The above question I see a lot being asked by materialists when the discussion turns to topics about the spiritual and supernatural. They off-handedly deny the existence of the spiritual and supernatural/transcendental world because they have "found no evidence of them" and then reflexively ask the question: "Do you have evidence?"
It turns out the above question is the usual expression of "naïve empiricism", which is referred to as the belief that empiricists should try to be as objective and neutral as possible when studying something. It further proposes that empiricists should approach a problem with no preconceived expectations or assumptions which have not been previously studied and justified using the empirical method.
Many arguments have been proposed against naïve empiricism. The rationale behind many of these arguments is that one must make some assumptions before any progress in study can be made. Assumptions don't have to be misleading or unfounded, but in order to study anything, we must either make assumptions of some kind. If no such assumptions are made, then empiricism is limited to observations which tell us little about how we interpret existence.
And if assumptions are made, and conclusions based on assumptions that have no foundations, then the conclusions carry the same label: unfounded. It should not need to be pointed out, but ignorance, imagination, desire and belief are not considered acceptable foundations.
In my own experience those that deny empiricism in favor of imagination or assumption do so because they have nothing to offer but assumption. Leading nowhere of course, because one persons assumption is no better than anyone else's...until that awful empiricism is used to find a foundation.
Haven't you caught up with the new math yet?? Please google Holographic Universe and you'll be up to date with science. The new math is proving the universe has intent ie consciousness.
Stop burying your head in the sand.
It's ok to believe these days as science is now proving God exists as universal consciousness.
Get over it.
LOL Do you know what "new math" is? That it is nothing but a new method of teaching the same old things? That "new math" doesn't indicate a god any more than "old math" did?
Please do your homework old son. We can all have a real discussion then. New math means recent math. You know, maths evolves fast due to super computers.
Have you read about the recent math? No of course not.
Has 2+2 changed to 3 then? That was the common complaint of parents when new math hit the schools - that they couldn't understand it. Of course, the real problem was just that they didn't understand math at all, for there is no difference in any of it. 2+2 is not 3, will never be.
The last real discover in math was the calculus - are you trying to say there is something newer than that, that is not being taught in schools at all? Or is the super computer, that can do no more than add 2+2 a jillion times faster than you can, that is coming up with the same answers we always have?
(Did google your "holographic universe" but found no new math, just the same old language it has been since the discovery of calculus. I did find such nonsense as the universe is conscious, reality is an illusion, and it's based on a "sacred" geometry. It is but "a virtual experiment created in linear time to study emotions." No new math here - no math at all)
I know this is a bit of a tangent from the main point of the question but 2+2 can =3.
2 is what you get when you round 1.51 to the nearest whole number. Therefore 1.51+1.51=3.02 that is, 3.
You experience this in reality every day, for example when you go to the supermarket. Sometimes you are shortchanged because of it.
Any math teacher can explain that to you. It is not new or old math. These are the rules we have always followed in any brand of pure or applied math.
LOL And 1.51 = 2. Got it!
And 6+6=20, too. All you have to do is change the numbers from what they are and you get a different answer. Good thinking - when you get change of $1.51 from the cashier, be sure to complain that you've been cheated by 49 cents. I'm sure she will give you the extra. (Or say that it's closer to 0 than ten and grab it back!)
I think you are getting it.
However, 6+6 would not equal 20.
The range of values of 6+6 would depend on the range of values for 6. You don't just choose arbitrary values.
In Math and in every branch of science, we make approximations based on certain rules. Even when bridges are being built, approximations are made. Nothing is completely exact.
In elementary school, children are taught the basics. 1+1=2 etc. As they grow older, it is expected that they will broaden the bounds of their understanding, based on how well they grasped what they were taught at the start.
For example, you won't know as a doctor, that you should round 149.83g to 150g, if you weren't taught that 150 is the next number.
None of this is new. Math, just like any other science, is a set of rules we use to understand the world around us. As our knowledge of the world grows, we expand the boundaries of what "2" and "3" really mean.
It's just like when most of us older ones were little, we were taught that light travels in rays. Now that we understand more about the world around us, we know that light also travels in waves.
We use science to understand our world and that's why we have to keep an open mind. As scientists, we are always open to possibilities, test things and explore in order to understand more.
Of course 6+6=20: all you have to do is round 6 to the nearest "10". Which is 10, and 10+10=20.
Don't know about your science classes, but mine included considerable training in how to recognize the error rates of what we were doing and how to report them at the end. If we weigh 2.6652 grams of a material, it might be noted that it really means 2.6652 +-.00005, with that .00005 being carried through the entire experiment and combined will all other potential errors to give a final +- figure. We most definitely did NOT arbitrarily pick a number to round to and simply do it without regard to accuracy.
But not everything we do requires absolutely all the accuracy we can get: "Good enough for govt. work" is sufficient in our everyday lives. So 1.51 becomes 2 when estimating the cost of 2 products, but NOT when the cashier gives us our change. If we give $4, we expect something back (we intentionally overestimated the cost), and we will get it as the cashier does NOT estimate, but is held to the standard of all accuracy possible.
The doctor - that's fine IF the "next number" is 150. If it is being measure to the closest 1/10, then 150 is most definitely wrong. Which is the point with your 1.51 as well - YOU chose "2" as the next number, while I demanded accuracy to the nearest 1/100. Who's right? Technically, I am, (assuming that by eliminating any other trailing digits means they are all zero to the limit of your ability to report the number) but in everyday practice you might be depending on the necessity or convenience of using some other standard.
Which you did by declaring 2+2=3, whereupon I reject the artificial standard as completely irresponsible when dealing with purely mathematics (you didn't indicate 1.51 what, leaving it to numbers, which should NEVER be rounded off.
They're all experts here unless it comes to Godel maths, M theory math or the new Holographic Universe theories.ie. unless it deals with the reality of God's existence and the place of sentience in the Universe. Then they're in denial about maths. It's called hypocrisy.
If am I am not mistaken 6 + 6 = 20 in base 6.
Yes, 1.51 rounds up to 2. That does not mean that 1.51 IS 2--it means that situations where we need to use whole numbers, we may approximate 1.51 as two. 2 + 2 will always equal 4, and 1.51 + 1.51 will always equal 3.02. The reality that nothing is completely exact is no reason to sacrifice awareness of degrees of precision.
I myself believe in God. But neither mathematics nor science can prove God's existence. They take as their task the exploration & investigation of empirical reality and not anything other than or beyond it. This doesn't mean science & mathematics deny the existence of the spiritual; it's simply an admission that they are not the tools with which to engage in it. Science can no more prove or disprove that God exists or gave the Torah any more than my Judaism can prove or disprove that coal is a form of carbon.
In reading the details on how to teach "new math", I find that Wilderness is right; "new math" uses a different algorithm than "old math: to come up with the same answer in both cases. What "new math" purports to do is teach an "understanding" of how things work rather than how I was taught initially ... memorization. I simply knew that 12 x 12 = 144 without being taught why it does until much later.
By the New Maths I am abbreviating "the New Mathematical Theorems" regarding say M theory which have now offered indirect math proof of God's existence to clear headed philosophers.
It is clear we have certain atheist commentators here of the stature of Einstein as they see themselves as capable of contradicting huge new areas of research in quantum theory. I'm sure we have dozens of Nobel Laureates on HP: either that or they are simply in denial or culture shock.
"In it <Hawking's book, A Brief History of Time> , Hawking describes how M-theory, a candidate ultimate theory of everything, may offer answers to the question of creation. “According to M-theory, ours is not the only universe,” Hawking writes. “Instead M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing. Their creation does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god.”
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn … -about-god
Notice that according to Hawking, M theory does not prove OR disprove a god. It might be there, it might not. The "new mathematical theorems", then, have nothing to say on the existence of a god; while they don't disprove the possibility, that is hardly a reason to say they "prove" it.
I don't feel this is the case. However, if you were to share what you know in a less caustic medium, others may benefit. The way you are behaving is a fantastic microcosmic model for how conflicts are started between entire nations. Reflect on your syntax.
Sir Oz, science is not proving the existence. There are just more scientific opinions around now that allow for the possibility of there being some intelligence "ordering" our universe.
The nature of the god you personally perceive remains a construct of your own mind.
Each to their own.
Basic Science 101 for Dummies (No offense): All scientists make assumptions in order to form a working hypotheses, which is then narrowed down to fewer hypotheses, which may then lead to further discoveries or not, upon which time a new hypotheses is formed. This is very plain, even for me, and I am no scientist. Villarasa has made a very clear statement which is accurate.
http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/educ … endixB.pdf
A materialist demanding evidence simply shows their complete ignorance of the topic. I find it kind of sad. Some of the most intelligent people I've talked to, it's like watching them push on a door that says 'Pull'. Or it's like watching them try to remove a bolt with a screwdriver.
It would be one thing if what we do know about God didn't perfectly fit the mold of something with no empirical evidence. Empirical evidence can only deal with what is a product of this universe. The matter and energy that this universe consists of. If God is indeed the creator of the universe, then He cannot be a product of it. How can the creator of the causal chain also be a link in that same chain?
This is the materialists brick wall protection. They can deny any argument put forth from that point on. Apparently not realizing how completely ignorant they look doing so.
The fact remains, whether you're talking about God or not, there are elements within this universe that play a role in what we observe that cannot be accounted for physically/empirically. The mind is a primary example. Life is another. The natural laws. These things that are just counted as 'given' by the materialist also demand explanation. Of course God IS the explanation, but that doesn't fly where they're concerned, so they're basically dooming themselves to never fully understanding because they're limiting what the answer can be prematurely. And most often based on a bias against religion and not any real logical reasoning.
You can't reasonably argue that there are issues with evidentialism, therefore god must exist. That's a non-sequitur. The philosophical issues with evidentialism do not increase the likelihood that god exists. It has no bearing on it.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's illogical to demand evidence of something that fundamentally isn't something that lends itself to being evidential.
No, that's not quite right. You're saying it's illogical to demand evidence of something that is defined as impossible to find evidence for.
Black matter (whatever it is) doesn't lend itself to being evidential. We've been looking for years and haven't found what is accelerating the expansion of the universe. But your spiritual world, your god - these are things that are defined as being impossible to detect, impossible to find evidence for.
So you're right - it is illogical to attempt to find evidence for anything defined in such a manner. But where does that leave us? Just accepting anything at all, declaring truth in anything we happen to come up with because we like the idea?
Not at all. First that leaves us acknowledging the correct parameters. Then we go from there. No, we don't just accept just anything. We examine all the elements involved that can't be evidentially defined. It's either consistent with what's described or it isn't. Like testing a hypothesis.
The important thing to acknowledge is that it's possible. That nothing in all we've learned has ruled any of it out. That given how long ago the parameters of this God were first established and written down, considering how little was known at the time about the natural world by the authors, it's incredibly interesting that it all still works. It still fits. That shouldn't be ignored or dismissed. That should be considered seriously if we're really interested in arriving at the truth.
What elements? Those we make up, to fit the story being created? And just how are you going to "examine" elements that can't be evidentially defined? Check to see if they are consistent with the rest of the story and thus must be true?
Of course it is possible; when one makes up another universe with different rules anything is possible. Anything at all, from a god creating another universe to a cross-eyed unicorn flying between stars to the FSM. None of which can be disproved and thus considered seriously - do you do so, or just make up your own fairly self-consistent tale, modifying it as necessary when new information comes available?
Therein lies the problem, though, as I said. You make up a tale, you're expected to support it. But you can't, so no one really takes it seriously...unless they want to believe what you say, whereupon truth doesn't enter the picture. And you get irritated because no one agrees that when an explanation is demanded that the proper method of supplying one is to make something up. Most people are willing to accept ignorance over imaginary tales...unless they like and want those tales whereupon the human mind can and will rationalize anything it wants.
At least it makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside.
And what exactly does that mean to you? In your view? What's the significance of "warm and fuzzy feeling"?
You and others make statements like this, like "feeling warm and fuzzy inside" totally unaware, it seems, of the fact that you're speaking of something that has nothing in the way of an explanation, yet that each of us know to be a real feeling that we've each experienced at one time or another I'm sure. With my explanation there's meaning behind that. With yours the most you can hope for is some kind of chemical happening.
There are numerous elements that undoubtedly exist, yet remain elusive as far as any sort of material/physiological explanation. Here's one ... life. There is absolutely nothing different structurally/biologically between a living body and a dead body. There's nothing detected in one that's not in the other. One is just alive, the other dead. When a body dies there''s no difference. Nothing missing that was there before. Nothing detectable.
Yet life is at the forefront of nearly everything when it comes to remaining mysteries. It's that same life force that compels us. It's our will personified. When it's alive it wants to live, wants to thrive. It has preferences and desires.
The original authors didn't make up another universe. They had no concept of multiple universes. It just turns out that there simplistic explanation actually fits rather well with what we've determined to be true all these centuries later. I think you and other are a bit too quick to dismiss that and how truly significant it is.
The truth is, there's clearly more than a purely material explanation can account for. The things that actually animate life, what gives us our spirit and our humanity, totally unaccounted for. It's reason and intuition that suggests there's more going on here. That there's deliberate intent in the natural world. That it's not all just a cosmic accident. To not find anything through purely material means and use that as justification to say there's nothing, it's just ignorant. There's way too much you just have to dismiss and ignore to favor that view.
We may not get the certainty we so much love to have through material/observable means, but that doesn't mean we're just unable to determine what the whole truth is.
Brain waves are detected in dead bodies? I thought that was how we determined they were dead! But of course brain waves are something that can be detected and therefore not of particular interest.
Electricity animates life, and is what gives us our spirit (not that unknown thing in the spiritual universe that we can't detect). Quite accounted for, then. Reason and intuition do not indicate another universe with a god - there is nothing in our experience to do that, which leaves imagination rather than intuition.
But whether you agree with that or not, you indicate that there are elements to be examined and the question was how are you going to "examine" them except to simply postulate that they are there and therefore exist.
Wilderness, brother, come on man. Did you just say that electricity animates life? Frankenstein is fiction. If it were true that electricity actually animates life then we should be able to give life the same way Dr. Frankenstein did, or in some similar way.
