Confusing statements and attitudes
- jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years ago
0When a person says this:
" Disbelievers will be given Hell & suffering for eternity. Have fear. "
in a Question thread, yet says this:
"Love to share! Sharing is caring!!"
in his/her profile, can you believe such a contradiction? Is it a contradiction in normal everyday understanding?I think we all know the spiel. Telling you you're headed for hell fire is a message of love. If we don't get that, then we just want to persecute other Christians.
Lets say someone says," You are going to hell!" to a young person who all his life has done the right thing, but who has not heard much about Jesus. He just naturally knows what is right and follows his own sense of right and wrong.
He has had a good example through his parents and family and has been treated kindly all his life. Then a Jesus enthusiast walks up and tells him, "If you do not believe in Jesus, you are going to Hell!
How will that make this young person feel about Jesus?
Will he willingly follow and love him?
No.
Will he ever listen to anyone talking about Jesus again?
No.
Yet the love of Jesus IS.
I agree, they really need another approach.
And Johnny, it happens to all of us all the time.
We just ignore it and pity such a poor person who uses Jesus to lord over others.
Luckily, Jesus forgives such a misguided enthusiast, so we can too.
TWISIThe whole hell concept is something dreamt up by organized religion to drum up business and maintain control. It's obviously a scare tactic. Man made. It's not God's fault. People have free will and mess things up all the time.
The bible doesn't actually say anything about eternal damnation. Hell in the OT is the hole in the ground in which you're buried. The grave. Being saved from hell is being saved from death.
It's actually quite fair, I think. Nobody asked to exist. It's decided by two free will beings who decide to procreate. If you don't agree to the terms necessary to continue to exist for eternity, you simply cease to exist at death. You go back to the state you were in before you were created.
The 'eternal flame' the NT speaks of, it's the flame that's eternal, not the punishment. That's ridiculous. The single most well known verse in all the bible says "...whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish...". Burning for all eternity is the opposite of perishing. The whole concept revolves around not actually ever perishing.
The church had to come up with something to stay in power through all the ages. That seemed to work pretty well, even though it's completely contradictory to the whole rest of the concept.Headlyvonnoggin....I feel the need to correct a misconception you stated regarding the word 'perish'. You see those who are in Christ do not perish but have everlasting life but perish refers to death in the sense of the absence of God NOT of no longer existing. There are also parts in the bible that speak of everlasting suffering both with Satan, the antichrist and the false prophet burning in the lake of fire eternally as well as one where the Lamb and the Father watch while the wicked suffer.
With regard to those people living kindly without knowledge of Jesus being the one way it would be similar to when Jesus died, went down to the prison and took those who then believed in Him up to heaven.With regard to the post...either the individual is young in the faith (feeding with milk) or they do not have a genuine connection to Jesus because if they did (and were mature in the faith- eating meat) then the Holy Spirit would guide them toward living a righteous life thus glorifying God through thought, speech and action.
Firework,
I'm sorry, but that whole idea is just a way to continue on this false concept that's innately counter-intuitive. In this case by totally redefining what 'perish' means to suit the needs. Eternal life is the reward. The opposite of that isn't burning eternally. It's dying. How does burning eternally even work? Burning is destroying. Only when material is destroyed and consumed by the fire is it burning. So something can't burn eternally. It's illogical any way you look at it.
The "second death". It's ceasing to exist. How is burning eternally death? Being without God? That's quite a stretch of the definition to say what they mean by death is being without God.
What would be the point of creating us humans, just to punish us for all eternity? What does that accomplish? Life makes sense. Nature makes sense. God makes sense. That doesn't.
As I'm sure you know, the OT books were translated from Greek....
"Dr. Weymouth, head master of Mill Hill School, and one of the finest Greek scholars, says, "My mind fails to conceive a grosser misinterpretation of language than when the five or six strongest words which the Greek tongue possesses, signifying 'destroy,' or 'destruction,' are explained to mean maintaining an everlasting but wretched existence. To translate black as white is nothing to this."The laws here fit here but go into space and they change. Who of us is to say that one cannot burn eternally if they have not crossed into death to verify its truth or falseness. I know from experience that there is a frightful place you can go to when you die. Argue with me until you are blue in the face but I have seen beyond here. It is what brought me close to God in the first place. Prior to it I was a science major in my senior year in college. Telepathy is the form of communication.I mention this to let anyone know that, yes, the devil and his angels can read your mind as well as emotions.
God did not create us to go there. It is our free will choices that send us there. Something as pure as God will destroy something filthy (not cleaned through the blood of Christ). It is not how God would choose it to be (He is saddened by those who turn away from Him-it hurts Him).Also....God is a consuming fire who burns eternally...illogical maybe to man.
In regard to the scholar Jesus thanks the Father for basically blinding the educated and showing the Truth to those deemed uneducated or 'foolish' to scholars. So scholarly comments mean little to me. The Holy Spirit has guided me to simple yet profound truths that are so easily overlooked when one 'studies' the bible as opposed to being guided as you read in a relaxed manner.
Firework23, just because you experienced that transformation in the way you think, does not automatically translate to the needs or the wishes of anyone else.
Your interpretation of the circumstance of your life and your understanding of the religious implications for your self are yours and your alone.
This is one more of the ugly and disturbing aspects of religion, especially the type of religion that's incubated in the United States. You get hold of a personal understanding and then translate it to the needs of others. Your path slides into the need to have everyone else believing it, in order to augment your own "faith" as if without others believing as you do, your own faith will be negated somehow.
Keep your own faith. But just allow it, don't push it onto others.... please. In the same way, my atheist understanding is my own. I don't push it onto others asking them to understand as I do. It's sufficient for me, it does not need anyone else to support it. All I ask for is respect for my understanding, even if you don't accept it. In the same way, I can respect your faith, without taking it on board myself. I don't need it and I don't want it, thank you.I am not looking for anyone to believe me in order to validatemyv faith...itis strong enoughwithout the supportof other humans. I was not attacking you but merely stating facts to counteryour crude statements regarding a previous comment of mine. I have nothingagainst atheists(my brother is one). I am also friends with pagans,wiccans, muslims and mormons. I respect their free will as well.Please do not throw be into a box you designed based on yourprevious experiences with Christians. By all means continue on being an atheist...I am not pushing you otherwise...justdefending my statement which you attacked.
I just have two curiosity questions for you. 1. Why are you postingcounter-intuitivethoughts on a hub that is Christian?
2. Why do you mention God like He exists in your first post if you are atheist?...please don't take offense,I am not attacking you. I am merely curious. It is the scientist in me.I have started this discussion about the inconsistency of another person's statement and his/her profile statement. Where did I mention "God" in this discussion?
If I mention God in the context of another hub or discussion or question, it is in relation to another person's belief(s). I can discuss "God" whenever the need arises, because I was a believer for a long time in my life. There is nothing wrong in that.
If you were not a believer at one time in your life and that has changed, there is nothing wrong in that either. However, I get the impression from your posts that you are trying to get others to believe as you do. Am I mistaken in this presumption?A.No I amNOT pushing my belief on anyone only defending a corrective commentI made ofwhich you attacked.I did notrealize you were the initialposter. I do notpush my beliefson anyone online orinmy hometown.I state my belief and move on because I know,as a Christian,thatisall I amable todo.As far as you mentioning God ina way thatimplies His existence inthe second postyou made here (as inthe one following youroriginalpost) you say "itisnotGod's fault".WhatI do notappreciate isyou saying thatI ampushing anything simply because I cleared an improperstatementyou made (directed toward Christians because no otherwould care aboutsuch a statement) and you proceed toattack me saying I ampushing my beliefsbecause I had a response toward my faith thatyou could notcounter(God being an eternalflame and the scholarstatement). Anyone who has the Holy Spiritwithin themwill be shown the simple truths within the bible...IamNOT specialnoramI looking tobe such.Once again,tomake thisVERY clear, I amNOT attempting topush my views on anyone.I amnothere togather'feelgoods' aboutmy faith because it iswavering.I have a very strong faith and need no others butGod tokeep me going init although I enjoy fellowship....so...yes...you are being presumptuous aboutmy motives.I wrotetocorrectfor the sake ofyoung Christians who could fall away based on statements such as yours (which are ofthemselves heavily opinionated). Please learn toshowrespectyourself ratherthan throwing outviolentattacks againstthe Christian faith and then throwing in'peaceful'comments toseemkind and reasonable.I amdone nowand choose nottothrowpearlsbefore swine.Bestofluck toyou.
Ok, I apologise for any presumption that was incorrect, but I do believe you are confusing me with someone else.
"itisnotGod's fault" was not one of my statements, I think.Apology accepted and the second comment you made, the fifth post on this one we are posting on in the first paragraph when you talk about hell toward the bottom of the paragraph.
Lol...I apologize on this one...I thought you were heavyvonnoggin...my bad. Somehow you popped into the responsesI had with him.
You are far more civil than noggin was so I do sincerely apologize for mixing the two of you up. I really am not trying to push views of mine though only to correct anything that may cause a Christian weak in the faith to faulter and not for my sake but theirs. You actually seem decent (I am aware that everyone at some points make false assumptions). I am not the type to lie (although it is hard to believe such a thing in person let alone on the internet without time to prove honesty). My brother really is an atheist and I love him dearly. He actually calls himself a realist.
I'm currently on holiday in England, visiting old friends of many years past and with relatives.
I looked into Gloucester Cathedral for a quiet time. It's a beautiful building, full of history.
I warmed to thoughts of the people who, through hundreds of years, have used that place for various reasons: worship; personal prayer; as a civic duty "to be seen and respected by the community;" even to be married - or carried out in a box!
I don't judge people for whatever their reasons now. I respect the emotional, the passion, the belief, the conviction. It's all human and normal. For me personally, it was the silence, then hearing the choir and organ practising chants for Evenson that followed shortly after.
I enjoyed, contemplated, allowed, admired - but did not join in the worship of a god. For me, it's more important to see how integrated our world is - humans, all other life forms, geology, earth history and its future. Unfolding with and without our help (in many cases hindrance)....I am in love with world I am blessed to experience.
And when it's finished with my life time there will be countless other lives to be born, nurtured and ended. There is absolutely no need for me to hang on....to life or memories or possessions... or to believe in a life hereafter to justify my existence. "Now" is supreme in the business of existence.Yes, second to second. I am happy to hear of your experience in Gloucester Cathedral, England, jonny comelately. It inspired me to chime in here:
I have come to realize that mastering those seconds using our own will is important. Knowing when to rest, when to reign, when to help and serve and when to withhold, knowing the reasons for our actions. There is much to do in this world and dealing well with now prepares us for later.
I can absolutelyrespect you for appreciating such fine beauty within our world. I, myself, love such beauty and am repeatedlydrawn outdoors. I have a fond interest in science for the same reason...it is fascinating and beautiful. I have never been in a big fancy cathedral but I have seen them on television.What a sight to see! Like you said, the visions of the history within it must be a mesmerizing event. I can see the beauty of you heart in statements like these. Thank you for sharing them with me. May you find good peace wherever you are.
Do you not see an issue here? A few posts back you were trying to educate me on the true meaning of the word perish. A word translated from Greek. So I aired someone who actually studies the Greek language about it's true definition. In this case you should listen. We're talking about the correct definition and use of an ancient word from an ancient language, not knowledge of God.
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
Not to get into a whole language debate or anything, but it's important to understand what we're reading. Take this for example ....
"Gehenna
This Greek word occurs only 12 times and is always translated as hell. Gehenna was originally a Hebrew word and came from the “valley of Hinnom.” This same Hebrew word is used in Jeremiah 7:31, “and they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind.” This valley was for the purpose of burning all the idols that were an abomination to God and this valley that is called “Tophet” became synonymous with a place of such abomination that all kinds of things were burnt up in it; dead carcasses, filth, unburied bodies, detestable tings, and refuse. The fire never went out because it was a garbage dump where every bit of trash and unclean things were being continually deposited and the fire never went out so as to burn everything up, thus Gehenna became symbolic of the place of an everlasting fire, a severe and eternal punishment. This may be why Jesus referred to hell “Gehenna” as the place “where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:48) which seems to point to its eternity. The fire in the Valley of Gehenna and the worms eating the decaying bodies or garbage would never cease."
This place with the ever burning fire became a symbolic kind of slang, well known to all who were contemporary at the time. Like we today take on defining things with words that represent places or events we're all familiar with. It's a story telling device. In Matthew 25, this story being told, the point is about how the unrighteous are pruned away. Placed in the fire that always burns as refuge. Weeds. Cut away from the good stock.
There's a whole debate on the "eternal punishment" bit. Also having to do with how the Greek was translated. But keep in mind it was translated by those hired by King James. People who already had a set idea formed about Christianity and hell and such.
That's why it's important to take it all in whole, and not in bits and pieces. The bigger themes are made clear. There's an eternal life, and there's opposite of that. Not just everyone goes on. Behavior matters. Choices matter. That's the game.
It's a strange approach by those Christians. Jesus never made these threats to gentiles.
Yes, I find that incredibly interesting that the gentiles had their own set of laws. The Noahide laws, or seven laws of Noah. In Hebrew tradition all humanity is referred to as 'Noah' as they're descended from the one surviving family of the flood. And they had fewer laws, or commandments, that applied to them than the Jewish people. Those laws in the OT were specific to the Jewish people. They didn't apply to all of humanity. Just the chosen line God spent so much time interacting with throughout the OT.
But as you say, if we are all from the line of Noah, where did the chosen people concept come from? Too ironic.
I thought the chosen people concept began with Abraham.
Maybe you chosen people could spend more time bird-watching.....as per your other hubs, so cute and funny.
Yes, but God chose to save Noah and his family. He obviously favoured them because obviously the whole world was Satanic including all the babies.
That's what's going on in the OT. God is observing and choosing specific people who show favorable traits. When He chose Noah, when He chose Abraham. He then promised Abraham his descendants would be many. But because of free will God's will didn't just become manifest. To accomplish what He promised He had to do so by interacting with them.
They're only 'chosen' if there were others that were chosen over.But Noah didn't have favourable traits. He was a drunkard. Surely there were more righteous men/women who drowned? Didn't God foresee that Noah would be the great grandfather of Satanic Nimrod? What about the book of Enoch? Noah is deemed a freak baby by his parents!
How did God interact with them?So, because Noah was a drinker, you take from that that he didn't have any favorable traits? It directly says it ....
Genesis 6:8 - But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
It's all about context. In Genesis 1 God created humans. Then, in Genesis 2, God created Adam and Eve. So there were naturally evolved "mortal" humans, then there were Adam and Eve and their children. Unlike naturally evolved humans, Adam and Eve had free will and could behave contrary to God's will if they willed it.
In Genesis 6 it explains that these free willed descendants began to marry and procreate with these "mortal" humans. This introduced free will into naturally evolved humans and made them "wicked". Wickedness is only possible through free will. This is why it says God regretted putting humans on the Earth. God wasn't in control of those with free will and they did something that caused Him regret.
God interacted with the Israelites by giving them commandments and trying to control who they bred with and how they behaved, though He couldn't actually control them. He had to influence their actions through interaction to realize an outcome that He couldn't just will to happen like He could with everything else in the natural world.
Yes, this led to Nimrod, but it ultimately also led to the birth of Jesus. The ultimate goal made necessary by the actions of Adam and Eve.
As for the book of Enoch, this book was written way later, around the time of Jesus. People of this age were just as in the dark about the stories from the books of Moses as we are. They were ancient even to them. The book of Enoch isn't actually a book written by Enoch. I see it more as a kind of fan fiction kind of thing. It's a story written around the stories of Genesis in an attempt to make sense of what's being described. It's not a reliable source of information.I meant, could there have been no other person who was more righteous than Noah?
Actually, Adam and Eve could not have had free will because God forbade them to eat the fruit which made them aware of evil. In order to have free will, one must know the difference between good and evil.
You say that Adam and Eve had free will but before they ate the apple, they had committed no sin. Who were the naturally evolved humans? Weren't Adam and Eve the first people? Was there ever a time when humans didn't have free will?
But these sons of gods could not have introduced free will if Adam and Eve were the first one's to have it.
Didn't God foresee that mankind would sin? Isn't He omniscient?
How did God interact with the Israelites?
The point I'm trying to make is Nimrod brought all the evil back into the world. Didn't God foresee that? What was the point of the flood then?
Do you mean about the stories from the book of Enoch? Were the people back then ignorant of the works of Moses?
The book of Enoch (1 Enoch) existed long before Jesus. In fact, the remnants of complete copies were found with the Dead Sea Scrolls:
Many of the legends about Enoch were collected already in ancient times in several long anthologies. The most important such anthology, and the oldest, is known simply as The Book of Enoch, comprising over one hundred chapters. It still survives in its entirety (although only in the Ethiopic language) and forms an important source for the thought of Judaism in the last few centuries B.C.E. Significantly, the remnants of several almost complete copies of The Book of Enoch in Aramaic were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and it is clear that whoever collected the scrolls considered it a vitally important text. All but one of the five major components of the Ethiopic anthology have turned up among the scrolls. But even more intriguing is the fact that additional, previously unknown or little-known texts about Enoch were discovered at Qumran. The most important of these is The Book of Giants.
http://www.gnosis.org/library/dss/dss_b … giants.htm
The Early Christians quoted from the Book of Enoch:
1 Jude:14
Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones
So the early Christians did not see it as fiction. So how did they come to know of the Book of Enoch?
"The Book of Enoch was extant centuries before the birth of Christ and yet is considered by many to be more Christian in its theology than Jewish. It was considered scripture by many early Christians. The earliest literature of the so-called "Church Fathers" is filled with references to this mysterious book. The early second century "Epistle of Barnabus" makes much use of the Book of Enoch. Second and Third Century "Church Fathers" like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origin and Clement of Alexandria all make use of the Book of Enoch. Tertullian (160-230 C.E) even called the Book of Enoch "Holy Scripture". The Ethiopic Church even added the Book of Enoch to its official canon. It was widely known and read the first three centuries after Christ. This and many other books became discredited after the Council of Laodicea. And being under ban of the authorities, afterwards it gradually passed out of circulation."
http://reluctant-messenger.com/enoch.htmSince the subject has evolved way beyond the point of discussion, I will leave you folks to it and look to other subjects which appeal to my mind.
Have fun.Sorry to have hijacked your thread. Would you like us to take the discussion elsewhere?
Genesis 6:9 - "...Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God."
Only those with free will were the consideration. Could they, even with free will, live a righteous life. There were very few in Noah's age. Only the offspring of those listed in Gen5. Out of all those alive then, it seems Noah was the best candidate.
Without free will, Adam/Eve could not have broken the garden's one rule.
The naturally evolved humans were those created in Genesis 1. Adam and Eve were created in an already populated world. The way you can tell is that in Genesis 1 those humans were told to be fruitful and multiply and to fill the earth and establish dominance in the animal kingdom. These are commandments that would take generations to carry out. Adam and Eve were only given one command and they broke it. Yet the humans created in Genesis 1, along with all the rest of God's creation, was deemed "good". This couldn't be Adam and Eve.
You can also tell in Genesis 4 by Cain's concern about the others he'd come in contact with when banished.
The 'sons of God' are the descendants of Adam and Eve. They all have free will. In Genesis 6 it says that there are two factions, or groups. There are the 'sons of God' and the 'daughters of humans'. Humans, it says, are "mortal" and only live 120 years. This is just one chapter after explaining Adam and his family live for centuries.
Not in the case of free will. Everything else works according to His will, so He knows exactly what will happen. But where free will is concerned He doesn't see it until it's part of reality. He can see all time, past and future, all at once. But until free will was part of the timeline He couldn't know what would happen because behavior was determined by a will that was not His.
Through commandments given to Moses and through the tabernacle primarily.
No, God couldn't foresee until it happened. The flood was to control the contamination of free will into naturally evolved humans.
Yes, they were ignorant. That's why there were pharisees during Jesus' time who dedicated their lives to deciphering the meaning of the books of Moses. They all knew the stories well, but were too far removed to truly understand what it was describing.
Yes, the books of Enoch were written around 300 BC. As seen by the multiple copies found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, they were very well known. They're great insight into the mindset of the Jews around that time in history, but they're not a good source of information.
And the book of Jude probably shouldn't even be in the bible. The bible is man-made, and not without mistakes. Jude is just basically the retelling of a chapter in I think 2 Peter, with the exception of the bits that refer to the book of Enoch.But why are you assuming it is a mistake? We also have references to Enoch in Hebrews:
Hebrews 11:5
By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: "He could not be found, because God had taken him away." For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God.That is not referring to the book of Enoch. That's referring to this ...
Genesis 5:23-24 - Altogether, Enoch lived a total of 365 years. 24 Enoch walked faithfully with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.
Besides, it's no secret it's the most contested book of all those included in the bible ...
"The letter of Jude was one of the disputed books of the Canon. Although its canonical status was contested, its authenticity was never doubted by the Early Church. The links between the Epistle and 2 Peter, its use of the Apocryphal Books, and its brevity raised concern." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_JudeI know that it is in Genesis but it's not quite the same:
By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: "He could not be found, because God had taken him away." For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God.
So the one in Jude mentions that Enoch never died unlike in Genesis.
Jude 14-15 corresponds with 1 Enoch 2:
14 Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15 to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”[a]
Enoch:
The Holy Great One will come forth from His dwelling,
4. And the eternal God will tread upon the earth, (even) on Mount Sinai,
⌈And appear from His camp⌉
And appear in the strength of His might from the heaven of heavens.
5. And all shall be smitten with fear
And the Watchers shall quake,
And great fear and trembling shall seize them unto the ends of the earth.
6. And the high mountains shall be shaken,
And the high hills shall be made low,
And shall melt like wax before the flame p. 32
7. And the earth shall be ⌈wholly⌉ rent in sunder,
And all that is upon the earth shall perish,
And there shall be a judgement upon all (men).
8. But with the righteous He will make peace.
And will protect the elect,
And mercy shall be upon them.
And they shall all belong to God,
And they shall be prospered,
And they shall ⌈all⌉ be blessed.
⌈And He will help them all⌉,
And light shall appear unto them,
⌈And He will make peace with them⌉.
9. And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of ⌈His⌉ holy ones
To execute judgement upon all,
And to destroy ⌈all⌉ the ungodly:
And to convict all flesh
Of all the works ⌈of their ungodliness⌉ which they have ungodly committed,
And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners ⌈have spoken⌉ against Him.
Now Jude is accepted as canonical and accepted by the early church. Why would the book of Enoch be iffy? It was found with the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Are you going to address the rest of my comment?Genesis 5:8 - Altogether, Seth lived a total of 912 years, and then he died.
Genesis 5:11 - Altogether, Enosh lived a total of 905 years, and then he died.
Genesis 5:14 - Altogether, Kenan lived a total of 910 years, and then he died.
Genesis 5:17 - Altogether, Mahalalel lived a total of 895 years, and then he died.
Genesis 5:20 - Altogether, Jared lived a total of 962 years, and then he died.
Genesis 5:24 - Enoch walked faithfully with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.
This is why Enoch is such a compelling character. It's intriguing that, different than everyone else, it doesn't say he died. It says God took him away. All the book of Enoch is is fan fiction. Someone wanted to imagine all the stuff going on behind the curtain and they chose Enoch as their protagonist. That's it. The books of Moses were known by all at the time, and they thought about it a lot. But it was just as ancient and foreign to them as it is to us. The book of Enoch claims to have been written by Enoch, yet the oldest copies are only from roughly 300 BC. If it were actually written by Enoch then it would be as old as the books of Moses themselves. If not older. There are no older surviving copies like there are the books of Moses.The Book of Enoch was definitely not written by Enoch as the latest work was only completed after Jesus. I've come across something very interesting. It appears as if Jesus quoted the Book of Enoch:
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. (Mat 5:5); The elect shall possess light, joy and peace, and they shall inherit the earth. (Enoch 5:7 {6:9})
The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the son (John 5:22) The principal part of the judgment was assigned to him, the Son of man. (Enoch 69:27 {68:39})
They shall inherit everlasting life (Mat. 19:29); those who will inherit eternal life (Enoch 40:9 {40:9})
"Woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. (Luke 6:24); Woe to you who are rich, for in your riches have you trusted; but from your riches you shall be removed. (Enoch 94:8 {93:7}).
Ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Mat. 19:28); I will place each of them on a throne of glory (Enoch 108:12 {105:26})
Woe unto that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed! It had been good for that man if he had not been born. (Mat. 26:24); Where will the habitation of sinners be . . .who have rejected the Lord of spirits. It would have been better for them, had they never been born. (Enoch 38:2 {38:2})
Between us and you there is a great gulf fixed. (Luke 16:26); by a chasm . . . [are] their souls are separated (Enoch 22: 9,11{22:10,12})
In my Father's house are many mansions (John 14:2); In that day shall the Elect One sit upon a throne of glory, and shall choose their conditions and countless habitations. (Enoch 45:3 {45:3})
That ye may be called the children of light (John 12:36); the good from the generation of light (Enoch 108:11 {105: 25})
The water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. (John 4:14); all the thirsty drank, and were filled with wisdom, having their habitation with the righteous, the elect, and the holy. (Enoch 48:1 {48:1})
Is this why the early Christians believed that the Book of Enoch was true and held it as scriptural? It is extraordinary, however, that Jesus never mentions Enoch if He quoted him so much.I'm not sure making similar statements can be seen as quoting or referencing directly. Afterall, both were drawing on the same ancient texts for their sources, so it's not unlikely that some of the same, or similar, conclusions would be reached.
The primary problem with the book of Enoch is that it directly claims, unlike any other portion of the bible, that demons are the result of the Nephilim, which are the direct result of defiant angels rebelling and impregnating human women. There are multiple issues with this. One is that it is only humans, not angels, who have free will. And only those with free will are capable of rebellion. Even Satan had to have God's permission.
The other issue here is that angels are not flesh and blood creatures. So they'd have no need for genitalia or the capability to procreate. Procreation is only necessary because of death.
It's only the interpretation that Adam and Eve were the first humans that causes this confusion. Once it's realized that they were actually created in a land already populated by humans does it become clear. The book of Enoch is very wrong. The ones referred to as "Nephilim", the other 'gods' that people worshipped, these were descendants of Adam/Eve.
Genesis 6 1-4 - When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
Here, just one chapter after illustrating how Adam and all of his descendants lived for centuries (Gen5), this describes humans as "mortal" in comparison, and says they only live 120 years.
If beings like Adam and Eve and their family were created in an already populated region, a region populated by "mortal" humans, then their extraordinary long lifespans would make them seem god-like in comparison. Which would explain why so many ancient cultures spoke of male/female gods living among them, procreating with them and creating demigods, and such.
If read in this context the whole story makes a lot more sense because it's the correct context. It's the intermingling of naturally evolved humans and the descendants of Adam that was the reason for the flood. The free will introduced into the world through Adam and Eve was then passed on to "mortal" humans. This is what made them "wicked". This is why it says God regretted putting humans on the Earth. They (we) were created in the same image/likeness as Adam and Eve, so they were found beautiful and began to marry and procreate with them. And it's this interbreeding that caused the lifespans to decrease each generation.
If you take all the ages given and chart them out, you'll see that all these long living beings died out around Abraham's time, which is why the OT speaks of 'other gods' in that age.
Like what other ancient texts?
Can you refer me to the part of Enoch to support what you say? Demons were around right from the start. They aren't physical beings. They can't be the offspring of anything. The Nephilim were the offspring of the Watchers. Now they are referred to as angels but are, in fact, aliens. You say angels don't have free will. Wasn't Lucifer an angel? Didn't he have free will to rebel against God? Satan doesn't have to have God's permission. He just does it because humans give him permission through their sin.
So I'm assuming Lucifer was not a flesh and blood creature as he was a fallen angel?
Then by whom were the Nephilim spawned? Who mated with the descendants of Adam and Eve if the Watchers (fallen angels) had not yet come to earth?
I don't recall Adam and Eve, etc, being regarded as god-like. What caused their longevity? The Sumerian Text, from which Genesis is based, seems to have the answer.
In the Garden of Eden situation, Enliln (offspring of Annuanki) was furious that Enki (offspring of Annunaki and brother) permitted humans to have access to knowledge, the mixing of the Anunnaki with human genes, thereby becoming more "godly," and equal to the Anunnaki. To strike back at Enki, and in the attempt to regain his power over humans, Enlil vowed to tarnish Enki’s reputation by spreading the idea that the serpent of wisdom was evil. Enlil tried to wipe out knowledge of the DNA coding Enki gave humans, and of what the Anunnaki used in order to have longevity (gold).
However, Enlil was not completely successful because most of Enki’s plan had worked. For centuries afterwards, humans attempted to duplicate the concoction of gold the gods used to maintain their youth and health, and those with the knowledge were able to manufacture substitutes for a while. But, much also had to do with the DNA content of the individual.
The more pure Anunnaki DNA, the better chance one had of having longevity, etc. Then, combine the DNA with spiritual awakening to the body, blood, and spirit with nutritional supplements, and each human will know who they are - gardeners, and caretakers of the Earth, not owners. Humans are here to maintain beauty, harmony and balance that was first given to us after the Earth was created. We are not to be interested only in ourselves.
Why did Adam eat from the Tree of Knowledge and not from the Tree of Life? Without getting into complex detail, Enki told me simply:
"With the Tree of Knowledge humans had the chance to figure out everything on their own in time, to be equal to the Anunnaki. Had they eaten only from the Tree of Life, they would live but not have been more the wiser."
So it appears as if the descendants of Adam and Eve had Annunaki DNA in them to explain their longevity.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer … naki07.htm
The problem is, the flood story is also based on the Sumerian story of the Epic of Gilgamesh.
Was Noah one of those other gods? He lived to 950 years old.Enoch 15:8-12- And now the giants, who have been begotten from body and flesh, will be called evil spirits on earth, and their dwelling-places will be upon the earth.
9. Evil spirits proceed from their bodies; because they are created from above, their beginning and first basis being from the holy watchers, they will be evil spirits upon the earth, and will be called evil spirits.
10. But the spirits of heaven have their dwelling-places in heaven, and the spirits of the earth, who were born on the earth, have their dwelling-places on earth.
11. And the spirits of the giants, who cast themselves upon the clouds, will be destroyed and fall, and will battle and cause destruction on the earth, and do evil; they will take no kind of food, nor will they become thirsty, and they will be invisible.
12. And these spirits will not (?) rise up against the children of men and against the women, because they have proceeded from them, in the days of murder and destruction.
No, Lucifer didn't have free will, which is why he needed God's permission to mess with Job. By aliens, do you mean from another planet aliens?
The Nephilim were the offspring of mortal humans and the "sons of God", who are the descendants of Adam and Eve. They were the demigods who also lived long lives.
No, Adam and Eve aren't referred to as godlike in the bible. But they are said to have lived for centuries when humans only live 120 years, which would make them god-like in comparison. If you re-read it in the context that the descendants of Adam/Eve were the "sons of God", the gods who lived among them, then it makes a lot more sense because it's the correct context.
Claims that these were angels come from a misunderstanding that there were two factions, those of Adam/Eve and those humans who were naturally evolved.
You have to realize there are a lot of parallels between Genesis and the Sumerian stories, not because Genesis was copied from these texts, but because those doing the writing all lived in the same region at the same time and are talking about the same beings and same events. Those called "Annunaki" in the Sumerian texts were Adam/Eve and their descendants. They're the ones that showed up one day in an already populated region living hundreds of years. The impact they had, having actually been created, is these stories by people who didn't totally understand what they were reporting on.
Yes, Noah was one of these gods too. In the Sumerian version, in the story of Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh visited the "flood hero" to learn how to live long life as he did.Yes God consorts with evil. God created evil. Without evil there is no free will. Without the capability of evil there is only God's will. We have wills of our own and can want for things not of God's will. Not everything outside of God's will, of our own will, is evil. But it's all about testing free will. Testing our resolve. Satan plays that role. The role of tempter.
Yes, I'm sure the appearance of Adam and Eve seemed like the arrival of aliens to them because they were so different.
Sumerian tablets depict their gods as being larger than humans. There's a good chance Adam/Eve and their descendants were larger than humans.
Yes the Sumerian texts existed before the OT. But they're speaking of the same events the OT is. The OT isn't just taken from the Sumerian texts.Isaiah 45:7 - I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
God created all that exists. We humans create evil. God created the free will that makes evil possible. Didn't God create Satan?
"How can Jesus see the devil as the enemy when Satan is a consort of God's?"
In the same way that a prosecuting attorney can be seen as the enemy while their actually a consort.
"Why were they so different?"
Well, the Sumerians depict their gods as being quite a bit larger. Plus, the descendants of Anak (the Nephilim) that the Israelite spies found in Hebron were immediately recognized as being descendants of Anak even though they had been enslaved by the Egyptians for generations. So they must have been visibly different somehow.
The other, more likely, explanation is that the stories share commonality because they're all actual events that actually happened, told from different perspectives. What is much less believable is that the Israelites took a Sumerian flood story that describes the ark as a box shaped vessel and changed it to being a very much sea worthy vessel though they presumably had no knowledge of sea vessel physics.
Plus, considering the events and timeline given in Genesis can be matched up with actual events in that region, though that same timeline and series of events doesn't exist in the Sumerian version, this is further proof that they're not just taken from the Sumerian versions.Isaiah's god, or whoever wrote that, was Yahweh. Yahweh was a Canaanite deity. This is not the Father of Jesus.
Evil exists whether free will is allowed or not. And, no, God did not create Satan. Is God do stupid to create a being who He knows will cause extreme misery on earth? Who created the flaws in human beings? There is innate evil in humanity. Did God make that? So He makes us sinners then send His Son to die for us and take on our sin which God created in the first place. Make sense?
What? Consort of who? Do you know how two-faced this sounds of God? So Satan, the enemy, is cooperating with God under God's commands? Did you know that God and Satan cannot even be near each other?
Anak is the Annunaki.
https://books.google.co.za/books?id=ZBJ … mp;f=false
Therefore the ancestors of the nephilim is the annunaki.
Don't know which version you have but the Epic of Gilgamesh goes like this:
"This, the eleventh tablet of the Epic, describes the meeting of Gilgamesh with Utnapishtim. Like Noah in the Hebrew Bible, Utnapishtim had been forewarned of a plan by the gods to send a great flood. He built a boat and loaded it with all his precious possessions, his kith and kin, domesticated and wild animals and skilled craftsmen of every kind.
Utnapishtim survived the flood for six days while mankind was destroyed, before landing on a mountain called Nimush. He released a dove and a swallow but they did not find dry land to rest on, and returned. Finally a raven that he released did not return, showing that the waters must have receded."
http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/hi … ablet.aspx
You can't assume this boat was not sea worthy.
Where's your proof that the timeline in Genesis is right? The OT was written down much later than the Sumerian Tablets. Did you know that the OT was changed to be monotheistic after the Babylonian Exile. The OT was about many gods that the Israelites knew. After the Babylonian Exile, they became known as a singular God, Yahweh.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg
And, no, the Sumerian Tablets were not the only source.No, evil does not exist apart from free will. Everything in the universe behaves according to God's will which cannot be evil. Only things capable of behaving contrary to God's will can be evil.
Yes, the Canaanites also had names for these gods. Each civilization also had a name for the supreme God, the God of the gods. The sky God. Yahweh as the name the Canaanites used. These are not all different gods imagined by each civilization. They're all the same beings, called by different names, by different groups. For example, the god the Sumerians call "Enki" the authors of the bible call Cain.
Yes, God created everything, including evil. Without evil there is no free will. There has to be the capability to behave contrary to God's will for there to be free will. And the misery it causes and that Satan caused is necessary. For us to learn how to wield free will we have to experience all the misery it causes. We have to know and understand the dangers and the destructive properties of our choices. And just like God tested Abraham and others, He also tests through Satan. He tempts them to make the wrong choice. That's the whole point.
