no end a creature called orang pendek is reported. Again the same sort of thing witnesses span centuries and includes several people involved in conservation and a national geographic and sometimes freelance photgrapher called Jeremy holden. National geographic decided to part fund an expedition to find the orang pendek and some of the criticisim they recieved was frankly disturbing. One skeptic hit out saying that "I see national geographic is considering this a biological entity and not a mythical one, so they are believers". Research is ongoing but the level of cynicisim coming at this is quite annoying.

4. This one is more my area and what sparked me to write this post. I very exciting area of biology is epigenetics, it deals with epigenetic modifications and the inheritence of aquired traits. This was once thought to be a myth and now research is proving to the contrary. This area is getting attacked by followers of Dawkins because creationists are using it to defute evolution (although it does nothing of the sort).

Now I dont expect people to accept things out of hand but neither do I expect them to refute things out of hand.

dlofnep

philologos - no offense, but let me lay it all out on the table for you. This is not meant to offend you, but is the cold taste of reality you've been avoiding all your life.

You're deluded, and I mean that in it's truest sense. You're hopelessly clung to the idea of an afterlife, that you'll swallow whatever pill that comes along with it. You are a product of your society - If you were born in Saudi Arabia, you'd be a Muslim. It's no coincidence that you are a Christian.

There is no evidence that there is an after-life. When you die, nothing happens. Your heart ceases to beat, and your brain does not function. Your fate is the same as any other animal - worm food.

Now you can continue to delude yourself, in order to make the idea of death more comfortable. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

philologos

dlofnep wrote: »

philologos - no offense, but let me lay it all out on the table for you. This is not meant to offend you, but is the cold taste of reality you've been avoiding all your life.

Righteo - I'm not expecting to be offended.

dlofnep wrote: »

You're deluded, and I mean that in it's truest sense. You're hopelessly clung to the idea of an afterlife, that you'll swallow whatever pill that comes along with it. You are a product of your society - If you were born in Saudi Arabia, you'd be a Muslim. It's no coincidence that you are a Christian.

This isn't a good argument for three reasons.

Firstly, even if there were no such thing as an afterlife, I would still believe in a Creator. It isn't out of expedience that I believe in Christianity.

Secondly, the second argument you made about Saudi Arabia. You do know that a majority of Christians in the world live outside of the West, and many of whom in countries where Christianity isn't a cultural force at all. How do you account for converts? How do you account for the fact that Christianity is growing in China and in other regions where it is not a majority religion?

Thirdly, I was shocked as I was reading the Bible for the first time in that there was a lot I didn't know. I would hold that that is probably true for the vast majority of Irish people. It changed my perspective on the world, because it was so convincing.

dlofnep wrote: »

There is no evidence that there is an after-life. When you die, nothing happens. Your heart ceases to beat, and your brain does not function. Your fate is the same as any other animal - worm food.

I'm not particularly concerned about death. If there is a God, I don't believe it is outlandish that there could be a heaven or be a hell. I also don't believe it outlandish that God could perform miracles in Creation if all was His.

The root question is do we believe in God, and what reasons do I have for doing this, and why do others not? - I'm simply put convinced that there is enough reason to affirm that the Bible is for the most part reliable and true and that we can trust it.

Your post doesn't "shock me".

dlofnep wrote: »

Now you can continue to delude yourself, in order to make the idea of death more comfortable. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

The question is who is deluded. I think the new-atheists are insofar as they refuse to acknowledge God's existence and the penalty of sin.

We can call eachother deluded all we like, or we can actually engage with the issues. What do you want to do? - Engage in idle rhetoric, or get to the core of why we do or do not believe?

Jimoslimos

philologos wrote: »

It won't be answered in full by science, but if there was more good reason to believe atheism to be true than Christianity, I'd have to review my position. In fact, all you'd have to do, is demonstrably show me that Jesus Christ never rose from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:14) says as much. If you show it to be false, my faith is worthless.

I've said it before and will say it again - the burden of proof lies with the claimant who makes the assertion something exists. Therefore it is up to Christians to demonstrably show me proof that JC rose from the dead, not the other way around.

philologos wrote: »

There's a lot of reasons why I would accept the Gospel over atheism. In short, it comes down to the logical necessity of causation in creation, the source and sense of morality, the truth of sin in the world, the case for the Resurrection, the textual authenticity of the New Testament suggesting its not a forgery, the historicity of the Bible, Jesus' fulfilment of prophesy, the case for the existence and significance of Jesus of Nazareth, archaeology in Israel and Jordan, and geology, the embarrassing details that are in the New Testament that wouldn't be in it if it was a story to glorify the disciples. Simply put, the more and more we find in the world that backs up the Bible, the more and more I am confident to trust it. It's rather simple, and it's pretty much because I do have reason for my faith in Christ, that I really don't accept the continual groan of there being no evidence for it.