Yes, there's brain activity. There's all sorts of detectable activity going on in a living body. There's brain waves, there's a heart beat, there's breathing. These functions are necessary to keep the body alive, but are not life themselves.
Like I said, yes it would be nice if we could examine all things in the same way we examine through science. It would be nice to have that kind of certainty about everything. But we can't. Some things we can only postulate. We can take what we know about those things and observe. We can make hypotheses and test them by observing to see actions and behaviors match up with what's hypothesized. We just have to first recognize that not all things are beholden to scientific inquiry and then go from there.
"These functions are necessary to keep the body alive, but are not life themselves."
OK - what IS "life" then? A imaginary thing in an imaginary universe with both human defined as to be undetectable?
So you can only postulate some things. And then take what we know about them (absolutely nothing as they are but a postulate from our mind) and observe...nothing as they are defined as undetectable. And this takes us to new levels of knowledge and understanding?!? I don't think so.
To learn, we must recognize that not everything is amenable to inquiry, investigation and observation. And go from there, meaning to make up stories about things we don't know exist, assign attributes to them we don't know if they have (if they exist) and pretend we've learned something new. Again, I don't think so.
I think the search for dark matter is instructive here. Not the dark matter, but the search for it. We find that the universe is accelerating away from itself and postulate dark matter as the cause. We don't know what dark matter IS - might be an unknown force, might actually be "dark matter", might be another universe drawing ours apart, might be something else.
But unlike your "life", we don't simply decide that a god is doing it and therefore it is undetectable and can't be found - we go looking! We postulate this and we postulate that, but in every case we look. But you don't. You simply declare that whatever "life" is is invisible, undetectable and can never be found because it comes from a god in another universe. One day we'll understand dark matter, but you will never, ever learn about "life" because your sole search consists of declaring it undetectable. It consists of a postulate that is defined as being undetectable and therefore cannot be examined, researched or understood.
That is NOT the path to knowledge - it is the path to guess work and belief, but never knowledge.
Well, one correction, these things are not totally undetectable because we do observe them. We do observe that things are alive. We can't detect anything scientifically, but we can detect life through observation. We know it's there. It's not in our imagination. It's something that's undoubtedly there, yet is invisible to science. In other words, it illustrates that science isn't going to tell us everything. Science is extremely useful within it's confines, but its confines are limited.
Dark matter is a good example. We've observed an action we're looking to explain the cause of. So we imagine something like dark matter, then we try to test it. Very much the same thing I'm doing. Attempting to explain behaviors and actions where the cause cannot be seen or determined.
I never said to stop looking. Investigation helps define what's what. But I'm not going to put all of my eggs in that one basket and wait for science to someday answer these questions. I'm going to use intuition and logic to postulate what's beyond the border of what can be seen/observed. Logic and reason tell me there's deliberate intent behind the workings of the universe.
Let's see. Life is there. We can see life. Science cannot see life. Are you just playing word games or is there something behind "we can see life but science cannot"?
No, science cannot investigate something until you tell what it is you want investigated. So far you've managed to define "life" as something from another universe that cannot be detected; with that kind of nonsense it isn't a surprise that it cannot be investigated! How about we just define "life" as whatever it is that animates and makes us move and think. Which would be the electricity (coupled with various chemicals and the pattern of electrical conductors available). Works for me, and a whole lot better than defining it as something we can't detect. (That could be a unicorn, for pete's sake!)
I think you know what I'm saying. Have you ever seen the life leave the eyes of a loved one or an animal? It's not something you can detect on any sort of equipment. They don't lose any weight and, other than the ceasing of bodily activity, there's nothing to detect to determine this new state, yet you can 'see' it. You know right when it happened, apart from knowing the heart just stopped or the brain just stopped functioning.
This reductionist mentality when it comes to "explaining" life is just ridiculous. Look, I know you're an intelligent guy, so I really want you to think about what you're saying. Let's take this statement...
"How about we just define "life" as whatever it is that animates and makes us move and think. Which would be the electricity (coupled with various chemicals and the pattern of electrical conductors available)."
That works for you? There's so much that you're apparently just content to roll up into "electricity, various chemicals, and patterns of electrical conductors". This is your explanation to account for what "animates and makes us move and think".
Let's take a single element. Your arm. Your arm is made up of a skeletal structure with hinges and joints and muscles that contract and release to operate it. So yes, bone and muscle accounts for the movements of the arm. But you've also got an enclosed system that determines when and where to move that arm and to perform what tasks. That adds a layer of complexity that the muscles and bones can't account for. Now we know these movements are initiated by electrical signals from the brain. That accounts, again, for the movement, but not the when and how and for what purpose.
That whole piece of the puzzle you're content with just saying that's the result of electric signals and "chemicals" and "patterns of electrical conductors". So, I guess if there's enough complexity in those elements they can all account for all the rest? The self-awareness? The ability to imagine and play out scenarios beforehand? The desire to carry out an action and the planning and carrying out of said action. There's a lot more going on there than chemicals and patterns of electrical conductors can account for.
But since that's all we can 'see' then that must be all there is. Somehow there's just enough layers of complexity involved to make all that other stuff work. While logic and common sense should tell you there's more going on here than just what's seen, your willing to just rationalize it all away into just being the product of what's seen.
To devalue life at the level of mere bio-chemical reaction coupled with electrical impulses is folly of the highest order. Certainly the atheists on HubPages who fancy themselves as consequential empiricists would lead us to believe that life, specifically, human life is nothing more than that of the rat that scampers the town dump.... ie able to see, touch, smell, hear, taste, whose ultimate purpose is to procreate, and while in the process of living that life is able to do the bioligic function of breathing, digesting, and dumping their waste somewhere. Reductively and objectively....nothing else.
In the final analysis, this denial of the existence of the supernatural and transcendental could only lead and in fact has directed you to reductionism and objectivism to the point of nihilism. Your interpretation of life as mere biochemical reaction coupled with electrical impulses.... is to be blunt about it, the beginning of that nihilism.
Yes, exactly! That's what drives me crazy about many people who think this way referring to themselves as "humanists". Humanism emphasizes the value of humanity. Yet this line of thinking reduces humans to being nothing more than biological machines. It literally strips away all the things that we as humans hold in high regard. It's crazy.
Yet this is the view of those who refer to themselves as being on the side of "reason". Ugh!
But humans are "nothing but biological machines"! With the same old request for information (as opposed to unsupported opinion) and/or evidence that it isn't quite true - a refutation of our best (only) information that it is so, but one accompanied with something more than a desire to think otherwise.
"reductionism". "objectivism". Of course your (unsupported) demand for aggrandizing the human species, for making into something it is not, is different somehow?
That's the sticking point isn't it? You demand that you are somehow intrinsically different and superior to any other living organism. You want to be put on a pedestal, designed and constructed by a god for a special purpose: you refuse to accept that you are just another animal, superior in some respects and inferior in many others. Ego demands that we are different, more important to the universe somehow, than all other life.
So in the face of convincing evidence to the contrary you will invent "spirit", gods and a supernatural world. It must be invisible and undetectable, so that is thrown into the definition in order that it can never be proven wrong and you may continue your delusion.
So the bottom line is that "Your interpretation of life as <more than> mere biochemical reaction coupled with electrical impulses.... is to be blunt about it, the beginning of that"...egotism allowing you to place yourself above all life in the grand scheme of things. You see, it works both ways - the denial of the invisible and the demand for the invisible has a purpose, but one is acceptance of all evidence while the other is to support that egotism that we all so desperately want. We want to be superior, and that demand is little more than an imaginative effort to "support" the claim.
Until such time, that is, that evidence is found. Which on the face of it is impossible with the current definitions being insisted up, and will show otherwise if the definitions are changed to make these invisible things visible. So we remain at an impasse: half the people saying we don't know and the other half making up definitions, events and things they proceed to define as invisible in order to maintain their ego. It's not a matter of nihilism, then, but simple ego - something the human species is very, very good at.
You even go so far as asking if I've ever seen the "light" leave one's eyes as they die. Forgetting that we see photons, nothing else, and that eyes are not a producer of light. The sudden lack of focus, the tiny movements indicating a guiding brain moving the eyeball: these are the types of things you are calling the "light of life". They are quite visible, but by pretending that our eyes detect something besides photons we can pretend that there is something else unseen and invisible: the "life" that is now gone. Doesn't work.
Accept it. We are NOT special - we are not important to the universe. We are but another animal - a mobile form of life - just like all the others with strengths and weaknesses. All the pretend, invisible inventions in the world are naught but mind games designed to "show" that importance but they fail miserably at doing it. Unless, of course, one demands that importance.
Do you not see the contradiction in your statements? You keep insisting that we're merely biological machines and nothing more, then you blame this ego for wanting us to be something more. Do you not see how that doesn't work? If we're nothing more than biological machines, no different than the rest of the animal world, then what is this you keep referring to? This desire we all seem to share to be something more, unlike any other creature? This insistence we have that we're more than just mammals. That we're something special. How does that make any sense at all in the context that you're speaking?
Being invisible and undetectable isn't just thrown into the definition. If that wasn't part of the definition then it would no longer be consistent. Being invisible and undetectable means its attributes are still consistent. It's not a matter of convenience, it's a matter of fact.
Just think about it this way. The five senses that you're depending on to show you what's real and what isn't, these five senses evolved in this one environment to aid us in this one environment. What are the chances do you think that everything that exists in this vast universe conforms to those five senses? That everything that exists can be shown to those five senses? Isn't it the much more logical conclusion that there's most likely elements to existence that go beyond what those five senses can detect?
The fact remains, these things we're speaking of aren't beholden to the physical sciences. So continuing to demand evidence is illogical. We must arrive at these truths another way. Like what I'm speaking about here. You and I both know we humans have an ego that can and does sometimes give us delusions of grandeur. That insists we're something more. If we can't go by observable evidence, then we can go by things like behavior. We humans don't behave like the rest of the animal kingdom you insist we're no different than. Those inconsistencies in our behavior with other forms of life, with other biological machines, are clues. Things to show you that yes, there are some unaccounted for differences.
It makes perfect sense...as soon as you stop demanding there is a supernatural part of us that exists in an invisible universe somewhere else. As soon as you accept that we don't know everything, and that it's OK to accept that ignorance rather than make up a supernatural "mind" or "soul" things fall into line. Yes, we admit ignorance, but that's so much better than making up stories and deciding they are true because we are ignorant.
Invisible: of course it doesn't mean that. Whether visible (but not yet found) or invisible, any story can be made self-consistent. Any good "whodunit" does that!
The five sense: of course they can't detect everything, which is why we use radio telescopes, IR cameras, microscopes, etc. But note that my use of "invisible" is in the sense that nothing man can do or invent will ever detect such things.
"What are the chances do you think that everything that exists in this vast universe conforms to those five senses?"
Zero chance. Which is why use such machines as listed above. Your point?
"The fact remains, these things we're speaking of aren't beholden to the physical sciences."
Not true. The things you are speaking of are defined as impossible for physical sciences to examine. It is a human definition, produced for human reasons, and does not necessarily bear any relation whatsoever to reality. In the sense that pretend objects are not subject to physical examination you are correct - they cannot be examined - but that's because they are no more than a mental construct. You are, in effect, painting a picture of a unicorn (or whatever you wish) and then telling everyone the object being portrayed is real and existent. Not the picture - that IS real - but the object being portrayed. Of course it is "invisible" - it doesn't exist outside the picture any more than your "supernatural" universe exists outside your imagination.
When I speak of those five senses, I'm including the various technologies we've developed to show those five senses more than they can see on their own. The fact remains, if we're talking about a God who created the universe, then we're talking about a being who is not a product of THIS universe. A being who had to exist apart from it. Make sense? It wouldn't make any sense for God to be as you insist He be. It would then be inconsistent.
There you go, a "mental construct". Something you admit exists, yet has the same characteristics as what I"m speaking of. Invisible to science. Cannot be observed or detected. It's mental. Imaginary. Yet it exists, does it not?
"it doesn't exist outside the picture any more than your "supernatural" universe exists outside your imagination."
My imagination? Do you or do you not believe this universe had a beginning? Or do you believe this universe is infinite? Because unless you believe this one universe is infinite then the existence of another universe beyond it is very much more than my mere imagination. It's these types of contradictions that permeate your arguments, yet you seem totally unaware of them.
Which is the fundamental problem I have with your whole viewpoint. It's so inconsistent with reality it baffles me that such intelligent people can fall for it.
"The fact remains, if we're talking about a God who created the universe, then we're talking about a being who is not a product of THIS universe."
But we're not talking about a god. We're talking about the reasoning process that came up with the idea of a god and then proclaims it to be factual.
"There you go, a "mental construct"."
Well, in a sense - a very poor sense - we can indeed examine that construct. By examining the brain that produced it. But I repeat, it is a very poor sense, for it is no more than a picture and what it portrays is NOT subject to examination.
"Because unless you believe this one universe is infinite then the existence of another universe beyond it is very much more than my mere imagination."
Great! Point to it, please. Use any of our machines to take a picture of it. Find it's gravitational force exerted on our universe (that one has been seriously postulated but never proven). Even ignoring the irrationality of "beyond" our universe, there is exactly zero evidence another one exists.
And that is the very fundamental problem I have with your viewpoint. You make such statements as that there has to be another universe, based on nothing but ours is not infinite. Whether ours is infinite or not has exactly nothing to do with the existence of another (even if it IS infinite it still doesn't). You just don't get to make up rules or "discoveries" that cannot be shown to be true. They remain, forever, only postulates - imagination if you will, although the former word has a more positive connotation.
"Even ignoring the irrationality of "beyond" our universe, there is exactly zero evidence another one exists."
This statement right here, Wilderness, it makes no sense if you understand what constitutes evidence. How can I possibly show you evidence of another universe? The only evidence that you or I or anyone else has any kind of access to is the matter/energy that is a product of This universe. You can't keep basing your conclusions on whether or not evidence can be provided. It's simply illogical and isn't reasonable
And yes, our universe not being infinite does mean the existence of another. Where else would the singularity that began this one have come from? I'm not making anything up. These are logical conclusions based on what we know to be true.
"How can I possibly show you evidence of another universe?"