"Did you know that God and Satan cannot even be near each other?"
Where do you get that? In Job they actually meet and have a conversation ...
Job 1:6-8 - One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them. The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?”
Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.”
Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”
"Therefore the ancestors of the nephilim is the annunaki. "
Yes, exactly. They're all talking about the same beings, only by different names.
"You can't assume this boat was not sea worthy. "
I'm not. What I'm saying is that the very different vessel described in the bible actually has the correct dimensions to be buoyant. So they didn't just copy the same vessel. They made changes by changing it into a vessel that would very much be able to achieve what it was meant to. Yet they presumably, being desert dwellers, would not have this kind of knowledge.
"Where's your proof that the timeline in Genesis is right?"
Please see my "God created Evolution" hubs. I describe it in detail in these. I constructed a timeline according to the information given in Genesis, placed along that timeline the events described, and found a period of history and a series of events in that part of the world that match up exactly, in both time and location. And not only that, but also in the impact of these events. That can be seen in the historical record as well.
Yes, the OT has been read to be polytheistic because the people of that age did refer to multiple beings as gods. This is because there existed at that time beings who lived for centuries.God is not the supreme being. Satan is a co-creator and a deity in his own right. I believe Satan is an invader to this planet and that is why free will got introduced into the world. We no longer had the desire to do only good. We no had the innate nature of both good and evil. You say only things that behave contrary to God's will is evil. So we God "cooperates" with God, he is no longer evil?
The Israelites were indigenous Canaanites. If Yahweh is the god of both the Canaanites and the Hebrews, then Yahweh is not the God of Israel. In the OT, it says that Yahweh was originally called El and then revealed to Moses that he is actually Yahweh. Why was Yahweh once known as El if El was the father of Yahweh? The reason is because the Israelites became monotheistic and had to change the Bible to merge all these gods into one. So who is Yahweh's father in the OT if the Sumerians and the Israelites have the same gods? Enki is not the Hebrew equivalent to Cain. It is Ka'in, Enki's grandson. Obviously the Hebrews copied this story.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sitch … enki02.htm
Which God created evil? Was it Yahweh, the god of the Canaanites and Israelites, who is the son of El who is supposed to be the supreme being? How is your God? Doesn't sound like the Holy Father of Jesus. Free will was introduced because of the introduction of evil into the world. You know what you are implying? That when the devil is destroyed and we are in the kingdom of God in the next life, then we no longer have free will. Why destroy Satan then? Isn't he needed for eternity for us to have free will and choose God? Are we going to be prisoners in the next life?
"Did you know that God and Satan cannot even be near each other?"
That's the Judaism version of Satan. Is there anything in the NT that says Jesus said Satan is an ally of God?
You've kind of changed your tune now. You said they were the descendants of Adam and Eve and not the Annunaki.
Quoting you:
"The ones referred to as "Nephilim", the other 'gods' that people worshipped, these were descendants of Adam/Eve. "
Can you show me the dimensions that the boat was constructed in the Epic of Gilgamesh? Enki came to teach humanity and it was Enki himself who warned Utnapishtim about the impending flood. Anyway, it is surmised that Noah's Ark actually represents a seed bank, a DNA database of all life. There is one today called the Svalbard Global Seed Vault. We know it is an impossibility to gather life from all around the planet and put it on a boat.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation … story.html
But you know that Isaiah refers to Yahweh as the only god?
10"You are My witnesses," declares the LORD, "And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He. [i]Before Me there was no God formed[/], And there will be none after Me. 11"I, even I, am the LORD, And there is no savior besides Me. 12"It is I who have declared and saved and proclaimed, And there was [i]no strange god among you[/]; So you are My witnesses," declares the LORD, "And I am God.…
So are you right or is Isaiah right?Wow. You've got me shaking my head at that response. I guess all I can say is that these are the types of ridiculous explanations you begin to come up with when you're attempting to make sense of things in the wrong context.
"1 Corinthians 8:6- yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
There is only one supreme being. There is no co-creator. God is the source of all things, including Satan. Evil is the result of free will. We are able to behave according to our own wills, apart from God's, creating the potential for evil. Satan merely coaxes that out of us. Tempts us. Tests us.
The Israelites became montheistic because God clarified things to Abraham. The other beings that were seen as gods were not. They were god-like compared to mortal humans, but not gods. All the cultures in that region of the world saw them as gods, held them in regard as gods. But God's only real concern was the creation of Jesus, who He chose Abraham as the one to breed from to create. So all the other cultures were really irrelevant. Just this line needed to get it right and not be led astray by these others.
We have free will with or without Satan. Satan is just an agitator. We were created with our own wills. That's what makes us significant. Satan only coaxes behaviors out of us. He's the "devil's advocate" for lack of a better term.
The descendants of Adam and Eve and those referred to as Nephilim/Annunanki/gods/sons of God/whatever are the same beings. There's two groups, the sons of God, and mortal humans. One group lives for centuries and are probably giants in comparison to mortal humans who only live 120 years.
The ark according to the Sumerian version was box shaped. If the Israelites had just copied these stories it wouldn't make sense to change this. Not only did they change it, but what they changed it to is actually a valid sea-worthy design. Not something they most likely would have had knowledge of.
God is the only God. Others being seen as gods were misconceptions by those of that time. They saw these beings as gods because they were immortal in comparison. But they were not gods.Who says that Paul is right? Of course that is what the Jews were taught. We are taught that today. It makes me cringe that people claim that God is the reason why there is so much suffering and evil in the world.
You are saying that God created us with evil in us. Therefore, who is He to condemn us for sin? So He makes us sinful and then sends His Son to die for the sins of the world. Jesus said, "Lead us not into temptation" but then you say Satan is necessary for us to be tempted.
You clearly do not know that Satan wants you to believe he is not culpable; that he is merely a creation of God. You would see him in a different light if you really knew how powerful he is.
Don't ignore what I just wrote. The Israelites only became monotheistic after the Babylonian Exile. You know the Israelites worshiped other gods. And "gods" can be equated to extra terrestrials. We know that the people of the Old Testament viewed the gods as competition to God.
“For who in the skies can equal the LORD [Yahweh], can compare with the LORD [Yahweh], among the DIVINE BEINGS?” [Jewish Tanakh].
https://books.google.co.za/books?id=aDu … mp;f=false
“I am going to punish Amon, the god of Thebes together with Egypt and its gods and kings” [Good News Bible]. Jeremiah 46:25
So Yahweh recognized there were other gods.
"Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." Genesis 11:7
Those are the gods clearly in heaven.
Psalms 97:7
“I will praise thee with my whole heart: BEFORE THE GODS will I sing praise unto thee.”
Who were the gods? Clearly not the nephilim. Weren't they gone by then?
What? So why did God need to create Satan if we can have free will without him? Without the devil, we cannot know of evil to choose. So how can we have free will? You've just contradicted yourself.
Satan only coaxes bad behaviour out of us but Jesus said, "Lead us not into temptation..."
Satan is not just the agitator. Jesus say he was a LIAR and MURDERER from the start. Therefore, to you, God consorts with the evil. But then sends His son to save us from damnation. Make sense?
With all due respect, you need to catch a wake up.
Abraham lived for 175 years. Therefore he is from the Annunaki. Are the Annunaki the chosen people? You know it is not humanly possible to live that long. Abraham had alien genetics.
It didn't really happen. There was no Ark and flood that drowned the whole world. You know it is impossible for Noah to have gathered all life and put it on an Ark. It is symbolic for something else. Most likely the seed bank. What may have happened was there could have been a massive quake that made a tsunami which was experience around the whole world.
Not according to Yahweh and David. I thought those god's lifespans eventually dropped.Of course Paul is right. I don't know anyone who holds the Abrahamic God as the God believes any differently. God is the reason anything exists. But we humans through our free will are responsible for evil. But God, having created us with free will, is ultimately the creator. But He holds us responsible because it is our will that creates these actions and decisions.
Yes, there were others viewed as gods. Immortals in comparison to other humans, they lived up until the age of Abraham.
The flood did happen. The ark was real. But it was not global. How or why anyone thinks writers from that age could report on the status of all the Earth is beyond me. It was regional.
Satan served a purpose. Following her own will did not even occur to Eve until it was suggested. That's what Satan does. Like in his discussion with God in Job. He's debating free will. Debating whether its possible for beings with free will to still be 'good'.That's because not many question today these things. They are just taught that and don't bother to question. And those that do, turn atheist because they cannot reconcile with a God who performs monstrous deeds. And rightfully so.
And you didn't answer this:
Jesus said, "Lead us not into temptation" but then you say Satan is necessary for us to be tempted.
Why would Jesus go against the Father and say lead us not into temptation when that is supposed to be why God created Satan? Why would Jesus say Satan was a liar and murderer from the start when God created Satan that way? Why does Jesus condemn the devil when the devil is a consort of God? I'm sorry, if God created us imperfect and then feels He has the right to judge us for being imperfect, then He is not a just and good God. I cannot believe that anyone could believe God could make demons.
You are not paying attention. Humans cannot be divine beings
“For who in the skies can equal the LORD [Yahweh], can compare with the LORD [Yahweh], among the DIVINE BEINGS?” [Jewish Tanakh].
"Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." Genesis 11:7
You don't think it is curious that the gods represent God in Genesis? The original OT refers to the gods and not God.
You are conceding that Abraham was from the Annunaki? And as I said, weren't the Nephilim wiped out after the flood? So how could they have reached the life span of Abraham?
That's not biblical to think the flood wasn't global. That's not an Abrahamic belief. Would you need to gather up all the animals for a local flood?
So you believe Genesis is true when you have no proof it happened? Now how come you get to pick and choose when when I do, I'm saying I'm not sharing the Abrahamic belief?
So if God is a consort of Satan, then why will Satan be destroyed? So basically God used Satan and is now tossing him aside? As I said, we will longer have free will in heaven because Satan will no longer be there.
The problem here is that you have never experienced the evil that Satan is capable of. You think he's innocent. That he is just doing your job. If you have experienced the evil I have been subjected to by Satan, you would sing a different tune."Monstrous deeds" is relative. If you're trying to breed a specific flower, is it monstrous to till the ground and wipe out those that aren't producing desired results? If you're creating something, is it monstrous to weed out the negative elements?
It's that free individual will that God gave us that makes those deeds seem so monstrous. We're each individual people, we have rights. We deserve to be alive choose to live how we want and do what we want. And if God dares stand in the way of that, well then He's a monster.
I don't think so. If you make free will then there's going to be bad outcomes. Without them there are no good outcomes. The only way to avoid the bad outcomes is to not make the will free. To restrict it to only being capable of what's good and right. But that's not free.
Do you think anyone and everyone, despite of how those chose to live this life, should go on with everyone else? Be allowed to come along and share in eternal life? Should there be no standards? Is it monstrous to expect people to be respectful and follow your rules if you're going to invite them into your house?
People who can't reconcile that didn't really think on it too hard.
Good or bad, Satan did what he was created to do. That doesn't mean he was "good'". Sharks do what they're created to do, really well, but that doesn't mean it's good to find yourself in the water with one. But he was necessary. For Jesus to even pray to not be led to temptation is to show that this is something that could happen. If not, why pray for it?
I didn't say they were divine. They just seemed like gods to mortal humans. They lived long lives, were probably larger than humans, they became mythic stories. They were spoken of and thought of as gods. Like the gods "across the river" that the people of Abraham's home land believed in. Abraham's father was from Ur, a Sumerian city. They were referring to the Sumerians gods. The Annunaki. The Nephilim. The "sons of God".
Yes, Luke 3 lists everyone from Adam through Noah through Abraham through Mary and Joseph as "sons of God', making Jesus a son of God as well. The line of Abraham was the line chosen by God to be kept clean. He kept them from interbreeding with the naturally evolved human species on the Earth. They had already become mortal through interbreeding. But the "holy seed" that it speaks of not becoming "diluted" in Ezra, that's what was protected. That's what had to be retained for Jesus to be born. To be bred. So all of those of that line were "sons of God". We are all of Eve and of naturally evolved humans.
Genesis 6:3 - Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal[b]; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
Ezra 9:2 - For they have taken their daughters for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands; yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass.”
Actually, it is biblical. It isn't consistent with traditional beliefs, but it's consistent with the story being told. The descendants of Anak in Numbers 13, the descendants of the Nephilim in Genesis 6, they wouldn't have been possible in a global flood. They lived. That's why they were commanded to be taken out first. To finish the job of the flood. They were all living in the same region of the world that early on. Like Genesis 6 says, after Cain built his city, the number of humans increased. They were intermingling and living in the cities with them. So a local flood is all that was necessary. Free will had only been introduced in this one place. Only a small region was affected.
I have proof. Read my hubs. That's what the "God created Evolution" series is about. There is evidence. In the historical record these events, and more importantly the impact of these events, can be seen. And in the correct context the story gets really interesting.
Yeah, Satan served his purpose. He's done. Without free will this really isn't a big deal. We just think it is because we have a free will and couldn't stand by the idea that we were just used and tossed aside. But Satan, no problem. Glad to do his job and be part of the big production.
Don't blame Satan for the evil that men do. Whatever evil you've experienced, I guarantee it wasn't Satan directly. We're evil. The evil you experienced was either created by you or someone else. Satan isn't evil.If you'll notice, this isn't something God asked for. This is something Jephthah promised on his own. Not sure how you get out of that that that's what God wanted.
The primary focus of those times and that tribe was procreation. Breeding. Men with crushed testacles and severed penises cannot contribute in that regard. Not sure how you got out of that that God "hates" them.
I would like to think I would, but probably not. I'd justify to myself why I shouldn't, like I do now. But all of God's actions in the OT were to realize the birth of Jesus. Sometimes He had to do things that were harsh, granted, but sometimes that's what was necessary. The world was dominated by free will. God could not control it in the way He controlled the rest of the natural world. God had to make things happen in the OT through whatever means necessary.
What God did was to assure the birth of Jesus. Now people who die can continue to exist beyond. Retain their individual selves. Until Jesus existed everyone who died would cease to exist. You may find those actions monsterous. You may find it monstrous that momma birds push their baby birds out of the nest to teach them to fly. What's necessary can sometimes seem monsterous. Doesn't make any of it any less necessary.
I'm not sure I understand your question. No, God can't be tempted to do evil. All God does is good. He's the creator and ruler of the universe. It works as He wills it. His will IS good. Only actions capable of contradicting God's will can be constituted as evil. There can be plenty of good outcomes. Hell, free will can lead to good outcomes, even sometimes when not in line with God's will. It's not all bad all the time. That's why it's worth it to create.
Yes, God's plan. But that plan includes a lot of interaction with humans with wills of their own. So to actually make that possible, things had to be done. We cannot enter into the kingdom unless we acknowledge God, willingly, as the authority. For that to be possible Jesus had to be born of humanity. Created by God through His interactions with humans. Created in an environment He could not control.
Sharks do what comes natural to them. What's in their nature. So does Satan.
No, we're not devoid of free will without temptation. We're just tempted to do things of our own wants that contradict God's will. But we can do that without temptation as well.
That's so much condemnation so much as just stating a fact.
I'm not familiar with what you're speaking of. Who referred to them as divine?
Because Abraham was only 20 generations after Adam. Lifespans had diminished significantly by that point, but were still longer than "mortal" lifespans. Yes, considering Adam was "Annunaki", Jesus was born of them. We all were.
The bloodline wasn't contaminated. That's why the Israelites weren't allowed to breed outside their own. They couldn't mix with the naturally evolved humans. As God said in Genesis 6, "my spirit will not contend with humans forever".
Mankind with free will. So, only those mixed breeds between the 'sons of God' and the 'daughters of humans'.
Remember you're reading an english translation translated by people who thought the flood was global. "all the Earth" can also be translated as "all the land". It's regional.
Not possible. They could not have devised a story that lines up with over 2000 years of history accurately if the Sumerian stories don't contain that same accuracy.
Where do you get this stuff? God tormented Jesus? What?
We will have free will in the afterlife. That's what all of this is all about. Without free will none of this would be necessary because we'd all already behave according to God's will, so there'd be no problem. But with free will there must be an acknowledgement, a willful acknowledgement, of God as the authority. We have to willingly conform.This may take a little more digging into to get to the real motivation, but keep in mind that all the actions of God in the OT has everything to do with breeding. Ensuring the right people are breeding with the right people. God can't control their choices and actions. So to ensure the outcome that needs to happen, sometimes people were taken out of the equation. Anything that involves all the first born males of a tribe is going to have a lasting effect and impact on their ability to continue breeding.
We of course think of death as a bad thing. We humans are naturally inclined to resist death because we are living beings and God commanded our bodies to "be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth". But death isn't really so bad. Our spiritual selves upon death are just rejoining the 'source', so to speak. It happens to all living things eventually. It's an end to the physical suffering of life. Death is an integral part of life. Life was shaped by death. Whoever survives is what moves on and determines what life is going forward. Physical life on this Earth.
It's our free will that makes us so inclined to think we deserve to live and that it's so wrong for our lives to be taken. We feel we deserve to live. These are the elements we're dealing with. These are the elements that impact the story. It's the free will of spiritual beings. We are eternal. Physical life is ultimately temporary, no matter how death comes, it comes.
Like your comment about eunuchs. A eunuch is useless in the interest of breeding. Like a cow farmer would have no need for a bull with no penis. A bull's value lies in his ability to impregnate cows. There's no value without that ability. It has nothing to do with compassion. It has everything to do with your value in that situation. Everything that God's doing is to ensure that the spiritual beings created in this life retain their life and don't cease to exist at death. That's where God's compassion lies. In the end game. The big picture. The eternal end of the scenario. Physical bodily death is just a step along the way.
Yes, Yahweh and El are most likely two names that refer to the same God. The one God. The God of the gods. The sky God.
Time only matters here. Once you leave physical life time and space are irrelevant. So those who died "before" Jesus' time on Earth get the same benefit. There is no time in the afterlife. There's only what exists and what doesn't. The birth of Jesus means Jesus exists, so all share in the benefit, regardless of when they lived in this life in relation to Jesus.
No. In other words, without evil, "good" has no meaning. Evil defines "good". If there's only good, no evil, then good is just normal. There's nothing to contrast it to make it 'good' in comparison.
Only actions that are destructive, and not in the will of God, that's evil. We humans have thoughts and dreams and inventions that are good. Music and art are products of free will, not God's will, and they can be good. They can be beautiful and inspirational.
It has nothing to do with God's ego. It has everything to do with each of us being our own individuals. Without free will, without the capability to behave contrary to God's will, then we have no choices. We aren't our own individuals.
The requirement that we choose God is not God's want to be chosen or worshiped. It's a necessity. Just like having to acquire a license is necessary to drive. You have the freedom to drive where ever you want whenever you want. But to be granted access to the roadways, you have to be properly licensed. You have to respect the authority who sets the laws of the road and you have to behave within those guidelines so the system works for everyone.
Its like cells in a body. All cells behave according to the singular DNA code of that body. If each cell had the choice of whether or not to adhere to DNA, then the whole system would break down. Just as a drive on the road who refuses to acknowledge the authority of the roads and follow the rules endangers everyone else, so too is free will. Because there will be multiple beings coexisting, each with their own individual wills, then rules are necessary so we're not all just bashing into each other and restricting each others freedom. There must be order for a complex system made up of numerous individual components to work harmoniously. That's why God requires acknowledgement. It's not about ego.
Without evil, without free will, there's no choice. It isn't a choice to choose God. It's a default state. It's just how you're made. Those you love in life and those who love you have the choice to spend their time with someone else. They choose you, willingly. That makes it meaningful.
Jesus did have free will. Jesus was human just like the rest of us. But his will didn't override God's will. His being human like the rest of us and having free will is what makes what he did so significant.No, they are different gods.
List of Canaanite gods:
Anat, virgin goddess of war and strife, sister and putative mate of Ba'al Hadad
Athirat, "walker of the sea", Mother Goddess, wife of El (also known as Elat and after the Bronze Age as Asherah)
Athtart, better known by her Greek name Astarte, assists Anat in The Myth of Ba'al
Attar, god of the morning star ("son of the morning") who tried to take the place of the dead Baal and failed. Male counterpart of Athtart.
Baalat or Baalit, the wife or female counterpart of Baal (also Belili)
Ba'al Hadad (lit. master of thunder), storm god. Often referred to as Baalshamin.
Baal Hammon, god of fertility and renewer of all energies in the Phoenician colonies of the Western Mediterranean
Dagon, god of crop fertility and grain, father of Ba'al Hadad
El Elyon (lit. God Most High) and El; also transliterated as Ilu
Eshmun, god, or as Baalat Asclepius, goddess, of healing
Ishat, goddess of fire. She was slain by Anat.[1][2][3]
Kotharat, goddesses of marriage and pregnancy
Kothar-wa-Khasis, the skilled, god of craftsmanship
Lotan, the twisting, seven-headed serpent ally of Yam
Marqod, God of Dance
Melqart, king of the city, the underworld and cycle of vegetation in Tyre
Molech or Moloch, putative god of fire[4]
Mot or Mawat, god of death (not worshiped or given offerings)
Nikkal-wa-Ib, goddess of orchards and fruit
Qadeshtu, lit. "Holy One", putative goddess of love.
Resheph, god of plague and of healing
Shachar and Shalim, twin gods of dawn and dusk, respectively. Shalim was linked to the netherworld via the evening star and associated with peace[5]
Shamayim, (lit. skies) the god of the heavens
Shapash, also transliterated Shapshu, goddess of the sun; sometimes equated with the Mesopotamian sun god Shemesh[6] whose gender is disputed[7]
Sydyk, the god of righteousness or justice, sometimes twinned with Misor, and linked to the planet Jupiter[8][9]
Yahweh may exist as an ending of some Amorite male names,[10] though the only Canaanite mention of Yahweh, found on the Mesha Stele, refers to the god of Israel contrasted with Chemosh.[11]
Yam (lit. sea-river) the god of the sea and the river,[12] also called Judge Nahar (judge of the river).[13][14][15]
Yarikh, god of the moon and husband of Nikkal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanite_religion
So you are worshiping two different gods.
So it doesn't matter that those prior to Jesus did evil, they just get a free pass into heaven?
You just contradicted yourself here. You said without evil, there is no choice. But there is evil but you said we don't actually have a choice to choose anything else but God. We aren't good by default. Try and leave a toddler to their own devices and tell me that they will grow up to be good, kind, considerate people not disciplined. The problem is that you underestimate evil which is a huge mistake.
The rest of the comment I didn't address is because I have nothing to say. You have made up your own mind on who God is.Nope, just the one God who took a particular interest in the bloodline of the Israelites.
Not a contradiction. I'm explaining how it would be without free will. You wouldn't choose God willfully. You'd behave according to God's will because you would have no will of your own.
Yes, you're right, children born of descendants of Adam and Eve are capable of evil and will undoubtedly behave evil if left to their own devices.El is not a specific god. El is a northwest Semitic word that means "god" or "deity".
Did I not give you a list of the different pagan gods?
You'd be interested in this:
http://www.bewaredeception.com/index.ph … p;Itemid=3
El, not Yahweh, was the original "God of Israel"—the word "Israel" is based on the name El rather than Yahweh.[25] He was the chief of the Canaanite gods, described as "the kind, the compassionate," "the creator of creatures".[26] He lived in a tent on a mountain from whose base originated all the fresh waters of the world, from where he presided over the Assembly of the Gods with the goddess Asherah as his consort.[26][27] The pair made up the top tier of the Canaanite pantheon;[26] the second tier was made up of their children, the "seventy sons of Athirat" (another name of Asherah).[28] Prominent in this group was Baal, with his home on Mount Zaphon; he gradually became the dominant deity, so that El became the executive power and Baal the military power in the cosmos.[29] Baal's sphere was the thunderstorm with its life-giving rains, so that he was also a fertility god, although not quite the fertility god.[30] The third tier was made up of comparatively minor craftsman and trader deities, and the fourth and final tier of divine messengers and the like.[28] Yahweh, the southern warrior-god, joined the pantheon headed by El and in time he and El were identified, with El's name becoming a generic term for "god".[27] Each member of the divine council had a human nation under his care, and a textual variant of Deuteronomy 32:8–9 describes the sons of El, including Yahweh, each receiving his own people:[25]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh#Development
In fact, the ancient Egyptians knew of Yahweh even before Abraham did.
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/20 … Texts.aspxI'm afraid being such a genetic term is confusing matters. Many gods, including Yahweh, have been referred to by that word at one time or another.
Here, read this ... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_(deity)After, El, the supreme god of the Canaanite pantheon, did El become a generic word for gods. Why was El's name changed to Yahweh? Why did Abraham know him as El but Moses did not? Does this not insinuate gods rather than one god?
Do you concede that there were other gods but Yahweh?The ties that claim El became Yahweh are not at all as solid as you seem to think they are. There's a pretty good writeup about it here ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh
According to the story, God's name was revealed to Moses ... "Yahweh, the god of the Israelites, whose name was revealed to Moses as four Hebrew consonants (YHWH) called the tetragrammaton." ... http://www.britannica.com/topic/Yahweh
Exodus 6:3 - I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as El-Shaddai--'God Almighty'--but I did not reveal my name, Yahweh, to them.
Notice it says "El-Shaddai". This is how 'El' was often used, as a kind of title. "God Alimighty".
Yes, I concede that there were others seen by humans as gods. Adam, Eve, and all their offspring lived for centuries and seemed godlike to mortal humans. God had to correct them.From that link:
In the oldest biblical literature, Yahweh is a typical ancient Near Eastern "divine warrior" who leads the heavenly army against Israel's enemies;[6] he later became the main god of the Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) and of Judah and over time the royal court and temple promoted Yahweh as the god of the entire cosmos, possessing all the positive qualities previously attributed to the other gods and goddesses.[8][9] By the end of the Babylonian exile (6th century BCE), the very existence of foreign gods was denied, and Yahweh was proclaimed as the creator of the cosmos and the true god of all the world.[9]"
Here it says that Yahweh had the same qualities as the previous gods. If you think gods were humans, that makes Yahweh a human, too. Why, among the Israelites, was Yahweh not seen as the only god?
"The Lord is a man of war; Yahweh is his name." – Exodus 15.3.
A man, not a deity.
"El, not Yahweh, was the original "God of Israel"
So they aren't one and the same?
Re Abraham:
"It is thus claimed that Abraham equated Yahweh with El Elyon. But the fact is: the earlier versions of this passage did not have the name Yahweh. It was added later by the masorites. The early Greek Septuagint, the Symmachus translation and the Old Latin have Abraham say the same thing Melchisedek said. Why was there a need to corrupt the text and insert the name Yahweh? In Genesis 22:14 we are told that Abraham named a site where he was to offer Isaac as a sacrifice, JEHOVAH JIREH [KJV] or YAHWEH YIREH in the Hebrew bible. But this was just another corruption and a forgery by the masorites. The oldest version of the bible known as the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, translated by Martin Abegg, Jr. Peter Flint and Eugene Ulrich has Abraham naming the place ELOHIM YIREH. Please note the comment by these translators at the passage of Genesis 22:14:
“Since, according to the bible itself, the name Yahweh – translated “LORD” in most modern editions of the Bible – was later revealed to Moses in the book of Exodus [3:13-15], students of the Pentateuch have long debated the use of Yahweh in the book of Genesis. A common solution suggests that an early author/editor indiscriminately used the term in his copying of the text. 4QGen-Exod – sure to fuel the debate afresh – “replaces” the term Yahweh in Genesis 22:14 with the more common Hebrew term for God. Thus the familiar Jehovah Jireh becomes Elohim Jireh.”
I may also add that only one source of the Pentateuch, the J source, uses the name Yahweh but other sources use the name El. Even the Jewish Encyclopaedia admits this fact when it comments on the name Yahweh art. Names of God:
"This name, according to the narrative in Ex. iii. (E), was made known to Moses in a vision at Horeb. In another, parallel narrative (Ex. vi. 2, 3, P) it is stated that the name was not known to the Patriarchs. It is used by one of the documentary sources of Genesis (J), but scarcely if at all by the others."
http://www.bewaredeception.com/index.ph … p;Itemid=3
In other words, El and Yahweh aren't interchangeable.
Let's look at Deuteronomy 32: 7-9
Remember the days of old;
consider the generations long past.
Ask your father and he will tell you,
your elders, and they will explain to you.
8 When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance,
when he divided all mankind,
he set up boundaries for the peoples
according to the number of the sons of Israel.[b]
9 For the Lord’s portion is his people,
Jacob his allotted inheritance.
We assume that the sons of Israel are people. However, this is not what the original Deuteronomy says.
"However, there is a variant rendering of this passage. It's based on the 3rd-century BCE translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, the Septuagint, as well as Hebrew manuscripts of Deuteronomy found among the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran:
DEUTERONOMY 32:7 Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations; ask your father, and he will show you; your elders, and they will tell you. 8 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of men, He fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the SONS OF GOD. 9 For the LORD's portion is His people, Jacob His allotted heritage. (RSV)
Here is this same passage as it was rendered by Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton in his 1851 translation of the Septuagint into English:
DEUTERONOMY 32:7 Remember the days of old, consider the years for past ages: ask thy father, and he shall relate to thee, thine elders, and they shall tell thee. 8 When the Most High divided the nations, when He separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God. 9 And His people Jacob became the portion of the Lord, Israel was the line of His inheritance. (Brenton's LXX)"
http://www.herealittletherealittle.net/ … ne-Council
So it is later that, "Sons of Israel" was inserted. It is because it was an attempt to discredit polytheism.
Now, the Old Testament was influenced by the Urgarite texts.
Ugaritic is an ancient near eastern language that is closely related to biblical Hebrew. Evidently, Ugarit developed a divine mythology based on antediluvian truths regarding the one true God and His government of the world through the angelic creation. Ugaritic literature contains many council scenes where the chief deity 'El presides over the council of his divine sons, who stand before him on the holy Mount of Assembly.
So it was El, the father of Yahweh, who allotted nations to his sons, Yahweh being the given Israel.
Other deities worshipped at Ugarit were El Shaddai, El Elyon, and El Berith. All of these names are applied to Yahweh by the writers of the Old Testament. What this means is that the Hebrew theologians adopted the titles of the Canaanite gods and attributed them to Yahweh in an effort to eliminate them. If Yahweh is all of these there is no need for the Canaanite gods to exist! This process is known as assimilation.
So we see that El Shaddai, Abraham's god, is different to Yahweh.
http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm
You are basing this on the revised version of the OT instead of the original like I have posted. We know that the offspring of Adam and Eve could not have made man in their image.You have to really picture the situation as if it were real. You live in this land among people in a bronze age culture. Up on the hill, over in the valley, there's this being that's lived there since your great grand father's lifetime. He's always been there. He's always looked like he does. His sister lives further out, in the next town over. These are the patron gods of each city they live in. These are the gods.
Genesis 6:1-3 - When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal[b]; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
There's two groups here it's talking about. Two groups that live amongst each other. There's the 'sons of God' and there's the 'daughters of humans'. Chapter 5 just described in great detail how each of the Patriarchs of Adam's family lived for many centuries. This describes "humans" as "mortal" and specifically says that, in contrast to the 'sons of God', humans only live 120 years. So, in comparison, these two intermingling groups. who lived among one another and who knew of one another, a single individual of one group can live through a good ten generations of the other. Can you imagine that? Imagine there was some celebrity who everyone knew and was familiar with, who had been alive since your great, great, great, great grandfather's time. They were known to that generation just as they're known of in yours. That would be like someone like Napoleon or Alexander the Great still being in power.
Then there's this other....
"Isaiah 41:4 - Who has performed and done this, calling the generations from the beginning? I, the Lord, the first, and with the last; I am he.
There's the god who made these other gods. The whole storyline behind Abraham and Moses' stories was that there was only one real god. It was an established idea that was having to be corrected. These others aren't gods. They're just different than you. There's only one God. The God who made all of them and all of you.
"The Lord is a man of war; Yahweh is his name." – Exodus 15.3
This is from a song the Israelites were singing to God. It's a song from a human perspective. How they understand things. This other god whom you haven't seen, but who Moses saw. Passing by him, his hand large enough to cover and protect Moses, his back. In a form familiar to Moses.
'El' IS God, as in, the definition of the word 'El' is "God"....
"El Shaddai is conventionally translated as God Almighty but while the translation of El as "god" or "lord" in Ugarit/Canaanite language is straightforward, the literal meaning of Shaddai is the subject of debate."... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Shaddai
And this ...
"the earlier versions of this passage did not have the name Yahweh. It was added later by the masorites."
That has to be kept in mind as well. Who's doing the writing. How did they know these characters. Santa Claus has been known by many names, but chances are if you're writing a story you know about Santa Claus, you're most likely going to refer to him in a way that he is known by in this age by your intended audience.
The process of assimilation you speak of, you must keep in mind, is how people studying these texts in the wrong context. They're trying to make sense of what they're seeing when comparing the text, but under the wrong parameters. When seen in the correct context, it all begins to read very differently. This is why I described it as I did above. You have to picture it in this context and it all begins to become very clear. When you re-read in this context, you begin to see the same things in different ways. It reads differently.
"You are basing this on the revised version of the OT instead of the original like I have posted. We know that the offspring of Adam and Eve could not have made man in their image."
No, they couldn't. But God made humans, and later regretted doing so, in the same image as Adam and Eve. They looked the same. And because of this, in Genesis 6, it says they began to interbreed. It says the 'sons of God' found the 'daughters of humans' beautiful. This is why the flood became necessary. That's what Genesis 6 is explaining. Free will had been introduced into naturally evolved humans through interbreeding, and now the humans were becoming "wicked". They behaved differently. This trait, this ability to behave of their own free will and not solely through god's will, made them what we know today as human. The bright lure of freedom diminishes our life's joy in a mad scramble for power, for identity.
Before this humans lived as indigenous humans do. Content. Not driven to alter the natural world to their whim. They live in harmony with nature. Very much in the same way Jesus described as following God. Giving up possessions and such. Indigenous humans aren't consumed by their possessions. They don't really even consider things "theirs". Like the land. They don't draw boundaries and say this land is mine. They consider the natural world as belonging to all. To the birds and the animals and humans all the same. Free will got into humanity and we lost our minds. Just like the Roman poet Ovid described how humans had changed ...
"There broke out ... all manner of evil, and shame fled, and truth and faith. In place of these came deceits and trickery and treachery and force and the accursed love of possession ... And the land, hitherto a common possession like the light of the sun and the breezes, the careful surveyor now marked out with long boundary lines.""
This is why I do what I do. It all reads very differently and actually explains why humans are the way they are. How we came to be. I think it's important because it makes everything much clearer. That's what the whole bible is about. Free will. Human behavior no longer being within God's will, but running a muck. God's trying to control behavior that's no longer under His control. In Genesis 1 God was able to tell those humans to "be fruitful and multiply" and to "fill the earth" and to establish themselves as the dominant species on the planet. And they did all of that. Because they behaved according to God's will. They didn't have wills of their own conflicting and pulling them in different directions. To the point that God called all He made "good". It all worked exactly as intended.
Then God created Adam and Eve different. Then their children began interbreeding with humans and it all went haywire. Then came civilization and all of humanity's problems. Evil.Yes, the story that was changed when it was decided that Judaism was going to be monotheistic by the Masorites. What don't you understand? It is a fact that Yahweh was once one of many gods according to the quote I gave you. Only much later did he become the only god. That was like Allah as well. Islam started out polytheistic, eventually Allah being the only god.
So what you see in the Bible is the manipulated version.
Let us consider this:
“Now, then, Yahweh, the God of Israel, dispossessed the Amorites before His people Israel; and should you possess their land? Do you not hold what CHEMOSH YOUR GOD GIVES YOU TO POSSESS? So we will hold on to everything that Yahweh our God has given us to possess” [Judges 11:23-25].
Yahweh is one god, and then there is Chemosh, another god.