So basically because it is an old book then. I imagine that there will be people in 2000 years time arguing the same of Harry Potter, pointing out that there was indeed a 'Kings Cross Train Station' or devotees of LOTR showing us that The Shire and Mordor are actually to be found on a map and the fact that we can now walk from one to another is proof of Frodo's glorious sacrifice. Middle-Earth pilgrimages anyone?

Also you seem happy to take scientific evidence where it suits, archaeolgy etc, but then dismiss conflicting stories as 'metaphors' (see most of OT). You know what I call that - cherry picking.

Jaden

philologos wrote: »

It won't be answered in full by science, but if there was more good reason to believe atheism to be true than Christianity, I'd have to review my position. In fact, all you'd have to do, is demonstrably show me that Jesus Christ never rose from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:14) says as much. If you show it to be false, my faith is worthless.

Proof of the resurection as is offered, is a retranslated two-millenia-old account of an oral tradition, first given by a group of people with a vested interest in it being true. Single source, not peer reviewed.

Conversely, I would offer the opinion that if you can satisfy me that the resurection did take place, I would reconsider my position.

It really all depends on who you consider to carry the burden of proof.

Jimoslimos

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I've said it before and will say it again - the burden of proof lies with the claimant who makes the assertion something exists. Therefore it is up to Christians to demonstrably show me proof that JC rose from the dead, not the other way around.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+10&version=WYC
Wasn't hard to find proof. You can check the other versions too.

Jaden

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+10&version=WYC
Wasn't hard to find proof. You can check the other versions too.

I state clearly here and now that Russell's teapot exists. Ergo, it does. If you load this page in Firefox or Chrome, instead of Internet Explorer, it will say the same thing.

Jimoslimos

Jaden wrote: »

I state clearly here and now that Russell's teapot exists. Ergo, it does. If you load this page in Firefox or Chrome, instead of Internet Explorer, it will say the same thing.

Verily, I can attest to this. Now for some historical proof I will find myself a copy of Netscape Navigator somewhere!

mickrock

dlofnep wrote: »

When you die, nothing happens. Your heart ceases to beat, and your brain does not function.

You're assuming that consciousness is purely the product of brain activity, which is debatable.

Jaden

Jaden wrote: »

I state clearly here and now that Russell's teapot exists. Ergo, it does. If you load this page in Firefox or Chrome, instead of Internet Explorer, it will say the same thing.

That's not proof, you have to also state that everything you say is true.

Jimoslimos

Deleted User wrote: »

That's not proof, you have to also state that everything you say is true.

So what do your claims re. God have to distinguish them from his claim of a magical teapot?

Jimoslimos

Jimoslimos wrote: »

So what do your claims re. God have to distinguish them from his claim of a magical teapot?

The bible says that what is in it is true, therefore it's true. If the post read "Everything within this is true. Russell's Teapot exists." then obviously that would be ample proof. However he didn't state that what he was saying was true, just that he was saying it clearly.

Jimoslimos

Deleted User wrote: »

The bible says that what is in it is true, therefore it's true. If the post read "Everything within this is true. Russell's Teapot exists." then obviously that would be ample proof. However he didn't state that what he was saying was true, just that he was saying it clearly.

Case closed. Good night.

Mod request: Close thread.

Pushtrak

philologos wrote: »

Stop trying isn't particularly investigating what is written Biblically. In fact, it's the beginning of an investigation.

areu4real? has asked you numerous times to talk about evidence outside of the bible. You haven't done so up to this point, yet now you are saying the bible is the beginning of the investigation? Well, that is interesting. Sounds like this discussion can go somewhere.

(Edit: Disregard stuff like this in the post, as I address the points you made. I didn't want to remove this, wanted to let my post stand, but I see you have put more in your post later.)

A lot of atheist thinking has led towards ideas such as existentialism, which essentially means that it is impossible to know absolute truth. What Christians say is, that God has spoken into this world, and you can see for yourself.

No, there is more to it than just seeing for yourself. If it was as you portray, then this radical transformation wouldn't be the case. You'd just see it for yourself. One doesn't.

One thing I have in common with atheists is that I am concerned for what is absolutely true, rather than what is mere ideas. It doesn't matter if it is a nice idea, what does matter is what is true.