There's the rub, isn't it? You can't show it but still maintain it is there. Based on nothing but "And yes, or universe not being infinite does mean the existence of another." which in turn is based on "Where else would the singularity that began this one have come from?"
Ignorance, then, (where else would the singularity have come from) is the root of the statement that there is another universe. Just to play around, here are a couple of answers:
The universe is eternal (both directions) but not unchanging. It always was there (ignoring the conundrum of "always" when there is no time). Prior to the discovery of the expanding universe a recurring big bang was the accepted theory and could still be right.
The death of another universe, destroyed in the act of creation, created this one.
There is an amorphous "ether" everywhere in the extra-universal space. Some of that "ether" (unknown thing) combined to form a singularity which turned into a universe.
So the implied postulate, "there has to be another one to create this one" is seen to (possibly) be false. Come again then, on just how it is being accepted as absolute truth? Explain the "logic" in ignorance coupled with other, equally valid, postulates, shows another universe?
Even if this universe collapsed back in on itself, then expanded again (i.e. big bounce) what came before is still another universe and not this one. The fact remains, for this universe to have begun, there has to have existed a singularity. For that singularity to have changed states and begun to expand into this universe, it had to exist in a place where time existed. That's just logic based on what we know. Consistent with what we know. "The death of another universe", same thing. Still another universe. Every alternative you listed also suggests other universes existed before this one.
Now, how about that ego thing? What you claim makes perfect sense. What you're suggesting is way harder to accept than anything I've said. We both know and acknowledge the ego exists. Yet in your view it's apparently a natural product of complex enough neural circuitry. Given we actually can study neurons, what do we know that suggests that what you're saying is absolutely true actually could be?
You didn't read very close. I clearly specified that this universe is eternal in both directions; no previous universe necessary. Just this one, going through at least one major change and perhaps an infinite number of them. As far as the other case - you insist there is another universe in existence now, not just in the past.
You don't get to change the other, valid, postulates to make them wrong; you have to accept them as they are. You're back to the same point of declaring that ignorance of our origin means another universe.
But I don't intend to offer a known alternative to yours: I intend to offer another possibility. It is you that demand your postulate has to be the right one, and the only real reason I can find for that is ego.
And you don't get to change my claims. I never said anything about another universe being in existence now. The only thing I ever said is that if God created this universe then we can logically deduce that that means He's not a product of this universe. That God existing in another universe is consistent with what's written about Him. That there'd be no physical evidence of God here to be detected/observed, and that He would not perceive time and space as we do.
I'm not changing anything. If by major change you're talking about expansion then you're talking about the reformation of all matter in the universe. Not the same bits of matter from the previous. There would be no retention of matter/ energy from previous universes. If it all collapsed back down to a singularity then it started over and began a new universe. I'm not changing anything. I'm just remaining consistent with what's known/understood.
Umm. You're coming in in the middle. God exists in another universe. The mind exists there. "Life" exists there. There is a "supernatural" world (another universe) that holds all these things, which is why we can't ever detect them.
And you're still trying to change it, by saying that the singularity was not our universe. Once more, I clearly said it was our universe, though not in the same form, and that it did NOT have a beginning. That even if it was recycled, it was and is still the same universe, just in different form.
No, you're not consistent with all that's known, because we most definitely do not know what the singularity was, where it came from or if it was eternal. It is only your claim that it was created by a god, only your claim that it did not exist in some form at an earlier time, or that it did not exist at all at some point. We understand none of that, which is why it remains a viable alternative explanation.
Everything you've suggested about this alternative universe supports what I'm saying. It would still be a place we couldn't detect the existence of from here. It would still have it's own dimensions of time and space. To return to a singularity it would have to destroy all matter and then recreate it. If another universe were to arise from that, it would most definitely be a distinct and new universe and not the same as the one that came before.
It is not part of my claim, however, that anything that exists here in a nonmaterial form is from this alternate universe. The mind and life are just examples to show that not everything we know to exist in this universe conforms to your definition of what can be accepted as "real".
What I mean by my being consistent with what we know is that if this same universe went through a change as you're suggesting, returning to a singularity, then all matter in that universe would have been destroyed and recreated during the expansion of this one. So, this one universe we exist in now would still have a beginning.
Besides, whether you count what came before the singularity as the same universe or not, all that I said still applies. It's still undetectable for the same reasons, it still has its own dimensions of time and space. This changes nothing.
"To return to a singularity it would have to destroy all matter and then recreate it."
"It would still have it's own dimensions of time and space."
"If another universe were to arise from that, it would most definitely be a distinct and new universe and not the same as the one that came before."
Headly, you're really good at making statements that you cannot back up. You use "logic", or what passes for it, to claim "common sense" or "intuition" proves them, but the fact of the matter is that no one, let alone you, have any idea at all if they are true.
We don't know anything about the singularity, let alone if it contained matter as we know it (although matter is nothing but energy). We don't know if a new universe would be any different or if the same rules would carry over. We don't know if any other universe has time OR space, yet you make claim to all of these. You just can't do that!
You claim a mind is "real", meaning something more than an imagined construct of the brain. So prove it! Quit making claims that you can't show to be true!
No, you can't use semantics to show something as true. If the universe collapses to a singularity it is still the universe. Changing shape, size or makeup doesn't change that. Nor, as I said, can we know that all matter was "destroyed" (I presume you mean changed to energy) as we don't know what a singularity consists of.
"And yes, or universe not being infinite does mean the existence of another"
"Besides, whether you count what came before the singularity as the same universe or not, all that I said still applies."
Say that one again?
I assumed you were familiar with what the big bang is. Part of it's expansion includes the formation of matter. So if the universe went back to the beginning of that process, that means matter gets unmade, time and space cease to exist as dimensions, and what's left gets incredibly compact and hot. Even the natural laws would again be a singular fundamental force again. You can read all about it here ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Actually, I can back up just about everything I say. I double-check myself constantly before making statements. It's a priority for me to keep what's fact fact, and to speak about things as accurately as I can. I find it lazy and irresponsible to just make statements you haven't confirmed to be true.
""And yes, or universe not being infinite does mean the existence of another"
"Besides, whether you count what came before the singularity as the same universe or not, all that I said still applies."
Say that one again?"
As I've said and maintained throughout, God existed before this universe. Only what is a product of this universe experiences time and space as we do. Only what is of this universe can be detected or observed. That's all still true. Whether or not it's the "same" universe that collapsed on itself and expanded again. Really it's a whole other universe in every way that matters.
If you find it lazy to make unconfirmed statements then you would not state unequivocally that there was no matter in the singularity for no one has checked one and no one knows. We theorize there wasn't so much as a quark, but have no way of determining that.
If you find it lazy to make unconfirmed statements you wouldn't state there is another universe.
If you find it lazy to make unconfirmed statements you wouldn't state a god made us.
If you find it lazy to make unconfirmed statements you wouldn't claim an uncorporeal "mind".
If you find it lazy to make unconfirmed statements you wouldn't claim a god existed before our universe.
You make an awful lot of statements that are based on logic: logic with an incomplete or false basis. That a different universe, for instance, has different rules - you cannot possibly know that as you don't know any causes behind this one (notwithstanding that you think you know it) and have never checked a single other universe to see if it's different. Yet laziness (and a desire to "support" unsupportable statements) cause you to make just such statements. At the very best, such statements might be an opening for an interesting discussion, (like the number of neurons giving rise to self-awareness) but without testing they can never be known as truth. Yet you DO claim for truth in them, without ever knowing if they are or not.
Yes, but each of these statements I've heavily vetted. I can lay out exactly why I think that's the case and on what grounds I make those statements.
When did I say a different universe would have different rules? Are you talking about time and space? Because that's true. Time and space as they exist in this universe only came to be when this universe did. So another universe, assuming it would be the same, would have it's own dimensions of time and space.
The primary driving force behind the big bang is how matter formed during the expansion. That's what the math says. That's a significant part of it.
One other thing. Since you're so rooted in only what we can see and what we can prove, show me the reasoning behind this idea you seem to harbor that once our neural circuitry reaches a certain level of complexity, that a self-aware ego that's sometimes given to delusions of grandeur comes about? We can actually see and study neurons, yet there's nothing about them in anything we've yet determined that suggests that this is possible. Yet you seem dead set on that being the case. How can you make that leap, but not what I'm talking about?
Of course Homo Sapiens as a specie is at the top of the heap of intelligent and sentient earthly beings. To deny what is so glaringly obvious about that fact is, to say the least, nihilism at its most delusional.
Now you are a big proponent of scientific advances... have you ever seen a chimpanzee peer into a telescope to wonder why and how those stars are twinkling. Humans, for what ever their shortcomings are, physical status or stature-wise compared to other animals, have one heck of an imaginative perspicacity and temerity to do just that. None of the other animals on earth could compare with us on that alone.
Science at its foremost and utmost could lead humans to being a truly astral creature... but the supernatural and transcendental, they could only wish for....not vainly but securely.
"Of course Homo Sapiens as a specie is at the top of the heap of intelligent and sentient earthly beings."
Sorry, but you can't even know that to be true. That we can't understand cetaceans does not mean that they are the stupid ones. Nor does the fact that they are not technologically advanced - that's a little tough without fire.
But whether we are or not does not mean that the trait of intelligence means "better" to a creating god or even another observer. Perhaps cows are better - you make the assumption from ego, wanting to be the "best" even though in every attribute but intelligence we are the acknowledged inferior. The elephant will pick strength as the "best", the cheetah will pick speed and the eagle eyesight. We pick intelligence because just like the others we pick our strong point as an "obvious" best.
But I do agree that we can only wish for the supernatural and transcendental as there is zero indication we can ever have it. The only puzzling thing is that so many people wish so hard they've decided it WILL be theirs whether real or not! Like a child wishing for that unicorn in the picture and absolutely convinced it will be under the tree, they are destined for disappointment...except they will be dead then and disappointment OR happiness impossible.
"wanting to be the best...." is not in my list of even trying to want, neither should it be in yours, again for the simple reason that we are in fact already the best. For humans, and as trains go, our intelligence has left the station long ago, leaving other living entities in the dust. That is not an expression of ego... that is an expression of absolute fact.
Now regarding physical attributes... you are a big believer in macro-evolution aren't you? So if you say that physically, we are inferior to all the other living entities on earth, why would you not blame evolution for that? I certainly would if I'm in your shoes. But I am not wearing your shoes... the shoes of total non-belief in the existence of a creative supernatural entity, and therefore "Nature dunnit".
There was intent and purpose in why humans may not be the best physical specimen for the attributes that you are indicating other specie has. And there is certainly intent and purpose as to why we are superior intellectually. Nature being un-intelligent can never assume responsibility for what it is that makes us humans while the others living entities are not.
Yet we cannot compete with other animals in anything BUT intelligence. Inferior, we are, whether we like to admit it or not. Can't run, can't see, can't swim, can't smell - basically can't do anything but think.
Yes, of course evolution did it. Produced the "best" it could for each niche. And I can understand evolution calling us "the best" as we ARE "King of the Jungle". But a god, with different requirements than mere survival? You're really stretching it there.
"There was intent and purpose in why humans may not be the best physical specimen for the attributes that you are indicating other specie has."
Another really good feeling statement. Now, can you back it up? Produce the intelligence with intent and purpose? List the intent and purpose, without you or anyone else making things up? It's rather surprising that after all this time you still produce "arguments" you cannot support, knowing you will be called on them.
You will agree that humans are intelligent and as such has intent and purpose. So why would you think that an un-intelligent source ie Nature would produce you? As far as logic goes, your argument just does not cut it. Everyone knows, except maybe you, that your existence and mine can only come from another intelligence with intent and purpose. Since that other intelligence could not possibly be a part of our natural world, we could then make the valid assumption that that intelligence resides in another level of existence... one that is not physical or material, thus transcendental.
If you have any proof that "Nature dunnit" please lay it to us in no uncertain terms. If you're thinking evolutionary process, I must tell you now that macro-evolution could not be it. The most avid evolutionists in the world have not concluded with verifiable facts that Macro-evolution did it, for the simple reason that the theory is full of inconsistencies that even Darwin himself could not explain or ignore if he was alive today.
"You will agree that humans are intelligent and as such has intent and purpose."
Yes, humans often assign intent and purpose to their actions. Which has absolutely nothing to do with some other entity assigning intent and purpose to creating them. And I'm very sorry, but what "everybody knows" is usually false. Black cats are evil. Breaking a mirror brings 7 years bad luck. The earth is flat. Nessie lives, as does Bigfoot. The list is endless of what "everybody knows" that is flat out false and that particular line of "logic" is anything but.
So much for a creating intelligence. As far as proof; no, you don't get to require anyone else to provide proof of nature or else your pretend god is real. You make the statement; you provide the proof. An exceptional claim (an invisible god in an invisible universe) requires exceptional proof, as opposed to nature's actions that we see happening all around us and even induce ourselves.
"So much for a creating intelligence. As far as proof; no, you don't get to require anyone else to provide proof of nature or else your pretend god is real. You make the statement; you provide the proof. An exceptional claim (an invisible god in an invisible universe) requires exceptional proof, as opposed to nature's actions that we see happening all around us and even induce ourselves."
Again with the proof. Do you at least allow the proof that's possible? Cause I can show you. The creation account shows it all right there. Not only does it describe it, but it also explains why life is compelled like it is, why we're sexually driven, how we learned the farm, quite a lot. The natural world became what God willed it to be. God's will drives life. Drives the natural world. Your proof is it actually being described in an ancient text and accurately lining up with what we know today to be true. And right where the gaps in our understanding exist, like what compels life, it offers explanation.
You take that, combined with the obvious deliberate intent in the natural world where chaos becomes organized systems "naturally" and there are constant and unchanging laws keeping things as they are. This explains all of that. One consistent explanation, backed up with an ancient book, that lines up with what we know scientifically.
I know that's not something you'll accept, but that should be adequate.
Wasn't it you that I discussed the biblical creation myth with? Where everything is wrong, from the order of creation to the use of magic? This is "proof"? I'm sorry, but not to me and not to anyone actually searching for truth.