Exodus 15:11:
“Who is like you, O Yahweh, among the gods?”
We can see that there are comparisons being drawn between Yahweh and other gods. How can you compare Yahweh to humans?
If Yahweh was the only god, then why did he have the title of the god of war (like Mars) and not the god of the cosmos?
And Yahweh was also known as the sky god/storm god. How pagan.
"The waves of death swirled about me, and torrents of destruction overwhelmed me. The cords of Sheol coiled around me; the snares of death confronted me. In my distress I called to Yahweh; I called out to my Elohim. From his temple he heard my voice; my cry came to his ears. The earth trembled and quaked, the foundations of the heavens shook; they trembled because he was angry. Smoke rose from his nostrils; consuming fire came from his mouth, burning coals blazed out of it. He parted the heavens and came down; dark clouds were under his feet. He mounted the cherubim and flew; he soared on the wings of the wind. He made darkness his canopy around him the dark rain clouds of the sky. Out of the brightness of his presence bolts of lightning blazed forth. Yahweh thundered from heaven, the voice of the Most High resounded. He shot arrows and scattered the enemies, bolts of lightning and routed them. The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare at the rebuke of Yahweh, at the blast of breath from his nostrils. He reached down from on high and took hold of me... He rescued me from my powerful enemy..."
https://sites.google.com/site/investiga … d--sky-god
Is this the explanation from Biblical scholars? Is this metaphoric, too?
18 Then Moses went back to Jethro his father-in-law and said to him, “Let me return to my own people in Egypt to see if any of them are still alive.”
Jethro said, “Go, and I wish you well.”
19 Now the Lord had said to Moses in Midian, “Go back to Egypt, for all those who wanted to kill you are dead.” 20 So Moses took his wife and sons, put them on a donkey and started back to Egypt. And he took the staff of God in his hand.
21 The Lord said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. 22 Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the Lord says: Israel is my firstborn son, 23 and I told you, “Let my son go, so he may worship me.” But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son.’”
24 At a lodging place on the way, the Lord met Moses[a] and was about to kill him. 25 But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it.[b] “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,” she said. 26 So the Lord let him alone. (At that time she said “bridegroom of blood,” referring to circumcision.)
If God was not a physical being, then how did this really happen? Is this a made up story? And, by the way, how did God speak to people anyway?
So why did the Hebrews use El Shaddai when there is a god called El Shaddai? A god in general cannot only have certain attributes. Why is El Shaddai a fertility god, a destroyer and god of the mountains only? Why not, the god of the cosmos?
So it's okay to mislead? We aren't talking about children here and do you even know who the Masorites were?
The process of assimilation you speak of, you must keep in mind, is how people studying these texts in the wrong context. They're trying to make sense of what they're seeing when comparing the text, but under the wrong parameters. When seen in the correct context, it all begins to read very differently. This is why I described it as I did above. You have to picture it in this context and it all begins to become very clear. When you re-read in this context, you begin to see the same things in different ways. It reads differently.
The form in which the Hebrew text of the OT [Old Testament of the Bible] is presented in most manuscripts and printed editions is that of the Masoretic text, the date of which is usually placed somewhere between the 6th and 8th centuries AD. It is probable that the present text became fixed as early as the 2nd century AD [i.e. ca. one thousand four hundred years after Moses], but even this early date leaves a long interval between the original autographs of the OT writers and the present text. Since the fixing of the Masoretic text [the 2nd century AD] the task of preserving and transmitting the sacred books has been carried out with the greatest care and fidelity, with the result that the text has undergone practically no change of real importance; but before that date [the 2nd century AD], owing to various causes, a larger number of corruptions indisputably were introduced into the Hebrew text. Originally the text consisted only of consonants, since the Hebrew language had an alphabet without vowels. It is also likely that in the earliest texts the words and sentences were not divided [stress added]. The evolution of the Masoretic text was an attempt to make up for both these deficiencies. It supplied vowels by adding marks to the consonantal text, and it divided the words and sentences. For many centuries it was believed that these vowel points formed part of the original text; some theologians argued that the points were inspired by the Holy Spirit. But subsequently research has proved beyond doubt that they are younger by almost 1,000 years than the text itself.1
The Encyclopedia Britannica asserts that the credibility of even the Massoretic text is not above board and it is obvious that the text has been tampered with in some places:
On the basis of a variety of evidence it is possible to show that the Masoretic text is not a completely reliable index to the readings of the autographs of the OT. Even a superficial comparison between its readings and the Septuagint2 translation discloses many passages in which the translators of the OT into Greek ascribed different vowels to the consonantal text or divided the words differently from the way they are now divided in the Hebrew text [stress added]. In other passages, they simply had another text before them. Considering that the Septuagint translation antedates the Masoretes by so long a span, we are forced to admit that the Hebrew text underlying it sometimes comes closer to the original reading of a particular passage than does the Masoretic. Other evidence, too, renders an uncritical acceptance of Masoretic readings impossible; it is obvious that the text has been tampered with in some places.3
http://www.renaissance.com.pk/Novscript2y3.html
https://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2 … al-hebrew/
So we need to reconsider things that are written in the Bible. I suspect much of what you believe is probably influenced by corruption in the OT.
If you really want to know the original translation of the OT:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4MXLB6 … r_embedded
That has nothing to do with the gods (offspring of Adam and Eve as you think)making man in their own image. That is what it says and I'd like it explained, please.You have to keep in mind that these texts that you're referring to are a reflection of human perception at that time. Which is fallible. What they thought is what they wrote. The people of this age were, for a long time, confused by the presence of many god-like figures in their lives. Yahweh just being another name among them. One never seen, only heard of. So to them He was like the others because that was based on what they saw and knew.
They all began polytheistic, understandably.
There are multiple cases when God appeared to individuals as a human. He did this with Abraham as well.
Yes, I know who the Masorites were. They too were human. And they existed many centuries after the events of these texts. Like you and I, they were humans trying to make sense of the texts. Unlike you and I, they didn't have the benefit of all the knowledge we have available to us now.
What I believe is based on what I've been able to confirm to be true when comparing the details of the text against history. I was able to ground the story in the time/place that it actually happened, and was able to establish details that aren't in the text. Proper context. Insights as to what was really going on, which clarifies what's being described.Now you are just assuming they were confused. The Bible clearly mentions that the people of the OT acknowledged there were gods governing certain lands.
David said:
“Your majesty, listen to what I have to say. If it is the LORD who has turned you against me, an offering to him will make him change his mind; but if men have done it, may the LORD’s [Yahweh’s] curse fall on them. For they have driven me out from the LORD’s [Yahweh’s] land to a country where I can only worship foreign gods. Don’t let me be killed on foreign soil, away from the LORD [Yahweh]” [Good News Bible 1 Samuel 26:19-20].
Jephtah said:
“Now, then, Yahweh, the God of Israel, dispossessed the Amorites before His people Israel; and should you possess their land? Do you not hold what CHEMOSH YOUR GOD GIVES YOU TO POSSESS? So we will hold on to everything that Yahweh our God has given us to possess” [Judges 11:23-25].
There was no confusion. Stop making them out to be clueless idiots. And they were polytheistic right to after the Babylonian Exile.
Jesus said that no one has seen the Father. However, if you believe that Yahweh was a physical being as in an extra terrestrial, that would make sense. Please tell me how God communicated to people like Abraham and Moses? He had to been in a form of man to do so which was like all the time. How can Yahweh be a man of war if he never physically fought?
Come on now. Did you not read that they deliberately corrupted the texts? Does everyone have clueless syndrome?
Well, that's the thing. That text you have been comparing is corrupt. Watch that video I gave you. It will change your view forever.That's exactly what I'm not doing. I'm not making them out to be clueless idiots. I'm saying there was good reason for them thinking what they did. Not everyone saw Yahweh, the God of the Israelites. He only dealt with them. This was the bloodline God had chosen to influence to create a necessary outcome. To everyone else besides the Israelites, Yahweh was just a name they heard.
But each land around them, each city, had a patron god. And these were very god-like figures who could be physically seen. They lived for hundreds of years. They were immortal. They had families. Children. But they were not gods. They were only really another species. A stronger, longer living, species. But they were seen as gods, and apparently had no problem leading humans to think so.
God was seen as a "man of war" by humans. Their perception of Him was as a man. Doesn't mean they were right. God did appear to Abraham and Moses. But God only appeared to Moses in His true form once. Most times He was a voice from a burning bush, or He appeared as a man.
If you were to hear stories of a being referred to by a name, you too would assume this was a man. A person. Like everyone else. You'd have no concept of what God truly is.
It's not clueless syndrome. It's simply a limitation that they, as humans, living in the time they did, had to what could be known and understood. It's a certainty. It was not possible to truly understand these stories in an accurate context before this age.
That's how myths become myths. A few generations from now the Holocaust could very well become a myth. You and I, living in this age, know it to be an actual event that really happened. But there are people alive today who think it did not. Who think it was a myth.
Everyone who lived beyond the times of the immortals, basically everyone who lived after the lifetime of Abraham, could not possibly even imagine what it was really like. It was just stories they heard. Like the dinosaurs. We hear the stories, but it's hard to really imagine what it must have really been like.
But now we have the information. All the pieces are there to piece it all together and really understand it. We just have to see it all in the right way.
The text isn't too corrupt to be able to see the truth. The text lines up, very specifically, along a very specific timeline. 2000 years of it are accounted for in history. Down to the number of centuries between each event. So the corruption cannot have been part of that. Those doing the corrupting would not have the information to be able to corrupt it, but maintain that accurate timeline. Everything I think and believe is based on what can be concretely confirmed to be true.
Everything I'm saying has been verified to the best of my ability as being accurately true. Checked out in every way, from every angle. I only hinge on what's concrete. This is the foundation that all else is built atop of.What don't you understand that Yahweh was a god that walked among the Israelites? He participated physically in wars:
Deuteronomy 33:27
The eternal God is your refuge,
and underneath are the everlasting arms.
He will drive out your enemies before you,
saying, ‘Destroy them!’
Exodus 15:6
Your right hand, LORD, was majestic in power. Your right hand, LORD, shattered the enemy.
Professor Sa-Moon Kang of Hebrew University of Jerusalem writes on p.224 of Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East (emphasis added):
YHWH was understood as the divine warrior…YHWH intervened not only to help the army on the battlefield but He also marched in front of the king and soldiers…The victory after the battles was given to YHWH, and the spoils obtained were dedicated to YHWH and His treasures.
In Tree of Souls: The Mythology of Judaism, winner of the 2005 National Jewish Book Award, Howard Schwartz writes (emphasis added):
40. The Warrior God
Yahweh is a mighty warrior who defeated Pharaoh at the Red Sea…God appeared to Pharaoh as a mighty warrior, carrying a fiery bow, with a sword of lightning, traveling through the heavens in a chariot…God took a cherub from His Throne fo Glory and rode upon it, waging war against Pharaoh and Egypt, as it is said, He mounted a cherub and flew (Ps. 18:11). Leaping from one wing to another, God taunted Pharaoh, “O evil one, do you have a cherub? Can you do this?”
When the angels saw that God was waging war against the Egyptians on the sea, they came to His aid. Some came carrying swords and others carrying bows or lances. God said to them, “I do not need your aid, for when I go to battle, I go alone.” That is why it is said that Yahweh is a man of war (Exod. 15:3).
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/08/the-bi … st-once-i/
The Israelites saw Yahweh, fighting along side with him in battle.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/08/the-bi … st-once-i/
Being immortal is the characteristic of a a divine god. No, these gods weren't mortal and the Bible does not say that, either. You, yourself, said they only lived hundreds of hears. Did you mean mortal? You see, Yahweh was also just one of many gods since he had a physical body and died just like any physical being.
Yahweh appeared to all the Israelites as the OT said. Really, why would Yahweh not want to show himself to the Israelites?
I have no concept of what God truly is? He is not a man. He is the spirit who sent His only son in human form to die for our sins. Didn't you know that?
In other words, clueless. Moses was completely unable to convince the Israelites that Yahweh was the true and only god. He wouldn't have because Yahweh wasn't the only god. It is only Isaiah that came along and said that God was the one God.
“This is what the Lord says—
Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.
Never did Moses say that Yahweh was the only God that existed. He insisted that the Israelites worship Yahweh but did not see him as the only god.
Do I have to mention the Ugarit texts again?
The Old Testament was influenced by the Urgarite texts.
"Ugaritic is an ancient near eastern language that is closely related to biblical Hebrew. Evidently, Ugarit developed a divine mythology based on antediluvian truths regarding the one true God and His government of the world through the angelic creation. Ugaritic literature contains many council scenes where the chief deity 'El presides over the council of his divine sons, who stand before him on the holy Mount of Assembly.
Other deities worshipped at Ugarit were El Shaddai, El Elyon, and El Berith. All of these names are applied to Yahweh by the writers of the Old Testament. What this means is that the Hebrew theologians adopted the titles of the Canaanite gods and attributed them to Yahweh in an effort to eliminate them. If Yahweh is all of these there is no need for the Canaanite gods to exist! This process is known as assimilation."
The Ugarit text, KTU 1.1 IV 14, says this:
“The name of the son of god, Yahweh.”
This indicates that Yahweh was the son of El as indicated in the Canaanite pantheon. T
http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm
Abraham left Ur for Canaan. He's ancestors were kings of Urgarit. So if the Urgarit texts sees that El Shaddai and Yahweh were separate beings, one being the son, Yahweh, then surely the Israelites would have seen it this way also? Basically the Israelites had a Canaanite religion.
Those people will have the same records available to them as we have today.
Yes, the Urgarit texts throws more light on the OT and it proves that the Israelites experienced these gods themselves. They didn't just hear stories.
Except you didn't know about the Urgarit text which should change your views just a bit.People talk about God like that now. How He holds them in His arms, protects them with His hand. Like I said, when humans of that age hear of a being by name, they're going to imagine Him as human in form. They're going to speak of Him that way.
Genesis is the text that describes these gods as immortal, or more specifically, describes humans as "mortal" in comparison ...
Gen 6:1-3 - When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
God defeated Pharaoh at the Red Sea by crushing him and his army with the sea. The text doesn't say anything about Him appearing to Pharaoh. I'm not sure where they get that.
Exodus 33:19-23 - And the Lord said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”
21 Then the Lord said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. 22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.”
God appearing to mortal humans is dangerous. People who entered the Tabernacle had to have a rope tied to them in case they died while inside, so they could be dragged out.
God appeared as a human a handful of times, but only this one time as Himself.
What makes the Ugarit texts the authority? They had ties to the Hittites. Another group that says there were immortal male/female gods in their past. They spoke a similar language so it makes sense that they'd refer to gods as "El". But nothing about their texts changes anything about the legitimacy of the OT or the accuracy with which it can be matched up with history.I'd say rather the Egyptians:
"In Exodus 14:22- 24, it says, T"he Egyptians pursued and went in after them into the midst of the sea, all Pharaoh's horses, his chariots, and his horsemen. 24 And in the morning watch the Lord in the pillar of fire and of cloud looked down on the Egyptian forces and threw the Egyptian forces into a panic,
How did they see the Lord? What image did he have? We have this verse, too:
Psalm 34:7
The angel of the LORD encamps around those who fear him, and he delivers them.
This is a clear case of Yahweh being in the presence of Israelites camping with them. You don't seem to think it is possible that Yahweh was a physical being.
No, God stalked Moses to kill him because he wasn't circumcized (Exodus 4:18-31). Moses' wife saw God coming. She must have looked upon his face.
"24 At a lodging place on the way, the Lord met Moses[a] and was about to kill him. 25 But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it.“Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,” she said. 26 So the Lord let him alone. (At that time she said “bridegroom of blood,” referring to circumcision.)"
In Psalm 18 we have:
The Lord thundered from heaven;
the voice of the Most High resounded.[d]
14 He shot his arrows and scattered the enemy,
with great bolts of lightning he routed them.
God has to be a physical being to shoot arrows. They didn't just magically appear.
In Exodus 15:
25 Then Moses cried out to the Lord, and the Lord showed him a piece of wood. He threw it into the water, and the water became fit to drink.
So are aren't aware of how influenced the OT is by the Urgarit text?
According to the Canaanite religion, El was head of the pantheon with two of the sons being Yahweh and Baal as mentioned.
There are extraordinary parallels between Baal and Yahweh. So to the extent that there are some who believe they are one and the same.
For example, both Baal and Yahweh are sky/storm gods.
1 Samuel 12:18King James Version (KJV)
18 So Samuel called unto the Lord; and the Lord sent thunder and rain that day: and all the people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel.
Psalm 18 (also 2 Sam 22), a psalm attributed to David:
"The waves of death swirled about me, and torrents of destruction overwhelmed me. The cords of Sheol coiled around me; the snares of death confronted me. In my distress I called to Yahweh; I called out to my Elohim. From his temple he heard my voice; my cry came to his ears. The earth trembled and quaked, the foundations of the heavens shook; they trembled because he was angry. Smoke rose from his nostrils; consuming fire came from his mouth, burning coals blazed out of it. He parted the heavens and came down; dark clouds were under his feet. He mounted the cherubim and flew; he soared on the wings of the wind. He made darkness his canopy around him \ the dark rain clouds of the sky. Out of the brightness of his presence bolts of lightning blazed forth. Yahweh thundered from heaven, the voice of the Most High resounded. He shot arrows and scattered the enemies, bolts of lightning and routed them. The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare at the rebuke of Yahweh, at the blast of breath from his nostrils. He reached down from on high and took hold of me... He rescued me from my powerful enemy..."
Ps 29, also attributed to David:
"The voice of Yahweh is over the waters; the El of glory thunders, Yahweh thunders over the mighty waters." His voice is "powerful" and "majestic;" his voice is lightning, it "breaks to pieces the cedars of Lebanon." "The voice of Yahweh strikes with flashes of lightning" and "shakes the desert," "twists the oaks, and strips the forests bare... Yahweh sits enthroned over the flood."
Now in the Canaanite text we have:
Then Baal opened a slit in the clouds,
Baal sounded his holy voice,
Baal thundered from his lips. . .
the earth’s high places shook.
Baal’s enemies fled to the woods,
Hadad’s haters took to the mountains.
And Baal the Conqueror said:
“Hadad’s enemies, why are you quaking?
why are you quaking, assailers of the Valiant One?”
Baal’s eye guided his hand,
as he swung a cedar in his right hand.
So Baal was enthroned in his house.
“No other king or non-king
shall set his power over the earth.
I will send no tribute to Ers son Death,
no homage to El’s Darling, the Hero.
Let Death cry to himself,
let the Darling grumble in his heart;
for I alone will rule over the gods;
I alone will fatten gods and men;
I alone will satisfy earth’s masses.” 3
https://religionthink.wordpress.com/200 … eh-praise/
Ugaritic text: The sons of 'AL, the assembly of the stars:
..."That the sons of 'AL (El) may know and the assembly of the stars may understand"...
..."When the morning stars sang together, and shouted for joy all the sons of 'Alohim (YHWH)"...
-JOB 38: 7
In fact, the sons of El were known as the morning stars:
https://books.google.co.za/books?id=hM8 … mp;f=false
Yahweh and Baal were so similar, even though they always competed with one another, that Yahweh was called Baal:
-HOSEA 2: 16-17:
...And it shall be on that day, says YHWH, that you shall call me, 'AYSHY (Personal), and shall call Me no more Baali (My Baal). For I will take away the names of the Baals out of her (Israel's) mouth, and they shall no more remember their name"... -HOSEA 2: 16-17
The Canaanite god El had 70 sons each being allotted one of the 70 nations.
From the Dead Sea Scrolls:
DEUTERONOMY 32:7 Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations; ask your father, and he will show you; your elders, and they will tell you. 8 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of men, He fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the SONS OF GOD. 9 For the LORD's portion is His people, Jacob His allotted heritage. (RSV)
Who is the Lord? Yahweh. We can see the Lord is just another name for Yahweh:
"For who in the skies can be compared to Yahweh, who among the sons of EL is like Yahweh,"
Another version:
Psalm 89:6:
For who in the skies above can compare with the LORD? Who is like the LORD among the heavenly beings?
As you can see in the latter verse, heavenly beings are the sons of El.
English revised version:
For who in the skies can be compared unto the LORD? who among the sons of the mighty is like unto the LORD,
El is referred to as the Almighty and Lord is Yahweh.
It's no coincidence.
JCL
all you need to do is see the error and not make the error yourself. Yes if a person claims to preach love and then condemns others to hell its an error. It's a sign of low intelligence or gross intolerance on their part. So why should critics then become religiously intolerant themselves? That's an even bigger contradiction.Here's everything I believe to be true about religion :-
it was made by man himself , why you may ask ?
cause at some point in the revolution humans ate each other , just as animals did , they were driven by their instincts only , sex and aggression , and sex led to aggression , they lived just as animals , and that only put them in the danger of extinction, therefore they needed to change , to sop altogether , and what other way to stop the human from driving their instincts and natural desires ... than fear itself my friends , man needed a supernatural destructive childish creature to fear , so they came up with god , whom , denied them from reckless actions , the concept was pure at the beginning, then edited , then edited again and here we are .
now if you ask me I think regardless of everything religion is important , because it holds so many dangerous men from committing murder , theft , rape .. etc , sadly because these people haven't evolved beyond what humanity started with .
sure this does not include all believers .
peaceEveryone's so quick to dismiss humanity as being delusional fools. Fear is an effective deterrent, but fear itself only makes sense if living things are more than mere biological machines. And that leads right back to God and souls and all of that. Computers don't fear. My car doesn't fear. Yet living things do. Self aware and whose actions are sometimes altered by fear of something. If you're going to dismiss God as the product of a delusional mind, then you have to then account for this mind that gives to fear and this 'self' that has to be put under delusion to properly survive.
It's common for some to justify dismissing God as fantasy without ever actually considering the reality that's left and what's still unaccounted for in this godless reality they've convinced themselves is real. The whole mentality seems so dependent on it's arguments against God and religion that it's seldom even considered as it's own independent thing. Does it truly stand on it's own when not leaning on its criticisms of God and religion? Most often, no. This is an example of that.One of the characteristics of living things: They are sensitive to the environment in which they live.
We, as humans, are no different.
We sense the circumstances and react to them. Automatically, because if we did not react appropriately, we would be disadvantaged over other organisms, we would suffer in some way as a result and even die - individually or as a group. In the latter case we would "die out."
Fear is a natural part of being alive as animals. We MUST react to potential dangers in ways that benefit us and enhance our chance of survival.
If you want to believe a "God" or "Creator" built this tendency into our human species, then that is your choice.....but the choice is decided by your mind, not an established fact. It never can be.
Back to an old cherry-pick: The difference between "belief" and "fact."It's just being realistic. Whether or not it came about like you and many assume, as a beneficial trait that propagated because it increased the chance of survival, it's still a characteristic that isn't wholly mechanical. It suggests a sense of self and a sense of danger and a will to protect one self. This isn't like some upgrade you can add to your computer to protect against potentially harmful things. It's just not a mechanical behavior. It's something else. Something that can't be duplicated mechanically, even with all of our know-how.
Did it evolve? Probably. Is it a randomly mutated characteristic? Probably not. A mutated gene resulting in fear is just too simplistic an explanation that makes very little sense. Fear only works if there's a self-aware being reacting to it. The mistake here is that it's just being viewed as some mechanical characteristic. If we really stop and think about it, there's more going on than that. There has to be something to react to that fear for it to do any good.Currently no animals except humans are deemed to be self-aware. It is well documented that non self-aware animals exhibit behaviour that corresponds to fear in humans. Therefore self-awareness is not a prerequisite for fear.
Looking at the bigger picture, it could be argued that the self-awareness human beings possess, is itself something that evolved over time through the process of natural selection, because of the survival advantages self-awareness brings to the species.You're right. 'Self-aware' is a bad way to put it. But it would seem that some level of consciousness has to be there. Because fear itself doesn't cause the change in behavior or action. The change is our response to the fear we feel.
It could be something that evolved over time. But then again there's really no way of knowing. You could literally put anything in the vernacular of evolution and "explain" it. [blank] evolved as a random mutation that then proved beneficial to those who had it and it propagated. True? Don't know. But it sounds good.
Besides, fear is something common to all animals, humans included. Even single cells respond to harmful elements by pulling away. Fleeing.Well put.
Too often, "it evolved" is put forth as a reason for everything. When it is obvious that sensing, instincts,and emotion are there on all levels of life.Responding to stimuli (sensing) is part of the definition of life. And I don't know that a bacteria has emotions at all, or even an amoeba. Or instincts, for that matter.
I suspect everything has some sort of consciousness or awareness. At least everything alive.
Too often, "god" is put forth as a reason for everything. When it is obvious (as far as we can currently ascertain) that sensing, instincts,and emotion are not on all levels of life.
The behaviour of a bacteria is the same as any other life form. They have a will to live, react to stimuli. Why wouldn't they have emotions and instincts? Do instincts just magically appear in the higher forms of life?
Defensive behaviour requires neither fear nor consciousness in living organisms. Certain plants, e.g. the mimosa pudica, react 'defensively' to touch. The 'behaviour' of such organisms is no more than a chemical reaction triggered by specific stimuli. It is not a response to fear, and such organisms are not conscious (as far as we understand).
" there's really no way of knowing. " Depends on what you mean by "knowing". We can accept the most likely explanation based on what we currently understand about the world, until such time as we understand more. In that way "knowing" is an iterative process that becomes more accurate over time. Or we can just say "god did it". It can be demonstrated objectively that the former type of "knowing" has more practical value than the latter. Therefore choosing the former type of knowing, and rejecting the latter, is the most reasonable choice.No, I'm sorry. We can't detect or determine whether or not anything has consciousness. We only know it exists because we experience it. So saying behaviors of plants are triggered by specific stimuli and dismiss it as nothing more is baseless. It's an assumption. The chemical reactions are the 'how'. That's what is physically happening. For any sort of physical reaction there will be some sort of correlating physical response. But to say that's all that's happening, you can't. You don't know that.
What I mean by knowing is the definition of "knowing". We can't know. Yes, we can accept the most likely explanation. And it's often that that's all we can do. And I disagree that the first choice of 'knowing' and rejecting the latter is the most reasonable. When nature self-aligns into something like coded information in our cells then "god did it" isn't as far fetched as you'd like to make it sound.Well, there is far fetched and there's far fetched. That an ET from another universe created this one is a possibility impossible to evaluate with our present knowledge.
But that an ET from another universe created the incomprehensible vastness of this one simply to have humans as a friend...well, I'd have to say that that is pretty far fetched. Others will, of course, disagreeUnderstand that the vastness of this universe is irrelevant. Space and time are irrelevant. Those things only matter to us because we exist within those dimensions. And it's not simply to have humans as friends. It's having others that are not compelled only by God's will but have wills and minds of their own. The universe works in perfect harmony if everything works according to God's will. But for elements of this universe to be compelled by wills of their own, that's the trick. So God created an environment where we can exist. The wisdom required to live with a will of your own can't just be given. It must be earned through experience. So that's what this is. The vastness of space is so we can behave free of God's will without God looming over our shoulders so we're free to be us wholly and freely.
The alternative is the explanation that's most far fetched. That the natural world, totally by chance, arranged itself in such a way as to result in intelligent self-aware beings existing, that's far fetched.Of course it's relevant. One never creates more than necessary for the purpose; only what they have to. And the creator of this universe, if an intelligent one exists, created far more than is necessary to raise it's pets.
You have no idea of the universe "works in perfect harmony if everything works according to God's will" - the statement is nothing more than an assumption that there WAS a god/creator expressed as a fact. Same for "The vastness of space is so we can behave free of God's will without God looming over our shoulders so we're free to be us wholly and freely." - you actually have zero idea if that is true or not.
Ditto for the final paragraph; for all you (or I) know it was inevitable. For all we know there are self aware beings on every solar system in the galaxy. You are arguing that a god had to create everything because a god created everything, and that just doesn't fly.No, not more than it needs. We're highly intelligent and as we've proven over the past few centuries, we're well capable of figuring things out. Imagine you're building a habitat that's to house generations of a specific species of animal. But you have to take into consideration that this species is incredibly intelligent and inventive. The same place has to serve the same purpose from the first generations of humans to the last.
Yes, I do know the universe works perfectly according to God's will because according to the story we're the only thing that behaves outside of God's will. Nature works, has worked, for millions of years before us. We're the ones that come in and change and alter things. We're the fly in the ointment.
This conclusion is the most likely and the least far fetched. This is primarily based on the outlandish claim of the alternative. You say it was inevitable. And it was. The way the natural laws are set and the way matter/energy behaves, this universe and this planet and us, we're all inevitable. To say that was an unintended accident that just happened for no reason is nothing short of ridiculous.
Intelligence clearly exists. It's real. It's a natural product of this universe. So it's a much more likely scenario that intelligence was involved given all we now know. Intelligence is not something that only exists in us. That's highly unlikely.
Just because something might be impossible to evaluate doesn't mean it's not true. The fact that our universe is finite and has a beginning means at least some of the explanation is going to be beyond our capability to evaluate it. Science is all about empirical certainty. Finding a way to show our senses that this or that is true. If you think everything that exists is or can be in some way beholden to these five measly senses we evolved to serve us in this one environment, that's highly unlikely. In fact, knowing the universe is finite is proof enough that that is not true.
I'm not arguing that a God had to create everything because God created everything. I'm pointing out that the God described is consistent, given all we know. That explanation fits really well and is the most likely explanation. Especially compared to the outlandish alternative explanation."The same place has to serve the same purpose from the first generations of humans to the last."
This means it is necessary for billions of galaxies? Because humanity needs a single planet out of the billions in our own galaxy? You need to work this one out a little further.
"because according to the story"
What story would that be? The one the barbarians millenia ago came up with to describe what they didn't understand?
"So it's a much more likely scenario that intelligence was involved given all we now know."
Assuming that you mean intelligence was involved in the big bang, you conclusion has nothing to do with the premise. That humanity is intelligent does NOT indicate creation involved intelligence.
"To say that was an unintended accident that just happened for no reason is nothing short of ridiculous."
Ridiculous only to those that believe in an intelligent creator. But you misunderstood anyway; I intended to indicate that there may be NO other way the laws could have formed. That there was only one possibility for those laws, and that one produced intelligence.
"The fact that our universe is finite and has a beginning means at least some of the explanation is going to be beyond our capability to evaluate it. "
Nonsense. That it is finite means that, given time, humanity will learn all there is to learn. That we CAN evaluate all of it. Only if there is insufficient time (and that will be the case) could we conclude that we cannot learn it all.
"I'm pointing out that the God described is consistent,"
Certainly not the Christian god described in the bible. No entity that creates intelligent creatures in such a way that they will be tortured for eternity can possibly be the kind, generous, loving creature the bible describes. There is actually very little consistency in scripture.
That a "Godunnit" does not fit with observations, is not likely and is indeed the outlandish alternative. Now, we've both said it, differently, without offering any reasons outside of "Because I said so".Look how far we've come just to this point. Give us another hundred years, how far will we be? How far can we peer? We have to be able to live without knowing God's out there watching over us. We have to be able to behave as if He isn't.
But yes, for this planet to exist in this solar system as we do, it needs to be the size it is.
Barbarians? You say that as if you know for a fact that's what it is. Those barbarians told a story that spans the course of 2000 years and has notable events that can be matched up historically. Far from the ignorant fools you try to make them out to be.
I mean intelligence naturally occurs in this universe. And there's plenty to indicate that intelligence was involved in naturally occurring processes. DNA, for example, is coded information in our cells. Obviously intelligently intended. Not an accident that just worked out like that.
No, it's ridiculous to any reasonable person. You have to be trying to rationalize away a creator to buy into that. Yes, this all did indeed happen 'naturally'. But the values and characteristics necessary to make that so were clearly intelligently conceived.
No, that is absolutely wrong. There is no detecting or measuring or observing anything pre-big bang. It's impossible.
That lack of consistency is most often due to inaccurate interpretations. Like that of eternal damnation, which is false. The most well-known of all verses should make it clear ... "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever should believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life."
Burning eternally is not perishing. It's the opposite actually. No, what it's actually talking about is that you do actually perish. You don't go on living throughout eternity.
My reasons beyond "I said so" have been stated. DNA is the most in your face example. But the fact that we can't even detect the mind, yet we know it's there, should be a clue. We can't detect or observe all that reality is. So to limit reality to only what can be observed is logically flawed, which is the only reason you give as to why 'Goddunit' can't be the answer."We have to be able to live without knowing God's out there watching over us"
You know this how? Because it fits what you have decided your version of god is and wants?
"But yes, for this planet to exist in this solar system as we do, it needs to be the size it is."
Baloney. It takes one star and one planet.
"Those barbarians told a story that spans the course of 2000 years and has notable events that can be matched up historically"
Right. Like a woman made from a rib, a tree of knowledge of good and evil, and a worldwide flood. They match up with exactly nothing historically. That you choose to change the meanings of the words doesn't excuse the ignorance.
"Obviously intelligently intended"
Obvious to someone that needs "proof" a god did it all. To anyone else, there isn't anything "obvious" about it at all.
"But the values and characteristics necessary to make that so were clearly intelligently conceived. "
Again, it's "clear" to anyone needing "proof" of a god. To others, not so much.
"So to limit reality to only what can be observed is logically flawed"
This is correct. But it is also a grossly insufficient reason to decide that a god exists and is responsible for everything. The conclusion can only be considered true because of an emotional need for a god; certainly there is nothing of logic about it.My conclusions are based on the story being told. God created us with wills of our own. That's the central theme of the whole thing. Dealing with free will once it's created. So it makes sense that we'd need to be left to our own devices if we're truly going to behave freely.
"Baloney. It takes one star and one planet."
Uh, no, not at all. Generating one star and one planet is not feasible given what we know about the universe. That would never happen. We exist here as we do because the universe is as big and as old as it is.
"Right. Like a woman made from a rib, a tree of knowledge of good and evil, and a worldwide flood. They match up with exactly nothing historically. That you choose to change the meanings of the words doesn't excuse the ignorance."
A woman from a rib can practically be done today scientifically. It's very feasible. A tree of knowledge has to do with the choice to behave contrary to God's will. That's what "opened their eyes". The tree wasn't magic. And a global flood is a bad interpretation born of ignorance.
"Obvious to someone that needs "proof" a god did it all. To anyone else, there isn't anything "obvious" about it at all."
DNA is coded information that's passed along and then used to construct complex organisms. That is a clear cut sign of intelligence.
"This is correct. But it is also a grossly insufficient reason to decide that a god exists and is responsible for everything. The conclusion can only be considered true because of an emotional need for a god; certainly there is nothing of logic about it."
An emotional need? No. It's logic. Besides, it's not just injecting "goddunit" where we can't determine answers. It's testing the ancient texts against history and finding consistency, not just in the events and timeline described, but also in the impact of those events.
It's a matter of using the information available to us to reach the most likely conclusion. I realize it's probably comforting to you to just dismiss what I'm saying as an emotional need, delusion, whatever, but that's far from the truth.
The majority of researchers in the plant science community suggest that the idea of calling plants "intelligent" or "conscious" is based on "superficial analogies and questionable extrapolations", and they reject the concept of "plant neurobiology"(1). So it is accurate to say that plants are not currently deemed to be conscious, as far as we understand it. In other words, what you are suggesting is not the most widely accepted explanation of currently known scientific facts in relation to this particular phenomenon.
An assumption is believing something is true without evidence. Not believing something due to insufficient evidence is not an assumption. It's simply not believing something due to lack of evidence.
And it is perfectly reasonable to say "based on currently available evidence, a physical reaction is all that's happening". That's the equivalent of saying "there is insufficient evidence to allow us to reasonably conclude that something other that a purely physical reaction is happening". Again, that is not an assumption. It's simply not believing something due to lack of sufficient evidence.