The difference is I'm absolutely convinced for a number of reasons that it is more likely that Christianity is true rather than false.

I'll be honest, when I hear this, my question is, ok what aspect of the sciences is it you don't understand? It is that or falling back to the first cause argument, as in what came before the big bang yada yada.

Contrary to what atheists claim, I think there are quite a few reasons for God. Some of which I've discussed on here numerous times, and other Christians have had a go at on this thread.

Guess I'll have a look over yonder once I've posted this, then.

God did absolutely everything in Creation. He intended it and it was. The very process of evolution was instigated by Him as far as I'm concerned.

Formed the universe 13.7 billion years ago, this planet around 4.5 billion years ago with humanity as it currently stands around 100,000 years ago. A planet on which 99% of the species that existed no longer do so. A planet on which we are to imagine we are close to god, in its image, when really we are just a fused chromosome to seperate us from other apes...

Objective. Irrespective of what you think, I think, or Billy down the road thinks, there's something real.

I just find it strange that an omni this that and the other would come out with a divine book that is purported to be perfect, and an objective account on it is nothing but an interpretative farce.

1) That's fine, but I guess what I must ask is what makes you think that?
2) What are you talking about? - I'm happy to discuss what you want, but it's nicer if you ask me what I think first rather than assuming.

1) I don't have strong feelings on the matter. I'm not really convinced by it being the case the universe always existed, or the multiverse theory. I just look at how reality is in comparison to the holy books working from the now backwards, and seeing if a god is necessary in the picture. There are all these junctures at which god once fit in terms of understanding of reality, but those days are long gone.
2) Scientific understanding explains back to the point of the big bang, so therefore the god of the gaps would be to talk about this point. If we were to talk about a point after this, then it would just be a matter of discussing big bang cosmology or abiogenesis seeing as I think the evolution matter itself is somewhat settled. I don't know your level of understanding on any of these, and will not pretend to know.

Not at all. Pascal's Wager is woeful. As a philosophy student a few years ago I had quite a number of issues.

Guess I'll have to go to the other thread to see some of the points you've raised there. Good that you can see Pascal's Wager for what it is.

comes down to the logical necessity of causation in creation, the source and sense of morality, the truth of sin in the world, the case for the Resurrection, the textual authenticity of the New Testament suggesting its not a forgery, the historicity of the Bible, Jesus' fulfilment of prophesy, the case for the existence and significance of Jesus of Nazareth, archaeology in Israel and Jordan, and geology, the embarrassing details that are in the New Testament that wouldn't be in it if it was a story to glorify the disciples. Simply put, the more and more we find in the world that backs up the Bible, the more and more I am confident to trust it. It's rather simple, and it's pretty much because I do have reason for my faith in Christ, that I really don't accept the continual groan of there being no evidence for it.

Ok, there is a lot here to break down. I don't want to take snippets and deal with it that way.
Logical necessity of causation: First cause? Anything that began to exist has a cause, except god. If you meant something else, you'll have to clarify. It just comes across as "God must exist because god must exist".

The Source and Sense of Morality: The bible is a moral document once you expunge the deplorable things it tells you to do. No one would kill one who works on the sabbath, yet it is one of the 10 commandments. I'm sure you've discussed the horrendous things the bible has in terms of it being a slavery endorsing document, not a word against it, the killing of people for minor transgressions... You know this, so I'm surprised you'd point this as a defensible position. It isn't.

Sin in the world: People do bad things, ergo god?

Resurrection: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2GM_g7VCJI
I do plan on looking in to the particulars on what evidence there is for this at some point. Though, a good first step would probably be getting more convinced on the issue of the historicity of Jesus.

Authenticity of the New Testament As in, what, the dating methods show it to be written in the century or more after Jesus supposedly would have died? Can you imagine oral tradition going on for 100 years, and someone was to write something about one of today? Even with the internet as it is, it would be prone to errors. 100 years of oral tradition? Then, looking at the Council of Nicea... Scripture by popular vote.

Archaeology, Geology: Could you perhaps expound on these?

Embarrassing details: *Cringe*

What I'm saying is - if one reads the Bible and looks at quite a number of its claims, one can see that they have basis in reality. For example, the nature of sin.

You definitely need to expand on that.

It won't be answered in full by science, but if there was more good reason to believe atheism to be true than Christianity, I'd have to review my position. In fact, all you'd have to do, is demonstrably show me that Jesus Christ never rose from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:14) says as much. If you show it to be false, my faith is worthless.