You do understand that when someone says "It's obvious!" that it nearly always means "I haven't a clue!"? What is "obvious" to you is purely based on a predisposition for a god, and then the "obvious" used to justify that predisposition. It never works.
Of course it won't be accepted; the only way it could ever be even considered as a candidate for truth is to change nearly everything in the old creation account. And then it just becomes another of man's best guess as to what happened, just with a lot more fact in it.
Yes, we discussed it. And you came up with a couple of ridiculous reasons to dismiss it in your own mind because of your predisposition to reject it. But it's right there. You had decided before we even began it wasn't going to be true. You can say I'm changing things, I'm not. Sometimes someone will say something is obvious because it is. I only point out the from the surface point of view. From there it lines up with no help from me. It describes each thing in order as they happened and as they'd appear if watched from the surface.
Yeah, I know. We went over that back then, when changing the creation of light before stars to fall in with what actually happened wasn't a change. Nothing more be said except perhaps that that was only one of a great many changes that had to happen (called "interpretation") to make the tale match reality at all.
I know that's what you want to think, but what you're suggesting isn't really possible. To take a text that speaks so specifically about so many things, and only make it "seem" to line up by maybe twisting a word here and there, yeah, that's just not a feasible explanation. That's denial.
Well, I will say that you were very creative then, from a day = a billion years to where the viewpoint was to be taken from to reptiles are actually birds.
But when it was all done and over, it was only creative interpretation of text that is very plain in what it says. And yes, I deny that interpretation as much now as I did then. It doesn't (and didn't) have anything to do with making up my mind earlier - I found your explanations interesting - it has everything to do with the necessity of changing god's word to something it doesn't say. Either it is true or it is not, and twisting it out of any recognizable shape in order to fit reality means it is not.
Yeah, creative. I know that's what you want to think, but like I said, that's not a very feasible explanation. For me to be able to 'twist' the text to make it sound like it's accurately describing over a dozen specifically named creations just isn't something that could legitimately be done.
Given that, combined with the next 11 chapters lining up with the dawn of civilization in the region, makes it pretty clear that this text is much more accurate than people, like you, are willing to give it credit for. But if you want proof, it's going to be in this form. The question is, is your explanation of what I'm doing believable enough to maintain?
Now that I've shown you, it's going to be difficult to continue to see it the way you used to. Sooner or later it'll become more and more hard to deny. It really is right.
You're right - it can't be legitimately done. Which is why I don't accept it.
Yes it's right...if one chooses to interpret scripture as something different than what it says. If one chooses to ignore the rest of the world as if it never happened. If, if, if. We went over the next few centuries, too, and you were given lots and lots of examples where your proposal broke down, but you choose to ignore them all.
Your choice, but not mine. I haven't that burning desire for a god in my life and choose instead to look at all of it, and read what it says instead of twisting it into something different. I'll certainly grant that you did a lot of work, and put together a pretty good explanation, but at the end it fails for those two reasons. Should you ever decide that having a god isn't important enough to spend a lifetime trying to "prove" it, you will make a great researcher/historian.
No, I wasn't given any examples where my proposal breaks down that I ignored. I'm not just going to buy into something that can be demonstrated false. That's ridiculous.
I don't have a burning desire for a god either. I'm simply acknowledging the most likely truth. The best explanation given the data. And I don't go into it ruling out answers like the existence of a God or the bible being true. I don't go into it with any preconceived notions. It was the preconceived notions I held before that made me unable to see this truth in the first place.
Really? I'd love to see you demonstrate that nature cannot provide life, or that the big bang required a god. Or that the brain is not the seat of the "mind", with it's electron movement and chemical reactions performing all the actions that we take. Something beyond "it's obvious", or "common sense says...".
Science is on it. If there's something to be found, that CAN be found, they'll find it. As long as the answers continue to elude, I have a possible explanation for that to consider. But by all means, keep up the search. Keep challenging. Don't just accept what I say. I'm just telling you what I think, why I think that, and I try to keep myself informed so to ensure that this holds up in the right context.
I've got an explanation that fills in most of the blanks we're still not sure about. And it's not something I just made up. It's something that was established long before we knew those gaps in understanding were there. The fact that it fits so well is an indicator, I would think, to it's legitimacy.
If you're going to go into it looking for a reason to dismiss it, you're going to find something. Most objections you gave had a perfectly logical explanation, but you weren't open to letting go of what you thought you found.
What happened to "I can demonstrate these things as false, so won't buy into them"? It's now "science is working on it"?
You are aware that a part of the "scientific method" used to find truths of all kinds includes a concerted effort to disprove any proposed theory? I can't see it makes any difference whether the proposal is in the physical world or any other - any theory can either withstand such a test or is false to fact. And, of course, if it does withstand the test it might still be false.
I'm sure as well that you understand that making up an explanation (particularly of the god type) does not indicate anything at all except a possibility? Even if it fits perfectly with everything we know it still remains just a possibility for we do not, and never will, have ALL the facts concerning anything at all. Only through rigorous testing can truth be ascertained, and that must apply equally to the physical AND the supernatural...which is why we can never know any truth about it as the very definition includes that we cannot interact or detect anything in that world.
Yes, science is working on it. Just as it should be. There will always be those on the forefront of investigation. pushing the boundaries. Discovering things. And we all take what we've got to work with to date and make sense out of it. It's kind of what we do. It's how the mind works.
I can demonstrate, for example, that the behaviors of the mind are decidedly not consistent with the biological machine it's often portrayed as. But that certainly doesn't mean I suggest to all those doing the investigating to just stop. Like there's nothing left to see. I'm just putting a thought out there that this may very well be one of those elements we can't find anything on no matter how deep we dig because it doesn't play by the same rules.
And if you think about it there's really no more significant question facing humanity. If we are truly just the products of these biological brains then we are just mechanisms. There is no 'free will' or 'free thought'. We are only the result of what the natural laws dictate. What makes it seem as though we're free to us is really just a delusion we're under. Because we experience the mind first hand, we experience it's process of deciding actions. Those other options that it ultimately didn't choose only make it seem as though we ever could have chosen differently in a given scenario. When in actuality we didn't actually choose our action. We're just passive observers, ultimately. Nothing anybody has ever done or will do is anything more or less than how their brain reacted to the environment they were in at the time. Ultimately it's all determined and out of our control.
Yes, you're right, there will never be the level of certainty about God than we have through science. And I think that's by design. But the fact remains this life and all we go through is either for a reason or it isn't. If you're right then we're just a cosmic burp that happened at one point along the way, and everything you think and feel and love and everything you do, whether we as a species end hunger or cure cancer, none of it matters. We'll eventually disappear into the ether without the universe ever even noticing.
Or, I'm right. And every single thing we do in this life, and all that we find important, really does matter. A great deal. It's all for a purpose. An important one.
I'm just not willing to throw up my hands and say, "Well, I guess we can't know if the struggle I endure in life means anything at all, or if I'm even in control of it at all, or just destined to passively observe and endure.
Most of this post is about the horrors of being biological and without a god. No free will (unsupported). Result of natural laws (true but apparently abhorrent). Just passive observers. Environment controls. We have no control. All unacceptable, so...
"Therefore there must be a god so I can feel good about the whole thing."
I'm sorry, but logic does not dictate the conclusion; desire does. Exactly what my complaint was over the biblical timeline of both creation and later - the distinct desire to prove a god overrode any real search for truth. What didn't fit, or was actually contrary to that desire, was left out, with the inevitable conclusion that there IS a god.
I guess before any real search can occur one must be willing to accept conclusions that are NOT what is desired regardless of personal cost.
Correction, not "unacceptable". Highly unlikely. The best way I've ever heard it put was Trey Parker, the creator of South Park ... "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."
I understand what you're saying, but it's not my desire that leads me here. It's recognizing that life means something to us for a reason. Think about it in the terms you're putting forth. There's no god, we just self-organized like this through pure cause and effect. Along the way we became self aware and began to care about those around us and we became mindful of things we do. We begin to hold somethings in high regard. We develop dreams and aspirations and desires. Through these random mutations we're granted the ability to first imagine a better tomorrow and then the intelligence to actually put a plan into action to make it a reality.
The single hardest thing for me to believe is that this is all through pure chance. I just don't buy it. And deciding based solely on science's inability to observe, that everything involved is what science can show us, is beyond ridiculous. We each have, between our eyes and ears, an example where that is not true.
unacceptable vs highly unlikely. What are you using to determine relative probabilities of each? I confess, I can't think of a single thing, except that I think putting human attributes (morals, desires, attitudes, etc.) onto a god to be a really silly thing to do. It's really easy to declare something as ridiculous when you don't like the idea (Parker) but that, once more, is pure opinion without a shred of evidence or reason behind it. Words like "ridiculous", "unlikely" or "obvious" are easy to come up with but nearly always just mean "I don't like it".
"It's recognizing that life means something to us for a reason. "
Proof, please, beyond factual statements followed by "I just don't buy it". That's kind of what I meant when I said one must be prepared to accept conclusions whether we like them or not. You don't like it, don't buy it and find it ridiculous because...well, because you don't like it. You can exclaim a thousand times that desire has nothing to do with it, but every post says the opposite: you demand a god and nothing else will be accepted. If you can't find a real reason for something being wrong (evolution happens), then it turns into "ridiculous"...still because you just don't like it!
(You have, between your ears, a brain. A brain that science is observing and learning more about every day - no supernatural world required or involved there.)
That is the proof. That we care about things. That things matter to us. This is not the behavior of a mechanism. Mechanisms don't evolve love and preferences and desires. Mechanisms don't care whether or not we have free will. Whether or not we're more than just machines. It's a mechanism. It makes absolutely no logical sense for humans to exist as we do today in the context that you put forth.
How I arrived at what I feel is the truth has many factors. First, the book matched up. Second, once matched up it actually tells a coherent story and not something just patched together and disjointed. In context it all makes sense beginning to end. The impact of the story being told must be reflected now in the world we see around us.
In every way, logically, philosophically, the answer remains the same. The most significant thing that a God as described could take such an interest in is free will. That's what makes it all make sense. Free will is the one thing we shouldn't be capable of in your material-only view. That's where we become "like God". We create things that are not of this universe.
So, the book matched up, history matched up, and the story that came to the surface once put in context made perfect sense. All the natural world adheres to natural law. The whole universe and everything in it. But then God creates these two beings who can do what they want despite what He commands. What we've learned scientifically only stresses this further.
It's much more than just a desire for it to be true. It's the answer to the world's biggest riddle. Why are we here? I've found it. And that puzzle piece snaps in place perfectly. It didn't have to be forced or shaved or persuaded.
See, that's why what I've tried to show you is so obviously true in my eyes. I don't think you quite grasp the complexity of this thing. There's so many moving parts, so many elements, so many themes, and just placing this one thing in the right context and all those moving pieces lined up and told one coherent story. Like one of those art installations that just looks like beads hanging on strings until you walk around it and find the right angle to view it. Then you can see this elaborate picture made by the beads. That's no accident. That image was intended. It's not imagination seeing something in the formation of a cloud that's subjective. It's seeing, without doubt, the picture from the right angle.
The proof of a god is that we care about things?!? C'mon, Headly - you know better than to offer something as simplistic and unconnected as that!
And then to go on that we're "machines", as if that is derogatory OR untrue. For we most certainly "just machines", albeit organic ones with a complexity nearly infinitely more than the ones you wish to suggest as a comparison. Well, that doesn't have any more to do with anything than that we care about things (all larger animals do THAT!).
Yes, you made a tale, a book, that matches scripture. Not the other way around, and it only matches if certain facts are left out and scripture is changed to match reality. We've been over that, and there isn't much reason to do it again. I only mention it because it is your tale that was scripted to match the book, not the other way around.
Right - you found the answer to why we're here. By manufacturing a god that wants us just as we are, that produced just what we needed to be the most important thing in the universe. Well, that's just wee bit too pat for my taste - that you can make up an omnipotent entity, another universe with all that entails, and then give that entity desires, attributes, morals and all the rest that conveniently match those of puny man in spite of being from that other universe and omnipotent. News flash: no entity from a vastly different universe (as you claim it to be) is going to be anything like man. Just the difference in physical laws precludes that possibility!
So you're back where you started; making up an explanation that not only "explains" everything but is satisfying to boot. Reality doesn't matter, truth doesn't matter, knowledge doesn't matter; only that it is a possible (claimed as truth) explanation and is a god. No thanks!
Other large animals caring about things is the same thing. It's that this exists at all. Not that it's specific to humans. The point is the "alternative" explanation that you're suggesting doesn't jive with what humanity (and other animals) have become.
Actually, it wasn't my tale that I matched up. It was the story of the history of the Earth according to science. Not something I just made up. Something already established. Not just something that can be realigned to work. All your arguments that you claim made some sort of impact had to do with how you interpreted the scripture.
And I didn't manufacture the God. I matched up the God exactly as described centuries ago, long before any of this other info was known. I didn't manufacture anything. It all comes from scripture or comes from facts we know about the natural world. I didn't need to make anything up.
I don't care if you accept it or not. That's on you. All I can do is tell you what I think and why. Whatever you want to think, I can tell you I went about it as honestly as I know how. Truth is important to me.
And the discussion should end there. "No thanks" is as definitive a statement as I could imagine being said when the discussion is about something that is not as thrilling or edifying as the physical world that so enamored or enabled some of us to totally reject anything that is not seen, touched, smelled, tasted, or heard.
Back to the drawing board I'd say, but then again what for. This discussion was not meant to persuade folks from discarding their deepest beliefs, be they just the physicalist/materialist kind. It is simple enough or easy enough to discard physical/material "facts" as "non-facts" after-all, when new "facts" are unearthed/discovered/shown to be better answers to questions. But then new questions arise, that needs to be answered with new "facts", and so the circle goes on and on and on. Where does it stop? Therein lies the conundrum in the empirical world. At some point or the other it must stop where there are no more questions to ask, and that is where the idea of a CREATOR comes in. In the final analysis , He is the only one who has the answers to all or any questions empiricists (or for that matter non-empiricists/faith-based believers) could ask. And sorry to burst your bubble non-believers...... Nature is not that CREATOR. . That is as faith-based a belief as it could ever be.