Even so, notice how this conclusion is tentative. That's because all scientific knowledge is based on the most likely explanation, given currently available evidence. And therein lies the difference between scientific "knowing" and religious "knowing". The ability to discard previous explanations in favor of new ones, based on new evidence. This is why scientific knowledge is able to improve iteratively and become more accurate over time.
In contrast, saying "the natural world has complexity, therefore [insert chosen deity] did it" is not a useful method of acquiring practical knowledge about the world. In fact it is practically useless in that regard.
(1) http://www.linv.org/images/about_pdf/Tr … 20Alpi.pdfIf you watch plant behavior, both above ground and below, sped up, they act a lot like animals. They actually favor relatives and share resources with them and they compete against those who aren't related. Their roots search for nutrients. They move a lot like animals, only they move not through muscular movement, but through growth.
Also, my arguments have nothing to do with levels of complexity. Like in the case of DNA, coded information being used to make evolution a progressive and accumulative process, that's not just complexity. That's a clear sign of something only done otherwise through intelligence. That's something that's difficult to just dismiss as pure unintended cause. Intelligence really exists. It's a natural product. So suggesting intelligence could have played a role isn't as out of bounds as many like to make it out to be. It's simply acknowledging the evidence for what it is and acknowledging that the intelligent mind is something that can't be detected or observed. Plants can think for all we know. They're conscious for all we know. They communicate with one another and with insects based on their needs and circumstances.You are free to believe plants move "a lot like animals", and hypothesize that plants are therefore conscious. That does not change the fact that currently, due to insufficient evidence, plant 'consciousness' is not widely accepted as the best explanation of the phenomena you describe. And that hypothesis won't be accepted as such until there is sufficient evidence.
This represents another important difference between scientific knowledge and religious "knowledge". With the former, explanations for a given phenomena are not accepted as true/false based on how well they fit/don't fit a particular religion/ worldview/ philosophy/ ideology. With the latter they are, or at least tend to be. Accepting or rejecting a hypothesis on that basis is a departure from scientific method. That doesn't mean the claim is wrong, it just means the claim has been accepted/ rejected on unscientific grounds.
So it's not about intelligent design being "out of bounds". Anyone is free to hypothesise that DNA is the work of an intelligent designer. But when people start asserting that this claim has to be true (because their religious belief dictates that it must be) then they have moved beyond the scope of science, which is necessarily limited, into the domain of philosophy, theology and religion.
As it is, I reject your assertion that DNA necessarily indicates intelligent design. DNA is simply (as far as we currently know) a complex organic molecule that is able to react in lots of different ways with other organic molecules. There is no need for any "intelligence" to be behind those complex chemical reactions. That doesn't mean your claim is wrong, it just means there is no need for the addition of "intelligence" to the explanation of that phenomenon, and not enough evidence to support it anyway. Therefore, applying the standards of scientific method, that explanation cannot reasonably be accepted as true.Right, insufficient evidence. And I wouldn't hold your breath for sufficient evidence any time soon. The fact is, even though we know it exists, consciousness is not detectable. It's one of many examples of something that does indeed exist, that can't be scientifically detected. You can certainly keep the faith that we'll someday be able to detect it, and just leave this phenomena unexplained, or explained as chemical reactions, until then. Or we can just use our rational minds to recognize it for what it is. Plant life, like animal life, is compelled by a will to live and survive.
The problem with this whole scientific mindset is what's often referred to as the "science delusion". The delusion that we already 'get' the natural world in principle, and we're only now waiting for the missing details to be filled in. And because of this we toss aside hypotheses that don't conform to that mindset. Like in this case.
That's what has to be realized. Moving beyond the scope of science is not only okay, it's necessary. Science is the study of the physical world. If we continue to assume all that exists is only what can be observed and detected then we're pre-defining what can and can't be true based on a flawed concept. Consciousness, the mind, and anything beyond the big bang and this one universe is beyond the scope of science. They're beyond it's jurisdiction. There is clearly more that exists than what can be detected. So, logically, the explanation is going to include elements that are "beyond the scope of science".
We have to remember that science is merely a tool. But it is a limited tool. It's important to recognize those limitations and account for them.
And yes, there is a need for intelligence because the alternate explanation is lacking. To think a system like DNA could just self-align and self-organize with no sort of intelligent guidance is nothing short of ridiculous. It's coded information. Information that is then used to construct complex organisms. A process that makes evolution an accumulative process. At what point do we just simply acknowledge it for what it is? There will be no definitive evidence to show it other than the result itself. If we continue to hold out for empirical evidence then we'll just continue to be wrong. Faith in science rather than faith in God leading to the same errors."You can certainly keep the faith that we'll someday be able to detect it, and just leave this phenomena unexplained, or explained as chemical reactions, until then."
But ignorance is not a valid reason to make up an answer and consider it true without having the faintest notion of whether it is or not.
"So, logically, the explanation is going to include elements that are "beyond the scope of science"."
Very true, but again, that is insufficient reason to make something up and decide it is true. It remains that hypothesis you mentioned, not fact, and will remain so until proven. Probably by science.
"To think a system like DNA could just self-align and self-organize with no sort of intelligent guidance is nothing short of ridiculous. "
Personally, I don't find the rules of chemical combination to be "ridiculous". Nor are they "coded" information in the sense that something other than natural forces "coded" them, and given the number of viable "codes" already in use, it is "ridiculous" to think that an intelligence was necessary.
"If we continue to hold out for empirical evidence then we'll just continue to be wrong."
Stipulated. Along with a comment that imagination produces fewer correct answers than empirical evidence does, and by a huge amount.I'm not just making up an answer and considering it true. I'm proposing an argument and arguing its merits, if for no other reason than for arguments sake. I'm not just deeming it true. But if an un-provable hypothesis continues to prove consistent with what's observed, then it can prove to at least be closer to the truth, which can then lead to better understanding. My argument is that it shouldn't just be tossed aside for the reasons given here. It should be considered. The mindset here that insists on dismissing these ideas is too confining.
It's not the rules of chemical combination that I find ridiculous. It's the fact that we now have to decode the information stored in DNA. It is indeed information because it is then used to construct complex organisms. It isn't random. It is duplicated over and over again.
"Stipulated. Along with a comment that imagination produces fewer correct answers than empirical evidence does, and by a huge amount."
True, but empirical evidence isn't always possible. The fact remains that some of the elements at play aren't beholden to empirical evidence. We're not going to get that certainty. It's nice to have when you can achieve it, but it's not always possible. If we limit ourselves to only what can be empirically confirmed, then we'll always only have an incomplete part of the picture.If we can't get empirical evidence, what's left? Propose a hypothesis made up purely of imagination and say it's true (the god theory)? Or on logic, but without knowing all the factors?
Here, let me give you an example. Galaxies are accelerating apart; we have empirical evidence of that. We thus propose that something, conveniently labeled "dark matter"/"dark energy", is the cause. Accelerating matter without a cause is outside of all our experience, so we postulate a cause and name it without having the faintest idea of what it might actually be.
BUT. But then we go looking for "dark matter", in whatever form it may take. We don't quit once it's named, and we don't assign properties to it based on what we think it might be. We look for it and when we find it we'll study it. Maybe we'll find it's intelligent. Maybe we'll find it's extra-universal. Maybe we'll find that it's not "matter" at all. Maybe it's an unknown form of energy. We don't know, but we keep looking.
Is anyone looking for the god that made all this? As it is defined as being undetectable, no - which leaves us in the unenviable position of having made it up and decided it is true. A "truth" not even worth questioning or looking for. And that is not the road to knowledge, my friend.
So you want to think that DNA was caused by an intelligence - find that intelligence. Don't declare that it has to be because you don't know any other explanation - find that intelligence. That's how we learn things - not by proposing a hypothesis and quitting. Not by deciding it is caused by something we can never detect - find a way to detect it (as is being worked on in dark matter, gravity, etc.)"It's not the rules of chemical combination that I find ridiculous. It's the fact that we now have to decode the information stored in DNA. It is indeed information because it is then used to construct complex organisms. It isn't random. It is duplicated over and over again."
If you burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen it creates a chemical compound. The same compound, over and over. A compound with wondrous properties, and that is the foundation of life as we know it (it is used to construct complex organisms). Each atom has a place, and always the same place - each atom and chemical bond is a bit of "information" just as the atoms in the more complex DNA molecule are.
But if you don't like water as an example, how about a diamond? Or carbon fiber? The differences in the angle of the bonds (bits of information) makes a HUGE difference in the finished product. Or how about plastics - it can be a single molecule of almost unlimited size - inconceivably larger than a simple DNA string.
Your "information" is nothing more than a layman's shorthand for saying that the chemistry of the DNA molecule affects how it performs. Just as the chemistry in water, a diamond, carbon fibers or plastic does.Yes, I get what you're saying. And you're right, the properties of these compounds are truly "wondrous". It's in these properties that I see deliberate creation.
Take the concepts of abiogenesis as an example. It's believed that nucleotides bonded together inside lipids, which naturally bond together and form a spherical structure. Another "wondrous" property of lipids is that they allow nucleotides to pass through their walls, but do not allow polynucleotides to pass through. So nucleotides get inside, bond with others making polynucleotides, that are then stuck inside.
Do you not find this exceedingly convenient? That these "wondrous" properties cause these elements to work together in just such a way as to result in something truly "wondrous"? And not only that, but these elements also existed in close enough proximity to one another as to be able to work together in these ways. And they just happened to exist together in a clay that turns out to be the perfect catalyst for this process.
That's the kind of thing we're looking for in testing for this deliberate creator. We're not looking for magic. We're not looking for natural processes to have been overridden or manipulated in some way. But for the properties of these base elements to work together in such a way as to result in something that is truly greater than the sum of its parts. Method and intent in the design. As if it were deliberately intended, and not just a 'wondrous' accident.No, it's not "wondrous". Not unless you demand an intelligent creator working hard to create the particular forms of life we recognize on Earth.
It is the height of egocentrism to decide that the universe was made for humanity; that the cause was rooted in humanity. Rather, it seems obvious that humanity was caused by the way the universe is constructed (coupled with a healthy dose of randomness). Were the rules of the universe different we would not exist, at least in our present form, but there could well be another intelligence deciding that because they need lipids to act differently, and they did, that it was obvious that it was made just for them.
So what you are looking for is still rooted in egocentric thought. That the need for humanity actually caused the universe to be built in such a way that would happen, and that does indeed require intelligent design. But the basic premise - that certain things were necessary because humankind was necessary and needed them - is deeply flawed.
Yes, exactly, dark matter/energy is a perfect example. It's like you said, an imagined cause where answers are lacking. We then try to test for that imagined cause. It's a place-holder. A gap in our understanding.
You speak as if I just pulled this "God" answer out of my ass. I didn't. Long ago this was claimed to be THE answer. I'm simply testing that answer with all the data we have now. Being that this cause is claimed to be the cause of everything, it can't be a link within the causal chain. We can only detect and observe things that are within the causal chain. Only what is a product of this universe. But that chain stretches back to beyond the big bang, which is beyond our scope of detect-ability. So the inability to detect this cause is an expected result. That result is consistent with what's described.
By what's described, the natural world becomes what God wills. So another expected result would be for purely natural processes to result in all we observe, which is also true. There's no need for God to manipulate or override His own creation to make something happen.
Though this God was described long ago, everything about that explanation remains consistent with the data we now have that the original authors did not have. For example, experiencing time and space differently than we do. If this God is the creator of the universe, then He exists apart from this universe, meaning He also exists apart from time and space as we perceive them. This is also accurate.
The original explanation as to a cause has not yet been ruled out by modern science. I'm illustrating that. I'm not just injecting 'goddunit' where information lacks. I'm showing how what information we have is consistent with what's described. We can still test for God, but not in the traditional ways of the physical sciences because God is not a product of this universe, therefore He's not something that can be detected or observed in that way. You just have to understand what you're looking for.
Our ability to observe (through scientific instruments) has improved, and continues to improve over time. And with each improvement, we gain new insight into various phenomena. So it's not "faith" to believe that things which are not observable today, may be observable in the future. It's based on the historical fact of continuous scientific and technological advancement.
New explanations are not rejected because of some delusion that everything is understood. No scientific knowledge is sacred. That's another difference between scientific knowledge and religious "knowledge". Explanations are rejected because of insufficient evidence, or because they do not explain a phenomenon as well as a current explanation. That is part of the rigor of science. Only the best explanations (based on currently available evidence) are tentatively accepted as true. It really is that simple.
Going beyond the scope of science is fine, but you can't do that and call it science. That's trying to have your cake and eat it too. Either you want to make a scientific claim, or you want to go beyond the scope of science and make a philosophical or religious claim. Either way, if you say an explanation is scientific then you can expect the standards of scientific method to be applied, and that claim will be accepted or rejected on that basis.
And you seem to be confusing ontological naturalism (the assumption that "all that exists is only what can be observed and detected") with methodological naturalism (limiting the scope of science to natural causes and events.) They are different things. The former is a philosophical position. The latter is just a working paradigm that forms part of the rigor of scientific method. You don't have to hold naturalism as a personal philosophy to engage in the sciences. You only have to accept that the scope of science is limited to natural causes and events. It is entirely possible for someone to be a good scientist, yet believe in the supernatural. That is why there are eminent scientists, who also happen to have religious beliefs.
And no it is not necessary to go beyond the scope of science. It 's okay to say "we don't know". You may want to speculate beyond the scope of science, and that's fine, but doing so is not a necessity and it's not science.
Agreed. Scientific method is merely a way of acquiring a specific type of knowledge, and it is limited in scope. What you don't seem to recognise though, is that the constraints that form part of scientific method are one of the things that make it so useful and successful as a way of acquiring that knowledge. If you remove those constraints, then you would remove the rigor of the method, rendering it useless in that regard.
As I said, within science, explanations are not accepted as true just because there is no other explanation. That's not how it works. Explanations have to comply with scientific method. Asserting that something is the result of an intelligent designer, just because you don't have another explanation, is unscientific. It's classic god of the gaps. In science if there is no explanation that complies with scientific method, then the answer to the question how does it work, is "we don't know". And that's fine. If you're not fine with that answer, then you are free to say "god did it", but if you do, then (going by the current scope of science) you are no longer making a scientific claim.It is faith because a successful track record does not make certain success. But you and others assume it does indeed fit within the parameters we assume, and therefore will someday be provable/observable. The possibility that it is not yet provable/observable because it is an element beyond the natural/material is never even considered.
Yes, I get the scientific process and what qualifies an explanation. But there is an assumption that we already understand reality and the natural world fundamentally, now we're just filling in the details. This assumption causes some to reject ideas that don't fit that mold. It's a common mindset and it's damaging.
It's not making a "scientific" claim. It's considering what is known through science in the claim. If it goes beyond science, it first needs to be shown how and why.
I'm not the one holding naturalism as a philosophy. Those who reject ideas about God and the spiritual do so by that philosophy. So I'm illustrating how this is a demonstrably flawed philosophy and not a valid objection.
Yes, if we're looking to understand reality and the natural world, then going beyond the scope of science is indeed necessary because at least part of the answer is not beholden to the physical sciences. Part of the answer is going to be beyond that realm, so to exclude this is to never have the full explanation.
It's not me who's failing to recognize the constraints of science. Anyone who thinks we can reach some sort of conclusion about the existence of God and bases those conclusions on knowledge gained through the physical sciences are the ones failing in that regard. I'm simply pointing it out.
It is not the lack of an explanation alone that leads me to the claim that intelligent intent is involved. It's taking into account all information, all data, as well as the lack of an explanation. Anything spiritual, anything not of the physical, would simply be a gap in our understanding via the physical sciences. That assumption I spoke of before, the science delusion, believes that gap will someday be traversed because we already know the answer will conform to the physical/material rules we've already established, we're just waiting on empirical confirmation. And through that the possibility of something beyond the physical/material is rejected.
It's a matter of pre-defining erroneously what can and can't be true. Prematurely answering the question based on a demonstrably flawed logic.Of course the success of science is not certain, and I never said it was. But scientific method is currently the most successful method of acquiring knowledge about the world. Saying "god did it" is extremely unsuccessful as a way of acquiring such knowledge. It would be unreasonable and foolish to abandon the most successful method of acquiring knowledge currently known to humanity, in favor of the least successful. So, continuing with scientific method is a matter of reason, not a matter of faith.
You keep saying there is "an assumption that we already understand reality and the natural world fundamentally, now we're just filling in the details". I'm not aware of anyone in the scientific community who holds that view. Who are these people? Most I'm aware of believe that the amount we know about the universe is tiny in relation to what we likely don't know yet. Do you even really need to wonder why unscientific ideas are rejected by the scientific community? The clue is in the name. Unscientific ideas, like intelligent design, are rejected by the scientific community because they are unscientific.
There's no point using the language of science, and trying to pass off claims as scientific hypotheses, but then saying "it's not meant to be a scientific claim" as soon as someone applies the standards of scientific method and rejects the idea. To me that suggests you want such claims to have the status of science, but not the rigor. That's not how it works. And besides, if you agree that the assertions made are "not making a 'scientific' claim" then you recognize why those assertions are (and should be) rejected by the scientific community.
I'm not suggesting you hold naturalism as a personal philosophy. I'm pointing out that you are failing to distinguish between methodological naturalism and ontological naturalism (or philosophical naturalism). And that seems to be causing a critical error in the way you think about science.
The methodological naturalism of science does not make a truth claim. In other words, science does not claim that the natural world is all there is. That is philosophical naturalism. Science simply limits itself to natural causes and events, without making any claims at all about things outside of that scope.
This is for practical reasons, not philosophical: if a claim cannot be falsified (like many claims relating to the supernatural), then it cannot be tested. If it cannot be tested, then it cannot be accepted or rejected as true/false. If it cannot be accepted or rejected as true/false, then knowledge cannot be acquired. So the constraint of methodological naturalism, is one of the greatest strengths of science. It is the reason scientific method is such a successful way of acquiring accurate knowledge about how the world works.
So it's not a matter of "pre-defining erroneously what can and can't be true". That is a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is. Science makes no claim as to what may or may not be true outside of its own domain. It does not, and cannot, speak to such claims. Anyone is still free to make assertions about deities etc. But such assertions are, by definition, not scientific. If it were determined that attributes previously thought of as "divine", where actually natural events or causes, then that would become part of scientific enquiry. But then those attributes would, by definition, no longer be supernatural, and therefore no longer attributable to god.You see? That right there. That's what makes it faith. You say "Of course the success of science is not certain, and I never said it was. But scientific method is currently the most successful method of acquiring knowledge about the world." Then everyone nods in agreement. Me included. Then everyone tosses aside ideas that don't adhere to that, the science delusion. We already know nature fundamentally, we know these suggestions that want to stray away from the natural sciences or claim to be outside it's jurisdiction are off base, so we don't consider them. Based on faith in science. Faith in the method that's proven successful thus far.
And then all I'm saying gets dismissed as "god did it". Nevermind the point after point I make. Nevermind that what I'm saying makes perfect sense. Everything gets dismissed categorically as some ignorant anti-science superstitionist injecting "god did it" where their feeble minds don't understand. It's the same mistake being made over and over again.
I never said to stop with the scientific method. What I'm saying is built around the knowledge we've gained of the natural world through science.
"I'm not aware of anyone in the scientific community who holds that view. Who are these people?"
Everyone. You. That's what makes it a delusion. You're not even aware of it. To you you're being reasonable and rational. And I get it. You are. You're right. But you're in the same breath dismissing other things that don't conform based on that very mindset. Closing your mind to anything that may stray from that "proven" path. Your faith has been emboldened by the success of science. It validates you and your view. I'm the one being unreasonable.
So you rationalize that these ideas are "unscientific" and then claim I'm trying to make scientific claims that are unscientific. So you rationalize rejecting it. While what I'm actually doing is showing you where the boundaries of science lie, and where the explanation expands beyond them. I'm showing how what we've learned through science supports what I'm saying. How what I'm saying doesn't conflict with what we've learned through science. I'm using science in the correct way. As a tool. But not the only tool.
Take the mind as an example. This is something that demonstrably can't be detected scientifically, yet we all know it exists. Of course, from your mindset, the mind is nothing more than a construct created by a physical brain. We just don't get it yet because we don't yet get the complexity of the mind. But we will! You have faith that we already know what it is, we're just waiting on some smart people to figure it out. Sometime in the future. See... faith.
"The methodological naturalism of science does not make a truth claim. In other words, science does not claim that the natural world is all there is. That is philosophical naturalism. Science simply limits itself to natural causes and events, without making any claims at all about things outside of that scope.
Yes, I get that. And you're exactly right. Please understand, I'm not the one making the mistake here. I do understand that. But people who point to science and say, "See, there's no God and no need for a God", they're the ones making that mistake. I'm pointing that out. It's a common misunderstanding that has to be explained everytime I, a Christian, start talking about evolution. People look at me with their heads cocked sideways like a dog that hears a strange sound. How can he believe in God AND science? That's where the clarification becomes necessary.
"If it were determined that attributes previously thought of as "divine", where actually natural events or causes, then that would become part of scientific enquiry. But then those attributes would, by definition, no longer be supernatural, and therefore no longer attributable to god."
See what I mean? You just did exactly what I'm talking about. That's where you're wrong. Of course all attributes are going to be the result of "natural events". How else? Why must it be magic? Or God in some way overriding the natural world? Or manipulating otherwise natural processes in some way? Based on what? Where do you get that?
Make sense?Until now I understood your comments to be a criticism of science. That was a misunderstanding on my part. From your latest comments, I gather that you recognise your argument is not with science itself, but with those who misrepresent science. In that respect I share in your criticism of those who misrepresent science by making claims (like the idea that science "disproves" the existence of god) that science does not (and cannot) make.
But I'm not clear on why you think categorizing an idea as outside the scope of science, is the same as tossing it aside. There is a rich tradition of Eastern and Western philosophy that explores issues like the existence of god, the nature of consciousness etc. and a huge body of works that considers other issues outside the scope of science. So what do you mean by "tossed aside" in this context?
There is a difference between someone rejecting an argument due to prejudice, and someone rejecting it because they do not agree with your conclusions. In relation to consciousness you said: "plants act a lot like animals", "favor relatives", "compete against those who aren't related" etc. The problem with all these things is that none of them demonstrate that plants have consciousness. It's reasonable for an observer to characterize the same events as plants responding to stimuli, in ways that happen to appear similar to animal behaviour. A robot can act like it's alive. That doesn't mean it is. A program can act like it's intelligent. That doesn't mean it is. But there's also another reason.
In keeping with the principle of parsimony (part of scientific method) we should endeavor to favor the simplest explanation that is consistent with the data available at a given time. Introducing the (as yet unknown and unproven) concept of consciousness in plants, is not in keeping with that principle. Therefore in the absence of sufficient evidence, we are inclined to (tentatively) favor the latter, simpler, explanation that plants are simply reacting to stimuli. And that (as I pointed out) is exactly what researchers in the plant science community have done. That's not delusion. It's a straightforward assessment of two competing explanations, and a decision that, based on the standards of scientific method, the explanation you favor is not currently the best explanation for this particular phenomenon.
You went on to say "we can't detect or determine whether or not anything has consciousness", which is an admission that you are merely speculating. Nothing wrong with that. But speculation, by definition, means your explanation is not (and cannot by the standards of scientific method) currently be accepted as true. So you seem to be objecting to the fact that an argument which you admit cannot be accepted as true, is not being accepted as true. That doesn't makes sense to me.
But I think the biggest problem is that when someone with religious belief advocates a certain explanation in relation to how the world works, the nature of religious belief means it is difficult to determine whether that person is advocating that explanation because of the evidence available, or simply because another position would contradict their religious beliefs. For example, could you ever not believe that an intelligent designer was responsible for how the universe works? Some non religious people suspect (for good reason) that religious people only advocate scientific explanations that they perceive as supporting their worldview. And reject those scientific explanations that don't. Fair or not, you can understand why that's the case. Many religious people claim to have "knowledge" about the universe that is divinely inspired, immutable, and unquestionable. It's understandable that those who don't hold those beliefs, would question the objectivity of those who do. That doesn't mean it's always unjustified to reject arguments perceived to favor religious belief. As above, sometimes that happens because it's simply not a very good argument. But where it's not justified, i.e. there's some prejudice, it's likely because some people do not trust that a religious person is able to be objective in relation to how the world works. And to be honest religious advocates have not done much to disprove that view.Yes, you are exactly right. I am not criticizing science, but rather the misuse and misrepresentation of science. This goes right to the heart of the point I'm trying to make. Earlier you said ....
You - "You are free to believe plants move "a lot like animals", and hypothesize that plants are therefore conscious. That does not change the fact that currently, due to insufficient evidence, plant 'consciousness' is not widely accepted as the best explanation of the phenomena you describe. And that hypothesis won't be accepted as such until there is sufficient evidence."
There it is. Basically, the only way what I'm saying can even be considered a plausible/acceptable thing is if there is first sufficient evidence. And that right there is the problem. "Sufficient evidence" means that it must first conform to physical/material/empirical standards. Leaving us only what can be scientifically tested and confirmed.
In this case in particular we're talking about consciousness. There is still, to this day, insufficient evidence that even supports that consciousness exists. We still cannot detect it. Test for it. Measure it. Is an earthworm conscious? Don't know. What about a flower? Don't know. Why? Because we can't detect or observe it. In fact, the only reason we know consciousness is a real thing at all is because we each experience it. Yet there's as much empirical evidence to support consciousness exists as there is that God exists. None.
And therein lies the problem. Here's something we all know for a fact exists, that lacks sufficient evidence. It fails by the standards that you stated above are required before it can be "widely accepted as the best explanation".
The point I'm trying to make is this ... If anything exists that can't be detected/observed (consciousness, the mind, life, etc), then it stands to reason that at least part of the explanation is going to have to include elements that don't have "sufficient evidence". So it is illogical to toss something aside for that reason. You're guaranteeing that you will never have the whole answer because you're predefining prematurely what can and can't be true."Basically, the only way what I'm saying can even be considered a plausible/acceptable thing is if there is first sufficient evidence." Yes that's exactly right. From Albert Einstein, to Marie Curie, an explanation of a phenomenon will be accepted (or rejected) on the basis of whether there is sufficient empirical evidence to support it. And that is what distinguishes scientific knowledge, from religion and different branches of philosophy.
With science, accepting/ rejecting an explanation is not about what you and I believe, but what we can both observe, which is why empirical evidence is so important to scientific method. Empirical evidence is the only thing that we can objectively share. So how do we make objective observations of a phenomenon like consciousness, that is apparently subjective by its very nature? That's one of the unique challenges of examining consciousness. But it doesn't follow that because we face a unique challenge, we should therefore abandon scientific method, or redefine it to allow claims to be accepted without empirical evidence.
Work looking at the neural correlates of consciousness is ongoing, and has been fruitful in determining which parts of the brain are active during specific conscious thoughts and actions. This work has led to things like brain–computer interfaces, which allow direct communication between the brain and external devices. This is all progress towards a greater understanding of the mechanics of the brain, and how that relates to consciousness.
Besides, fields of study that do not require empirical evidence already exist. They are called philosophy, religion, theology, aspects of psychology and psychiatry etc. So are you saying that these fields of study are the only fields that should exist and there should none that relies on empirical evidence? What do you think that would achieve?
"Here's something we all know for a fact exists, that lacks sufficient evidence." That's not accurate. It's not that there is lack of sufficient evidence for consciousness. As you say, we know consciousness exists, and we even know what it is (in the simplest terms it's a state of being aware, and having a sense of selfhood). But what we don't know is what causes consciousness, or exactly how consciousness works. In other words, consciousness is the known effect, of an (as yet) unknown phenomenon. It is the explanations for consciousness (that range from the physiological to the supernatural) that lack sufficient empirical evidence.
But what qualitative difference does that make to how we go about our daily lives? Do you know of anyone who has been killed as result of the fact that there is currently no accepted scientific explanation for consciousness? Know of any wars that have been fought because there is currently no accepted scientific explanation for consciousness? Know of anyone who has been hurt because there is not scientific explanation for consciousness? In other words, what are you complaining about? All existing explanations of consciousness, lack sufficient empirical evidence and therefore cannot be accepted as scientific knowledge. So what?
I'm still unclear what you mean when you say: "leaving us only what can be scientifically tested and confirmed". Your comment implies that people are somehow being deprived of any belief that falls outside of scope of science. But billions of people across the world profess some kind of religious belief, and there are countless works of philosophy, theology, literature, poetry all exploring ideas that fall outside the scope of science. So again, what exactly do you mean when you say "leaving us only what can be scientifically tested and confirmed". What exactly are you complaining about exactly?
And your argument that explanations will have to include elements for which there is no empirical evidence, is based on the assumption that consciousness etc. can never be observed. That argument is made unsound by anyone who doesn't believe that assumption. The rest of the argument about "predefining prematurely what can and can't be true" etc. also fails on that basis.
As for plants, check out this series by David Attenborough ... "The Private Life of Plants" ... https://archive.org/details/ThePrivateLifeOfPlants_581
As for your comments on the difference between scientific knowledge and religious knowledge, understand that I get what you're saying and I'm careful not to make these mistakes. This is why I rely so heavily on science. I only take what can be empirically proven as concrete. I allow this knowledge to form the foundation, line the boundaries, and determine what's what where it can be determined.
But one significant difference that you didn't mention is what "religious knowledge" allows for. It allows for concepts like deliberate intent, intelligent design, where scientific knowledge does not.
Think about it like this. Think of all the things the mind is capable of. Have you ever read Lord of the Rings? Or a similar story? In your mind you construct a whole world full of colorful characters built around the information given in those stories. Even now you can explore this world, look around. See it as if it exists. It's broad expanses. All of this happening in your head. None of it observable. Nobody else can see it as you see it. We basically have to take your word for it. Hell, you could be lying, saying you have read the book when you actually haven't. We can't know. We can't look inside your mind and confirm it.
Yet, we assume, the mind is a construct created by the matter/energy of your brain. Which means the matter/energy your brain is made of is capable of all of that. The matter of your brain can recall images, sounds, smells, real and made up, and present them to you in a whole imagined world. Yet we can't detect or observe any of that. How do we know our minds are the only places where things like this are happening? We don't. Is a tree capable of thought? Don't know. There's no telling what all could be going on "behind the scenes" that we're not privy to."But one significant difference that you didn't mention is what "religious knowledge" allows for. It allows for concepts like deliberate intent, intelligent design, where scientific knowledge does not. "
You're right. But it also allows for walking dead men - zombies. It allows for people to live for days in the acid filled, oxygen poor belly of a fish. It allows for talking snakes and fruit that give instant knowledge. It allows for anything at all - anything that man's imagination can come up with.
Which is all very good and fine...until it is called "knowledge" and used to refute actual observations. Until it is used to determine what is true and false. Until it becomes more important to use imagination to determine reality than observation, testing and reason. Even the term you use - "religious knowledge" is an oxymoron as there is nothing about it that can be called "knowledge". At best it is an unproven hypothesis, and one that can never be shown to be either true OR false.You seem to be missing the point in exactly what makes these types of things significant. They're significant because they're things that don't generally happen. A talking donkey is significant BECAUSE donkeys don't usually talk. The point of a miracle is that it is something out of the ordinary. Something ordinarily thought impossible.
Let's say you one day witness something that your rational mind knows shouldn't be possible. You might feel inclined to record this event. To write about it. To make it known to others because you know it was a significant event. But, because of the mindset you're speaking of, anyone in the future who reads what you wrote about would automatically dismiss you as a fool who doesn't know what he's talking about. The event would be dismissed as an overactive imagination. So, even if these things actually happened, those of us who pride ourselves as being "rational" and "reasonable" would dismiss it.
But all of that is beside the point. What I'm trying to highlight here, illustrate, is how the alternative explanation that you're representing doesn't stand up on its own. It describes the physical elements. The mechanics. But there's a huge chasm between the physical elements that make up a biological body and the life that animates it. There's a huge chasm between the behaviors of a physical brain and what we know the mind to be capable of. A chasm that your explanations don't come anywhere near actually explaining.
To clarify, the only reason I used the term "religious knowledge" is because that's the term that Don W used. I never said imagination is more important than observation, testing, and reason. They're all important. I don't favor imagination over the others. I treat knowledge gained through observation/testing/reason as the concrete foundation to be built atop of. To keep it faithful to what we know to be true and accurate. To show that what I'm talking about doesn't in any way contradict what we know for certain.
But in those instances where the 'supernatural' is said to have interacted with the natural, that CAN be tested. Like in my "God created evolution" hubs. I postulate a hypothesis built around a model of the events and timeline given in Genesis. I can demonstrate how those events actually happened. And, more importantly, I can demonstrate the impact of those events is real. There is a very real psychological change that came about as a result of those events that it's important to understand because that change is a big part of what makes modern humanity what it is today.No, if I witness an unusual event I don't proclaim it a miracle or supernatural to the world. I either shrug my shoulders and forget it or, if it was interesting, investigate to find out what really happened. If I have any evidence of it (photos, recordings, etc.) I might publish those asking for help. But never just claim it as supernatural because I don't understand it.
If your hub is the basis of what you've published in the forums (assuming I remember the author correctly, that aliens visited and were taken for gods), then you have shown exactly nothing. We've discussed your theories and I basically refute them with evidence the same thing happened elsewhere without gods. But even if that happened, you are basing the whole thing on the assumption that there WERE aliens, and that you have never show to be true. Just a statement that it could never have happened any other way, and that is no better than declaring a god exists because it had to. Doesn't work.
It is a working hypothesis, yes, but until proof of those gods is found it will remain that: a hypotheses without proof, and there are millions of those, from Thor and Odin to the witch doctors to witches.And that right there is why I reject your viewpoint as irrational and illogical. It's demonstrably broken. According to your standards life and the mind are also working hypotheses that you must reject even though they undoubtedly exist. See? Broken.
No, if you're remembering something about aliens then you're not remembering correctly. Though, I guess, technically, they can be seen as alien to the naturally evolved world they appeared in. If you've come away with the conclusion that I've shown nothing then yes, there's quite a bit you've obviously missed.
Yet, notice, even though you admit to having a spotty memory about my hypothesis, you still without hesitation put it on me that I've failed and that I'm basing the whole thing on an assumption. Hardly a rigorous set of standards.
And yes, I have shown them to be true. All the evidence we should expect to see if they really existed is there. We've got multiple cultures, all from the same region of the world, all claiming these beings existed. So we've got them showing up in the stories of the locals. We also have the influence of these beings on those cultures and events and progressions that did not, despite your claim, happen elsewhere. Nothing even close.
You discount my method as shoddy and broken, yet can't even really recall what it was. Heavens. And seriously with the shrug your shoulders and forget it reaction? Let's say you walked outside and your car was floating a foot above the ground. Would you just shrug that off? Forget it? What if your investigation turned up nothing? What then? Just putt it out of your mind? Dismiss it as "weird"? Why?No. Life is pretty well defined up to the point of a virus. Easy to see, detect and verify.
Mind...you'll have to define "mind" before I accept OR reject it. I have my own definition but also recognize that by that definition it cannot be detected and may not exist.
Yes, it was your hypothesis, but without proof. Only tales, never any solid evidence. That and an unsupported that civilization could not happen without those aliens even though it did so multiple times in multiple places. The concept that because something originated in one place requires aliens does not hold up.
I guess that's the point - if I find my car floating and despite my best efforts to find out why I fail, it is NOT a reason to think the reason is supernatural or make up a reason that fits the event. Just that I don't know the reason. Now, it is most reasonable to make up a reason...as long as that reason is checked for veracity and truth. Not to simply make one up, declare it to be true because I'm ignorant of any other reason, and quit looking. Which is what those declaring miracles or any other supernatural event do - make it up and quit looking.