BRB, getting time machine :pac:

To present Christianity as a set of rules isn't exactly true. I don't need to follow rules to be saved. That is only by Jesus. It is because I am thankful for Jesus coming into the world to rescue me, that I live for Him. Not because I work my way to salvation. That couldn't be further to the truth.

See, more on this whole notion of this deity doesn't care about what you do, what type of person you are. I can't understand any love for this god. Sure follow the god if you believe it exists for sure, but respect for such a thing?

I'm curious about your understanding on hell. Is it eternal damnation, eternal seperation, or eternal nothingness to you? And, also, do you believe one gets a brain enema to make those in heaven forget those left behind in one of those?

Secondly, we've all sinned and fallen short of God's glory. We all as a result deserve God's wrath and condemnation. God loved us, and as a result sent Jesus into the world to save us, it is by believing in His name.

It seems very battered spouse syndrome to me.

The fact is we're all guilty and we need a Saviour. That's what I realised over 5 years ago when I accepted the Gospel.

We", nay.

I never said it did. I said it is a question that shouldn't be ignored.

But your entire philosophy is predicated on avoiding this line of reasoning. Well, avoiding might not be the best way to put it, but a blind spot, I think better conveys the meaning.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Im not talking about some of the most of the high profile skeptics like James Randi Im generally talking about the average skeptic on the street and the noise they make in oppistion to areas some scientists have an interest in.

I'm sorry, I'm confused... The bit that this is replying to is the following...

Another problem I have in science are the people who are twisting the meaning of skepticisim and simply promoting cynicism. A lot of current skeptics are guilty of dismissing things out of hand and in my mind thier not skeptics but cynics and offer nothing to science.

What could the average skeptic on the street offer to science? Maybe I'm missing something. They'll offer something to science if they seek to dedicate a career to it.

1: For centuries locals in the phillippines reported a lizard like creature called the Bayawak. It was even seen by some from the western world. People in the skeptic (cynic imo) community called it a series of hoaxs and the islanders were guilty of misidentification. In 2004 it was found. A six foot relative of the komodo dragon.

You show what was found rather than the cynicism. An important distinction. I presume you mean the cynicism was in the scientific community?

philologos wrote: »

Thirdly, I was shocked as I was reading the Bible for the first time in that there was a lot I didn't know.

Care to provide some examples?

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+10&version=WYC
Wasn't hard to find proof. You can check the other versions too.

Embarrassing. And before you say it, I'm talking about you, not me.

Corkfeen

mickrock wrote: »

You're assuming that consciousness is purely the product of brain activity, which is debatable.

You've been claiming this for a long time but have yet to show any evidence of such....

Wow people really can't spot parody anymore.

Jimoslimos

Deleted User wrote: »

Wow people really can't spot parody anymore.

I did consider claiming Poe's Law:pac:

Pedant

philologos wrote: »

A lot of atheist thinking has led towards ideas such as existentialism, which essentially means that it is impossible to know absolute truth. What Christians say is, that God has spoken into this world, and you can see for yourself.

One thing I have in common with atheists is that I am concerned for what is absolutely true, rather than what is mere ideas. It doesn't matter if it is a nice idea, what does matter is what is true.

The difference is I'm absolutely convinced for a number of reasons that it is more likely that Christianity is true rather than false.

Indeed, in the absence of God or any form of absolute standard, there is no way that anyone can say what is completely true or completely false. Insofar as mental faculties are flawed, as much as we mightn't like to accept it. In theory anyone could be right, but there are ways that we can tell that one idea is more likely than the other. That is we look into what reasons we have for believing in X, Y, or Z.

Contradiction?

philologos wrote: »

There's a lot of reasons why I would accept the Gospel over atheism. In short, it comes down to the logical necessity of causation in creation, the source and sense of morality

...

Evidence is something that points towards a conclusion being true. Proof is only found in mathematics.

Mathematics can disprove both the existence and non-existence of a supreme being in a few simple steps - pointing towards a flaw in general human reasoning.

1) If a Supreme Being created the universe, who created the Supreme Being? Who created the creator of the Supreme Being, and so on and so forth for eternity. Logic breaks down, the logical suggestion for introducing a Supreme Being becomes logically unstable, bringing you back right to where your argument started - a paradox.

2) If the Supreme Being was never created and existed for an eternity before it created the universe, how could it conceive time? If this being had no beginning or no end, it could not conceive a point in time. Time wouldn't exist in its frame of reference. How did it decide when to create the universe if it couldn't conceive time.