Besides, I do demonstrate, WITH logic. I can give logical reasoning that doesn't prove, for instance, that the mind is spiritual, but it does logically demonstrate that the behaviors of the mind are not at all consistent with what we know about the material. So, oftentimes it's not a demonstration of how my explanation is right, but more a demonstration about how the explanation can't be what you say it is, so consider my alternative.
That little phrase "with what we know" creates a problem here. Even if you could logically demonstrate that the behaviors of the mind are not consistent with what we know (I don't believe it) it still leaves you in the unenviable position of making a claim of truth when it remains only a possibility. And as that possibility remains, by definition, forever unable to be proven it isn't worth anything at all.
"Yet we cannot compete with other animals in anything BUT intelligence. Inferior, we are, whether we like to admit it or not. Can't run, can't see, can't swim, can't smell - basically can't do anything but think."
Uh, yeah, we've just got all the biggest/strongest/fastest/smartest ones in cages, sorted by species, and on display at the zoo. Who wins that one?
"But a god, with different requirements than mere survival? "
Actually, how we evolved and became the dominant species in the animal kingdom is very much how it's described when humans were first created.
Gen1:28 - God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
And this actually started back with homo erectus and homo neanderthal. Both were brilliant at hunting and killing the much bigger/stronger/faster mega fauna, like sabretoothed cats and dire wolves.
"Uh, yeah, we've just got all the biggest/strongest/fastest/smartest ones in cages, sorted by species, and on display at the zoo. Who wins that one?"
The one with the most edible meat on it, as that was the intent of the creating intelligence. And, to borrow a page from your book, if you don't believe that prove it false.
Are you seriously using a quotation, reportedly from an invisible god and repeated by a person that never spoke to that god and even then got it all wrong, as evidence of anything at all?!? Does it never occur to you that a god, speaking to only a single person, is a story that's just a little untrustworthy? That shtick has been used since time immemorial by the shamans of every community mankind has ever lived in, from the Druids to the medicine men of the American Indians to the pope! There is nothing at all to separate the Christian bible from the verbal stories of the medicine men.
Yeah, yeah, I know. But I have significant reason to think this discussion did actually take place. The story depicts God walking and talking with Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Enoch. Each of which lived for centuries. So there were plenty of opportunities for the creation account to have been passed along to humanity. Those first texts of Genesis depicts this God interacting with humans quite a bit early on. And the impact of those events can actually be seen in history. It was these events that are directly linked to the birth of the first civilizations.
So yeah, I'm quoting those stories. I've vetted those events as being historically accurate by all means possible.
I know you want to just maintain God's an imagined whatever, but we're well beyond that. You can dismiss all you want. Lining up the entirety of creation and the first 11 chapters with history isn't something that can just be accomplished through pure 'want-to'.
You must have heard of the phrase " brains over brawn". In the great design of the cosmos that nature had nothing to do with, ,some intelligent entity must have thought "hhmmm.. I must create entities of varying intelligence and physical strength, and we'll see who comes out on top of the heap." It turned out, as that intelligent entity might have suspected and in fact expected---Brains lords it over Brawn.
Survival of the fittest has nothing to do with physical strength... so for you to degrade and devalue homo sapiens because he is a weakling physically( your words, not mine), absolutely gives a bad and eventually falsifying credence to your much ballyhooed/beloved macro-evolutionary theory that Nature Dunnit.
In would never proclaim to know the whole truth. Only in high or low degrees of truth. If I think Hawkins therory of everything is a high degree of truth, I won't let my warm a fuzzy feeling obstruct my logic and reason.
"When a body dies there''s no difference. Nothing missing that was there before. Nothing detectable." That's baloney, there's tons of differences. The heart is not beating, the person is no longer breathing, an EEG would show the brain is not thinking or feeling anything, the skin is not breathing, sweating, or secreting, the muscles are not moving, a cut won't heal itself anymore, a child won't grow any taller when dead, there are none of the detectable, physical, tangible processes of life. Life is all physical. It's all rational and empirical. Religious and spiritual concepts are not as much. My belief is that if we were created by an entity beyond the universe, we have no way of understanding it or communicating with it, so why pretend it's the same god from any one of our myriad old legends? It most likely is not anything like Odin, Thor, Yawheh, Krishna, Jesus, Buddha, Allah, Osiris, or Zeus. We can wish and wish but a being that is undetectable and incomprehensible by definition cannot aid us or teach us anything the way our imagined gods did in stories.
Those are just functions of the body. Detecting bodily functions is not the same as detecting life itself. The body has to be in a physical state that makes it capable of sustaining life, but a functioning body is not life itself.
And why are we so quick to dismiss our civilization inventing ancestors as over-imaginative simple minded fools? Why are we so sure those legends are fantasy? Because nothing like that exists now? Dinosaurs don't exist now, but that doesn't mean they never did.
If you walked outside and saw a rock floating 4 feet above the ground, you are intelligent and informed enough to know that is not a common occurrence. Wanting other to know about what you view to be a significant event, you feel moved to write about it. But nobody who reads what you wrote believes you because everybody knows rocks don't float. You know that too, which is why you felt this event was significant to write about.
Why would our ancestors just invent these stories and then treat them as if they're actual history? These are the same people that invented mathematics and astronomy. They were the first to learn and consider things empirically. It just doesn't make sense for them to do that, on such a wide scale, and take the time to write and carve and record these stories and store them away as they did. I don't think we should be so quick to dismiss what they felt was significant enough to record.
So which one should I believe then out of all the legendary gods? The one who says cows are sacred, or the many who demand cattle sacrifices? The one who says to coexist peacefully and turn the other cheek? Or the one who says I must not fail to make war against his enemies (non-believers)? There are too many legends lacking in evidence, you can't believe them all because they all make contradicting claims about who god is and how to correctly follow him/the pantheon of gods as a respectful worshiper, and how to be moral. It also means anything made up can be believed. We can't just go around accepting everything everyone says without asking for evidence. Doing that with an email is not safe, how much more unsafe is it to accept something important as "god's word" when you would need evidence and credibility to believe something as mundane and trivial as an email asking for money?
Well my approach was to step back and evaluate the histories of all the religions. Afterwards I keyed in on the ancient religious texts that make up the foundation of the world's three largest and most prominent religions that also originate in the cradle of civilization. The first eleven chapters of Genesis. I then constructed a timeline based on the ages the texts gives and found along that timeline the events it described. I then found a span of time in that region of the world's history where those events line up and verified that the events described appear to have really happened.
And it is not consistent with anything, as you well know. You add to the OT and twist what it actually says and come up with what you want it to say. But anyone actually looking at your evidence knows it's got nothing to do with what is actually in the bible, which is nonsense when compared with what science says. Sorry, buddy, it still doesn't pass the smell test.
Well that explains it. You weren't testing it right. I've made no claims about how it should smell.
I'm sorry, but making general comments about how I 'twist' the OT around, while all fine and good, alone sounds like a bunch of nonsense. How can I just "twist" the OT around to make it say what I want? Sheer will? You say that like that's something that can be done.
Give me something to work with. Give me an example.
Lol... Your interpretations are how you twist the words on the page. The words are still there for all to read, of course. It's not hard to twist meanings in the bible, its done all the time. But you take it to a new level.
We've been over the particulars to the tune of several hundred posts, so we're not going to resolve anything here. Still, I don't understand how a person of your obvious intelligence doesn't see what you are doing.
Haha... a new level? So, without changing the words, I twist the interpretation to only make it seem as though the first 11 chapters line up with 2000 years of middle eastern history when that's not actually what it says? AND, I was also able to twist the interpretation of the creation account to only make it seem as though it accurately recounts the history of the formation of the Earth from a specifically given point of view. Yeah, I'd say that's some next level stuff right there.
You might consider for a moment A) you find me otherwise intelligent and just can't see how I can't see what I'm doing, and B) combine that with the olympics level of interpretation twisting your suggesting I'm capable of, and then give it another good think. You keep telling yourself that's what I'm doing, you're right, we won't resolve anything. But, if you recognize just how ridiculous what you're suggesting actually is, you might reach a new level of understanding about all of this.
That's the problem. No you did not show that your interpretation lines up with anything, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. You claim all sorts of things that make no sense, like the earth and sky are already there by the first line of Gen, when neither is created till days later, and so deny that the first line is just a statement of what was done, and the rest tells you how. There is no possible debate about that.
Then you deny the words plainly on the page telling us god made a space in the midst of a sea. He calls it heaven and you say the water is atmosphere. Clearly not what the bible says.
So you twist this stuff to say what you want, but it clearly does not.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth". I realize it later refers to the sky as 'heaven' and the dry land as 'earth'. So I get the confusion. But it's clear when it says in verse 2 that God's spirit is on the surface of the waters that the Earth is there by that point. Where else would it be talking about a surface of water existing?
“Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.”
vault - a roof in the form of an arch or a series of arches
That's exactly what the oxygenated atmosphere accomplished. It separated the water below (the oceans) from the water above (clouds). And that oxygenated atmosphere did in fact come from the sea. But you're right, the bible didn't specifically call it an "atmosphere". I'm using modern terminology that wasn't available to the authors.
It's one thing to twist the interpretation of any of the more subjective lines of text. But these specifically claim to be an account of the formation of the Earth and specifically lists over a dozen things directly. In order. Accusing my of twisting these lines isn't anything like what you're suggesting. Then, beyond that, chapters 2-11 give a very specific timeline where I line up historically/scientifically documented events that coincide with not only that timeline, but also specific location, and specific details of each event.
*** No words were harmed or "twisted" in the making of this assessment ***
What meaning got twisted? What means something other than what I said? What do you think it says instead? I guarantee each Hebrew word lines up with how I interpret it. I've checked. Go ahead. Pick a word. Any word.
So here’s the story from the Jews and the words on the page.
It tells us that in the beginning god created the heaven and earth. Then it tells us how he did it. He creates light, but there were no stars yet as he creates them later.
He hovers over the ocean of heaven, that’s what the Jews call it. It exists in the place god lives. Then he divides the waters so that there is a space in the waters of heaven. He calls that space heaven or sky.
Then he raises dry land from under the sea below the sky. Then he starts creating stars and a moon.
Right up to the time man discovered the earth was round that was the picture Jews, Christians and Muslims had of the world: Flat land, floating on the sea.
They also all believed that there was a sea above us because the sky is blue. But we know that’s not the case. They even believed the dome was solid and that birds could fly to it and that if we climbed high enough we could touch it.
Now want to make a purse out of a pigs ear. But you twist around all you like, your theory that it all matches current science is off the wall. No one else backs you up in any scholarly texts or theories. You can’t make atmosphere from him dividing this sea. The bible is clear here.
And you can’t wipe away all the glaring contradictions in the story itself. It in no way matches reality and no amount of imagination on your part is going to change that.
The Primordial Atmosphere
"But, little by little our planet assumed a more familiar look, with a dense gaseous cloud zone we could call an atmosphere, a liquid zone with oceans, lakes and rivers, or hydrosphere, and a solid zone, or lithosphere with the first outlines of what would one day become continents."
Formation of the Oceans
"These processes began to occur as soon as the surface cooled enough to allow the water cycle to establish itself In fact, the primitive Earth long remained covered in darkness, wrapped in dense burning clouds into which continuously poured water vapor from volcanic emissions. When temperatures finally cooled sufficiently, the clouds began to melt into rain, and the primordial atmosphere produced storms of unimaginable proportions, under which the Earth groaned and flowed. At first, falling on incandescent rock, the rain evaporated, but the evaporation gradually cooled the crust until the water could accumulate in the depressed regions of the Earth's surface, forming the first oceans." -http://palaeos.com/hadean/hadean.htm#Oceans
Genesis1:1-8 - 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
I'm just going to appeal to your good sense here. Just look at this and you tell me there's absolutely nothing to this. These bits above come from their source unedited. I will speak only of the words presented here so there's no twisting things around. The first two describe the primordial earth pretty vividly. I want you to picture what it's describing and then read along the Genesis description. I'm going to note a few key details that match up. Remember, all I'm claiming is that what's described in Genesis is exactly what an observer would see if they were standing on the Earth where it says God's spirit was located. Creation is from this point of view. When God says "let there be light" it was from this point of view.
Now, I like what you presented here, the Jewish interpretation of the text. It's a good illustration. Remember, my claim is that the author of this text is recounting the description given to him by God. The author has no way of understanding what they're recounting beyond a simple human perspective. But what it describes no human could possibly know. The Jewish people interpreting have the same problem as the original authors. They're trying to make sense of the text by itself with no context to match it up against.
Here, we're going to match up what's described with the context of our Earth's history. Does it match or doesn't it?
Verse 1, that is true, isn't it? The 'heavens' and the Earth were both created before anything else it describes. They were both formed by the same cause, the big bang. Next, verse 2 describes the state of the Earth at the beginning of it's recounting of creation. It describes the Earth as "formless and void" and it describes oceans shrouded in darkness. Does this line up so far with what's described in Earth's history? At first there was a dense cloud atmosphere. No light. Shrouded in darkness. And the oceans formed right after the surface cooled enough for them to do so. So there actually was a time in Earth's history where the Earth was just like what it says.
Verse 3, God says let there be light. Notice it's during the formation of the oceans and the forming of the Earth's water cycle that the atmosphere thinned. This would indeed let light through to the surface for the first time in the planet's history. But it wouldn't be as we see it today. The atmosphere was translucent, but it was not transparent. So, just like it says in verse 3-5, there was light, there was the light of day and dark of night, but there were no stars, no sun, no moon. They existed, of course, but they could not be seen. Verses 6-8 describe the formation of the water cycle (water above/below). A process that we know how but they didn't know then, required oceans and light.
Now are you going to tell me you don't see some pretty significant similarities between the portion of Earth's history and this portion of creation? No twisting of meaning here.
Sorry, the idea that god told early man something he couldn't make them understand is absurd. Secondly, no. The science does not in any way match the words on the page. I'm amazed you don't see that you are projecting into the story what you want, not what it clearly says.