You didn't quit looking, but did ignore and disregard anything that didn't fit. Flawed logic, in other words, and even then never found any proof (no, old tales twisted to fit properly aren't proof).See, that's the problem. You somehow think you already know what can and can't be true, and accept or reject things based on these imagined qualifiers. How can you know?
Life ... No, cannot detect or verify, except by observing behaviors consistent with where life is present. Life itself cannot be detected. Not at all well defined.
Mind ... May not exist? Are you serious? Clearly it does. You experience it first hand. No, it doesn't exist spatially. No, it doesn't exist materially. But it is clearly happening. Clearly has an impact on you and what you do. Plays a real role in the real world. How can you say it may not exist?
How can you say I have no proof? I have mounds of supporting evidence. A timeline and series of events that can be compared between Genesis and real world events. A detectable/traceable behavior change that originates in both time and place right where the hypothesis predicts. Dozens of cultures showing influence of these beings in both their stories as well as the trajectory of their progressions.
By the way, the civilizations that you say happened elsewhere only happened after these beings were dispersed at Babel. Another expected result.
And why does science need to allow for those things? Philosophy, theology, art all allow for the exploration and expression of such ideas.
In other words, why are you trying to make a hammer saw wood. Why not just use a saw instead?Science doesn't. Again, I'm not criticizing science. But when we have these discussions, both you and Wilderness have rejected things I've said because they fall outside of science or can't be scientifically verified.
The truth of the matter is that not all of what reality is conforms to scientific testability. Some of it falls outside of those lines, meaning some of the explanation will too.I can't speak for wilderness, but I'm happy to give you reasons for that.
You believe in the concept of intelligent design because your religious belief dictates that you have to. You can't not believe in it, because if you did that would mean your religious belief is wrong. So you cherry pick any bits of science that you believe support your preconceived idea. And you say "See! It's not religion, it's science!"
What seems to be frustrating you is the fact that I, and others, are not buying it. You are obviously not able to be objective, because according to your religious belief you already "know" how the universe came into being. So for you, as it is with all religious people, it's just about trying to "prove" your religion is right (and obviously every other religion is wrong).
Simply put, you reject outright the idea that no intelligent designer is needed, because it does not fit your religious view. And in that respect you are no different to someone in the 1600s, rejecting outright the idea that the earth moves around the sun, because it does not fit their religious view. I do not believe those people could have conceived the technological advances that enable us to categorically demonstrate heliocentrism today, just as you and I cannot conceive of the future advances that may enable us to categorically demonstrate how consciousness works. But like them, you are using a current lack of empirical evidence as an excuse to lower the standard of what we should accept as true.
Now let me ask you some questions: I have no religious affiliation. I can believe the god hypothesis, or not, depending on what I believe is most likely to be true, using whatever standard I believe to be most useful. Why should I take any of your arguments about intelligent design seriously, knowing that you are completely biased towards one preconceived idea of how the world works, and therefore cannot approach the subject objectively? And why should I take seriously, the opinions of someone who wants me to use the same standard of truth as someone from the 1600s?That's bullshit. Logic dictates my belief in intelligent intent. I could not believe in it if not believing in it made sense. If it were a rational thing to think. I don't just blindly believe like it's some kind of requirement. If it were more consistent with what's observed that there isn't intelligent intent then my beliefs would change. I believe what is most likely to be true in my mind. Logic dictates my beliefs, not the other way around. I realize that's not the case for many believers, so I get why you think what you do.
Your assumption that I am biased is exactly that. An assumption. I'm not biased to one over the other. I legitimately tried to give a god-less existence a real go, and it just doesn't hold water. For so many reasons. The best I've ever heard it put is Trey Parker, the creator of South Park, who said...
"Out of all the ridiculous religion stories — which are greatly, wonderfully ridiculous — the silliest one I’ve ever heard is, ‘Yeah, there’s this big, giant universe and it’s expanding and it’s all going to collapse on itself and we’re all just here, just because… That to me, is the most ridiculous explanation ever."
It is you who is putting me in the mindset of the 1600's. That is your belief, and as beliefs do, it's coloring your perception. If my arguments make sense, they make sense, regardless of what you think of me. What you think of me doesn't matter. If my explanations sound reasonable it's because they're reasonable. No matter how I arrived at them.
In my mind you need look no further than DNA. Coded information in each of our cells. Coded information that is retained and passed on and then used to reproduce complex organisms over and over again, making a random/chaotic process accumulative. How anyone can look at that and come away with the rationalization that it just self-organized by pure random chance is beyond me.
It's really this simple. Intelligence is a natural product of this universe, right? Do you really think the only occurrence of it in all the universe is in our heads? That it just happened and exists here and nowhere else?
Think about it like this, mathematics, invented or discovered? Our intelligent minds come up with this system that we then find out the universe conforms to. So did we invent it? Or did it exist already and did we simply discover it?
In fact, what you said here about your assumptions of me, I think are part of the problem. You and others associate the belief in intelligent intent with that kind of mindset, so you can't simply consider it on it's own merit. It comes associated with that "1600's" mindset. That old way of thinking that you see as a damaging and derailing mistake of human history. So even considering that view seriously means going down that same "broken" path. So it's never simply considered realistically.
So, ironically, it would seem it is you, and not me, allowing beliefs to dictate what you think.Explain to me how someone who believes god created the universe, could not believe in intelligent design. Are you saying your belief in intelligent design came before your belief in god? As you rightly say, for most "believers" that's not the case. Their belief in god comes first, and it's that belief that dictates their belief in intelligent design because anyone who believes in god cannot not believe in intelligent design.
I don't accept "it sounds ridiculous" as a useful criterion of whether something should be accepted as true. Whether something sounds ridiculous is irrelevant to whether it should be accepted as true. Suggesting otherwise is a non sequitur (and yes the same applies to those who say the idea of god sounds ridiculous, because it works both ways).
Whether your arguments "make sense" is irrelevant to whether they are accepted as true. The idea of a Higgs-Boson "made sense". But it was not accepted as true for 40 years, because we could not detect one. They didn't say "it makes sense, so even though we can't prove it empirically, let's just accept it as true". You are suggesting that the standard of what we accept as true be lowered, just so your ideas about intelligent design can be called "science". That's unacceptable.
Again, in the case of DNA, you can speculate about intelligent design all you want, but just like the Higgs Boson unless you can produce sufficient empirical evidence to support your claim, it won't be accepted as true. Suggesting that intelligent design should be accepted as true, just . . . because, is special pleading. Concepts that happen to support religious beliefs get no special treatment. The same standard applies to them as to any other hypothesis.
I am happy to get into a detailed discussion of your ideas. I enjoy such discussion. But you need to understand that I will not lower the standard of what I accept as true (the standards of scientific method) just to satisfy your beliefs, however strongly you hold those beliefs. So any such discussion would, for me, be nothing but interesting speculation. If you consider that to be "tossing aside" your ideas, then there's not much I can do about. The criteria for what constitutes scientific knowledge is quite clear.It's really this simple. If my belief in God did not in any way resemble the natural world I see, I'd abandon it. I adopted a belief in God from others who came before me who come from generations who knew less than we do now. If modern knowledge were to show that these beliefs were nonsense, I'd drop them.
Regarding your Higgs Boson example, it made enough sense to build a super collider to test it, right? If it didn't at least make enough sense to really think it possible, would we have invested the time and money required to build the technology needed to confirm it?
You should accept "it sounds ridiculous" as a useful criterion. The fact that you don't is probably why you can accept that DNA "just happened". That's utterly ridiculous, but because of your view, you allow it anyway, against all rationality.
I don't care about calling my ideas "science". They're not science and I don't claim them to be. They're informed by science and knowledge gained through scientific inquiry, but my ideas themselves are decidedly not science.
You "Again, in the case of DNA, you can speculate about intelligent design all you want, but just like the Higgs Boson unless you can produce sufficient empirical evidence to support your claim, it won't be accepted as true. "
That right there is a big problem. See, if God is real, there will be no "sufficient empirical evidence" of it. And that's an expected result. In fact, it's illogical to require empirical evidence because empirical evidence isn't consistent with the claim. All that's "seeable" is the result. So does the result show signs of intelligent intent? You won't see the forces that make it so, only what is made so. That's the whole problem with empirical evidence. If God is the creator of the causal chain, then it doesn't make sense that He'd be a detectable link within it, does it? That's illogical.
I'm not asking you to lower your standard of what you accept to be true. I'm asking you to consider logically why it is counter-intuitive in this regard to hold those standards because those standards only apply to the material, and we're talking about something else. You're demanding it fit in a mold that it doesn't fit in. If it did, then it wouldn't be true. It would then be material. It would then not be regarding what created the universe, but instead another product of the universe. What created the universe cannot be a detectable product of it. Only what is a product of the universe is detectable. So "sufficient empirical evidence" only applies when you're not dealing with what creates the universe. It's not a lowering of standards. It's simple reason and logic."See, if God is real, there will be no "sufficient empirical evidence" of it. And that's an expected result."
But if God is NOT real, there will be no "sufficient empirical evidence" of it. And that's an expected result.
So how do you determine which is actual and true?Logic and reason. DNA just self-aligning as it has out of pure happenstance, an utterly ridiculous belief. Intelligent, self-aware, beings capable of reason just happening, then contemplating our place in this universe, all unintended and haphazardly caused, ridiculous. That's how you determine it's true. Because the alternative is completely insane.
The strongest argument in my mind isn't that God exists, it's that what's required for the alternative to be true, that this universe and everything within it exists as it does without a God, is completely crazy. How so many intelligent people can buy into that idea so freely confounds me. It's nothing short of unreasonable. To me, DNA alone IS sufficient empirical evidence.Ah, but "logic and reason" are such a poor substitute for actual observation, testing, etc. For instance, we see such statements as "DNA just self-aligning as it has out of pure happenstance, an utterly ridiculous belief" without any "logic" or "reason" to base it on. Or "Intelligent, self-aware, beings capable of reason just happening, then contemplating our place in this universe, all unintended and haphazardly caused, ridiculous. " or even "That's how you determine it's true. Because the alternative is completely insane. ". While ridicule is a common debate tactic, and often useful when used on those with a pre-formed belief, it has nothing to do with "logic and reason". It is, in fact, a well understood fallacy.
The second paragraph continues in the same vein. Any alternative to the desired conclusion is "completely crazy". You are "confounded" that so many intelligent people buy it, while ignoring that "so many intelligent people" just might have a real reason for that belief - that those people reject your logical fallacies doesn't tell you that maybe there is a flaw in your "logic and reason".
Finally, that "DNA alone IS sufficient empirical evidence <for a god>" sounds just a little odd as it is based on believing, with a total lack of evidence or understanding of the probabilities involved. Even the actual process is unknown, but still impossible to your mind. We see once more no "logic and reason" at all; just acknowledged ignorance and a statement that because of that ignorance anything but a god is to be ridiculed and declared wrong and impossible.
But on top of that is the statement that "The strongest argument in my mind isn't that God exists, it's that what's required for the alternative to be true, that this universe and everything within it exists as it does without a God, is completely crazy.". You have no idea of how it could have happened without ID, so ID has to be the correct answer. Everything else, even the possibilities that you haven't considered, is completely crazy. This again is not "logic and reason"; it is a demand for an answer, any answer, whether right or wrong.
The bottom line is that you are coming from the very flawed and unreasonable stance that "I don't know and understand everything there is to know, specifically the mechanics of creation, so it has to be a god". I submit to you that acknowledged ignorance is far preferable to making up an unprovable conclusion and deciding that it is the only possibility as all others (known and unknown) are "ridiculous".Oh no, my conclusion is because I DO understand the mechanics and the probabilities. I DO understand, that is why I believe. And I understand based on the findings of actual observations and testing. All you've said here, including invoking fallacies and such, just sounds to me like a whole lot of exposition to try to rationalize a preferred conclusion. To try to make a completely unreasonable explanation sound reasonable.
The wording I chose is to stress the level of ridiculousness. It's not to ridicule or make fun of. It's to acknowledge this view for what it really is. Unreasonable.
DNA being sufficient evidence isn't based on believing. It's based on the fact that DNA is consistent with just the kind of thing we should expect to see in a reality that was intelligently realized. We cannot empirically "see" the cause if the cause is "supernatural", so we can only determine based on what exists. And what exists is consistent with something that was intelligently intended. Coded information being embedded in our make-up is consistent with exactly the kind of thing we should expect to see.
It's a common argument to suggest the believer just doesn't understand or is ignorant. I have been a science nerd all my life. I have read and studied the findings of science as long as I can remember. I do understand the mechanics and the probabilities involved. And I understand the rationalizations made to attempt to explain it away. The fact remains, no matter how you try to spin it, it is a purely irrational and unreasonable explanation.Really! You know and understand the probabilities and mechanics of the first DNA string to form?! Can you please show the calculations, along with the original premises used for that proposed event? Be sure to include reasons/observations of environmental conditions when it happened as well as what the first primitive precursor to DNA was. I'd be much interested.
"fact that DNA is consistent with just the kind of thing we should expect to see in a reality that was intelligently realized"
It's also just the kind of thing we should expect to see in a reality that did not require ID. Some kind of "information" chemical determining the genetics of the organism. So how again how do you determine which scenario is correct? Do you base it on a desired conclusion because all others are ridiculous/impossible/crazy or do you go looking for something you can use to show your conclusion is correct?
"Coded information being embedded in our make-up is consistent with exactly the kind of thing we should expect to see."
As above, "coded information" is exactly the kind of thing we should expect to see in a naturally, empirically developed life (as we know it - other forms may be different). As above, then, how do you choose which scenario is correct?
I think you misunderstood the use of "ignorant". We are ALL ignorant. Even you, claiming to know the probabilities of an unknown chemical solution developing the first step of a DNA molecule, are completely ignorant of how it might have happened or even the probabilities you claim to understand. No one, not even the entire species, knows everything there is to know; mankind is ignorant in a million different areas. I'm not picking on you personally; I'm saying man...does...not...know and making up an answer based on that ignorance isn't the smart way to go. We could use it as a hypothesis and try to go on a prove it (that's how we learn) but you have conveniently defined your "cause" as being forever undetectable in any manner and that is thus impossible. We are then stuck forever with our ignorance with no chance of ever learning how/why it came to be. Time will tell if that is true or not as others are working to find how it happened, although I don't expect a definitive answer in my lifetime.Well, it actually most likely began with RNA strands, which form naturally when the conditions and the elements of the primordial Earth are replicated. How exactly RNA changed over to DNA isn't quite understood.
But you're clearly not getting what I'm saying. The mechanics are one thing. The elements at play and how they work together. The intelligence comes when you consider that all these various components actually existed together in a microcosm, and actually interacted with each other in such a way as to form a strand of nucleotides that are then able to replicate and construct organisms over and over again based on the order in which they form.
Like in the case of abiogenesis and how it's believed that may have happened. You've got lipids that bind together and form natural spherical structures that allow nucleotides to pass through their walls, but don't allow polynucleotides to pass through, which of course encourages the formation of polynucleotides within these structures, which provides protection. And it turns out all of these components existed in a clay that proves to be the perfect catalyst for this process.
So yeah, we can understand the components involved and the mechanics of maybe how it happened and reach the conclusion of 'of course that's what happened when you combine these components'. The part of this that is practically incalculable is how exceedingly convenient it is that these components all existed together in such a way, and all interacted with each other in just such a way, as to be able to interact with one another like this. First off, each of these components formed independent of one another, in no way related to one another, yet interact in just such a way to mechanistically result in strands of coded information that are able to replicate and pass on to future generations, which are then used to construct those future generations much like the previous, allowing for a progressive and accumulative process that eventually led to intelligence and self-awareness and the rest.
You can try to rationalize how unremarkable and even expected it all might be to become what it became, but the fact is, however it happened, it is coded information. It's not random and chaotic as it should be. It's a system. A replicating system. A system made possible not by one component, but by the combination of information combined with the ability to replicate.
You have to do quite a bit of rationalizing to convince yourself that there's nothing significant about any of this. That it's really not all that remarkable. That it's to be expected. Yeah, maybe, but the reason for this is because of the environment it all exists in and the components that exist in that environment and the conditions of that environment. And all of that is determined by design. So that chaos becoming order isn't remarkable for a reason. Biological coded information systems forming naturally aren't all that remarkable for a reason. That's design. That's deliberately intended. That's no accident that just happened that way.
That's how you should know, because it should be blatantly obvious to you. Especially when you consider the probabilities involved.
The nature of your religious belief means it is untestable. It's no different to me claiming that DNA was designed by a unicorn that transcends nature, and is undetectable to human beings. I can then point to DNA and say "See it's information. My unicorn belief must be true, and that belief is informed by science". In reality I have proven nothing at all about the truth of my belief.
That's exactly my point. Even though it made a lot of sense, based on the mathematical models, it was still not accepted as true until there was empirical evidence to support it. So the fact that something "makes sense" theoretically is not enough for it to be accepted as true. That is not the standard by which things are accepted as true in science, empirical evidence is.
Really? So the people in the 1600s were right to reject heliocentrism on the grounds that it was (according to the religious "knowledge" of the time) "foolish and absurd". And should I reject the theory of relativity because the idea that time passes more slowly the faster I travel "sounds ridiculous"? And should I reject the theory of evolution because the idea that humans evolved from apes "sounds ridiculous"? Are you sure "it sounds ridiculous" is a good criterion for deciding whether to accept or reject an idea? If so then I should definitely reject god belief, because the fact that people think their religion is the one true religion that reveals the ultimate reality definitely sounds ridiculous to me. But I don't reject god-belief on that basis. I can't. The most I can say is that there is insufficient empirical evidence to support the view that god exists. Whether I think something "sounds ridiculous" or not is irrelevant to whether it's true.
Agreed.
In Hinduism, shiva (the creator and the destroyer) is limitless, formless, and transcendent. So if shiva is real, there will be no "sufficient empirical evidence" of it. So should I abandon the standard of scientific method and accept shiva exists without empirical evidence, on the grounds that if he did, there would be no such evidence? Or should I simply accept that the question of whether shiva exists, is not a scientific one and cannot be addressed by science? According to your "logic and reason" I should believe shiva exists, and so should you. Do you? If not, why not?
Which is exactly why it makes no sense to use a method that relies on empirical evidence, to consider the question of god.
You are saying the same as I am. The standards of scientific method and the nature of god, shiva, and certain other gods (as defined by various religions) is such, that there can't be a scientific argument for their existence. We are in agreement on that.
However the billions of people around the world who believe such beings exist, do not necessarily hold those beliefs because they have reasoned from some empirical evidence to the existence of their gods. Their belief is grounded in what they perceive (rightly or wrongly) to be their experiences of those gods. Feeling loved, feeling forgiven, feeling guilty, feeling comforted, feeling condemned etc. all these things are attributed in various ways to the gods people believe in. In other words, their faith is not based on empirical evidence.
And although I do not personally subscribe to god-belief, for me, that is the most honest approach to it. An absolute, resolute acknowledgement that there is no empirical evidence for god, and none is needed. There belief in god is pure faith. This idea of religious belief being "informed" by science seems disingenuous to me. It seems like the sort of thing someone would say if they were on the fence, and trying to reinforce a belief they were not sure of. I know Christians who are interested in science, not because it "informs" their belief (their belief does not need to be "informed" by science) but because finding out about the universe is interesting. If they required their belief in god to be reinforced by science, then can they be said to have faith?
I'm not trying to fit anything into anything. I'm simply stating a fact, that you seem to understand and agree with. The standards of scientific method is such, that there can't be a scientific argument for anything that is said to transcend nature. You want to make a philosophical argument for the existence of god, shiva etc? Knock yourself out. You want to make theological arguments about the nature of all the different gods? Go for it. But you cannot reasonably make scientific arguments for (or against) the existence of certain gods (the ones that are said to transcend nature). Science simply does not do the supernatural.Yes, it is untestable in any kind of observable/physical/material way. But not untestable. The mind tests. Compares and contemplates. It can deal in immaterial. It can deal in the formless. And my mind recognizes DNA as an example that clearly says this is not an unintended accident. There's deliberate purpose in what's happening.
And it's not just DNA. It's life in general. The experiences. How we perceive it. The very fact that we "biological machines" look for reason and meaning and purpose and are driven by dreams and inspiration and passion, doesn't add up in any way, shape, or form in the purely material explanation. Biological machines honed purely through necessity for survival's sake doesn't have need for preferences and appreciation of beauty and finding meaning and purpose in one's actions and experiences.
My religious belief isn't a choice. It's an acknowledgment. It's a default state because the other explanation for reality, the one the materialists insist is true, simply isn't feaslible. Isn't a real place because it would not exist as it does. All the mechanics are there, but it's missing the heart. The soul of it. What animates it and gives it that twinkle in it's eye. It's cold. Mechanical. Empty. It means humanity is just basically a bubble that burped up for an instant in a ripple that will continue to ripple on and then will die out. A fart in the wind. Meaningless. Pointless. Yet, for a moment, we lived and were silly enough to imagine just for a second that maybe this did mean something, then we faded away back into nothingness.
Yes, it's nice to have empirical certainty when it's possible. It's a lot easier that way. But unfortunately, a lot of the central, key elements of the questions we're talking about, aren't in that category. The mind. Consciousness. Life. The physical sciences have nothing to give us about these other than confirming they are indeed not physical/material. They can't just be measured and quantified. They're formless. They don't exist spatially. They don't have dimensions and definite form. Or an atomic weight.
It's important to know all we can about the material. It gives us insights into how things work. How things act.
It really shouldn't be counted as irrelevant. We humans have intuition and a BS detector. Don't ignore it. Listen to it. It's telling you something.
Let's not over-think this. Seriously. Tell me. Coded information, embedded in our cells, used to reproduce, over and over again, really, really complex biological systems, what's your BS meter telling you? That just formed on it's own. Naturally just fell into place that way. That's all there is to it. What's your BS meter saying right now? If it's working it should be vibrating. Indicating. And you're right. It's right.
I don't think us being deliberately intended sounds ridiculous. We care about our time and our actions and our experiences. There's a reason for that. The material/physical explanation doesn't account for that. It just accounts for the 'how'. Not the 'why'.
Science has shown us that all the natural world behaves very consistently and exactly to the point that we can actually define laws. Laws with set values. Because material behaves so consistently. We can measure because it's so consistent. Except us. Our actions and decisions aren't determined by natural law. They should be. If the materialist is right. Then the brain is just a mechanism, the elements that make it up beholden to natural law just like everything else. We should have as much willful control over what we do as a river has in choosing it's path.
But we at least think we're in control. That's exactly the one thing that holy book about this God focused in on right from the start. How we behaved. This God who it said created everything, all the natural world, apparently had a very vested interest in how we humans on this one planet in this one corner of this one seemingly irrelevant galaxy behave. What we choose to do.
That makes sense to me. A natural world that behaves exactly as God's will. Natural law. Consistent. Then there's us. Free will. Minds and wills that behave free of natural law. Free of constraint. Our actions and behaviors are determined by thoughts and imagination and dreams and aspirations. Our actions are determined by what we want. We do what we want. Don't do what we don't want. We're different than any other matter in any of the known universe. We're significant.
And that's what we're all hung up about. Behavior. What's right? What's wrong? What's the right way to govern things? Do things? Coexist? We're figuring it out. It's a learning experience. It's not wisdom that can just be given. It has to be earned. Experienced.
That makes sense to me. Complete sense. Thinking we humans became aware and curious about our place in this universe for a moment before we disappeared again into oblivion, that doesn't make any sense. We lived, we saw, we cared, we died. None of it mattered. The end. Makes no sense. Pointless and sad.
Faith is required, ultimately. Because, like you said, it can't be empirically confirmed. You either make it real in your mind through belief or you don't.
Like the things you spoke of ... "feeling loved, feeling forgiven, feeling guilty, feeling comforted, feeling condemned". There's a reason these feelings and thoughts matter to us. Which doesn't make sense in the material regard. Forgiveness makes no sense in the material explanation. Condemnation.
The are the things that continue to trip me up when I try this god-less existence on for size. Everywhere I look, every thought I have, trips on something that doesn't fit. Doesn't work.
No it doesn't. But it does do those instances where it is said those supernatural elements interacted with the natural.
Think about this. This is a big trip point for me that I absolutely cannot get past. If there is no soul, no immaterial element of the self, then there is no free will. There is no control over what we do or how we "choose" to be. There is only matter, energy, and the laws of nature.
Without the supernatural, that is all there is. All we do, all we experience, we are only passive observers. We are only under the delusion that we are in control of our actions because we experience the mind going through it's motions. It considers options. Other options it doesn't choose make it seem to us as though we had a choice. When in actuality each decision we make in each moment is the only one we physically could have. We are fooled into thinking we are in willful control, when in actuality there is no willful control.
That is the reality of the material world if you insist there is nothing that exists that cannot be detected. That's what you're left with. That's the cold, hard truth.
It simply doesn't make sense to me that we'd exist, that these things would matter to us, and that there's no reason for any of it. It doesn't make sense that we care. It doesn't make sense that it matters to us at all.The questions I previously posed demonstrate that your reasoning is flawed, so I'll lay them out again: 1) were people in the 1600s right to reject heliocentrism on the grounds that it was deemed "foolish and absurd" based on what they believed? 2) Should people at the turn of the 20th century have rejected relativity on the grounds that some of it was counter-intuitive and sounded ridiculous? 3) Are people who reject the theory of evolution because they think the idea sounds ridiculous, right to do so? The fact is that if your "it's ridiculous" criterion were applied to all of the above scientific theories, we would have rejected all of them. Evidently your "BS detector" does not work when applied to cosmology, physics and biology.
"I don't think us being deliberately intended sounds ridiculous".
Well others do. One school of Buddhism believes the universe was not created, but always existed. Another believes the universe came from "nature" which holds no intelligence. If you find those beliefs ridiculous (as you apparently do) then it's reasonable to suggest the people who hold those beliefs may find yours ridiculous. So now what? According to your line of reasoning they should reject your ideas, which makes that argument self-defeating. And that's the problem with using subjective criteria. If neither can be tested empirically, as in this case, then your argument is reduced to nothing more than "I'm right and you're wrong, because I say so". In reality, as neither of your beliefs cannot objectively be deemed true or false, both those beliefs are merely opinions. No more, no less.
"That makes sense to me. Complete sense."
I'm glad you have found something that makes complete sense to you, but the world does not revolve around you. For others, like some Buddhists, some Hindus etc. their ideas make complete sense to them. Are you saying that the beliefs of all Buddhists and Hindus in the world are inferior to the beliefs of you and all the Christians in the world?
"The are the things that continue to trip me up when I try this god-less existence on for size."
I know plenty of people who could not see past a "god-less existence" who have done just that. You don't currently believe that could be you, and apparently you don't need it to be you, which is fine. If/when it no longer trips you up, you may transition from one way of seeing the world to another. No big deal.
"This is a big trip point for me that I absolutely cannot get past. If there is no soul, no immaterial element of the self, then there is no free will. There is no control over what we do or how we "choose" to be. There is only matter, energy, and the laws of nature. . . Without the supernatural, that is all there is. All we do, all we experience, we are only passive observers. We are only under the delusion that we are in control of our actions because we experience the mind going through it's motions . . . It simply doesn't make sense to me that we'd exist, that these things would matter to us, and that there's no reason for any of it. It doesn't make sense that we care. It doesn't make sense that it matters to us at all."
I know. Scary isn't it. To think that we may be just a random accident of nature, with no purpose, no meaning, no significance in the grand scheme of things. To think that all of human suffering and misery is for nothing. To think there is no creator/designer figure who will one day make everything ok. To think we are nothing but a speck of dust on a hair on a boil on the a$$ of the universe. Frightening if you view it that way. So many people don't. They can't. They say that such an idea is "ridiculous" (sometimes they really mean "terrifying") and they say that the idea of a godless universe "trips them up" (sometimes they really mean it scares them). But maybe it only depends on how you look at it. It could be quite liberating. To think that there's nobody "up there" to save us. To think that if we want things to get better, we have to do it ourselves. To think that we have to rely on our own creativity, curiosity, ingenuity, courage and determination to build the world we want to live in, because there is no one to do it for us. To think that this life lasts 80ish years if we're lucky, and is then gone. So each one is absolutely precious, and unique. To think that life is not a rehearsal, but the main performance, so you'd better give it your all. That could be quite a positive thing don't you think?
Anyway, the point is that the ideas that you seem to trip over, are things that make complete sense to others, and are a positive influence. The things you deem to be ridiculous, make complete sense to others. So unless you're saying you're right and everyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong (which would be quite egotistical) then the only reasonable position is to acknowledge people adopt different beliefs about the world. Those beliefs usually help them in some way or other. As there is no way to objectively determine the truth or falsehood of them, it's enough to accept that for a particular person, at a particular time in their life, in a particular place, those beliefs work for them.
I'm glad you have found some way of making sense of the world that works for you. I'm equally glad that those who holds Buddhist beliefs, or Hindu beliefs, or no religious beliefs at all have found a way of making sense of the world that works for them. But I think it's very unhelpful when people adopt the view that their belief is the right belief. Because that tends to cause conflict. If none of those beliefs can be objectively determined to be true or false, then they are just opinions. So in terms of whether your belief is the right belief. The most that can reasonably be said is that it is the right belief for you, at this time. Nothing less. Nothing more.1) were people in the 1600s right to reject heliocentrism on the grounds that it was deemed "foolish and absurd" based on what they believed?
No, they were wrong. The difference between them and me is that I do not find these things foolish and absurd based on what I believe. Rather what I observe. What I know to be true.
2) Should people at the turn of the 20th century have rejected relativity on the grounds that some of it was counter-intuitive and sounded ridiculous?
No. Again, it's based on objective certainty.
3) Are people who reject the theory of evolution because they think the idea sounds ridiculous, right to do so?
Of course not. Again, physical evidence is telling. To reject it is to reject what is objectively certain. Again, not at all what I am doing.
It is not my BS detector that has failed. Because I have informed myself. They were not informed. I do not reject these things based on my beliefs. They are based on the acknowledgement that DNA simply is not the kind of thing that just happens haphazardly. Chaos becomes order in this universe. Complex organized systems self-align in this universe. I'm simply acknowledging what should be obvious. This is no accident. We didn't become intelligent beings who try to make sense of things haphazardly. We became intelligent because intelligence is real. We try to make sense of things for a reason. It's a need in us for a reason.
You are rejecting what I'm saying based on the lack of empirical evidence. What you don't seem to realize or refuse to acknowledge is that a lack of empirical evidence is consistent with what we should expect if true. It's simply a reality, like it or not.
I'm sorry you have a problem with using subjective criteria, but the fact remains, the central elements in this discussion (life, the mind, consciousness) cannot be objectively confirmed. It's not a choice to deal in the subjective. It is a necessity. It is an acknowledgement that at least part of the answer when it comes to the nature of reality deals only in the subjective. The immaterial.
I don't claim what I believe is the only right answer. That's why I have these discussions. To test it. Does it hold up to scrutiny? If it does it does. If it fails it fails and needs to be corrected.
"I know. Scary isn't it. To think that we may be just a random accident of nature, with no purpose, no meaning, no significance in the grand scheme of things."
No, not scary at all. If that's true then there's nothing beyond this life. We just cease to be. Nothing to fear in that. That just means there's no real harm in anything we do. Nothing to worry about. It's not fear that keeps me thinking this way.
"To think that if we want things to get better, we have to do it ourselves."
That right there. You say it like it's not a complete contradiction of what you claim to be true. Want things to be better? Why? Why does it matter? What is better?
"To think that life is not a rehearsal, but the main performance, so you'd better give it your all. That could be quite a positive thing don't you think?"
I better? Why? For what reason should I cling to that I better do anything? If you're right then nothing we do matters. Nothing we do will change anything. If we solve world hunger, cure cancer, make the world a "better" place, the universe will ultimately cease to be anyway. Anything we accomplish or don't accomplish won't change anything. It all still ultimately fades away. For no reason. Any reason we try to apply to it while we're alive is ultimately just a delusion we're under to make ourselves feel better. Which in itself doesn't make sense in the reality you claim to be true. Why would we need to delude ourselves? Because we care. So why do we care? If these things make complete sense to you or others then there are definite logical flaws in your reasoning. That's something I can't get on board with.
"If none of those beliefs can be objectively determined to be true or false, then they are just opinions. So in terms of whether your belief is the right belief. The most that can reasonably be said is that it is the right belief for you, at this time. Nothing less. Nothing more."
No, not just opinions. As I've tried to lay out many times, the inability to confirm something objectively does not make it any less relevant. That's where logic and reason come in. That's where these discussions have value. Because these things can't be tested and objectively confirmed. But the right answer can be arrived at when done so through informing ourselves of all that can be objectively deemed certain, and making sense of what's left in the correct context.
Like it or not, some of it is going to be subjective. The mind is immaterial. Life is immaterial. Consciousness. These things are central elements to what we're talking about and have been unequivocally confirmed to be immaterial. If you only allow for what can be objectively confirmed then you will always only have part of the answer. And the answer you arrive at lacks all meaning and purpose. Yet you still try to inject meaning and purpose by speaking of what we 'need' to do to make things 'better'. Totally unaware, it would seem, of the contradiction."No, they were wrong. The difference between them and me is that I do not find these things foolish and absurd based on what I believe. Rather what I observe. What I know to be true. "
Previously you said: "You should accept 'it sounds ridiculous' as a useful criterion." Now you're saying "they were wrong" to reject an idea on that basis. So which is it? In relation to cosmology, physics etc. do you believe that something sounding ridiculous is a useful way to determine whether it's true or not?
And we've already agreed there is no empirical evidence that demonstrates the existence (or not) of god. Your opinions about DNA and "coded information" are just that, opinions. Latching onto the word "code" is disingenuous by the way. DNA is not a "code" in the sense that you (and Stephen Meyer) are implying. So your belief god exists is based on opinion. That's the same reason people in the 1600s believed the earth was the centre of the universe. There is no qualitative difference.
And you have still not said whether you believe in the existence of shiva (a limitless, formless, transcendent Hindu god). As I said previously, if shiva is real, there will be no sufficient empirical evidence that can demonstrate that. shiva also qualifies as your possible "designer". So by your reasoning you should believe in the existence of shiva . Do you? If not, why not?
"It is not my BS detector that has failed. Because I have informed myself. They were not informed."
No, your opinions about DNA do not demonstrate the existence of god, or a designer. That's just your interpretation (which happens to coincide with your religious worldview - surprise). It's perfectly reasonable for others (such as people who understand what "code" means) to interpret your "observations" in a different way and arrive at a different conclusion.
"I do not reject these things based on my beliefs. They are based on the acknowledgement that DNA simply is not the kind of thing that just happens haphazardly. Chaos becomes order in this universe. Complex organized systems self-align in this universe. I'm simply acknowledging what should be obvious. This is no accident. We didn't become intelligent beings who try to make sense of things haphazardly. We became intelligent because intelligence is real. We try to make sense of things for a reason. It's a need in us for a reason."
. . . according to your opinion, which you have every right to hold and express, but it's an opinion nonetheless. As such there is nothing to distinguish it from any other opinion, other than the fact that you don't agree with the other opinions (which happen to disagree with your religious worldview - surprise).
"You are rejecting what I'm saying based on the lack of empirical evidence. What you don't seem to realize or refuse to acknowledge is that a lack of empirical evidence is consistent with what we should expect if true. It's simply a reality, like it or not. "
Because lack of empirical evidence is also what you would expect to see if shiva existed, or a transcended, limitless unicorn, or if none of those things existed. So we have a choice, assume all these things exist, or accept that there is no way to tell if any of them do? I believe it is reasonable not to accept beliefs as true if those beliefs cannot be tested. And unreasonable to accept beliefs as true that cannot be tested.
"I'm sorry you have a problem with using subjective criteria, but the fact remains, the central elements in this discussion (life, the mind, consciousness) cannot be objectively confirmed. It's not a choice to deal in the subjective. It is a necessity. It is an acknowledgement that at least part of the answer when it comes to the nature of reality deals only in the subjective. The immaterial."