3) With no concept of time, the Supreme Being could not be a conscious being. Something that existed for an eternity would be void of entropy and incapable of dispersing motion. It would be an unconscious, static and motionless being, incapable of being the Prime Mover - the Prime Mover needed something to indicate time, which it would have been incapable of. Logic breaks down.

4) By employing the reasoning suggested in points 1-3, it is fair to state that if a Supreme Being existed, creation (of any sort) would not have come about, ever.

5) To suggest that the Universe came from nothing is also illogical.

6) Therefore, we see two illogical premises; the existence of a Supreme Being and the non-existence of a Supreme Being. Mathematics suggests an undefined paradox. It is flawed to call this undefined paradox God as God (the Supreme Being) has been shown in previous steps to be an illogical premise.

7) There are two possible answers, therefore. (a) Man's concept of time as something linear is flawed, or (b) Man will never absolutely understand how the Universe came about and will only know that both spontaneous creation from nothing and creation by a creator are illogical concepts.

Calibos

Corkfeen wrote: »

You've been claiming this for a long time but have yet to show any evidence of such....

But the evidence of disembodied conciousness is all around us!!

Ghosts.

Theres your evidence!!

Unfortunately he just doesn't have any evidence for the evidence.

Reminds me about the trailer for some new ghost Show or something on Discovery a year or two ago that played on most Sky channels incessently for a few weeks. Some guy saying, I believe in Ghosts because if ghosts exist than Heaven is more likely to exist....or words to that effect.

Headwrecking rationale :rolleyes:

Anyway I wonder can he answer why our conciousness is altered by drugs or brain injury if conciousness is not soley derived from the normal functioning of the brain.

dlofnep

mickrock wrote: »

You're assuming that consciousness is purely the product of brain activity, which is debatable.

No, it isn't debatable.

mickrock

dlofnep wrote: »

No, it isn't debatable.

Science won't make any progress with an attitude like that.

The whole matter of consciousness is a tricky business. Most scientists hold the othodox view thats it's just a product of brain activity but an increasing number are questioning this.

mickrock

Calibos wrote: »

Anyway I wonder can he answer why our conciousness is altered by drugs or brain injury if conciousness is not soley derived from the normal functioning of the brain.

In a similar way that fiddling with the electronics inside your television might make the picture and sound go wonky, even though the signal is coming from outside the television.

Pedant

mickrock wrote: »

Science won't make any progress with an attitude like that.

The whole matter of consciousness is a tricky business. Most scientists hold the othodox view thats it's just a product of brain activity but an increasing number are questioning this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyXggq-dvu0

outtagetme

seamus wrote: »

Evolution says nothing about the existence or non-existence of a God. It's an inorganic process, how could it?

The fact of evolution just implies that the Bible is big book of fables and myths. But then we knew that anyway.

Why does god and the bible get a capital "g" and a capital "b"?

But more to the point.....where did Cain and Abel get their wives from?

And did the wives have belly-buttons, unlike Eve?

And did they like apples?

And snakes?

Snowie

mylastparadigm wrote: »

I have a question.

While darwins theory of evolution employs logic to argue against the idea of creationism - that man and women appeared in the garden of eden - is it logical to use evolution to argue against the existence of a god?

nahhhh mate got that wrong its dog, and yeah i believe if them. I've got 4 hounds in my place if you want one give us a shout

dlofnep

mickrock wrote: »

Science won't make any progress with an attitude like that.

The whole matter of consciousness is a tricky business. Most scientists hold the othodox view thats it's just a product of brain activity but an increasing number are questioning this.

An increasing number of insane Creationists? Perhaps. An increasing number of educated neuroscientists? Absolutely not.

outtagetme

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Just on an unrelated aside, this line reminded me of my Grandad. Grew up in a very rural part of north Mayo, had a hard life as a farmer, lived to be 98. A very worldly, wise and wonderful man. He never swore, absolutely hated vulgarity. When he wanted to point out to someone that they were talking out their holes, talking shiet in other words he would rumble "You are talking philosophy"
Just saying

May your grandad be long remembered.....but what's wrong with cursing or swearing?

Who makes these rules?

Pedant

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Just on an unrelated aside, this line reminded me of my Grandad. Grew up in a very rural part of north Mayo, had a hard life as a farmer, lived to be 98. A very worldly, wise and wonderful man. He never swore, absolutely hated vulgarity. When he wanted to point out to someone that they were talking out their holes, talking shiet in other words he would rumble "You are talking philosophy"
Just saying

Love it!!