Again you ignore that god creates light days before he creates sources for light, so couldn't be your cloud cover finally letting light in idea. You are messing with the stated time line to suit your story. It don't work
So you're arguing against my interpretation with your interpretation. Yours is right, mine isn't? Yours suggests that God made light without a source. You can't even give the author credit for understanding light comes from the sun? The fact remains, it lists things in the right order. When light "appears" is when it actually became visible, when the sun, moon, stars are "made" is actually when they became visible. You can keep saying it's wrong all you want. I continue to show you how right it is. Not only in what it says, but in what order.
That's right. You can't change whats in black and white no matter how much you wish you can. I and millions can comprehend what we read. That it reads like nonsense is because it is nonsense.
You're reading the English translation, expecting it to not be right. Not willing to allow for it to be right.
The English translation makes a lot of assumptions, as is often necessary. When you don't know or understand the proper context, those assumptions can often be off. The Hebrew does not conflict. The way it originally read, it's clear.
Another important detail in determining the interpretation of a text is to not assume the author is a complete moron. The text clearly says the 'heavens' were created 'in the beginning'. When they said 'let there be light' it wasn't light by itself without a source. It says it right there in black and white. The "heavens" came first. And what are the "heavens" other than the celestial bodies?
The paragraph about the sun/moon/stars I know causes confusion. This is one of those bits where the English translators made some assumptions that confuse a lot of people. Including you. Including me for a long time. The central issue is that it says God 'created' the sun/moon/stars here. And because the creation account is told in such a step by step method it makes it sound as though these celestial bodies were created at this point in the story. That's not what the Hebrew says.
Combine that with this being the exact point in Earth's history that the sun/moon/stars became visible, after plant life began changing the atmosphere so dramatically, then it becomes apparent that this is what it's talking about. The paragraph isn't speaking about the sun/moon/stars actually being created at this point, only set as they are in the sky. Read it again. Tell me I'm wrong.
There are over a dozen things specifically named that are in an order that correlates very closely with what actually happened or I wouldn't be able to make it only seem that way. I'm not having to change the black and white. It's all right there. If it hadn't mentioned the oceans first, if it had said land came before the sea, if it didn't list humans last, if it didn't mention fish/birds (syropsids) first, then mammals/humans (synapsids), then you might have something.
I think you know and recognize it can't just be dismissed as "nonsense". It's very right. You may not want it to be true. It may be difficult for you to accept. But I believe it's apparent.
"The way it originally read, it's clear. "
Right. You read and write ancient Hebrew, do you? Understand the neuances better than anyone else? Sorry, that argument doesn't cut it. There are plenty of Jewish scholars who have done translations and none of those change anything from most English versions or read in to any of it what you do.
They should know. There is a long tradition of interpretation in Jewish theology. None of it comes close to your attempt to modernize it. It is what it is warts and all. Sorry.
Again, without proper context it's near impossible to get the translation right. Each word can mean this or that depending on the context. But yes, I've gone through the creation account, word by word, definition by definition, and it all lines up. Nothing conflicts with what I'm saying. It supports it.
Of course there is/are no proof(s) of God's existence, at least not the ones that atheists/agnostics and empiricists demand to be presented with and which they could verify with their 5 physical senses.
Logical and sensible Arguments on the other hand have been proposed ever since Homo Sapiens started to think or conceptualize that the universe (and everything in it whether they be sentient or non-sentient) could not have created itself. The most sublime empiricist of them all, Albert Einstein, although not believing in a personal God, ie the biblical God, gave credence to the idea that a supernatural entity did create the universe. In that sense he is an existentialist of the theistic kind.
Einstein was a pantheist, where dose he described a supernatural God.?
From reading your posts, I got the impression that you are a biblical scholar. Since I'm not, I just need to ask your opinion about the idea that not all the biblical stories could and should be interpreted literally, and that the narratives that don't neatly jive with or fit the empirical/historical evidence(s) could and should be interpreted metaphorically.
Man in most instances, thinks in embodied metaphors, which then gets translated into language that are also mostly metaphorical. The idea of embodied metaphors have been discussed in great detail by empiricists ie psychologists, linguists etc. , basically based on the idea that the brain does not work like a computer that stores or process information, but that its main function is to drive and control the actions and reactions of the body.
The mind which is responsible for the thought processes, is what drive those bodily actions and reactions, but then in a reverse process, those many bodily actions and reactions feed back into the mind to drive more consequential actions and reactions. It has also become clear, coming from the empirical observations and experimentations, that our cognitive operations have to solve certain adaptive challenges of the physical environment. In such a process, embodied metaphors are the building blocks of perception, cognition, and action.
I am not a scholar. I just approach things thoughtfully and with heavy research. In the case of interpreting the bible, it's imperative to know as much as you can about the passages you're reading. Who wrote them, when, who were they writing to, what was the environment they existed in at the time like, etc. There is metaphorical things in the bible, depending on what portion you're reading. Revelation, for instance, is heavy in metaphor. This was because the authors were Christians who were at that time openly persecuted for their beliefs. So to communicate they had to be careful what they wrote. A lot is made of the passages of Revelation because of this. There's all this meaning injecting into it through pure imaginative interpretation. Like tales of dragons being thrown out of heaven with a third of the "stars/angels" and the end times. When in actuality what they're speaking of and describing is more likely events that happened around their time, already.
The critical question then becomes: Can biblical scholars say with certainty that this or that particular biblical story could and should be interpreted metaphorically and not literally or vice-versa?
If so why have they not done so, thus preventing or mitigating the confusion that have arisen from the interpretation of these biblical narratives by folks who are not experts in the area of biblical stories?
In past centuries it was the norm to read everything literally. As we learn more about the world around us it became obvious that the bible was wrong; the obvious solution is to "interpret" to agree with reality, and that trend has continued to grow as we learn more and more. The discoveries of Galileo and Darwin are good examples of this; both were declared heretical but eventually the teachings of both were accepted as true, which meant the meaning of scripture had to changed, and it has.
You first sentence is totally false, and therefore whatever came after that needs to be scrutinized with great alacrity to determine if they are false as well. I did... and I can say with succinct certainty that those sentences needs to be revised to pass the "truth" test.
Really? When God created the heavens and earth the bible doesn't mean that God created heaven and earth? When God took a rib from Adam to make Eve, it doesn't mean that God took a rib from Adam to make Eve? When Jesus turned water into wine it doesn't mean that he turned water into wine? When Jesus woke after 3 days of being dead it doesn't mean that Jesus arose after 3 days of being dead?
You and I read the bible much differently.
As I was implying in my conversation with Headley... some of the biblical narratives in the Old Testament could and should be interpreted metaphorically, and some literally. And for you to insinuate yourself into the conversation by demanding that they all should and must be interpreted literally, is the height of egotistic arrogance, considering the fact that you are not even close to being a first grade biblical scholar.
Do you really believe, if you go by your all too literal interpretation of the Old Testatment, that the universe was created in 7 days? and that Adam and Eve were the first humans to ever walk the earth?
Both are wrong with a literal interpretation.
1. Universe was created in 7 days
The word translated as 'day' actually means a number of different increments of time, including 'age'. And we know by evaluating the text that it's not speaking of 'days'. For example, each animal wave is commanded to populate and fill the Earth, a process that clearly takes longer than a single day.
2. Adam and Eve were the first humans ever
Gen1 says humans were created male and female. Then Adam/Eve are created in Gen2. In Gen4 when Cain is being banished he brings up a concern that 'others' who find him will harm him.
Then, in Gen6, right after Gen5 says all of Adam's descendants live for centuries, Gen6 speaks of two groups, 'sons of God' and 'daughters of humans'. It says that, compared to the 'sons of God', humans are "mortal" and only live 120 years.
So sorry that I posted on a public forum. I will remember that they all belong to you.
What's wrong with acknowledging that the words mean what they say, but what they say is wrong? False. Untrue. How about we just do that instead of squirming around trying to make them agree with reality? Why keep insisting that it's all true (even as we know it isn't) if we could just learn to read it "properly"?
Of course that brings to the front that scripture is fallible, that it is not all true, and thus that the flood, the crucifixation, the resurrection, Jona's fish, etc. could ALL be but wild tales...
Oh you can insinuate yourself anytime you want, but then with that act you must provide a measured insinuation or response, so for you to write with absolute certainty (pedestrian as it was) that the biblical narratives are false, untrue etc. is as I said the height of egotistical chutzpah considering that you are not even a biblical scholar of any note whatsoever.
If you approach those narratives with the view that not all of them could and should be interpreted literally, then you would or should come to a different conclusion. But then I suppose, you are so close minded that whatever goes through your brain that is not materially proven, you immediately debunk as false or untrue.
You might want to google "embodied metaphors" for your further elucidation.
Interesting analysis. "If scripture is known to be false then that means it is a metaphor and therefore true because the bible is always true".
Well, it's one method of reading scripture, and a great one...for those that pre-determine that it is all true rather than (heaven forbid) question anything about their god.
Interesting analysis: Metaphors have no grain of truth in them, so if it is a lie that you want to say, just say it metaphorically?. In the same way that Hilary Clinton lied by saying she "short-circuited" her response to Chris Wallace when he pressed her regarding her E-mails. "Short circuited" being a metaphor for bad connections in her brain that led her to tell a lie on top of a lie. Which up until now she refuses to accept responsibility for.
Unfortunate;y for Hillary, her using the metaphor made her more susceptible to criticism because Chris Wallace's questions were direct and literal and went straight to his point that Hillary was lying when she said she told the American people the truth about her E-mails, and the FBI director, contradicted her on 5 important questions or points.
This is a big motivation for what got me started on this path. Finding the proper context of early Genesis to clarify the story. As far as biblical scholars go, they almost always start with Jesus' time and work backwards because this is the time we have the most information on. But this is almost impossible. They often go by the timeline that suggests the contents of the bible cover a 6000 year span. This is where the idea of a 6000 year old Earth comes from. The problem with this is it's nearly impossible to do.
The misconceptions in the early books have led to a lot of confusion. Like reading it to mean Adam/Eve were the first humans. There was no concrete starting point to place these stories historically. So, even today, it's a big mystery to most what age exactly the earlier books of the OT are talking about.
The research I've done appears to have solved this. And when working out from that starting point, it all begins to make a lot more sense because it's all grounded in historical context. Once this story can be married up with what we know historically it becomes much simpler and much less metaphorical sounding.
Well, I don't know about "confusion" - I find it much more likely that the early writers meant exactly what they said. They were just wrong, and scripture is wrong as a result, and we are all better off to just accept that it IS wrong rather than try and make it fit the reality we know and understand.
I understand you wish to show that scripture is correct, but that's not particularly high on my priority list. And you already know what I think about your squirming and twisting to make it right.
Yeah, I know. I just never could dismiss it like that. What other artifact from that far back in history has had a bigger impact, and through to this day still has an impact, on the human world? What other ancient text is still the best seller? What other is still talked about ad nauseum in forums just like this?
This text has survived the ages for a reason. And much like I find your thinking I'm just twisting the bible to make it work, I also find it very hard to believe that simple human delusion could account for this. You have no problem with this, and that's somewhere we differ. I find it laughable to think that anyone could honestly "twist" words to fabricate a consistent story that spans the first 11 chapters of Genesis. AND, I find it laughable that anyone could think the biblical books could have the history they've had through pure delusion alone.
We are all better off when we keep our minds open and don't decide we're already smart enough to know better what's right and wrong prematurely.
" I also find it very hard to believe that simple human delusion could account for this."
All it took was for the emperor of the biggest "nation" that ever existed to believe, coupled with centuries of ruthless extermination of any that disagreed.
So, all it took was one man 2000 years ago who ruled the region around the Mediterranean to establish some laws that were enforced for a couple of centuries, and that explains the bible still being the base of the world's three largest religions in the world to this day? That explains it still being prominent in society 2000 years later?
There is actually some really good conversation going on in here; instead of as much heat or name calling - any 'mildly-hot' stuff is kind of inevidable, ha! But, since this is the basic thing that everyone is discussing - I really think the spiritual 'middle ground' needs to be considered, again. When is life ever black or white?
The Christian story of salvation along with much of the story of Jesus Christ was HIGHLY-likely plagarized from the accounts of so many previous saviors-turned-pagans for the same 'control the world' reasons - and Atheists who keep insisting that there is absolutely no spiritual world or concepts beyond the limited realm that they can conceive of - is just as ludicrous.
Especially since there is so much scientific evidence to the contrary.
'Evidence' is not necessarily a hard fact. Definition: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. That means that things like LOGIC and COMMON SENSE along with scientific theories have a profound influence on beliefs and/or the unraveling of them.
As I've said before, such a seriously-embedded insistence to 'debunk god' from the minds of religious people is as much a 'religion of dogma' as any other. It is something that CONTROLS your mind. Believe it or not, there is more than one form of control in this world.
NO ONE wants ANY of us to know ALL of the truth at once:
1) We are all born inherently good. It is things like convincing people that they are ‘unworthy sinners’, bullying, abuse and economic depression, etc., that create human monsters.
2) If Jesus was God 'not like us' - then Christianity is just another pagan religion. The only way his death MATTERS is IF he was REALLY just like us, to set souls free from the bondage of paganism - which somehow became the foundation of his religion.
If you are someone who is insisting that Jesus didn't exist - then you are HELPING to instill within the minds of Christians that he DOES exist (exactly the way they have been taught). Get the story of the reality of our existence straight - whether Christian or Atheist - because it is IMPORTANT for the entire world that you do so.
Stop assuming that what you believe is the absolute truth. RESEARCH.
A place to start - this is a very good read: Debunking Salvation & Christian Deconversions: How Science & Spirituality are Exposing the Real Message of Jesus Christ
You must have a very, very broad definition of what paganism is, for you to lump Christianity in that category.
IMO the historical veracity of the existence of the Nazarene, we call Jesus Christ, is beyond doubt. His Sermon on the Mount is the cogent compilation of his teachings all in one passage of the New Testament. Beyond that, the initiation and growth and continued existence of the conglomeration we termed Christianity over the past 2 thousand years or so were all due to human hands, and whims, and desires and ego.....thus subject to those human perspicacities and temerities with results that the Nazarene may not have intended or envisioned.
Of course his main and foremost message to his followers was LOVE ie "love yourself and each other as my father loves you". The question of his Divinity is something that one has to approach with faithful adherence to those teachings and the way he lived and died.