There is no need to acknowledgement that part of the answer will involve the "immaterial". By doing that you are asserting that we will never be able to objectively observe consciousness etc. There is no evidence to suggest that. In fact the history of scientific progress, and the progress currently being made, indicates we have a reasonable chance of understanding consciousness in the future. So again, I reject the assumption you are making to support your argument. And that is all it takes to invalidate your argument. The reason that is all it takes, is because your argument is based on subjective criteria.
"No, not scary at all. If that's true then there's nothing beyond this life. We just cease to be. Nothing to fear in that. That just means there's no real harm in anything we do. Nothing to worry about. It's not fear that keeps me thinking this way."
Glad to hear you are not one of those people afraid that their life would become meaningless without the concept of god.
"That right there. You say it like it's not a complete contradiction of what you claim to be true. Want things to be better? Why? Why does it matter? What is better?"
Apparently you do think life would be meaningless without the concept of god. But do you think the answer to all those questions relate to "god", and if so, the Christian god you believe in? Why not another god? You think the idea of a designer is likely, okay, but there are lots of other religions that believe in a creator/designer. Why aren't you a Hindu, or devoted to one of the schools of Buddhism? I suspect you are from a place where Hinduism and Buddhism are relatively uncommon. Do you think that's a coincidence? That people happen to adopt religions that are common to the area they happen to live? So more people in the US (71%) become Christians, and more people in india (78%) become Hindus. Do you not think that is strange. Doesn't the Christian god like people in India? And I could ask someone in India the same about shiva and Americans. What's even more interesting is that the religious beliefs of populations strongly correlate to the family, history, culture and traditions of the society people are born into. In what way do these things figure in your observations.
"No, not just opinions. As I've tried to lay out many times, the inability to confirm something objectively does not make it any less relevant. "
Yes, by definition, opinions. Believing something strongly and having your own internal reasoning for it, does not make something a fact. Hindus hold their beliefs strongly too, and have their own reasoning, as do Buddhists, as do Jews and Muslims and Taoists. All those religious beliefs are opinions. None of them are facts, yours included. Just because you throw in an interpretation of something related to DNA, does not suddenly transform your religious opinions into facts, 1) because your views on DNA themselves are interpretations, i.e. opinions. and 2) because people may (and do) disagree with those interpretations, which then invalidates your argument. Again, therein lies the problem with subjective criteria.
I do not accept your view that some explanations about the universe are necessarily going to be subjective. Again, that's an assumption on your part. There is no evidence to suggest it's true. The fact of the matter is (and this is the fact you seem to be trying hard to get away from) religious belief is unreasonable. You are trying to make it reasonable, but trying wont make it so.Yes, they were wrong. Because what can be observed matches up with what was claimed and couldn't be matched up with an earth-centric system. The belief that the Earth is the center of the universe is exactly that, a belief.
DNA can be observed. What I'm talking about isn't something that's believed to be true. It is a certainty that there is an organized system there. You scoff at calling it code, but it's code. I know because I write code. Code is an exact sequence used to accomplish something very particular. DNA is a sequence that dictates exactly what each cell is to do, how it's to behave, and when it is to die. And in doing so it creates complex organisms, duplicating the process over and over again. That's a code.
None of this is based on belief. Everything my conclusions are based on are observed certainties. In this environment, in this universe, pure chaos self-organizes into order. Organized systems. We see examples of it everywhere. We ARE examples of it. Our brains recognize organization and order and chaotic behaviors and energies made up of individual elements self-organize into systems. Organized. It's "natural". This place isn't the random chaos it should be. The reason you can actually scoff at the idea that thinking this isn't deliberate and intended is because it's so "natural". That's just how things happen. There's nothing significant about that at all. It's normal. To think there's nothing about that that supports the idea of deliberate intent is ridiculous.
I get the point you're trying to make with the Shiva thing. You assume that because I identify as a Christian that I automatically dismiss all others as "wrong". I don't. It's the same concept, only the people of the Indus Valley culture called it "Shiva". Same idea. It's humans recognizing that there's deliberate purpose and intent in life and the natural world. Which, by the way, I have plenty to support my particular religious view, but I assure you you don't want to open that can. But no, it's not as you're assuming. It's not that how I see things aligns with the tennants of Christianity because I make them that way, I've found the evidence to most line up with that particular view. If I found that another was more in line, I'd consider it. I'm open to changing, I'm open to being wrong. I don't want to just be wrong. The goal is to arrive at the right conclusion. Not to prove a preferred conclusion.
You - "Because lack of empirical evidence is also what you would expect to see if shiva existed, or a transcended, limitless unicorn, or if none of those things existed. So we have a choice, assume all these things exist, or accept that there is no way to tell if any of them do? I believe it is reasonable not to accept beliefs as true if those beliefs cannot be tested. And unreasonable to accept beliefs as true that cannot be tested."
And that's where your logic fails. Lack of empirical evidence is also what you get where the mind is concerned. And that definitely exists. Is that what you deem the whole of psychology to be? Opinion? Do you deny certain truths have been reached through psychology? Ego and Id? There's no empirical evidence of their existence, yet they have proven useful in understanding the workings of the non-observable/immaterial mind.
The mind really exists. Consiousness really exists. Something really did exist before the beginning of the universe. None of it is observable. There's no empirical evidence of any of it. But we can come to these conclusions. We don't just convince ourselves that there's nothing to be considered here because it cannot be tested.
See, this is where I think you're failing to catch on. You keep speaking as if my insistence to talk about these unprovable/untestable things is some errant choice I'm making. It's not. It's a necessity made necessary by the mere fact that not all that reality is can be fit into that box. You too are going to have to deal with these things if we're going to be talking about all that reality is. You can keep it scientific for as long as you want, but eventually you're going to have to tread waters beyond the reach of science. I'm not doing it to be difficult or to "try to fit my God in". I'm doing it because reality calls for it.
You - "By doing that you are asserting that we will never be able to objectively observe consciousness etc. There is no evidence to suggest that."
You're right. There's no evidence to suggest that, or ... anything, really.... for that matter. There IS no evidence. Period. There's a region of the brain that's active when a subject is experiencing something we associate with consciousness. There's a higher level of oxygenated blood flowing to that portion of the brain. That's your evidence. Well, that and what you're experiencing. Your conscious mind. Your ability to call on memories, sounds, sites, smells, at will, and actually experience them again.
But there's that faith again. You're faith in science says that someday consciousness will prove to be a material/physical process just like everything else, and one day we'll observe it and understand how it works. There's no evidence to suggest that either. Just a belief. A belief that if you just think about it doesn't really make any sense. Yet you speak of wanting to live now, live better, make the world a better place, these ideals with no sense of being conscious of the contradiction your creating in saying these things. This process you assume is mechanical and physical in nature somehow you're imbuing with hopes and dreams and ambitions and this will to do what's "right" and to make things "better".
I'm sorry, but these things suggest you're going to have to delve into the immaterial, like it or not. Consciousness, the aspirations and dreams that spur humanity, these are the things that compel us. Compel our actions and choices. They're part of the story. But they're not material. They're not mechanistic. We're living things. With favorite colors and favorite songs and things we love and things we cherish. Not machines born purely of what's needed to survive. We're more than just chemical processes and sensations.
Yes, my reasons are based on subjective criteria. So is psychology. That doesn't invalidate it, no matter how much you insist it does. That's why I don't just dismiss the concept of Shiva, or anything else the human mind has come up with. Because I don't dismiss our ancestors as complete morons. I think there observations are valid. They were just trying to make sense of things like I am. I just have way more information than they did. But they thought what they thought for a reason. What they observed and experienced was consistent with what they thought to be true. I don't dismiss human intuition. I consider it. Whether it lines up with my beliefs or not.
You - "Apparently you do think life would be meaningless without the concept of god."
Oh no, that's not opinion, that is a fact. If you think differently coming from your mindset then you're fooling yourself. If we were not deliberately intended, then there can be no meaning to our existence. If we just happened, as you say, then there is no meaning. Whatever meaning you assign to your life is just masturbation. Self fulfillment to appease your own self in some way. How could there be meaning or purpose? You can't come along 13 billion years on in the process and all of the sudden assign meaning to it. If there was meaning, it was there all along. Without God, without a deliberate creator, life being meaningless is a certainty, not an opinion or belief.
You - "Apparently you do think life would be meaningless without the concept of god. But do you think the answer to all those questions relate to "god", and if so, the Christian god you believe in? Why not another god? You think the idea of a designer is likely, okay, but there are lots of other religions that believe in a creator/designer."
We can get into it if you insist. But I feel I must warn you. That's a deep hole you keep poking around. Everything I believe I have arrived at through careful study and research. I have validated what can be validated. I can tell you exactly what I believe the Abrahamic God is 'the' God, the same one the Jews and Muslims are referring to. Likely the inspiration behind most of the others as well.
You - "I do not accept your view that some explanations about the universe are necessarily going to be subjective."
Yeah, I understand, it can be difficult to get through the delusions of the believer. Your faith is strong and you're certain that science will ultimately explain everything. That what we can't observe yet is simply because we don't understand yet. It's all material. It's all the same. The science delusion. You're just waiting for the details to be filled in. You already get it fundamentally. That's where faith impedes progress and learning.
It's not a view to be accepted or rejected. It's a certainty. A fact. Psychology and psychiatry are in a different branch of the sciences, the behavioral sciences, for a reason.There's a few common themes we are going back and forth on, so for clarity I think it would be useful to summarise those:
1) You believe that: "it's ridiculous", is a useful criterion for determining whether to accept an idea in physics, cosmology etc. as true. I do not believe that is the case.
2) You believe that DNA is a code, like computer code, and you believe this is an empirical fact, not an opinion. I do not believe DNA is a code like computer code, and therefore do not believe it is an empirical fact.
3) You believe that human beings will never be able to objectively determine that the mind and consciousness exist. I do not believe that is the case.
4) You believe life is meaningless without god. I do not believe that is the case.
5) You believe the Christian god is the god. All the other gods are either the Christian god by another name, or on the right track, but essentially wrong. I do not believe that is the case.
1) You are missing the point of the example. The people in the 1600s could not objectively determine that the heliocentric model was true, and they could not foresee the developments in physics and astronomy that would eventually do so. So the best way to test your reasoning, is to remove the benefit of your 21st century hindsight, and place yourself in the position of someone in the 1600s who is faced with the suggestion that the earth revolves around the sun. You are unable to objectively verify that claim, but according to the wisdom of the day, and the holy scriptures (as interpreted at the time) the earth is the centre of the universe. So for you, at that moment in history, the idea the earth revolves around the sun is not only ridiculous, but also heretical. We know this was the case because of the historical records from that time:
Martin Luther on Heliocentrism:
"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon . . . But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must . . . invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."
Information passed to the Inquisition of Rome about a letter from Galileo in which he defends heliocentrism:
"All our Fathers of the devout Convent of St. Mark feel that the letter contains many statements which seem presumptuous or suspect, as when it states that the words of Holy Scripture do not mean what they say; that in discussions about natural phenomena the authority of Scripture should rank last... [the followers of Galileo] were taking it upon themselves to expound the Holy Scripture according to their private lights and in a manner different from the common interpretation of the Fathers of the Church..."
Inquisition Injunction of Galileo:
"[Heliocentrism is] foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture. . . [The Inquisition orders Galileo] to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it . . . to abandon completely . . . the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing."
Inquisition Charges against Galileo at Sentencing:
"That the sun is the center of the world and motionless is a proposition which is philosophically absurd and false, and formally heretical, for being explicitly contrary to Holy Scripture; That the earth is neither the center of the world nor motionless but moves even with diurnal motion is philosophically equally absurd and false, and theologically at least erroneous in the Faith".
It doesn't get any clearer than that. Heliocentrism was deemed ridiculous and contrary to accepted Christian belief of the time. According to your reasoning, people in the 1600s were perfectly justified in rejecting heliocentrism, because (based on the knowledge they had at the time) heliocentrism was deemed to be ridiculous notion, and there was no way to prove otherwise. Now, to see how well that criterion performed we only have to apply the knowledge we currently have. When we do that we see that they were wrong to reject heliocentrism because, as we now know, the principle is true. So we have a situation where your reasoning was justifiably applied, but that resulted in a negative outcome, i.e. it lead to the rejection of an idea that we now know is in fact true. This falsifies your assertion that: "it sounds ridiculous", is a useful way of determining if something is true. In fact it categorically demonstrates that it's not a useful criterion in that regard. The only way to refute that would be to either demonstrate that heliocentrism was not considered ridiculous by many influential people in the 1600s , or that heliocentrism is in fact wrong. I do not believe anyone can reasonably demonstrate either of those things.
2) Of course DNA can be observed. But your suggestion that DNA is code like computer code, is just opinion. It's an opinion because it is based on what your definition of code is, which is subjective. Defining code as "an exact sequence used to accomplish something very particular" results in your opinion. But it is perfectly reasonable to define code as "a series of symbols that replace other symbols". And that definition results in a different opinion about DNA to yours, as follows:
Based on the second opinion, a programming language is a code because it replaces symbols like: if(DNAisCode){Me.EatMy(hat)} with assembly language. Assembly language is code because it replaces symbols like: mov eax, 60 with binary. Binary (in this context) is not code, because used within a microprocessor the digits in binary merely represent differences in voltage, or polarities on a magnetic disk. Those are not symbols, they are actual things, so binary does not meet the second definition of a code (it does in other contexts like when it is used to represent letters etc. which are symbols but not in this context).
So in relation to DNA, based on the second definition, the letters CGAT are code, in that they replace the symbols cytosine, guanine, adenine and thymine. But those symbols are not code, because, like binary (as used in the context of a microprocessor) the symbols cytosine, guanine, adenine and thymine refer to actual things, they do not replace other symbols. In this case they represent biological compounds. So according to that second definition, DNA is not code like a programming code. In the same way that the different voltages in a microprocessor are not code. Likewise cytosine, guanine, adenine and thymine are not code because they represent biological compounds, in the same way that binary is not code (within the context of a microprocessor) because it represents differences in voltages etc.
Note how both these views are based on observation, but they remain opinions. That's because although observations inform these two conclusions, the acceptance of those conclusions is based on the observer's definition of the word "code", for which there are multiple reasonable variations. You are making the mistake of thinking that because an opinion is informed by an observation, it is therefore fact. It isn't.
To demonstrate the difference, compare the above to the acceptance of an explanation like relativity. That acceptance is informed by observations too, but unlike your view on DNA, relativity, is solely accepted as true on that basis. It's acceptance is not dependent on anything subjective, which can change depending the observer. That's why this idea about DNA constitutes opinion, and special and general relativity constitute scientific knowledge.
Your opinion about DNA also represents a poor argument because it is a simple false analogy. The essence of the argument is:
1 DNA is like computer code.
2 Computer code originates from a programmer.
3 DNA must originate from a "programmer".
This is a non sequitur, as the conclusion does not necessarily follow on from the premises. It is not the case that if A is like B in respect of C, then A must be like B in respect of D also.
3) "The mind really exists. Consciousness really exists. Something really did exist before the beginning of the universe . . . "
A set of cognitive mental abilities and processes (the mind) seem to facilitate self-awareness (consciousness). The issue is not whether those mental abilities and processes exist. The issue is, how are mental states (beliefs, thoughts, memory, decision-making etc) related to physical states (neurons, synapses, electro-chemical reactions etc.)
You are adding an additional element into that mix, the idea that the mind and consciousness are somehow independent of the physical states, and are an aspect of some supernatural reality. So lack of empirical evidence is an issue for your beliefs about the mind, not mine. You may not be able to objectively determine that the type of mind you postulate (some aspect of the supernatural) exists. I am quite able to objectively determine that the type of mind I postulate (mental abilities and processes linked to the brain and body) exists. In fact doing so is trivial. And yes, we can determine that those things exist. Determining their exact nature is a different matter, but we can certainly demonstrate those mental abilities and processes exist using empirical evidence.
So I reject your assertion that it's not possible to objectively determine that the mind exists. Therefore I also reject your suggestion that psychology is based on something that is untestable. Firstly, the Ego and the Id are aspects of one single psychological treatment: psychoanalysis. The majority of the schools of thought within the field of psychology do not use those concepts. Psychiatrists, for example, are physicians. They deal with the physical in their treatment of mental disorders. Behaviourists, as the name suggests, deal with behavioral psychology. Cognitive and social psychologists deal mainly with cognitive science and social psychology respectively. All three of those strands of psychology rely on experiment and observation. So while it's true that some aspects of psychology do not need to be studied scientifically, it's also true that many aspects of psychology can, and do, involve scientific method.
Most importantly, I reject your assertion that the concept of mind supports your supernatural world view. It doesn't. You can shoehorn the supernatural into the concept of the mind, as you can with just about any phenomenon, but that does not mean that phenomenon requires any supernatural explanation. Those aspects that we do understand can be proven empirically. Those aspects we don't can be addressed with a simple "we don't understand that yet". And you are missing the point about that also. You are asserting that we will never be able to fully understand the mind and consciousness. I have simply said I do not believe that is the case, because there is no evidence to support it. That is not the same as asserting that I believe we will definitely be able to understand those things. That's a misrepresentation. The difference is that one is a positive assertion, therefore there is a burden to provide evidence that supports it. The other is simply a lack of belief. there is no burden to provide evidence in support for a lack of belief. In other words it's up to you to prove to me why you believe your assertion, it's not up to me to prove why I don't believe it.
4) You are wrong in suggesting it is a fact that life without the concept of god has no meaning. Meaning is subjective. If someone who does not believe in god, assigns their life some meaning, then their life has meaning. Whether you deem that meaning to be valid is irrelevant. Neither you nor anyone else can reasonably assert that someone's life is meaningless, if it has meaning for them.
5) "I get the point you're trying to make with the Shiva thing. You assume that because I identify as a Christian that I automatically dismiss all others as "wrong". I don't. It's the same concept, only the people of the Indus Valley culture called it "Shiva""
That's not the case though is it. You do think that anyone who does not believe specifically in the Christian god, is wrong, maybe on the right track perhaps, but still basically wrong. You have made comments to that effect. You apparently have some amazing insight that confirms that the Christian god is the god. But fail to address the fact that you also just happen to be from a country where Christianity just happens to be the dominant religion, and the amazing coincidence that is. And how it's also an amazing coincidence that most people who believe that shiva is the god and I'm sure have amazing insight as to why that's the case, also come from countries where Hinduism just happens to be the dominant religion. I am certain some of those people also believe their brand of religious belief is correct and everyone else is basically wrong. I assure you that whatever your thoughts are on the matter of why you believe Christian-god is closer to the truth than Hindu-god, those thoughts will be no more than your opinion. Those thoughts may be informed by observations and even research, but I predict that if you ever share that reasoning (perhaps in dedicated thread?) your conclusion will ultimately be based on beliefs that are subjective.
And that's the problem. Everything you are saying is based on something subjective. Whether it's the definition of "code", the type of mind postulated, or what constitutes "meaning". It's all dependent on subjective beliefs. So if you start with a different observer, you get a different set of conclusions. And your justification for using these subjective criteria as the basis of your belief is that it's necessary, because some things can never be determined objectively. As I said before, if the nature of something we conceive means that, by definition, it cannot be determined objectively, that doesn't mean we have to believe that thing exists. We have a choice. You are saying you don't have a choice because your observations leave that 'supernatural' thing as the best explanation. I say that's nonsense because that takes you right back to the fact that your conclusions (the explanations of your observations) are based on the subjective things mentioned above. So it's all just circular reasoning.
The fact is, none of it is necessary. There are plenty of explanations for the way the universe appears to be that do not require the supernatural. Your only reason for rejecting those explanations? They sound ridiculous. Well we've seen that is not a reliable criterion for determining whether to accept something in physics as true. In short, this line of reasoning is like a house of cards; tug at one corner and the whole thing comes crashing down. The question is are you free-minded enough to recognize that, or does confirmation bias have the better of you? I hope it's the former, but I suspect that may be a misplaced hope, because I understand the power of religious belief. You are still only at the beginning of your separation from religious belief. You are in the denial stage. The anger stage will come later, then eventually acceptance. And no, nothing scientific about that, just pure speculation on my part based on seeing it played that way so many times before.I would like to try to clarify some things. I may have used wording that's a little stronger than intended to try to convey a point...
1) My point about recognizing what's ridiculous is about listening to your intuition and instincts. Not just dismissing it out of hand. In the case of DNA it's about acknowledging, and not rationalizing away, the fact that DNA is most certainly information. And not just information, but information that is retained and passed on. Then used to construct organisms. Duplicating a process over and over again. Just recognizing that this isn't some random thing that just fell together, but that it's purposeful.
2) I used computer code as an example because sequence is an important piece of it, as is sequence in DNA. I don't mean code like a language. I mean code as in what's demonstrated. A sequence that determines a particular outcome. A repeatable outcome. This is demonstrated, not an opinion. A direct correlation has been found between DNA and physical characteristics of biological organisms. It is the sequence of CGAT that is used to correlate to these characteristics.
Perhaps using the word "code" was a mistake on my part. The definition as you're speaking of it really isn't relevant to the argument. The primary point is that DNA is information. Data. Like the written language, DNA makes it possible to retain and pass on information, making evolution, like information, accumulative. The written language was created by intelligent minds to serve a purpose. DNA is something that naturally exists, that shares a lot of commonality with something we know to have been intelligently created, and DNA serves a particular purpose, which also shares commonality for the reason language was deliberately created by intelligent minds.
3) I believe consciousness and the mind do not spatially exist. That they can't be observed because they're not material. This isn't a belief. It's been demonstrated. These are examples of things that undoubtedly exist, we can all agree, yet cannot be objectively confirmed to exist.
4) Life being meaningless without God is not a belief, it's a fact. If we were not deliberately created for a reason, created for a purpose, then there can be no meaning in our existence. Whatever we assign to life as far as meaning can't be the meaning of why we're here because we had no say in determining that we're here.
Let me illustrate with an example. Let's say you created AI. It became self-aware and began to contemplate it's existence. It then comes to a conclusion about it's meaning for existing. But it's conclusion isn't something you had in mind when creating it. You had your reasons for creating it, so in that case your AI does indeed have reason for existing, but what it came up with is irrelevant. It can't, having had nothing to do with it's creation, have anything to say about it's reason to exist.
5) I can demonstrate this by demonstrating the early stories of Genesis as being historically true. That the events it describes really happened. Unlike any other texts that claim to be describing a God, these claim to be describing times in human history when this God actually interacted with humans. The events of Genesis can be demonstrated as playing a major role in shaping the modern human world.
Your examples about a heliocentric planetary system are a bit shaky. These are examples of engrained religion. This isn't a mindset that compares to mine. Religion established itself as an authority as far as "God's word". And tey had already made a stance on the model of the planetary system. To be shown in error shows them to be fallible about the one thing they claim to be an authority on. In order to maintain this authoritative stance, they had to show anything showing the contrary as being "heretical". This doesn't compare to my mindset, or really to the mindset you're trying to use it as as an example.
Heliocentrism was counter-intuitive to humanity in general, not just religious figures. It's a human perspective thing. Our perspective is from this planet, and it appears everything revolves around it. The people who clinged to it were not just those of the religious persuasion.
Yes, I'm making an argument that there is something non-physical at play where consciousness and the mind are concerned. But these arguments are more based on the fact that the characteristics we see exhibited by the mind and consciousness are decidedly not mechanistic. Mechanical processes do not have preferences. Do not react to the promise of pleasure or the warning of fear. The mechanics that cause fear, for example, do not in themselves cause the alteration in behavior. The conscious mind does, and it does so as a reaction to the feeling. The feeling is triggered, then the mind decides what to do. This is not a mechanistic response. It's a simple observation.
Psychology and psychiatry are in the behavioral science branch of the sciences for a reason. It's a widely agreed upon thing that these are subjective fields as they cannot observe or measure or in any way quantify psychological phenomena. This isn't part of my claim.
I'm not claiming the mind supports a supernatural worldview. I'm using it as an example of something that undoubtedly exists that can't be observed. It illustrates a limitation to science and a logical flaw in the mindset that only what can be observed exists.
You - I have simply said I do not believe that is the case, because there is no evidence to support it.
Of course there's no evidence to support it! That's the whole point. There's a reason there's no evidence.
You - If someone who does not believe in god, assigns their life some meaning, then their life has meaning.
Wrong. They had no say in whether they exist or not, it was determined without their input, so how can they assign meaning to existing? There can only be meaning to our existence if we were deliberately created.
Yes, I recognize that the Christian God is the predominant belief of my culture. It's the predominant belief of a great deal of cultures, for a reason. I get that you're assuming that my belief is culturally based, and I'm then after the fact trying to prove it true. But the fact that this particular God is predominant in the culture is because the bible has remained relevant in every human age since it's inception. That in itself is relevant. This version of God is of course most familiar to me. But what my preference or cultural influence is has nothing to do with what I can demonstrate to be true.
Yes, subjective belief is central to what I'm saying. And that in itself should be telling. These beliefs and thoughts do indeed exist, but can't be observed. There is going to be a subjective element to the answer. Your insistence that it be dismissed or avoided isn't realistic. It's an important piece of the whole thing. Not everything can be objectively determined. And we are indeed talking about 'everything'. Reality. Everything that exists. Including my thoughts and beliefs. If it exists then, in your line of thinking, the mind created it. And apparently did so for a reason. And that's where your explanation begins to break down. You say all things can be determined by brain state, yet the mind for whatever reason has these needs to create things to placate it. Which in itself doesn't fit the physical/mechanistic cause you insist on. Another non-mechanistic behavior.
You - "The question is are you free-minded enough to recognize that, or does confirmation bias have the better of you? I hope it's the former, but I suspect that may be a misplaced hope, because I understand the power of religious belief. You are still only at the beginning of your separation from religious belief. You are in the denial stage. The anger stage will come later, then eventually acceptance."
The power of religious belief. That, again, creates a contradiction to this mechanistic explanation you insist on. Religious belief's ability to delude is based on the idea that the religious person's mind needs it. Needs this reasoning. This confirmation bias. This preference you insist I have for one explanation over another. That right there contradicts behavior that should be consistent with a mechanistic process.Thanks for the clarifications. Let me try to do likewise:
1) I'm not saying instincts should be dismissed. Instincts have been honed over time to aid our survival, so can be very useful in day to day situations. I'm saying that some ideas established as true through the sciences, are counter intuitive. Heliocentrism is an example of that. In the 17th century we thought heliocentrism was ridiculous because it was contrary to our common-sense expectations, which were based on what we observed on a day to day basis. We saw the sun apparently moving across the sky and instinctively thought the sun moves around the earth. But our instinct was wrong. Now in the 21st century, you are saying the idea the universe did not have a designer, is ridiculous because it is contrary to your common-sense expectations, which are based on what you observe on a day to day basis. That is the same reasoning people used to reject heliocentrism. We know that reasoning is faulty. It can (and has) lead to people being discouraged from pursuing counterintuitive ideas in science. So why would you employ reasoning that is proven to be faulty?
2) You can't move away from the issue of definitions, because your whole argument is pinned on people assuming specific definitions. By using information/language instead of code all you are doing is shifting focus from one definition to another, so it remains subjective. As with 'code', there are reasonable definitions of language and information that do not support your assertion that a) these terms are wholly applicable within the context of DNA; b) that information necessarily requires a designer.
For example, one of the features of all known languages is that symbols are arbitrary. In other words, there is no reason a four-legged animal that barks must be called a 'dog'. In Basque the word for dog is 'txakurra'. In Finish it's 'koira'. Can the sequence of DNA that corresponds to brown eyes, say AGTTCT, be arbitrary? No, it's fixed. That's because the outcome of that sequence is not the result of an intelligent entity understanding what the sequence means. It simply refers to a series of chemical reactions, fixed by the laws of nature. Amino acids are not combined into different proteins because a recipient 'understands' the 'meaning' of a DNA 'message'. It happens because for every codon (set of three nucleotides) there is one corresponding tRNA. So when proteins are being created, only tRNAs with the amino acid that corresponds to that codon can deposit material. When a Ribosome reaches a stop codon, it does not stop because it 'understands' it must stop. The process stops because the stop codon does not contain a binding site for any tRNA. That's all. There is no reading, no understanding, no interpretation, no decision-making. It's purely a chemical process. So when we say enzymes 'read' the 'information' in a DNA molecule and 'transcribe' it into mRNA, we don't literally mean that enzymes are reading and writing information. It's just convenient shorthand for describing a series of complex chemical reactions.
So can you see how it all comes back to the the definition of language and information? As I said, your opinions might be informed by certain facts, e.g. that different sequences of DNA result in different physical attributes etc, but the conclusions you are drawing are subjective, and therefore, your assertion that DNA was 'designed' is subjective too. Others can reasonably disagree with you. Can anyone reasonably disagree with the idea that the earth moves around the sun? Or that water has two hydrogen and an oxygen atom? Or that particles can act like waves and particles? No, and that's why those things are accepted as scientific knowledge, and the idea you are presenting about DNA is simply your opinion.
3) I believe we have a set of cognitive mental abilities and processes (the mind) that appears to facilitate self-awareness (consciousness). There is objectively verifiable evidence that these cognitive mental abilities and processes exist, but a lack of understanding about how these mental abilities and processes relate to our physical state (neurons, synapses, electro-chemical reactions etc.) But there is no requirement for a god-hypothesis in relation to the mind and consciousness.
4) If someone assigns meaning to their life, by definition, their life has meaning. It may only be meaningful to them, i.e. it may be subjective meaning, but it has meaning nonetheless.
5) "I can demonstrate this by demonstrating the early stories of Genesis as being historically true." Do you mean literally, as in the whole talking snake thing, or just figuratively?
6) "how does a mechanism create a being that then develops a need, or a bias, that it "prefers"?"
Natural selection.So you acknowledge it as being counter-intuitive to think DNA isn't evidence of intelligent intent in the design of how life works? So, admittedly, your faith lies with the empirical process that has a proven track record up to this point. There's nothing about that to suggest that will continue to be successful, or more specifically, that it will prove true in this regard, but because it has been in the past, that's where your faith lies.
Science can only ask "how", not "why". That doesn't mean there isn't a "why", only that it can't be determined by science. Though it can certainly be informed by science. Let me ask you this. If you were to consider seriously the possibility of there being intelligent intent in the natural world, what would you look for? How would you test for it? The creator in this scenario created the universe, so He (or it) is not a detectable product of this universe. He (or it) exists apart from the universe and all that is physically detectable. So we can only determine whether or not this is true by observing the result, the natural world. What would you look for?
Now understand I'm not just arriving at this based on DNA alone. It's based on much more than that. Remember, a big part of this is first finding legitimacy in the stories of Genesis. Finding that these things did in deed happen as described. So there's a strong foundation to this possibility. The hypothesis is formed using the data provided about this creator it speaks of in the context of modern knowledge.
Read my hub on the creation account and how it's accurate. Read my hubs under the "God created Evolution" title to see it all laid out. There are very definite reasons why I consider this a real possibility. I haven't arrived at this lightly. I have tested it in every way I know how. I created a hypothetical timeline and series of events in a framework that I then laid over the history of that region. And not only did it line up, but I was then able to make predictions based on that framework of what evidence should be found where if true. Prediction after prediction proved true.
You - "that information necessarily requires a designer."
There's more to it than that. It's not just that DNA is indeed information. It's that it's information that is retained, passed on, then used. It's not just information, but is used like information is used. And accomplishes through that process the same kind of outcome that information is used to accomplish. Without that correlation we'd never be able to determine that DNA is information. But because of the correlation between the patterns in its sequences and physical attributes of biological organisms, we're able to recognize it for what it is.
It would be one thing if it were just the 'information' part that's so compelling. But it's the entirety of the process. Information that is stored, passed on, replicated, merged with other bits of compatible information, then used to construct an incredibly complex organism a cell at a time. This is an organized system that is beyond counter-intuitive to think of as being the result of haphazard cause-effect.
You - "It simply refers to a series of chemical reactions, fixed by the laws of nature."
Right. Exactly. Fixed laws. Laws that were fixed just as they are since the very beginning. And because they were fixed exactly as they are, by simply introducing matter into this environment it becomes stars and planets and at least one that can sustain itself for billions of years, create a consistent enough environment where that same matter can self-organize into complex organisms, some of which become conscious and others conscious and self-aware. What about that sounds like it could possibly be dismissed as unintended haphazard cause-effect? By my hypothesized model, that's exactly what we should expect to see if this is true.
This God is described as speaking the universe into existence. It becomes what He wills it to be. So a natural world that appears to have formed itself is exactly what we should expect to see. That will is manifested in natural laws that govern the behavior of matter. Processes that 'naturally' form order out of chaos. Organized systems. Systems of information retention/pass on/use.
When you acknowledge there's no chance to actually detect this cause in traditional way of the natural sciences, then look at what's left, it's incredibly on point with what should be expected. And the alternative explanation sounds more and more ... ridiculous. It just tells me that some will always be incapable of recognizing what should be obvious. So dependent on objective certainty that what can't be determined that way isn't even considered as a plausible explanation.
"You - There is no reading, no understanding, no interpretation, no decision-making. It's purely a chemical process. So when we say enzymes 'read' the 'information' in a DNA molecule and 'transcribe' it into mRNA, we don't literally mean that enzymes are reading and writing information. It's just convenient shorthand for describing a series of complex chemical reactions."
Yes, exactly. I understand all of that. And knowing you understand that, take a step back and just look at what's happening. Those chemical processes, and the way chemicals behave in this environment formed by natural law, emerges a system that makes possible the retention of information, the replication and passing on of that information. Information that is then used in the construction of the next generation. It's an incredibly effective system that just naturally happens. Try it like this ... how do you think it should be different if what I'm saying is true? What's not there that you think should be there for my hypothesis to even be considered as plausible?
You - As I said, your opinions might be informed by certain facts, e.g. that different sequences of DNA result in different physical attributes etc, but the conclusions you are drawing are subjective, and therefore, your assertion that DNA was 'designed' is subjective too. Others can reasonably disagree with you. Can anyone reasonably disagree with the idea that the earth moves around the sun? Or that water has two hydrogen and an oxygen atom? Or that particles can act like waves and particles? No, and that's why those things are accepted as scientific knowledge, and the idea you are presenting about DNA is simply your opinion."
Right, exactly. That's exactly what I've been saying all along. Yes it's subjective. We can objectively confirm that the Earth moves around the Sun. We can objectively confirm that water has two hydrogen and one oxygen atom. All of that. What can't be objectively determined is if there's a being that exists apart from this universe who willfully and intelligently creates the laws that create this place. We cannot determine what causes the natural laws. Just that they are most definitely there and constant.
You - "But there is no requirement for a god-hypothesis in relation to the mind and consciousness."
I argue that there is. That there are behaviors created by this mind that are decidedly not mechanical. If what you're saying is true, then it should all be mechanical. The outcome should be mechanical. But it isn't.
The mind evolved a "pleasure center". A kind of reward system that encourages the self to take particular actions. Like eating, having sex, sleeping. Whatever drives the actions and decisions of the mind must be coaxed. This is not mechanical. If you cannot determine how this is accomplished mechanistically, then there is a requirement for a hypothesis that considers there to be more at play.
Everything we hang our hat on as far as being human, your comments about living a "good" life, making the most of it and such, our actions, choices, behaviors, this is all central to what it means to be human. If it's as you say, all of that is nothing more than a delusion we're under. All we do is actually not under out willful control, but rather are determined by the same natural laws that determine everything else.
The explanation given in the bible is that this God first spoke a natural world into existence that acts exactly as He wills it, then He created two beings able to behave of their own will. Then the whole rest of the story is all about how descendants of these two, also capable of actions and behaviors that are not in line with the will of this creator, behave and what they decide to do. It's all about behavior. That is very much in line with all we know up to this point about the natural world. Including those gaps in our understanding of the mind and how it works. All the gaps in our knowledge are exactly where they should be if this god-hypothesis is true.
You - 4) If someone assigns meaning to their life, by definition, their life has meaning. It may only be meaningful to them, i.e. it may be subjective meaning, but it has meaning nonetheless."
No. It was not that person's decision to exist. They had no say in it. So they can have no say in any meaning these might be in their existing. We're born into a world already established. It's already going. You had nothing to do with that. You had nothing to do with you being created. So how can you deciding there's meaning make it so? You had nothing to do with any of it. The meaning you come up with is only added after the fact. Another example of this "mechanical" mind needing to in some way be placated. Another decidedly non-mechanistic behavior.
You - 5) "I can demonstrate this by demonstrating the early stories of Genesis as being historically true." Do you mean literally, as in the whole talking snake thing, or just figuratively?"
Literally. I can't speak to the talking snake bit. Other than the fact that characters in ancient literature who are cast as dishonest are often referred to as serpents, or snakes. But once you fix the misconception that Adam/Eve were the first humans ever, and that they were actually created in an already populated world, then the events described line up incredibly well. In some very unexpected ways in some cases.
"You - 6) "how does a mechanism create a being that then develops a need, or a bias, that it "prefers"?"
Natural selection."
Do you not see the same "subjective" problem here? Natural selection? You have no proof of that. You basically have the vernacular of evolution where you can basically "explain" anything with "natural selection". Whether it's true or not. That's subjective. That's a confirmation bias. One that doesn't even make sense because even in natural selection and random mutation, you're still dealing with fully mechanical processes. So to dismiss something as a preference, a preferred need, as being a randomly mutated trait that then propagated, that just doesn't add up.I acknowledge that whenever we observe reality beyond a human scale, the usefulness of our intuition and instincts breaks down. If we take evolution seriously, that should come as no surprise. In fact Darwin's theory predicts it, albeit implicitly.
If our attributes were selected by how well they increased our our ancestor's chances of survival, then we would expect to see an intuition for aspects of physics that had survival value to our ancestors, and a lack of intuition for aspects of physics that didn't, which is what we do see.
Many of the scientific principles we now (tentatively) accept as true had no survival value. So we have no intuition for them, resulting in such ideas seeming 'weird', 'counter-intuitive' and . . . 'ridiculous'. We've discussed heliocentrism, but add to that the principle of superfluidity (liquid helium flows up, below certain temperatures). Colliding particle identities (an electron colliding with a positron and turning into a Z-boson at high temperatures). Superposition (particles in multiple states at once). Pretty much all of quantum mechanics etc. And it's because we recognised intuition is such an obviously poor guide when it comes to learning about the universe beyond human scale, that we adopted a methodology that provides a more reliable criteria for determining whether to accept something as true or not.
My confidence that scientific method is the best way of acquiring certain types of knowledge about the world, is based on evidence, in the form of the accumulated knowledge scientific method has successfully acquired. Forming a belief on the basis of evidence is called reason. In contrast, faith is defined as belief without sufficient evidence. Therefore please stop refering to my confidence in scientific method as 'faith'. By definition, it isn't, which makes your characterization at best incorrect, at worst deliberately misleading.
You seem to be aware of what scientific method is, but less aware of the rammifications. As scientific understanding progresses, the domain of 'the natural' gets bigger, and the domain of the 'supernatural' gets smaller. For example you said: "I believe consciousness and the mind do not spatially exist. That they can't be observed because they're not material". But within the standard model of particle physics, elementary particles are described as zero dimensional, i.e. they have zero size. These particles (like quarks) have been observed (via detectors within particle accelerators). So your description, intended to demonstrate why consciousness is beyond science, merely demonstrates how ideas previously considered beyond science, now fall within its domain. Zero-dimensional particles (point particles) are a fundamental aspect of matter and therefore a fundamental aspect of nature. Your description effectively describes consciousness as natural rather than supernatural.
But even more than that, the whole phenomenon of consciousness has a reasonable explanation that does not rely on the supernatural. If you consider that liquids have a quality of 'wetness', and gases have a quality of 'gaseousness'. Those properties do not exist at the atomic level. The individual atoms in liquids and gases are not wet or gaseous. Instead, the way the atoms are arranged, is what produces the properties of wetness and gaseousness.
Likewise, it is theorized that the different systems of the brain that carry out different functions do not, in themselves, have a quality of consciousness, but when the information (in the form of electronic stimuli) in each of those systems is integrated in a certain way, the property of consciousness results. So it describes consciousness as an emergent property of the way information is integrated within our brain. And there has been some success in testing this experimentally.
Using the above model, neuroscientists represented the level of integration within the brain as a numerical figure. The hypothesis predicts that as this figure approaches a certain level, consciousness can be said to be present. Using transcranial magnetic stimulation and EEG, they identified consciousness in people who were awake, but not in people subjected to drug-induced loss of consciousness. They also successfully identified consciousness in people experiencing REM sleep, and unconsciousness in people in a state of deep sleep. While this approach can't yet be described as a theory by the standards of scientific method, it represents significant progress in our efforts to understand consciousness. Moreover, no invocation of the supernatural is made or needed. It represents a robust, testable alternative to your assertions that consciousness is some kind of unknowable, non-material, supernatural phenomenon.
For a look at the theoretical framework, check this paper out: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2202/5/42/
The supporting experiments were reported in sperate papers, and are both worth a look: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article … ool=pubmed
http://postcog.ucd.ie/files/tononi%202007.pdf
But the main rammification of this type of work is the fact that it gives us a coneptual framework for understanding how properties can emerge from complex, dynamic systems that are not representataive of the contigent parts of the system. So consciousness can be described as an emergent property of the system that constitutes the brain. Life itself is not a property that exits at the atomic level. The atoms in a live human body are not themselves alive, and they are qualitatively no different to the atoms in deceased human body. The only difference is the way the atoms are arranged. So it can be said that life is an emrgent property also. This conceptual framework is very important, because it effectively removes the need to invoke god for aspects of nature once thought to be supernatural. In doing so science moves further into the space that was once occupied by the 'supernatural', continuing to answer the 'what?' and 'how?' questions, and leaving the 'why?' as the last refuge of explanations that invoke gods.
I don't think your attempts at reconciling natural history with religious myths works. I read your Genesis hub. I appreciate the effort that went into it, but the effort seems to be about applying retroactive continuity (yes that's a thing) to the Genesis story. I'm certain that anyone who wanted to badly enough, could 'retcon' a modern account of the creation of the universe into an old creation myth, or simply create a new imaginary being that the Genesis creation myth can be attributed to. And I'm sorry, trying to interpret bronze age writings in a way that makes them seem to accurately reflect existing scientific knowledge, is not evidence of god. It's evidence that people really, desperately want god to be real. Maybe that's something you could explore. Why that might be the case? Why this apparent need for god? Look up evolutionary psychology in relation to religion, agent detection etc. These will give you some grounding in a naturalistic framework for why religious belief exists.
In relation to DNA, the 'information' is only information to us. It's only information because we can understand it, interpret it, read it etc. the body does none of those things. It only reacts like any other natural thing reacting to a specific stimuli as determined by the laws of nature. Why are the laws of nature just so to allow life to exist in the universe? Because if they were not, then you would not be here to ask that question. In other words, you literally cannot be aware of any other conditions, because if those other conditions existed, you would not be here to observe them. So the only conditions we could ever observe in our universe are the conditions that support life.
Does that life have meaning? Subjectively yes. And that is the type of meaning that matters to those who can cope with the idea that their existence is an accident of nature. For those who can't, there is god. Your insistence that there must be some objective meaning to life, otherwise there is no reason to strive for anything, perfectly demonstrates the idea that 'god' is a psychological defense mechanism to ward of despair. This makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint because the ability to believe in a positive outcome, despite material conditions (hope) has a clear survival benefit (it's a form of resilience). Likewise the ability to visualize things that are not directly in front of us in order to solve problems (imagination) has a clear survival benefit too (it's how we get from wood, stone and vine, to an axe). I think it is significant that hope and imagination are also exactly the attributes required for Christianity and other religions. It suggests that Christianity and other religions are a byproduct of those attributes (and perhaps a combination of others) that have some survival benefit. And there it is. A simple explanation, with nothing supernatural required.Yes, and I agree. I'm not arguing that natural processes are responsible for these things. They had to be accomplished somehow to now exist. God doesn't just "miracle" things into existence. It's a process. But it's deliberate.
But intuition shouldn't just be ignored either. We're talking about something we do know quite a lot about. Life. It operates under the same instincts that we're familiar with. Intuition tells us that when you see an organized system that retains, duplicates, and passes on information, this isn't just a product of chance. To think it is is counter-intuitive to say the least.
Yes, we adopted a methodology because there was an applicable methodology to apply. In what we're talking about here, there isn't. So do we just ignore the obvious? Act like it isn't there, or doesn't mean anything? Isn't relevant?
I agree with everything you said here. The problem is there's no evidence that you're basing your conclusion on. There's nothing about the track record of science or about anything we've yet to determine that suggests that what you believe to be true is. As you said, faith is defined as belief without sufficient evidence. Exactly.
No, I disagree. The 'supernatural' doesn't get smaller. What is natural and what is supernatural only becomes more defined. Defining the natural better defines what's left. And there's quite a bit left. To think that's what left is just more of the same is a mistake. It doesn't share any characteristics with anything we know. It's clearly different. There's clearly more going on. Just because we can't scientifically determine that doesn't mean it's an invalid consideration.
Yes, and I agree that what we experience as consciousness does have to in some way be physically caused. But that only raises more questions that answers. Basically, you're saying that the "emergent properties" of the elements of our brain are capable of all of this behavioral characteristics that we are unable to observe. So for all we know it's happening in trees and earthworms. Hell, a storm could be 'thinking'. We don't know. The mind is the single more dynamic, most creative, most astonishing things that exists, yet it doesn't exist in any way that we can even grasp, even given all of our technology and know-how.
In fact, if it weren't for each of us experiencing it, you and others would dismiss it as existing at all. But we all experience it, so it has to be accounted for in some way. It's one thing to say 'wetness' is an emergent property. It's quite another to say a conscious self-aware being with preferences and desires and such is an 'emergent property'. That's quite a stretch.
You might as well call it magic. Assigning attributes as complex and dynamic as the conscious mind and life to being "emergent properties" doesn't really answer anything other than making it painfully obvious we don't know shit.
I think you're giving me a bit too much credit. No, not just any creation account can be 'retcon'd'. It specifically says heavens, earth, oceans, land, plant life, animal life, humans, all in that order, all correct. And that's a partial list. I wouldn't have shit to say if it wasn't already that close. That on point. No amount of twisting I do could make it seem so if it isn't.
Yet, because "retroactive continuity" is a "thing", despite my "efforts", you've reached the conclusion already that you don't think it works.
All I did is point out the point of view in which its told. From that perspective, all the rest lines up with what actually happened. I didn't change or 'retcon' anything. I simply stood it up (in the correct context) against what's known. Knowledge the authors didn't have. And it fits. Yet you seem to be inclined to dismiss it off-hand, and instead assume that it's me being delusional again.
Believe me, this is something I've looked into. I'm not the one that lacks explanation on this point. I've brought it up before. What's the mechanistic explanation for our "need" for God? What "emergent property" accounts for that? Why does a biological machine need a God explanation to the point it would be willing to delude itself? It doesn't add up. If the evidence I've gathered weren't compelling enough, the lack of explanation from your perspective is reason enough to rule it out.
That's demonstrably false. It's clearly information because of its ability to duplicate the process of building complex organisms over and over again. Our observing it doesn't make it information. It's information in function.
I'm sorry, but that's the biggest cop out answer there is. It's just justification to rationalize ignoring what should be compelling evidence. There's only one observable universe. And in the one and only example we have, it just happens to be set up right from the start just as it needs to be for us to exist. Rationalize that away any way you wish.
The mere fact that you use the word "cope" should be telling. This biological machine, this mechanized product of wholly natural processes, needs to cope? Needs to think their life has meaning? Why does it matter?
And that right there is just plain insulting. Belief in God is a weakness, in other words. Typical. Do I seem to you to be irrational? Do I seem to you to be someone who can't 'cope'? Do I not sound like someone who holds these beliefs rationally and logically?
Okay, so was despair somehow beneficial to survival? Is that why it exists now? I'm not insisting there's no reason to strive for anything. I'm asking you what that reason is in your point of view. I feel quite the opposite. You keep saying there's meaning and purpose and that we should strive to be good and whatever, yet there's no reason in the explanation you give as to why that is.
Except exactly how this "emergent property" of matter becomes not only conscious, but needy apparently. Sensitive. Unable to 'cope' unless it can in some way rationalize reason and meaning in it's life. We are still talking about emergent properties of matter, aren't we? Because that doesn't sound anything like what you're describing. Wetness, is that really a good comparison?Can you point out where I said intuition should be ignored, or is it fair to call that a misrepresentation? Did I not say in this comment that: "[intuition] can be very useful in day to day situations"? Once again, can I ask you not to misrepresent what I have said? In relation to the point you are making, do you acknowledge that whenever we observe reality beyond a human scale, the usefulness of our intuition and instincts breaks down? And do you agree that the scientific principles we know to be true (as outlined in my previous comment) are clear examples of that happening?
Once again: do you agree that what is "obvious" at human scale, is not necessarily obvious beyond human scale, i.e. at the quantum or cosmic scale?
Do you agree that there are many examples where phenomena once deemed to be outside the scope of science, are now fully explained by science? Does that previous experience of science serve as evidence that science is capable of explaining phenomena previously outside its scope? As confidence in science is based on this evidence, is that confidence 'faith' (belief without evidence) or reason (a belief formed on the basis of evidence)?
Are there examples where phenomena previously considered supernatural, are now understood to be natural because of knowledge acquired through the application of scientific method? Was the sun once deemed by many ancient societies to be a god? Has that belief now been replaced in most societies with the understand that the sun is natural phenomena? Were volcanoes once deemed to be (angry) gods? Has that belief now been replaced in most societies with the understanding that volcanoes are natural phenomena? etc. Therefore is it not accurate to say that the number of things people deem to be supernatural has reduced, and the number of things people now understand are natural phenomena has increased?
Do you accept that describing consciousness as 'non-spatial' does not indicate it is beyond science, because the attribute of being non-spatial is now deemed to be a fundamental aspect of matter, and therefore nature?
Does the fact that neuroscientists have successfully identified consciousness in people who were awake, and lack of consciousness in people who are in a drug induced sleep, indicate that we are unable to identify when consciousness is present? Or does it indicate that we have a reasonably good idea when consciousness is present, and can in fact detect consciousness, even though we lack full understanding of exactly how it works? Is the brain of an earthworm as complex as a human's? Is it organized and integrated in the same way? Does a storm have a brain, and is it integrated in the same way as that of a human? Are these questions outside the scope of science, or are they questions that relate to natural phenomena that can be observed and understood without reference to the supernatural?
If a simple arrangement of atoms can lead to emergent properties like wetness etc. Then how much more is it possible that the complex, dynamic functions of the brain, when integrated and organized in a specific way, can result in emergent properties too? If one of the attributes of 'strong emergence' is that an emergent property cannot be predicted from the component parts of a system, doesn't that indicate that consciousness is an emergent property, as it cannot be predicted by simply examining the component parts of a brain?
Why should we believe that unexpected properties can emerge from the atoms in water when arranged a certain way, but cannot emerge in human beings when the functional areas of the brain are integrated in a certain way? Are the atoms in water qualitatively different to the atoms in our brain?
Have you read, and understood, the papers outlining the conceptual framework I've described? If you haven't then why do you feel you can reliably assess it? If you have, why do you characterize it as magic, which is commonly defined as relating to the apparent use of supernatural force, when this theory is in fact the opposite? Would it not be more accurate to suggest that explanations that rely on the supernatural are more akin 'magic'?
Does Genesis mention things in that order, or does it say that plants were created before the sun? And when you explain that away by saying the authors really meant the sun when they previously said 'the heavens', isn't that twisting it to fit your needs? And does it not beg the question: if the creation of the sun was included in the creation of 'the heavens', isn't mentioning the sun later a duplication of what was already said?
How do you account for differences in use of Hebrew words vs. modern English? Do you take that into account? For example, did you know that the verb Bara, often translated into modern English as 'create', actually means 'to separate' or 'to differentiate'. Likewise do you know that the Hebrew word ezer, which was translated as 'helper' in English, is used as 'companion' in Hebrew. So rather than creating woman as a 'helper' to man the original text says the woman was created as a 'companion' to man? I didn't see any consideration of the conceptual differences between Hebrew and English anywhere in your hub, so how have you taken that into account?
Why did you previously say "I can't speak to the talking snake bit"? Do you believe that a snake had a conversation with a woman or not? If not, why not?
And do you believe that god literally formed a human from the dust on the ground, and breathed life into a fully formed 'adam'? If so, how do you reconcile that with evolutionary theory?
And do you believe that the reason women feel pain during childbirth is because it is a punishment from god? If so, do you think prior to that moment a woman would have felt no pain while giving birth?
Is there a lack of explanation, or does the explanation (god-belief is a by-product of several different evolutionary traits) simply not fit your worldview?
If that need is a byproduct of the unique combination of attributes in human beings, does that change whether or not people want it to be fulfilled? Isn't it true that a need, by definition, is something that's imperative? Does the nature of that need, or the manner in which it comes into existence, in any way change that fact?
Is this content-blind definition of information (that originates from information theory) the only definition of information there is? If not, then doesn't your view depend on which definition is used? And doesn't that make your view subjective, which is what I've been asserting for some time?
Would it be possible for human beings to observe our universe if it were not capable of supporting human life? Isn't that logically impossible? And is it not the case that the only reason we observe that our universe can support human life, is because we literally could not observe it otherwise? In light of that, do you think it's possible that (to borrow a statistical term) there may be some selection bias happening?
Is it unreasonable to think that a unique property like self-awareness, would result in unique needs? And is it unreasonable to think that, like the property itself, those needs would be greater than the needs of the component parts? Does it follow that because a single human cell has no need of meaning, the highly organized pattern of energy and mass that constitutes the organism it's part of, should therefore have no need of meaning either?
Is that what I said, or is that your (incorrect) interpretation of what I said? Is having black skin instead of white skin (or vice versa) a 'weakness'? Or is skin color an attribute that evolved to address a specific environmental challenge (skin damage from UV radiation) which then changed as early humans migrated to cooler climates in the north, resulting in the variety of skin colors we see today? Do you think it's possible that there are also several genetic and cultural reasons why some people are more (or less) inclined towards god-belief than others, and why some people are more (or less) inclined towards certain types of god-belief than others? Am I the one making a value judgement on that, or are you simply projecting your own?
Is it your understanding of evolutionary theory that every current attribute of human beings exists because it had survival value? Are you not aware that attributes can exist as byproducts, or side-effects of other attributes? What do you think is a likely side-effect of developing full self-awareness? The side effect of having the ability not only to suffer, but also being aware of your suffering; of not only dying, but having a full understanding of the concept of mortality; of not only fearing death from an instinctive biological perspective, but also having a full appreciation of the concepts of loss and oblivion?
When you look at the most common religions in the world, do you see a connection between their messages and the potential side-effects of being self-aware? Do you know of any religion that says there is no objective meaning to your life, that all the suffering you experience has no significance, and when you die you simply cease to exist? Or are all the major religions of the world a variation on a theme: your life has objective meaning, suffering has some higher significance, death is not the end of existence? So if self-awareness has survival value (which it obviously does) and therefore becomes a common trait, then any side effects will become common too. If existential angst (for want of a better term) is a side-effect of self-awareness (which I think it is) then you would expect that to be as common as self-awareness. If that has negative survival value (the attitude that "nothing matters" can definitely have negative effect on survival ) wouldn't you expect to see some mechanism evolve that helps counter-balance that? Is it unreasonable to suggest that god-belief, made possible by our other human attributes, is that mechanism?
Isn't it perfectly reasonable to say that "we don't know" is currently the answer to some of those questions? And do you think the property of wetness was intended as a perfect equivalent to the property of consciousness, or do you think it more likely that the example was used as a simple way of explaining how a property can emerge from a complex, dynamic system even though it does not exist within the component parts of that system?No need to quote you saying it, you've been doing it throughout this discussion. It's what we've been talking about. What's thought of as 'counter-intuitive'. Counter to what intuition suggests. You've already dismissed this as an unreliable barometer to determine truth. That's the reason you've given for why intuition can and should be ignored.
You're right. Intuition and instincts are built around our point of view. But DNA, though beyond our ability to observe it for millions of years, proves to be very much something we can understand. It works how we think. We actually came up with a very similar solution which helped us achieve very much the same thing. Our solution is the product of intelligent minds. The commonality should not be ignored. There's a meaningful connection there. A clue.
What was once thought to be outside of science's scope was thought so through ignorance. Where as my statements are born of an extensive knowledge. But no, those previous examples don't in any way relate to what we're talking about now. Those were different topics. To assume this topic will have the same outcome is not based on any evidence or previous track records because that evidence and track record were not speaking particularly about what we are. Nothing about those prior accounts relate to this. Nothing informs this situation. They aren't related.
Again, the difference is what I'm talking about is informed by scientific knowledge. It's informed by demonstrable knowledge.
No. It doesn't indicate that we can "in fact detect consciousness". This right here is a good illustration of a common mistake in thinking. Detecting brain activity that coincides with when people are conscious and absent when people are unconscious does not mean consciousness itself has been detected. All that determines is that that portion of the brain is active when conscious. There's no correlation determined between the two other than that observation.
Again, not making an argument that what was detected isn't what causes consciousness, just pointing out the flaw in that conclusion. Observing brain activity and trying to tie correlations between that and mental activity is crude and subjective. The whole 'mind' part of the equation depends on the need to have to relate one's own mental experiences to that of the subjects. It's totally undetectable, unmeasurable.
They're not understood. That's the problem. And it's not for a lack of looking. The reason is what I've been saying.
That's why I keep trying to get you to acknowledge the behavior. What can be observed about the mind, through our experience of it, in no way resembles physical processes. What else in nature, other than brains, have to be coaxed through the promise of relief of pain or discomfort? Or pleasure? Or fear?
You can't seriously think wetness in any way compares. Wetness is just that. It's a state. It's not something that has to be coaxed into being wet.
The conscious mind is qualitatively different to an emergent property like wetness.
By the very same standards that something is deemed "supernatural", and therefore "magic", those same standards find the same conclusion where the mind is concerned. But because there's no doubt that the mind exists, it can't be dismissed. It must be accounted for. But in every other way, it qualifies as 'supernatural' and 'magic' by the very same standards that other things are.
You're missing the important part, and that's where this second mention of the sun sits. After plantlife. Cyanobacteria in the oceans began pumping oxygen into the atmosphere and filtering out carbon dioxide. But this process was greatly increased by the appearance of plant life of land. Creating the portion of our stratosphere that is now oxygen, combined with filtering out the carbon dioxide, this achieved an important development that, again from the POV established, very much makes sense out of the mention of the sun/moon/stars during "day 4". The atmosphere became transparent. Before it was translucent. There was no oxygenated layer of the stratosphere which suspends the layer of stratosphere where water vapor ends up miles above. Before the oxygenated atmosphere the layer of atmosphere where the clouds usually are was down on the surface of the Earth. Add to that high levels of carbon dioxide (considering plantlife evolved to live on carbon dioxide it's a safe conclusion that it was very much prevalent in the atmosphere during this period on Earth), which of course is a greenhouse gas, which means high levels of water vapor. If you've ever been in a fog, could you see the sun? Moon? Stars? No. Before plantlife the atmosphere from the surface was translucent. The sun would light the dome of the sky so you had the light of day and dark of night, but you could not see the sun/moon/stars. After plantlife, however, that's why I'm not just stretching it to "make it work". It logically fits.
In fact, all of it, by simply establishing the POV, is resolved when read in that POV. That one change applies all the way through. That one alteration makes sense of the whole thing and ties it all together. That's why this 'twisting the words to make it right' thing doesn't fly.
Yes. Adam and Eve were created and introduced into a world they didn't evolve from. They were 'alien' in that regard. Then came the intermingling. That's why my articles (not sure how far into it you've gotten) then goes into the behavioral change that swept across the human species throughout the world. Adam and Eve's descendants began intermingling with humans. That introduced free will into naturally evolved humans. The behavior change that's the result of this introduction, starts right when/where it should if this is true. It's a heightened sense of individuality. The modern human ego. The kind of development that would make you all of the sudden realize you were naked when it never occurred to you before.
No, that's a misunderstanding. That was specific to them. Originally, Adam and Eve weren't going to have to procreate. They were to live eternally. But because of their actions, they became mortal, they would then "surely die", and their eventual death made necessary procreation. So, Eve was therefore going to have to endure the pains of childbirth, where before she wasn't going to have to do that.
I'm talking about in the context of your worldview, not mine. You're not seeing what I'm trying to point out. You're telling me the mind is simply an "emergent property" of matter. I'm asking how/why that 'emergent property' would even have these traits that then lead to this 'need' to invent god? It's mechanistic according to you. Just matter, energy, and natural law.
This isn't a need in the survival sense. In fact, where survival is concerned, it seems it would be more of a detriment than anything. No, the cause of this 'need' is the emergence of a self-aware identity that 'needs' to feel necessary, or relevant. It's a uniquely human trait. And it began in a very particular time and place.
That's quite a twisting of logic you did there. You're bogging yourself down with knit-picking definitions. The fact is the sequence of DNA determines the way in which complex multi-celled organisms form. That IS information. By the standard most common definition.
What we can observe is how the math shows conclusively that if the values of the natural laws were different than they are, we wouldn't be here. That confirms that it very easily could have gone any number of different ways. But the one way that the one universe that we have to observe is set, led to life. Rationalize it any way you like, but the fact is even slightly different there's no us.
Unique needs? Yeah, it's reasonable to think the needs would be unique. But labeling these kinds of needs as 'unique' doesn't begin to address it. Unique they are, but these are far more than merely 'unique'. Self-awareness combined with a sense of self value, self worth, a need for identity. These are 'unique' because these characteristics are very much 'unique'.
How am I misinterpreting? You said, "And that is the type of meaning that matters to those who can cope with the idea that their existence is an accident of nature. For those who can't, there is god." In other words, those who can cope don't need to delude themselves. But those who can't ... there is god. In other words, if you believe in God, you're in category B. A weakness. A result of the inability to cope.
Yes, I'm aware. The problem with that is that all we hold dear as humanity, our ego/self-awareness/identity, the love we feel for loved ones, etc, is basically boiled down to being "side-effects" and "byproducts". Not intended to be as they are. Just the result of utter randomness.
This is the primary reason why I find it so ironic that so many atheists lay claim to the title "humanist". When, ironically, the whole mindset reduces humanity and all we hold most dear down to being 'byproducts' and 'side-effects'. Sad.
Again, biproducts and side effects. Our self-awareness itself being the same. Yes, you're right in that there's a connection between our self-awareness our desire to be relevant. But it's the self-awareness part that you keep glossing over. You acknowledge it's 'uniqueness', yet don't seem to have any problem counting it among the other randomly mutated developments that happened along the way. For generations the sequence was one thing, which led to thinking brains determining actions and such, and then came an alteration, a random mutation in that sequence which then caused something like self-awareness as an 'emergent property'.
Here's the problem with that. If I'm right, then where God is concerned "we don't know" will continue to be the answer. Those same gaps will continue to be just where they are. So at what point do we finally acknowledge that maybe that's for a reason? Or do we just continue to go with "we don't know" because we can't 'know' otherwise? God in the evidence will be a gap in understanding. The refusal to acknowledge that, and to in fact hold faith in science that it will eventually do what it's done before, is another way way manage to keep ourselves from moving forward.No, that's the reason I have given for why intuition should not be relied upon beyond human scale. That's an important distinction. And that basic point still stands: you cannot reasonably cite "intuition" as a supporting argument for your explanation of DNA, because in relation to phenomena on the quantum, microscopic, and upper macroscopic scales "intuition" is demonstrably unreliable. So your argument from "intuition" is demonstrably weak.
Good, agreed.
Our understanding of DNA stems from direct observation, not intuition. We did not intuit that physical illness could be the result of genetic disorders caused by transcription errors in DNA. Instead, it was "intuition" that resulted in the belief that illness was caused by a person being punished/tested/cursed by god(s). In some places in the world that "intuitive" belief remains. We understand DNA despite intuitive beliefs, not because of them.
Exactly my point. What is today thought to be outside the scope of science could likewise be through ignorance. But we cannot know that today. We will only know it tomorrow.
No, they are born of 1) your opinions about DNA and the nature of information, which are subjective; 2) "intuition", which is demonstrably unreliable in relation to phenomena beyond human scale, and 3) your personal interpretation of an ancient text, which is also subjective. In short your conclusions amount to no more than opinions and a hunch.
They are all examples of ideas where: 1) there was insufficient objective evidence to determine if they were true; 2) some people considered them to be ridiculous because they were counterintuitive; 3) (in the case of heliocentrism and evolution) some people were resistant to the ideas for religious reasons; 4) they were natural explanations that replaced "supernatural" ones. They are very much related to what we are discussing.
If on every occasion where there has been a competing "supernatural" explanation and a scientific one, the supernatural explanation has never been shown to be correct in any meaningful way, but the scientific ones have, then it is not an assumption to predict the same outcome. In the same way that if a thrown stone falls to the ground 100 times, predicting it will fall again is not an assumption. It's an inference based on previous experience. Likewise I am making an inference based on previous experience, that a "supernatural" explanation of consciousness will not be shown to be correct in any meaningful way, and a natural explanation will.
You have not demonstrated anything about DNA that any reasonable person with a functioning brain could not refute. That's not demonstrable knowledge. It's one opinion vs. another opinion. That's all.
You are talking about Neural Correlates of Consciousness (NCC). If that is all you think this research is about, then have either not read it, or not understood it. They are not merely determining NCC. That's the whole point. They are using a mathematical model to determine the level of integration between the different "mechanisms" within a system, like the brain. Then they are testing that experimentally using transcranial magnetic stimulation. By doing that they can accurately determine the minimum level of integration within a system that constitutes a conscious percept. The framework also theoretically determines the quality of experience using what they call the the "qualia space". If you think of Descartes' famous deduction, "I think, therefore I am", he's saying that the reason we know we exist is because we are experiencing. What this framework does is determines if a system is "experiencing". To put that in perspective, if you look at the brain of a new born baby you may see lots of brain activity, but can it be said that the baby is "experiencing" or simply processing sensory stimuli? This is the beginning of being able to answer that question. No, it's not a full understanding of the first person perspective of consciousness, but it's not merely detecting brain activity. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the research. This is a small step forward, but that is how science works. Iterative improvements, over time.
Sorry, but acquiring knowledge through scientific method takes time. It's not like "divine revelation" where someone can go up a mountain and come down with rules supposedly given to them by "god". Scientific knowledge is deduced and inferred, then confirmed and revised. In relation to consciousness we started by mapping consciousness to physical areas of the brain. Now we are looking at the quality of the "experience". It's progress. Evidently the application of scientific method still has some answers to give us in relation to consciousness.
And consciousness may be a state also; a unique, complex, dynamic state, but a state nonetheless.
Answer the question. Are the atoms in water (or anything) qualitatively different to atoms in our brain?
You suggested using the term "emergence" is akin to calling it magic. It isn't. They are not saying emergence explains consciousness. They are applying scientific method to determine exactly what consciousness emerges from. So far they have determined that consciousness does not emerge merely as a result of complexity (the sheer number of neurons and connections in the brain). Nor does it emerge from the presence of specific areas of the brain, or even specific functions of the brain. Their work is showing that it emerges from the way the functions of the brain are integrated. That seems to be the key. And they are testing their predictions by experiment. That's the opposite of magic. in contrast, all you offer by way of an explanation for your supernatural explanation is opinions, interpretations of ancient books and "intuition".
But POV does not resolve all the contradictions in Genesis, of which there are too many to mention.
And your whole attitude about Genesis makes no sense. You argue that "the flood" could not have been global, on the grounds that "How could they possibly know if the whole planet was covered or not? Could they even have known what the whole world was at that time?" Are you being sarcastic? Or are you are seriously saying that the author of Genesis was "inspired" by an omnipotent, omniscient deity to the point where he (I assume) could outline how the universe was created so accurately that it aligns with modern scientific understanding, yet he could not accurately determine whether a flood was global or not? Really?
So you believe a deity literally picked up dirt, and created a humanoid(?). So did Adam and Eve have arms and legs like regular humans, or did they have a different body shape? And was this deity in physical form at the time it made these creatures, or incorporeal form? If it was incorporeal how did it manipulate the dirt? Or was it all done without physical contact, in which case, why does it say Adam was made out of dirt? If not, then what exactly was the mechanism used to make contact with the dirt? And what exactly was "breathed" into this humanoid, oxygen? And by what mechanism?
So these humanoids (what do you call them?) were immortal, so were never going to have to procreate. So at which point did your god create their male and female reproductive organs? Presumably after they did the bad thing if they were never meant to procreate? And do we know what was in place of the male and female genitalia before that happened, or do you think the genitalia was always there? If it was, do you know what it's function was?
And in relation to the talking snake, you think when the author wrote "snake" but actually meant "human being"? So is there any reason that later in the story this "human being" was told they would crawl on their belly and strike at human heels, kind of like . . . a snake? And why are you so skeptical of talking snakes anyway. It's not the only talking animal in the Bible. Here's a talking donkey:
"And the donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your donkey, on which you have ridden all your life long to this day? Is it my habit to treat you this way?” And he said, “No.” 31 Then the Lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in the way, with his drawn sword in his hand. And he bowed down and fell on his face. " (Numbers 22:30–31) Did the author of Numbers mean to write "human" instead of "donkey"?
So I ask again, do you believe a snake had a conversation with a woman? And a new question, do you believe a donkey had a conversation with its owner?
No, I'm telling you that current scientific understanding indicates there is a strong possibility that is the case.
Which part of "god-belief is a by-product of several different evolutionary traits" is unclear? Which traits? Not sure. There are several suggestions.
That's exactly what I said. See above.
Your entire argument about DNA is based on a single, disputable definition. That's not "knit-picking". It's demonstrating another reason the argument is so weak. And besides, you are asserting that immortal humanoid beings made from dirt (sans reproductive organs) by an undetectable supernatural entity, "intermingled" with humans, after being given bad advice from a snake, that was not a snake, but really was a snake. I'm not sure "twisting of logic" is a criticism you can reasonably level at others.
The only reason we can observe the universe, or do "the math" about the universe with different properties, is because the universe is capable of supporting human life. Some people think that makes us special. It doesn't. It makes us lucky (or unlucky depending on your perspective).
Yes unique. So what?
By implying that I am assigning a value judgment. I'm not. You referred to it as a "weakness" not me.
So what? Religious beliefs aside, if you had a child from a one night stand with a random person, completely unplanned, would you value the child's needs any less than if they had been the result of a thought-through, deliberate, plan with a purpose? How we got here, and why we have the needs we have, and feel the things we feel, is irrelevant. The fact that we are here, and have these needs, and feel these things, is what's important. If human beings were a complete accident of nature, would that make your favorite song any less of a favorite? Would it make a beautiful sunset, any less beautiful? Would it make the people you love any less lovable? I would argue that it makes being here to experience those things even more remarkable.
What's sad is the fact that you can't see that human beings have value in our own right. You can't see that we're amazing. That the world is amazing. We are made of the same stuff stars are made of; that we have the stuff of nebulas running in our veins; and we're conscious. We experience. You ask what meaning life can have? Doesn't matter. What matters is that I am. What value do we have? My value is that I am. I don't know what it's like not to be. Can I experience not being? Very unlikely. So while I am, I will try to continue to be because I know being is something, and something is more than nothing.