No it doesn't. It supports it in your mind alone, I'm afraid.
Show me. Don't just state it like it's a fact. Show me it is.
I have; dozens of times. Since someone else brought it up but we've already discussed it: Days mean days according to Jewish scholars and Strong's.. Morning means morning and night means night. Where is your proof it doesn't?
Have you? Well then this shouldn't be news to you ...
Period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness),
- Period of twenty-four hours
- General term for time
- Point of time
- Sunrise to sunset
- Sunset to next sunset
- A year (in the plural; I Sam 27:7; Ex 13:10, etc.)
- Time period of unspecified length.
- A long, but finite span of time - age - epoch - season.
As for evening and morning, it doesn't really matter ...
"And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day."
Afterall, whether it be the following day or the first day of an age or epoch, it begins first with an evening, then a morning... then the next 'yom'.
You can also tell by the context of the text....
"Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good."
"And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.”
" God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”"
Here we've got three examples. In each there are commands given to fill the Earth through procreation. For the land to produce vegetation as described, for the creatures of the sea to "be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas" and for humanity to "be fruitful and increase in number and fill the Earth", these are not things that can be accomplished in a single day. It doesn't say God "miracled" them into existence. It says He commanded them to "increase in number" and populate the Earth through being "fruitful and multiplying". Even the simple minded of that age had to know these things take longer than the course of a day.
So, there's two reasons I'm right. Are you still going to say I'm wrong and you're right? Are you going to come into a future conversation stating that you've already shown me again? Or will you finally concede the point?
Here you have three examples of how you read into this thing what you like. At the end of each paragraph it says: And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day, the fifth day the fourth day etc. Evening and morning here make it clear it’s a 24 hour period.
That’s the context you harp on about. Without that you might have a point. But with it, your argument fails. Sorry, I think it’s you who need to consider throwing in the towel.
Consider this from a Jewish publication I looked up when we were discussing this before:
“The use of a number with the word "day" is very illuminating. This combination occurs 357 times outside of Genesis 1. The combination is used in four different ways, but each time it is used, it must mean 24-hour periods of time. If the combinations had been intended to mean long periods of time, both the texts and contexts then become meaningless. A typical verse is Genesis 30:36: "And he (Laban) set three days journey betwixt himself and Jacob." God frequently issued commands that the people were to do or not to do certain things on a given day. This use occurs 162 times. A good example is Exodus 24:16: "And the glory of the Lord abode upon Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days, and on the seventh day He called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud."
“If the meaning of the word "day" with a number always means a 24-hour period of time outside of Genesis 1, then it should also mean a 24-hour period of time inside Genesis 1.”
And so do I..
Except for the simple fact that, as I showed you, what's being commanded of each thing cannot possibly be accomplished during the course of a single day. No need to go to other examples of passages that have loose commonality in the use of words. Right there in the very same text it speaks of plants and animals populating the planet. Like this ...
""Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.”"
Trees. Trees! How much of that could have really happened in a 24 hour period? So you're suggesting day 4 starts with little seedlings in the ground? No plants yet, of course, but they're on their way?
As for evening/morning, each section ends with ..
""And there was evening, and there was morning—the second/third/fourth/fifth/sixth day.""
After this evening and tomorrow morning comes tomorrow. Which could also be the first day of a season, or the first day of an epoch, or age. Besides, to be speaking of the extent of a day, evening/morning would suggest only 12 hours. Half of each day.
Face it, it just doesn't stand up no matter how much you insist this is how it should be read. Every clue, every detail, says differently.
"Except for the simple fact that, as I showed you, what's being commanded of each thing cannot possibly be accomplished during the course of a single day. "
That's not my problem. Your god is magic, remember? But again you misinterpret. What I see is your god creating something and giving a directive on a specific day. He knows all in advance so knows its all good, right?
And god tells you himself to remember that he created it all in six days, and rested on the 7th. Why an all powerful god needs rest is beyond me, but there you go. Hence Sabbath. It's a day, not an eon. You calling your god a liar?
And again, don't blame me that your bible makes no sense as written. It's nonsense because it's actually nonsense.
Well there you go. You just answered your own question....
"What I see is your god creating something and giving a directive on a specific day. He knows all in advance so knows its all good, right?"
You're right, in six days He could have spoken a directive that then began a process that played out over an extended period of time to be fully realized at some future point. That works. Same thing. Then it can be said that creation actually was accomplished in six literal days, but wasn't fully realized for many millennia. Considering some things created in later 'days' required things created during earlier 'days', it doesn't work that they were consecutive days. But could still be days. A single day during which He spoke each directive. Still works.
I'm not blaming you for whether the bible makes sense or not. But if I'm able to reach a conclusion based on the very same text that does actually make sense, it doesn't make sense that you'd continue to stick to your guns that the version you came up with that you admit doesn't make sense, is the "right" one.
Yes, because that's the plot of the book. I'm not changing it, I'm reading it and comprehending what it says like I would do with any myth. None of those make sense either if you compare them to reality. I'm not trying to make it what it isn't, which is what you are attempting. I'm just telling you why you can't say days could be eons because that's not what the book says.
Yes the word is used in different ways in different contexts. But when it is followed by numbers the meaning is always 24 hour days everywhere else in Gen. So why would Gen ! be different? It's clearly not and the Jews themselves are adamant about it.
And that messes up your entire hypothesis.
Though the examples given are indeed this word preceded by a number, none of the examples are speaking in the same manner. Like "three days journey". This is not referring to "day 3". This is not a comparable example. Totally different context. And I think you can see that too. You don't have to be a Hebrew expert to see that.
Ages. That is what the book says. The context of the rest of this same text makes it clear it's not talking about anything that could happen in a single day. It's talking about things that take weeks and months to happen just once, happening at such a rate that they 'fill' the Earth. Trees. Animals. Humans. You're probably right about the "magic God" thing. When this was translated originally, centuries ago, they probably assumed God's magic, it's saying these things happened during the course of six days. So that's how they translated it. Still wrong. Now we have reality to compare against and it definitely happened over an extended period of time.
Consider this, because this is important. If a story is being told in Hebrew told in the manner in which Genesis 1 is, speaking of a series of periods of time in the ancient past, 'yom' IS the word that would be used to signify that measure of time, whatever it is. That is the word that would be used in this context if the text is speaking of extended 'ages'.
Well yes its wrong because it probably never happened. No god had to exist for them to assume one and go from there. Kings of England (specifically because I know a bit about them) assumed that because they were anointed and crowned in a church that they were given divine right to rule by god himself. I doubt any of them spoke to an actual god about it.
These are mythical tales, that's all they are. Gods that need a rest, gods that decree "go forth and multiply, when its clearly not required to state it when its built in. Gods that split an ocean to create a sky where one can see the ocean above you because the sky is blue. And we know there isn't an ocean above us,. I could go on. These are typical myths. Most of them borrowed/stolen from the Sumerians and Babylonians.
And who did this god tell this stuff to? Not recorded is it? Why not? Important stuff to omit. Probably because it didn't happen.
The book is a pigs ear. You can't make a silk purse out of it no matter how you try. It says what it says and that's not what you are saying. Far from it. 2000 years worth of scholars say days in gen mean 24 hours. I agree. And you playing with numbers doesn't change the facts. Sorry.
"gods that decree "go forth and multiply, when its clearly not required to state it when its built in."
That's why it's built in. Your body strives to breathe and survive and has a sexual drive because the creator of the universe, the one who's will becomes the natural laws that govern this environment, decreed it. Our bodies, being made of matter, comply. Like all matter in the universe complies.
There is almost constantly water above us in the sky. They're the clouds. There's a system in place, a water cycle, that's been there since it states it was created.
The Sumerians/Babylonians were the human groups who populated the region of the world these events took place in. So it only stands to reason they're all write about it and their stories would be similar. Doesn't mean they were stolen. Could (and probably does) actually mean these events did happen and these are three different accounts of them.
By the time these stories were written down generations later when writing was invented, who the story was told to wasn't relevant. These by then were stories that had been told and retold from generation to generation for centuries.
Except that everything we should expect to see in the archaeological data if these events really did happen as described is there. Regardless of what you prefer the truth to be, the evidence supports something else.
Lol.. no it doesn't. That's your imagination again.
You attribute way too much to imagination with seemingly no consideration towards whether or not what you're suggesting is even feasible. It's just your go-to. To assume the believer is just delusional. It's your Linus blanket. But whether or not you're comfortable with the truth is irrelevant. Give it time. Others will see and realize what I'm trying to point out. It's just a matter of time.
It's the only explanation that makes sense out of the evidence.
No. There is no evidence. Just you wishing and working hard to fix a flawed myth. It's a dead end. It says what it says and without your mental gymnastics and rather bizarre interpretations it doesn't match science or reality in any way.
And I think you are projecting here, you are the one with the need for a security blanket, not me.
Are you delusional? I wouldn't say that. I'd say you are obsessed with making something from nothing, and could be using your deductive talents for something better. Remember, deductive reasoning only works if your starting point is fact. Sorry to say god is not a fact. Therefore no matter how well your reasoning follows, its worthless unless you can prove it; and you already admitted you can't.
So your proclamations that there's no God and no evidence and it's a dead end, with no support for these statements, I'm supposed to do what with these? Just accept them?
No, the evidence I'm talking about lines up with the very specific timeline given and the series of events that line that timeline. Very specific and not open to interpretation. The spans of time given are set in stone, literally.
And you're very wrong about there being no evidence. There are a series of events that line up both along that timeline and are located specifically where it says with details that line up with what's detailed in the story. Everything we should expect to see if beings like Adam/Eve were actually created in that part of the world, in a populated region, is there. From that, to the flood, to the Babel story, it all lines up with actual events that actually did play a pivotal role in setting the modern human world in motion.
There's too much evidence for me to even consider there being nothing to this. If you like I can inundate you with the evidence. There's plenty.
“ So your proclamations that there's no God and no evidence and it's a dead end, with no support for these statements, I'm supposed to do what with these? Just accept them?”
I didn’t say there is no god. I said you can’t know one way or the other. No evidence for anyone’s side. And the book as written is all there is. There is no hidden meaning. Yes it’s a dead end, but do what you like. I know you are desperate to believe it.
“No, the evidence I'm talking about lines up with the very specific timeline given and the series of events that line that timeline. Very specific and not open to interpretation. The spans of time given are set in stone, literally.”
Sorry, looked at your theory, and it doesn’t work in reality. You can’t even get past the first few words without rewriting the whole story. That’s what you base the rest on so it fails right there.
“And you're very wrong about there being no evidence. There are a series of events that line up both along that timeline and are located specifically where it says with details that line up with what's detailed in the story. Everything we should expect to see if beings like Adam/Eve were actually created in that part of the world, in a populated region, is there. From that, to the flood, to the Babel story, it all lines up with actual events that actually did play a pivotal role in setting the modern human world in motion. “
Right. Tell me another one. Lol... Only in your mind, not in reality.
“There's too much evidence for me to even consider there being nothing to this. If you like I can inundate you with the evidence. There's plenty.”
Great. So prove god exists. Of course you can’t.
Ultimately, you are saying there is no God. You're insisting that there's no evidence and that it's a dead end. Despite what I think I see there is actually no correlation between the bible and reality. That I'm making something out of nothing. That's the assumption you're working from. There's no consideration for whether or not I'm actually seeing something that might actually be there. Your mindset is all about how I'm manufacturing something out of nothing. What I'm doing to come to these conclusions and what's driving me to fabricate stuff that really isn't there.
Actually, there can be evidence. Not in the traditional sense. You're not going to observe or in some way detect God. But if there is any evidence, it would be in the form of what I'm doing now. If there's legitimacy to the story being described, and knowledge of things impossible for them to know, that's going to be the evidence. It doesn't prove conclusively, but it makes a strong argument. It's still evidence. These texts claim to be records of times in our ancient past when this God actually interacted with humanity. Either you're right and their completely fabricated tales with no truth to them at all, the earliest and must successful form of fiction, or I'm right and there is some truth to what's being described.
Right, so ultimately, your rejection of everything I'm saying is based on your interpretation of the text versus mine. That's it. I say it's saying one thing, you insist it's not, that it's actually saying what you think it says, and that's it. No consideration beyond that. Minds made up. Done.
I not only think this proves God's existence as much as is possible, but I also think this is an important truth to know and acknowledge about our human history. This story is the story of how we were created. How modern humanity came to be what it is. What makes us tick and behave as we do. And there's just too much you have to dismiss to even consider ignoring it. This plays such a large roll in the lives of everyone in our society, even still to this day, I think this is an important conversation to have. Something that has to be hashed out. Processed. But that conversation has to be had logically and thoughtfully.
Sorry but there's no point, your mind's made up and you will continue to read into it what isn't there. I've studied the bible as much as you have and your version doesn't work. If you were on to something I'd be happy for you, but your not.
That's just it. I think it's the other way around. My mind isn't made up. My mind is open, which is why I can and do consider this. The one whose mind is made up is you and others like you who already think you know better. You've already categorized and dismissed the bible and religion and there's no reopening that file in any real way. The answer isn't there. Just leave it the basement where it belongs.
I think that's a huge mistake. People often accuse me of making the same 'goddunit' mistakes of the past that ultimately left humanity in the dark for so long, but what has left humanity ignorant even more often is all the times we decided we knew better and didn't even consider anything else. That's the more detrimental approach.
I appreciate the discussion.
My mind is as open as yours, but I need to see facts. But like you I have theories about the world which I've worked long and hard to develop, I do see how hard you've worked for yours and I can appreciate that, right or wrong.
I used to be religious, but I developed a personal method for gathering truth. The first part was to forget about all I had been told and all I believed and start from scratch. My thought was, if there is anything to the idea of god it will eventually find me, or I it.
I use evidence and logic and deductive and inductive reasoning to find answers, which I don't allow myself to have faith in. Instead I wait and see and continue studying. I form opinions based on facts and probability.
I do wish you luck, though its a hard sell.