I'm not sure why you find it so difficult. You can map it out in various ways. One example might be: survival value in our brain being integrated a certain way, consciousness emerged out of that integration, consciousness lead to the ability to distinguish the self from others, i.e. self-awareness, which lead to introspection, the awareness of suffering and the trauma of existential angst (who am I? what am I? why am I? what is that? why is that? how is that?), that plus imagination, plus language, plus agent detection and the ability to believe in a positive outcome despite negative material conditions (aka hope/faith) leads to god-belief (how could it not?). Simple.
Sure, and when the scientific community concedes that zero progress is being made on a fuller understanding of consciousness, you have my permission to say "told you so". Until then, thanks, but we'll stick with the science.
Foward? You call resorting to stone-age beliefs and superstitions, literally borne out of fear and lack of understanding, moving forward? I call it retrograde. And your whole argument is self-defeating anyway. You are arguing there can be no objective evidence for god, because of god's nature, while at the same time trying to offer objective evidence for god, in the form of DNA and the (supposed) scientific accuracy of Genesis. Well which is it? Does god's nature mean there can be no objective evidence for god or doesn't it. But there's more. Your "extensive knowledge" is based on inductive reasoning, i.e. the type of reasoning science is based on. So obviously you recognize the value in such reasoning. Yet you fail to use the same reasoning when doing so questions your own beliefs. For example, you argue:
1) All observed information has a designer (premise)
2) DNA is information (premise)
3) Therefore DNA has a designer (from 1 and 2)
4) Therefore the idea that DNA does not have a designer is inaccurate (from 1, 2, and 3)
That's inductive reasoning. But so is this:
1) All observed snakes are incapable of human speech (premise)
2) A character in Genesis ('The Serpent') is a snake (premise)
3) Therefore 'The Serpent' is incapable of human speech (from 1 and 2)
4) Therefore the depiction of a snake in Genesis capable of human speech is inaccurate (from 1, 2, and 3)
Don't think the serpent character is a snake? Ok substitute it for the talking donkey. Same argument applies. So where is your inductive argument based on the fact that direct observation tells us talking snakes and donkeys don't exist?Intuition in this regard has nothing to do with DNA being outside of the 'human scale'. What it accomplishes, and how it accomplishes it, is something very much recognizable to us. We understand it to be a particular sequence that makes possible the replication of a process that generates complex organisms. Information. Your human scale argument is irrelevant to intuition recognizing that for what it is.
And I never said intuition was in any way related to our gaining understanding of DNA. It's intuition that recognizes the deliberate pattern and process and what it accomplishes.
Yes, exactly. We COULD know gain the necessary understanding in the future. Assuming the gaps in our understanding do turn out to indeed be physically observable processes that have just eluded us to this date. What you seem to be missing is that I'm making an argument, based on what can be observed, behavior, that there's a strong case that what's involved is not playing in the same ballpark as physical material.
Your arguments against my conclusions are weak and wishful thinking. A clear bias against my conclusion. There's plenty of reason behind the arguments you're failing to adequately argue against. Trying to put it on me as being something I invented is thin. Especially considering the sequence of things the text directly speaks of, including a timeline that's specifically given, can be demonstrably lined up. I can't make that up or 'twist it' around to make it seem like it's something it isn't.
Yes, the examples you gave were instances in the past where the processes were later deemed to be observable and physical, thus we could then eventually gain understanding. You're still assuming that what we're now talking about will eventually prove to be the same. What I'm saying is that you don't know that, and that nothing about those prior instances in any way supports that that will be the case.
You find it to be opinion because anything that can't be determined through empirical observation cannot be a fact. If not fact, then opinion. You're ignoring the fact that in this case empirical observation isn't possible. So yes, ultimately, it's going to be opinion. But informed opinion with logically reasoned explanations to back it up. Despite your insistence, not everything conforms to the standards you demand. Doesn't make it meaningless or irrelevant.
Just because they're using a mathematical model doesn't change the original crux of the case. The mind isn't observable. Attempting to quantify the unobservable through assigning arbitrary values to physical happenings in the brain to be represented in an equation doesn't change anything. It doesn't suddenly make the mind observable. It's just making mathematical predictions about what physical happenings will occur. When someone physically replicates a behavior, of course the behavior the physical behavior observed is going to be similar.
Yes consciousness is a state. But saying both consciousness and wetness are in any way comparable because their both states is ridiculous. No, the atoms in water are not quantitatively different than the atoms in our brain. That's very much the point. Ordinary elements found elsewhere in the natural world, like in water, are what the brain is made up of. Yet the brain proves to be capable of creating this 'emergent' property that's totally unobservable and clearly very dynamic. The same thing could be happening in water for all we know. We don't.
I never said the term 'emergence' is akin to magic. It's the characteristics themselves I'm talking about. Your making the leap that something as simple as a random mutations caused by imperfections in the replication process of sequences of phosphates can account for the emergence of something like consciousness, that's magic.
Yes POV resolves all of the seeming contradictions. I cover it all in detail in my hub. Feel free to make your point in more specific detail. I'll show you time and again that it all falls in line. Don't let what you'd prefer to be true render you unable to see this.
See, your assumptions about what's in Genesis obviously haven't been very heavily considered, yet you find you're in the right to go ahead and dismiss my whole argument. Like your assumption that an author of Genesis could be "inspired", and that through that they'd be somehow imbued with otherworldly knowledge of the natural world. I don't know about you, but when I've experienced inspiration, I didn't gain any knowledge I didn't have previously.
But in the story God walked and talked with Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, and Enoch at least. So this is how the author of Genesis could have come to have known the sequence of events in Earth's creation. It's described from God's point of view. He told them. But in the flood He just said he was going to flood "all the land". Then they observed and described what they saw. Which from a surface/human point of view, would have indeed looked like all the land was covered.
Is it not much more understandable in this day and age that a person could be formed from elements found in the Earth? We've actually found out there's a lot of potential truth to that. We are indeed made of the same elements as the natural world. And we can clone from things like ribs. As unbelievable as it might sound, what we've learned in the centuries since this was written make it apparent that these things aren't nearly as out of the question as they have once seemed.
I think the genitalia was there. They were made in the same image, or, more accurately, the humans were made in their image.
I'm not skeptical of the talking snake. I consider all options. One thing to consider is the practice of referring to dishonest characters as snakes. But you're right, other things it says refutes that. It very well could have been a talking snake. And yes, I think a man could have had a conversation with a donkey.
"god-belief is a by-product of several different evolutionary traits" ... Really? That's your answer? Several traits? A combination of traits can lead to a being needing to create a God? That's pretty thin Don.
Your insistence to try to turn my points about DNA into an argument about definitions isn't relevant. DNA demonstrates itself to be a form of data in its utility.
And yes, we are special. Considering we haven't observed any other form of life anywhere in the known universe, that alone makes us special. The fact that our behavior is determined, not by the interplay between matter and the natural laws, but rather through logical intelligent thought, unlike anything else in the known universe, that too makes us special.
I'm going to stop here for now. Plenty to discuss already."Intuition in this regard has nothing to do with DNA being outside of the 'human scale'. What it accomplishes, and how it accomplishes it, is something very much recognizable to us. . . . And I never said intuition was in any way related to our gaining understanding of DNA."
Yep. You dit: "But DNA, though beyond our ability to observe it for millions of years, proves to be very much something we can understand."
Again, the only reason "we can understand" DNA to the extent we do, is because of knowledge gained through scientific method, not intuition. Intuition fails to give us any reliable understanding of DNA or anything else at the microscopic or quantum level.
"We COULD know gain the necessary understanding in the future. Assuming the gaps in our understanding do turn out to indeed be physically observable processes that have just eluded us to this date."
Once again, acquiring knowledge through scientific method takes time. You can't just fast forward the process. If in 50 years time we have made zero progress in terms of a proper scientific understanding of consciousness, then you have my permission to say "told you so". Until then I'll refrain from just making stuff up, thanks.
"You find it to be opinion because anything that can't be determined through empirical observation cannot be a fact. If not fact, then opinion. You're ignoring the fact that in this case empirical observation isn't possible. So yes, ultimately, it's going to be opinion."
Good I'm glad you accept that you're beliefs in the supernatural are no more than opinions.
"Yes, the examples you gave were instances in the past where the processes were later deemed to be observable and physical, thus we could then eventually gain understanding. You're still assuming that what we're now talking about will eventually prove to be the same. What I'm saying is that you don't know that, and that nothing about those prior instances in any way supports that that will be the case."
Once again, if in 50 years there's been zero progress in our scientific understanding of consciousness, then you get to say "told you so". Until then, my answer is "we don't know but we're working on it". If you want to base your view of the world on opinion and your interpretation of an old book, knock yourself out. That doesn't mean I should take your views seriously.
"No, the atoms in water are not quantitatively different than the atoms in our brain. That's very much the point. Ordinary elements found elsewhere in the natural world, like in water, are what the brain is made up of. Yet the brain proves to be capable of creating this 'emergent' property that's totally unobservable and clearly very dynamic. The same thing could be happening in water for all we know. We don't."
So the brain consists of ordinary elements, meaning there is no difference between matter in the brain and matter found elsewhere. That's useful because it eliminates a lot of possibilities. As there is no difference in the quality of the matter, it therefore makes sense to examine how the matter is arranged. Many complex systems exist in nature. Only one seems to result in consciousness. So what is the difference between those systems and consciousness? How the components of the system are integrated. The way the components of the human brain are integrated is not found anywhere else. And only the collection of matter we know as the human brain is capable of the kind of consciousness we see in humans. That's a strong clue that the way the different parts of the brain is integrated is a factor in human consciousness. Once again, nothing supernatural required.
"But in the story God walked and talked with Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, and Enoch at least. So this is how the author of Genesis could have come to have known the sequence of events in Earth's creation. It's described from God's point of view. He told them. But in the flood He just said he was going to flood "all the land". Then they observed and described what they saw. Which from a surface/human point of view, would have indeed looked like all the land was covered."
So your supernatural being told the author of Genesis how the world was created, but didn't bother mentioning whether a massive flood was a global event. You're going with that?
"It very well could have been a talking snake. And yes, I think a man could have had a conversation with a donkey."
Then you are being inconsistent with your reasoning. Please explain why you accept the following reasoning in relation to DNA, but not in relation to talking snakes and donkeys.
1) All observed snakes are incapable of human speech (premise)
2) A character in Genesis ('The Serpent') is a snake (premise)
3) Therefore 'The Serpent' is incapable of human speech (from 1 and 2)
4) Therefore the depiction of a snake in Genesis that is capable of human speech is inaccurate (from 1, 2, and 3)No. No. We can understand DNA because it's done in the same way we do things. We achieved accumulating knowledge in the same way. We get it because we do it ourselves. And it's in this that our intuition is perfectly relevant.
You - "Once again, acquiring knowledge through scientific method takes time. You can't just fast forward the process. If in 50 years time we have made zero progress in terms of a proper scientific understanding of consciousness, then you have my permission to say "told you so". Until then I'll refrain from just making stuff up, thanks."
So 50 years is the magic number, huh? Why 50 years? You're not getting the point. The point is that past success in science does not in any way ensure that consciousness will be understood. The problem, as I'm arguing, is that consciousness isn't entirely a physical/material cause. Not finding material cause is what's expected. So rather than acknowledging that you're wanting to hold out another handful of decades, sure that your faith in your material view will ultimately prove accurate. You know, I've heard a lot of believers make the same argument. Just wait, basically, you'll see. Just pointing out the parallel between the two faith-based views.
You - "Good I'm glad you accept that you're beliefs in the supernatural are no more than opinions."
Yes. And maybe you can finally accept that your view that consciousness and the mind are emergent properties of matter.
You - "If you want to base your view of the world on opinion and your interpretation of an old book, knock yourself out. That doesn't mean I should take your views seriously."
Ditto, minus the "old book" part.
"You - "So the brain consists of ordinary elements, meaning there is no difference between matter in the brain and matter found elsewhere. That's useful because it eliminates a lot of possibilities. As there is no difference in the quality of the matter, it therefore makes sense to examine how the matter is arranged. Many complex systems exist in nature. Only one seems to result in consciousness. So what is the difference between those systems and consciousness? How the components of the system are integrated. The way the components of the human brain are integrated is not found anywhere else. And only the collection of matter we know as the human brain is capable of the kind of consciousness we see in humans. That's a strong clue that the way the different parts of the brain is integrated is a factor in human consciousness. Once again, nothing supernatural required."
Wow. All I can do is shake my head. Consciousness is indeed a very unique phenomenon. To think ordinary matter, if in the right configuration, is suddenly made capable of such a thing, and to think you've then explained away any need for anything supernatural, boggles the mind. This realization definitely raises some intriguing questions, but nothing along the thought process you just displayed.
You - "So your supernatural being told the author of Genesis how the world was created, but didn't bother mentioning whether a massive flood was a global event. You're going with that?"
The author doesn't say it was global. Besides, the flood came long after God walking and talking with them.
"Then you are being inconsistent with your reasoning. Please explain why you accept the following reasoning in relation to DNA, but not in relation to talking snakes and donkeys.
1) All observed snakes are incapable of human speech (premise)
2) A character in Genesis ('The Serpent') is a snake (premise)
3) Therefore 'The Serpent' is incapable of human speech (from 1 and 2)
4) Therefore the depiction of a snake in Genesis that is capable of human speech is inaccurate (from 1, 2, and 3)"
I think you have to ignore a whole lot of really relevant and seemingly important stuff to focus in on the talking snake. But if you really want to know, there may have been some truth to it. There's a similar character in the Sumerian Gilgamesh story. Gilgamesh finds out from the "flood hero" that there was a tree of life in the garden that has since been submerged under the sea. Gilgamesh goes and finds the tree, only to have it stolen from him by a snake creature that left behind it's shed skin.
Just because we haven't witnessed something in this age doesn't mean it was never true. By the same reasoning you could dismiss the existence of giant dinosaurs.
And, while you're harping on this whole heliocentric/earthcentric planetary system thing, it should be pointed out that it was Ptolemy's Earth-centric model that was widely held as the cosmological belief for many centuries, and Ptolemy's model was not based on a religious belief, nor was the wide-spread acceptance of it. He was a Roman citizen. And he, along with most all of Rome and the rest of the human world, religious or not, believed in an Earth-centric planetary system. Most humans viewed the Earth as the center of everything they saw spinning around them. AND, it was Galileo, a devout Christian, who finally nailed down the accurate solar system and redefined things. So a lot of what you're speaking of as an example of how my logic is broken isn't even accurate in the way you seem to assume it is.
Not to continue to harp on this but the example you chose is actually a really good example to make my point. Check this out....
That "retrograde loop", that was Ptolemy's answer for why the planets moved across the night sky the way they do. This was held as 'the' model for centuries. Maybe if someone along the way, sooner than Galileo or Copernicus, had deemed that model "ridiculous", maybe they would have figured out the truth sooner.
Just my two cents not being a scholar but rather a student of the Bible. My take away from Genesis 6:4 is that the "sons of God" were the fallen angels or aliens if you will. That, they were giants who had sex with the women who produced giants / the men of renown. (thus the flood) That they, the Nephilim were the Philistines (such as Goliath of Gath) who were the evil enemies of the Israelites.
Its an interesting topic that I will study more.That's very much in line with how many read it. But there's a couple of problems with that view. This is really the only conclusion you're left with if you read the story as meaning Adam and Eve were the first and, for a while, only humans on the Earth. But read it again with the humans being created in Genesis 1 being naturally evolved humans, and the creation of Adam and Eve happening in a world already populated by these humans. It reads very differently and a much clearer story begins to emerge.
First issue with the idea that the 'sons of Gods' were fallen angels, angels don't have free will and therefore cannot rebel. Only humans were given free will. Second, angels are not flesh, so they have no need to procreate. Procreation is only necessary because of death. Being capable of impregnating human women doesn't make sense.
Genesis 6 says humans are "mortal" and only live 120 years. Genesis 5 says Adam and his family lived for centuries. Every ancient culture from that part of the world claims immortal male/female gods lived among them, interacted with them, and sometimes bred with them. They're all talking about the same beings because they were really there at one time.
The Nephilim are said to be the "heroes of old, men of renown". Beings clearly familiar to the intended reader. Gilgamesh was said to be a demigod, half god/half human, by the Sumerians. He'd fit the bill of being a "hero of old, man of renown". And he'd be a familiar legend to the people of that age.I read your hub "God Created Evolution: Adam Was Not the First Human, for the Bible Tells Us So" and thought my head was going to explode as I felt my brain expanding.
It will be fun studying the Scriptures in this light. Thank you, Headly!
I'd like you to address this in particular from your viewpoint. I've brought it up a couple of times and you've ignored it.
Please give me your explanation, from the premise of your belief that the mind is created by physical processes, how does a mechanism create a being that then develops a need, or a bias, that it "prefers"? How does that work that a mechanism has a preference that deludes it into seeing things the way it "wants" to see things, rather than how they really are?
If your viewpoint and your explanation stands up, then it should be able to explain everything that exists. Everything that occurs. I think we can both agree that confirmation bias does indeed exist. It does happen. So explain the mechanics of it. What's your mechanistic explanation?I thought of a good analogy that I think will help illustrate my point about intuition. Watch this clip, it's short, 14 seconds ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LVDLZ4gilE
Now, in your opinion, would you say that man caught that ball?
If you're a football fan you're probably familiar with this play. The controversy of this play was that the referee ruled it an incomplete pass. The ref explained his call by saying, "After review, it has been determined that the receiver did not maintain possession of the football during the process of the catch. The ball comes loose and hits the ground, therefore the ruling is an incomplete forward pass."
Now it should be pointed out that this was after the ref reviewed the tape in slow motion from multiple angles. His call was based on this rule ...
Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 reads: "If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."
Now you show that clip to my grandmother or a 4 year old child, they'll say that they think he caught that ball. But you ask a highly intelligent, highly trained and experienced NFL referee, he says he did not catch that ball.
This, I think, is similar to what you're doing. The ref in this case is an expert. He's the informed/science-minded person in this scenario. This rule was put into place due to another similar catch made in a prior game that caused some controversy. It was determined that the situation needed to be articulated specifically and ruled on by committee. So a group of highly intelligent experts in the field of football sat around and discussed and came up with the wording of this rule. During this game, the referee watched replays and with that particular wording of the rule in mind made an informed judgement call.
Intuition and instinct tells you this man caught this ball. He had it in his possession and with the ball still firmly in hand turned around and reached out, clearly maintaining control. He caught that ball. But then came further intellectual consideration, which caused an experienced and informed, clearly intelligent grown man, to rule against what instinct and intuition says to say this man did not in fact catch this ball.
What is obvious is obscured by intellect. What should be immediately obvious on further consideration is rationalized as being the opposite.
That DNA is an intelligently devised process of storing and passing on and using a form of information is rationalized away through careful consideration. Like when you parsed the definition. You rationalized a way to deny it. To deny the point I was trying to make. Your rationalizing away what should be immediately obvious.Also, according to this ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanite_religion
... Yahweh is only mentioned once, as the God of the Israelites. El Shaddai and El Berith are not mentioned, as you suggested. El Elyon is mentioned, which translates as "God most high". It's not a specific name. It's a description.El Shaddai is translated as ’God’ (’el’), THE ALL-MIGHTY ONE (’shadday’).
The most widely accepted scholarly view is that ‘El-Shaddai means “El, the mountain one,” relating shaddai to an Akkadian word $adum, “mountain.” Besides being a strong cognate, there are also several other historical factors that seem to lead to this conclusion. For instance, F.M. Cross has noted a Hurrian hymn which specifically describes El as “the one of the mountain.” The word is also used to describe the Amorite deity (Ilu-)Amurru, whose consort is A$ratum, the counterpart of the Canaanite high god ‘El’s consort Athirat (Asherah). Moreover, the Deir ‘Alla instription uses $dyn in parallel with ‘ihn, in reference to the gods of the assembly. Finally, ‘El and his divine assembly met on a mountain.
Given all of these factors then, ‘El-Shaddai very plausibly means “El, the mountain one,” and is most probably originally a divine title or epithet derived from the Canaanite high god ‘El.
Genesis 22:14:
So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, "On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided."
Ever wondered why Yahweh met Moses on the mountains to give instructions?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromo … l-shaddai/Right, 'El' means "God". So in the same way that you and I use the term "God" and mean one God in particular, others used the term 'El' in the same way. If I say "El Shaddai" I'm most likely speaking of Yahweh. It's a general/generic term. It's not a name.
If El was generic in this case, why does El Shaddai, the god of Abraham, mean god of the mountains? Why were their assemblies on the mountains like Yahweh meeting Moses? Can you not see the correlation?
I imagine assemblies were carried out on mountains because there was no population of humans up on the mountains.
Did you know that there is a correlation between extra terrestrials and mountains?
http://www.educatinghumanity.com/2014/0 … tains.html
It says "watch the Lord in the pillar of fire and of cloud".
It says "angel of the Lord".
God appeared as a human, as He did a number of times, not in the form He appeared to Moses.
All it describes is His voice. The arrows, it says, were bolts of lightening.
Right, God showed Moses a piece of wood, which He could have done any number of ways, then Moses threw it in the water.
I'm aware of the false assumption that the OT is influenced by the Urgarit text because those doing the assuming haven't made the connections and correlations that I have.
Canaanites, like many others, were not in direct contact with God like the Israelites were. They were near, heard names, but didn't have it all right.
The OT acknowledges Baal as a god of another land, and not one and the same as God.
Again, these describe His voice, and speak of bolts of lightning.
I'll just start with that. You should get the point.How did the Egyptians recognize that it was Yahweh in the pillar of clouds and see him watching them?
True.
What? Moses saw Yahweh in a physical form with a face and hands. God talking Moses means he would have had legs and hands. Are you saying that God had a different face to what Moses saw compared to what his wife saw? Are you making this up that he had different forms? How did Moses' wife see God coming?
All it describes is His voice. The arrows, it says, were bolts of lightening.
No, he shoots his arrows and lightening accompanies it. It doesn't mean the arrows were the bolts of lightening. How does God's voice shoot arrows and scatter the enemy?
How did God show him?
Oh, so because it doesn't fit what you believe then it must be false?
How do you know that?
I don't believe they are one and the same. It is apparent, however, that Yahweh became a storm god due to the influence of Baal. The Israelites got their source from the Urgarit text, I would say.
WHY is Yahweh always compared to bolts of lightning like Baal? Can you not see the correlation between the two?
I actually don't appreciate you cherry picking.
Let's try again:
Then Baal opened a slit in the clouds,
Baal sounded his holy voice,
Baal thundered from his lips. . .
the earth’s high places shook.
Baal’s enemies fled to the woods,
Hadad’s haters took to the mountains.
And Baal the Conqueror said:
“Hadad’s enemies, why are you quaking?
why are you quaking, assailers of the Valiant One?”
Baal’s eye guided his hand,
as he swung a cedar in his right hand.
So Baal was enthroned in his house.
“No other king or non-king
shall set his power over the earth.
I will send no tribute to Ers son Death,
no homage to El’s Darling, the Hero.
Let Death cry to himself,
let the Darling grumble in his heart;
for I alone will rule over the gods;
I alone will fatten gods and men;
I alone will satisfy earth’s masses.” 3
Baal's voice is like thunder. Yahweh's voice is like thunder. Baal's enemies scatter to the woods, Yahweh's enemies scatter.
Please give me your thoughts on this.
Ugaritic text: The sons of 'AL, the assembly of the stars:
..."That the sons of 'AL (El) may know and the assembly of the stars may understand"...
..."When the morning stars sang together, and shouted for joy all the sons of 'Alohim (YHWH)"...
-JOB 38: 7
In fact, the sons of El were known as the morning stars:
https://books.google.co.za/books?id=hM8 … mp;f=false
Yahweh and Baal were so similar, even though they always competed with one another, that Yahweh was called Baal:
-HOSEA 2: 16-17:
...And it shall be on that day, says YHWH, that you shall call me, 'AYSHY (Personal), and shall call Me no more Baali (My Baal). For I will take away the names of the Baals out of her (Israel's) mouth, and they shall no more remember their name"... -HOSEA 2: 16-17
The Canaanite god El had 70 sons each being allotted one of the 70 nations.
From the Dead Sea Scrolls:
DEUTERONOMY 32:7 Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations; ask your father, and he will show you; your elders, and they will tell you. 8 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of men, He fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the SONS OF GOD. 9 For the LORD's portion is His people, Jacob His allotted heritage. (RSV)
Who is the Lord? Yahweh. We can see the Lord is just another name for Yahweh:
"For who in the skies can be compared to Yahweh, who among the sons of EL is like Yahweh,"
Another version:
Psalm 89:6:
For who in the skies above can compare with the LORD? Who is like the LORD among the heavenly beings?
As you can see in the latter verse, heavenly beings are the sons of El.
English revised version:
For who in the skies can be compared unto the LORD? who among the sons of the mighty is like unto the LORD,
El is referred to as the Almighty and Lord is Yahweh.
I don't know. It only describes a pillar of fire and cloud. But it was probably more an association with the Israelites and not a being that they recognized.
Because He appeared as a human when Moses' wife saw Him. Not in His true form. It explains in Exodus 33 that no one can see His face and live.
There was a voice heard and lightening seen. I don't think it's any more complicated than that. They just described it in a way they understood, arrows.
Any number of ways. It doesn't specifically say.
This isn't about what I believe. This is what I can prove to be true.
Because God only interacted with the Israelites.
The Ugarit, assuming they were familiar with it, may have inspired names or descriptions. It's hard to say.
Perhaps descriptions of Baal were inspired by Yahweh.
The 'sons of God' were the long living descendants of Adam, seen by mortal humans as gods. What this is saying is that as god-like as they may be, they are no comparison to God, or Yahweh. He's something totally different.What is his true form? Jesus never referred to the Father even being in human form. He was the one in human form. Have you ever maybe considered that Yaweh is an extra terrestrial that can converse with humans? In order for God to speak with Moses, he would have to be in human form every time he spoke with Moses.
This segment is of the literal translation of the OT. It gives the real explanation to what this means:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpNHIGCPhQc
Comments, please?
No, they knew what lightening was. This wasn't even not to be understood. As I said, the lightening was compared to arrows but was something that accompanies the lightening.
But you won't consider it is because God was in a physical form showing him?
I beg to differ.
That is because he was designated Israel by his father, El. People knew of foreign gods. If the Israelites did, then others would have known about Yahweh.
Or the other way round?
Since when are mortal humans known as morning stars?
Ugaritic text: The sons of 'AL, the assembly of the stars:
..."That the sons of 'AL (El) may know and the assembly of the stars may understand"...
..."When the morning stars sang together, and shouted for joy all the sons of 'Alohim (YHWH)"...
-JOB 38: 7
In fact, the sons of El were known as the morning stars:
https://books.google.co.za/books?id=hM8 … mp;f=false
Your explanation doesn't gel with the facts. You are filled with "maybes" and "I don't knows".They're talking about stars. It's poetic. When the morning stars sing. The stars that are in the morning sky. The morning star, Venus, is the bright light in the sky that comes up on the horizon in the morning. It's a poetic way to describe the time of day. That this was happening in the morning. In that age, no electricity, the night sky was very prominent. When you said to someone "the morning star" everyone knows that refers to that bright star on the horizon in the morning.
That's interesting. So Lucifer is not the morning star? Nor is Jesus?
Is that because mountain men volunteer for alien intimate probing?
Or maybe it's easier to land on a mountain as it's closer to outer space?Thank you for that link. Really interesting. Do you not see how that fits exactly what I'm saying? Why else would God, each time He appeared, have to 'introduce' Himself? Because He was taking a different human form each time. So when this stranger walks up He has to explain that He's actually God. The same God He spoke with before.
He also speaks about how Moses needed to know He could trust this God over all the 'others'. The other gods. Adam and his family.
In the same way the Orion constellation was seen as a warrior figure in the sky holding a bow, lightening was seen as arrows.
Yahweh was different. Others knew of a "sky God". Different than the others. The others were a constant. Over in the valley lives Adam, who lived there back when there great, great, great, great grandfather was alive. Everyone knew of them. Yahweh, on the other hand, spoke through bushes, appeared as different humans.You should actually watch the whole series. Do you actually believe what you are saying? What biblical scholar actually corroborates what you are saying? Let's examine this again:
Yahweh speaks to Moses on mountains. Other mountain gods that had assemblies. Yahweh actually was carrying an object (kavod) that had powers to burn people if looked at. Why would God have that? You didn't address that part. Do you agree with that? Why did God have to take different forms all the time so that He needed to introduce Himself over and over again?
And we need to ask ourselves why Moses' face got burned. Mauro says it was a microwave beam that burned Moses. This is what the Ark of the Covenant was. It explains why people dropped dead if they touched it.
That is because the constellation looked like that.
There is another theory. The literal translation talks about Yahweh having a device that generated energy that could burn people if they came to close. That same thing killed people that touched it. Mauro said it was due to a microwave beam. There is microwave technology that can be used in warfare.
"A recent report derived from the testing program of the Microwave Research Department of the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research states, "Microwave energy in the range 1 to 5 GHz, a militarily important range, penetrates all organ systems of the body and thus puts all organ systems at risk." Effects on the central nervous system are considered very important. The testing program, begun in 1986, is divided into four parts: (1) prompt debilitation effects; (2) prompt stimulation through auditory effects; (3) work interference/stoppage effects; and (4) effects on stimulus-controlled behavior. The report goes on to state, "Microwave pulses appear to couple to the central nervous system and produce stimulation similar to electrical stimulation unrelated to heat." It appears that HPM is capable of altering behavior in the same fashion as Delgado's electrical stimulation."
http://www.assassinationscience.com/EMP5.htm
"The Active Denial System (ADS) is a non-lethal, directed-energy weapon developed by the U.S. military,[2] designed for area denial, perimeter security and crowd control.[3] Informally, the weapon is also called the heat ray[4] since it works by heating the surface of targets, such as the skin of targeted human subjects. "
"The ADS works by firing a high-powered beam of 95 GHz waves at a target, which corresponds to a wavelength of 3.2 mm.[13] The ADS millimeter wave energy works on a similar principle as a microwave oven, exciting the water and fat molecules in the skin, and instantly heating them via dielectric heating. One significant difference is that a microwave oven uses the much lower frequency (and longer wavelength) of 2.45 GHz. The short millimeter waves used in ADS only penetrate the top layers of skin, with most of the energy being absorbed within 0.4 mm (1/64"),[14] whereas microwaves will penetrate into human tissue about 17 mm (0.67").[15]
The ADS's repel effect in humans occurs at slightly higher than 44 °C (111 °F), though first-degree burns occur at about 51 °C (124 °F), and second-degree burns occur at about 58 °C (136 °F).[16] In testing, pea-sized blisters have been observed in less than 0.1% of ADS exposures, indicating that second degree surface burns have been caused by the device.[16] The radiation burns caused are similar to microwave burns, but only on the skin surface due to the decreased penetration of shorter millimeter waves. The surface temperature of a target will continue to rise so long as the beam is applied, at a rate dictated by the target's material and distance from the transmitter, along with the beam's frequency and power level set by the operator. Most human test subjects reached their pain threshold within 3 seconds, and none could endure more than 5 seconds.[17]
A spokesman for the Air Force Research Laboratory described his experience as a test subject for the system:
"For the first millisecond, it just felt like the skin was warming up. Then it got warmer and warmer and you felt like it was on fire. ... As soon as you're away from that beam your skin returns to normal and there is no pain.
http://www.assassinationscience.com/EMP5.htm
There is also something called radiant energy.
"Radiant energy is energy of electromagnetic waves. It is a form of energy that can travel through space. For example, we receive the heat from the sun, which is located very far from the earth via radiation. The sun's heat is not transmitted through any solid medium, but through a vacuum. This is possible by electromagnetic waves."
"When radiant energy comes into contact with matter, it changes the properties of that matter. For example, when micro-waves (which forms part of the entire spectrum) are set off in a microwave oven, the water molecules in the food are charged and caused to vibrate billions of times per second, generating heat, that causes the food to cook. The microwave oven works with the concept of radiant energy (electromagnetic waves)."
http://www.eschooltoday.com/energy/kind … nergy.html
Now look at Exodus 34:
29 When Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets of the covenant law in his hands, he was not aware that his face was [/b]radiant[b]because he had spoken with the Lord. 30 When Aaron and all the Israelites saw Moses, his face was radiant, and they were afraid to come near him.
Perhaps Moses had learned his lesson and had kept a distance and the radiant energy at a sfve level made his face glow. The veil would have helped.
Now to the lightening arrows.
"Tesla, Yugoslavian genius, indentified what he called ‘Radiant Energy’ or ‘Teleforce’ in 1889. It was discovered during experiments that Tesla did to duplicate what the German Heinrich Hertz had done in 1887, proving the existence of electromagnetic waves.
While copying Hertz’s experiments, Tesla experimented with violently abrupt direct current electrical discharges and discovered scalar energy, a new force, in the process. In 1904 Tesla announced he’d completed his work using scalar waves to transmit energy without wires but unfortunately when he tried to get support for it, a setback occurred.
A drawback to having giant Tesla transmitters poised to shoot bolts of lightning at an enemy approaching the coasts is that they would have to be located in an uninhabited area equal to its circle of protection. Anyone stepping into the defensive zone of the coils would be sensed as an intruder and struck down. Today, with the development of oil drilling platforms, this disadvantage might be overcome by locating the lightning defensive system at sea."
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scala … tech37.htm
And today:
"The latest idea coming out of Picatinny Arsenal in New jersey is a device that can hit targets with bolts of lighting, you know, Tesla death ray-style. Dubbed the Laser-Induced Plasma Channel, or LIPC, the weapon is designed to zap targets such as enemy vehicles since they conduct electricity better than the air or the ground that surrounds them."
http://www.zdnet.com/article/new-milita … ing-bolts/
No wonder why Yahweh's enemies were terrified of him. Tesla was claimed to have been in contract with aliens for his technology. Well, if you assume Yahweh was one, then it makes sense why Yahweh would have that technology.
Imagine if the Christian church knew this!
He was no different. He was just one of 70 gods assigned possession of lands.
Related Discussions
- 19
Do you know a Christian who has pushed you away from the faith?
by Susan Holland 8 years ago
Do you know a Christian who has pushed you away from the faith?
- 46
Why can't atheists and believers leave each other alone to not believe or believ
by Gabriel Wilson 4 years ago
Why can't atheists and believers leave each other alone to not believe or believe?Why is it that atheists (not all, some) continuously question believers about their belief and vice versa; why do believers (not all, some) feel they have to justify their belief? Surely if you don't believe in God...
- 547
Holy Bible: Scriptural Discussions
by vector7 11 years ago
If you disagree with the Bible, please do not spam this thread.If you do you are being rude and I will quote the OP and report the issue for hupages to decide whether it violates forum rules or not.This thread is to understand the Bible as it presents itself, and this thread is not for questioning...
- 53
What is the difference between God and a dictator?
by The Pac-Man 11 years ago
What is the difference between God and a dictator?If God does not have to answer to anyone, or rather, if he does not have to explain himself to anyone, how is he (lets just assume its a he) different from a dictator?
- 263
are christians deliberately lying about jesus?
by jomine 13 years ago
there are no evidence for the existence of jesus. all we have is some references to jesus written years after his supposed existence, but still christians say they have proof. are they deliberately misleading or is it that they were taught like that from birth that they don't want to see anything...
- 29
Questions about Jesus and Satan
by Castlepaloma 13 years ago
1. I am an artist and the poorest paid in the nation. Why can’t I be allowed to beg or be tax free like the churches, if Jesus cares about the poor?2. What will Jesus do with all the atheists in the world? We are all beautiful in our own way, God make everything perfect, either way. Must most...