You and I are a lot alike it sounds. I too began by letting go of everything I thought I knew. All previous interpretations and beliefs. And I did much the same thing. For as long as I can remember I've been working to reconcile these two opposing sides. It just happens. I'm not even sure it was always a conscious thing. I'd just record information and earmark data that was relevant. Those bits of info got dropped into the ever-running algorithm and became part of the process.
I'm showing you facts. That's what I deal in. Facts. And the fact is hard evidence can only account for some of it. A hard truth is that at least part of the explanation isn't going to be beholden to empirical certainty.
I don't think it's as hard of a sell as you might think. It's a much better explanation about early humanity than what is currently regarded as the 'truth'. It just fits better and explains better.
Yes, but those who hold god-belief make claims about the world that do lend themselves to being scrutinized on the basis of evidence. For example, currently available empirical evidence indicates that coming back to life after being clinically dead for three days is very very unlikely. Weighed against available evidence for the claim that such an event occurred in first century Palestine, a reasonable person would have to conclude that this core Christian belief lacks sufficient evidence to be deemed true. Can we conclude from this that god therefore does not exist? No. But we can conclude that the belief upon which Christianity is founded, does not meet a basic test of plausibility.
But by those same standards would you not also reach the conclusion that giant dinosaurs are implausible? After all, "currently available empirical evidence indicates that" reptiles don't get that large.
See, here's the problem I have with that. Let's say you're standing outside one day and something happens that you know shouldn't have happened. Let's say a large rock was just floating 4 feet above the ground. You know this is a very strange occurrence, having never heard of anything like this before. So you feel compelled to write about this thing you experienced.
By your reasoning, anyone who later read what you wrote would dismiss it, because that kind of thing just doesn't happen.
It's the fact that someone raising from the dead after 3 days doesn't generally happen that makes this event significant. If it were something that happened all the time, or even periodically, then the story would be way less significant.
There is currently available empirical evidence for the existence of dinosaurs, and that evidence is not outweighed by evidence to the contrary. A cursory search demonstrates that.
The significance of an event is irrelevant. If there is insufficient empirical evidence supporting a claim, or supporting evidence is outweighed by evidence to the contrary, then it's reasonable not to deem that claim to be true. Available evidence for the claim that a man came back to life after being clinically dead for three days, is outweighed by current empirical evidence that such an event is extremely unlikely. Therefore, on the basis of currently available empirical evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim is implausible. As Christianity is founded on this belief, we may deduce that Christianity is founded on an implausible belief.
Of course it's implausible, that's what makes it significant.
Yes, in that mindset the significance of an event is definitely irrelevant. Doesn't make the event less significant. Just makes you more prone to dismiss it, true or not. Sure, when you have a lot of data to drudge through you might use such a process to weed out certain scenarios, but when you base what can and cannot be true on "currently available empirical evidence" your dictating what the answer can and can't be prematurely, weeding out everything that isn't already known. Any event that's out of the ordinary, made significant by the fact that it doesn't generally happen, gets totally overlooked. Not a wise approach in my mind.
nowhere in this line of though have I seen anything proposed about the veracity of the handful of people that reported the incident (resurrection). It has not been "tested" for veracity by anyone, simply accepted as truth. Some of the more obvious questions might be in a search for other possibilities to a 3 day corpse walking and talking.
1. The 3 or 4 witnesses are liars. It was, after all, to their great advantage to report such an occurrence and keep the "conspiracy" going.
2. A "stunt double", or actor was used rather than re-animating a corpse.
3. Jesus was never dead. Medical knowledge of the time was, after all, rather lacking.
4. Rather than depending on a god to reanimate the corpse, ET used holograms and other advanced ET technology to produce a believable image. Or robot, take your choice.
5. The whole story was a fabrication from a much later time, perhaps at Nicea. The Romans were quite meticulous in their histories; it seems odd that this was never recorded.
6. The tale was but a metaphor for something else. Common enough in scripture.
The list is hardly complete, and I'm sure other answers could be found as to how it was possible. With that many viable possibilities, it does seem to throw the veracity of the account into question. More likely, in other words, that something else happened than a living corpse.
What can I tell you, it wouldn't be faith if it wasn't difficult to believe. It's an acknowledgement, ultimately. Believing this could actually happens mean you acknowledge the existence of God and His power over this world and life and death. We're all put here, given the opportunity to live and experience life with free minds and souls. Free to think and do and believe whatever we wish. Believing this is a willful acknowledgement. It's pretty clever I think. By simply believing something totally impossible happened you acknowledge God's existence and authority. Willful acknowledgement grants access.
It may be clever - once the shamans have convinced their subject that the impossible happened they tighten the noose considerably and cement their power base. They have convinced someone else NOT to reason, NOT to think, but just accept whatever they're told. (Sounds like our politicians )
But that ignores just why anyone would believe the impossible, given so many alternative explanations that are not only possible but are known to commonly happen. A willing ignorance, then, in favor of satisfying the desire for a god.
It's a simplification. Before Jesus, in the OT, people had to sacrifice "clean" animals. Now they simply just believe.
There is an element to this that's beyond our view. A layer of protection. This place, this universe, is a test environment where everything is temporary. No long-term permanent damage can be done here. Like a controlled experiment test environment. In the OT, for one to die and pass through to the other side you had to sacrifice a clean animal. In other words, you can't be out of sync with God when you pass through. Free will makes it possible for you to be in a 'non-natural' state. Only the death of a clean creature who's not in such a state will allow access.
This simplifies all of that. By simply believing, you're covered. You're put in the right state to pass through to the other side.
I realize some of this sounds hokey. But given what all we know about this natural world, it stands to reason that at least some of the explanation is going to be a little strange. This place is strange.
I don't see that as a simplification at all, but straight fact. If you convince people to believe whatever you say you have gained enormous power over them - that much is quite obvious.
Whether that is in telling them to sacrifice clean animals or believe the impossible is immaterial - you have gained control over the populace and can now order nearly anything and have it done. Which is what the whole "belief" system has done for millenia, from killing babies to hunting witches to torturing people to "convince" them to obey. Telling people that Indians and blacks were subhuman creatures produced near genocide and slavery - more power.
For it has always been the shamans, whether the "god king" of Japanese culture or the medicine man of the Americas, that have wielded the ultimate power in a culture.
But it's interesting to see that you continuing to build on the god theory, now assigning very human desires and attitudes to that god, still without having the faintest notion if they are correct at all. And reversing your own statements (humans with a choice have free will vs no free will if truth is known) to support the whole deck of cards. That's one of the problems - once a story has been made it must be continually changed and added to as more objections are raised and new knowledge is found. Whether it be the "why" a god did it or the timeline of creation the original tale must be modified - both the unchanging god and the story must change to remain reasonable.
I don't get why my addressing specific questions to you sounds as though I'm changing anything I've said. It stays consistent from one end to the other.
For example, I never said our free will was negated by "knowing the truth". You still have a choice. It's just that it's no longer really a choice whether or not to believe. It's not that your ability to choose has been removed, it's the need to choose.
Yes, human history is filled with stories of people trying to control the masses and maintain power. That's the story of free will let loose on the world. Up until about 4000BC that wasn't an issue at all. That's what's significant. This psychological change, the emergence of this modern human ego, that's what brought about slavery, male dominance, and the desire for power and control.
"If you convince people to believe whatever you say you have gained enormous power over them - that much is quite obvious."
Is it that you've gained power? Or that they have relinquished power? It's still their choice.
Yes, it stays consistent. In spite of other possibilities, some far more likely than others and some requiring changing the story, it stays consistent. Never is the possibility that is wrong considered at all - everything has to match up with a god's existence. Never any doubt or any suggestion that the god might not be there is allowed.
And that's just not possible. When we make theories and postulates there is always doubt that we've chosen the correct conclusion...but not ever in your tale. It's like a politician or advertisement that produces only one side of the story, leaving out anything that has any chance at all of sowing doubt and becoming far more argument than a description of all factual data in order to give a listener the chance to reason their way to a conclusion.
I recall from months ago your response to the question of cities and cultures in the Americas that were not influenced by middle eastern ones was to produce a quote from some yahoo theorizing that maybe Mesopotamia have sailed the Atlantic to visit the Americas after all and spread their culture. And that was it! No discussion of the likelihood, no discussion of what it would mean if false, no discussion of what evidence might be found as support, just an end to that line of though after leaving the impression that if it was possible then it was true. It didn't match, it would virtually ruin your carefully researched theory so it was not to be seriously considered.
This is a major problem for me, that when objections arise the answer is to either ignore them or twist the tale into agreement with fact. It is NOT proper research; that requires that every effort be made to disprove the proposal, not ignore what doesn't work!
God damnit, Wilderness, I'm not changing the story! That would be IN-consistent. And yes, the possibility of it being wrong is considered at every turn. I'm sorry you can't see that, but that's also been consistently true throughout. The whole reason I speak to people like you about this is not because I want you to buy into it, but because I know you won't. Because I know you'll challenge it. I want it challenged. But, unlike what you seem to think, you have not yet challenged it in any way. You've just accused me of wanting it to work so bad that I'd be willing to do anything.
I'm presenting an idea where God is real. So yes, in the context of what I'm saying, that is always constant. I have heard the arguments that suggest that God isn't real. When I tell you that you're viewpoint doesn't stand on its own, it doesn't. I've heard and have strongly considered the alternative view and find it lacking. I've laid that out for you many times in many different ways, yet you always seem to think I'm just changing things or somehow being unreasonable. I'm explaining why I reject the no-God scenario you're championing. It doesn't work logically.
There has been plenty of doubt along the way. I have tested this thing to death, TRYING to prove it wrong. Before I went public with it at all I looked for what I was sure was going to be some 'obvious' thing that brings it all crashing down. Because I just didn't see how I could have come up with something that countless people have studied and actually come up with an answer. There has been plenty of doubt. True, I probably grow more certain, more confident, the more people I talk to who can't bring it down.
It may seem to you that I don't doubt or that I'm just not open to this or that, but what you don't realize is nearly everything you can come up with to challenge this I've already come up with. When I say I tried to break it, I mean it. It may seem like I have an answer to everything, and maybe that makes it seem as though I'm just moving things around to keep it alive or whatever, but that's actually because I've already considered and found resolution to every objection you and others have put forth.
And yes, the origin of early American cultures was heavily considered. The "yahoo" you're referring to is a prominent Chinese archaeologist by the name of H.M. Xu. If you'll recall, though it seems you don't, the evidence that supports this is both the disappearance of 250,000 people around the fall of the Shang Dy nasty in 1122 BC, as well as notable similarities in symbols found in Olmec writings to chinese symbols, as well as strong similarities in art, in architecture, religion, and astronomical knowledge. It's simply the most likely answer given the data. And it also happens to line up with a pattern in human migration and changes in human behavior. So there are many, MANY reasons why I feel this is legitimate. You're welcome to challenge it if you like. Please do.
Your "major problem" has everything to do with you, in your mind, already making up your mind that what I'm saying can't be true. And when I don't just roll over and say you're right, you accuse me of twisting things or changing things. When actually I have most times already considered the objection you're putting forth, if valid. Most of what you're accusing me of is just in your head. Like you said earlier, the mind can do incredible things to rationalize to itself what it believes to be true. I know and recognize that, which is why I made it a priority in my research to protect against that by forming a hypothesis and making predictions based on that hypothesis to lead investigation.
"It's simply the most likely answer given the data."
The most likely answer. That a quarter of a million people crossed the Atlantic at a time where there were no deep ocean vessels anywhere in the world. I disagree.
Well then you're disagreeing with an archeologist who has good reason to think what he does. This wouldn't have required ships as Asia and North America were practically joined together by the Bering Land Bridge.
Also, he's not suggesting that's where all 250,000 of them ended up. Just some.
Unfortunately that bridge was gone long before your city states and all the rest. Which pretty much means boats, through some of the roughest water on the planet.
You're right, I thought he said they got across by that land bridge, but he says he thinks they sailed ...
"Xu argues that the Olmecs sailed to Mexico from China after the fall of the Shang Dynasty in 1122BC."
And I'd trust a Chinese archaeologist to better know what boat technology was available to them at the time. Either way, the similarities in their writing and art and religion and astrological knowledge and architecture shows a connection, however it happened. Combine with that the continuation of that same sweeping psychological/behavioral change and you've got a pretty good indication of what happened.
Well, there is no doubt that the Americas were populated from eastern asia, and via the land bridge. And that they would, at that time, take knowledge, culture, etc. of eastern asia with them.
But I do think it is an enormous stretch to think they sailed the Atlantic thousands of years before there was any indication at all of that kind of capability. I would ALSO be surprised that writing (not art) would be taken with them. Cave drawings maybe, that gave rise to "similar" symbols?
So you have your explanation and I have another. But don't forget that there is only 1 (one!) "expert" giving the possibility of crossing the ocean and he even says he has nothing to indicate that was done. It is no more than an virtually unsupported theory that goes in the face of everything else we know.
The Americas were populated with humans long ago. But the similarities seen between Chinese culture and Olmec culture shows a much more recent connection. This was Chang dynasty, long after the establishment of civilization and long after the America's were first populated as what you're speaking of.
It would seem at least one Chinese archaeologist doesn't seem to think it's a stretch at all that they could have sailed to North America. And who would know better? I admittedly don't know much about ancient chinese culture or their history of technology, but I bet this guy does. You're welcome to take it up with him.
What can I say? Follow the evidence. It doesn't lie. There's evidence that shows the strong possibility of a connection between these two ends of the world. And multiple patterns that line up if that is true. At some point you've just got to think there might be something to this. I understand. You should be vigilant, stubborn even. I agree. I seriously put a lot of energy into vetting everything I say. To make sure I'm doing my part to not introduce bad information into the discussion.
Yes. One archaeologist out of...how many are there in the world? And that one thinks it is only a possibility, mentioned almost off hand, because he is proposing technology millenia ahead of what we thought based on a rough similarity in pictures and writing. And you like it because it's necessary to maintain the idea that man could not develop cities without the gods showing them how.
I get that. I just don't accept it as anything likely at all. Now you find a consensus among archaeologists, or even a significant portion of them, and I'd have to re-think. Until then I'll just have to accept that the gods had nothing to do with civilization in the Americas. Or Australia. Or anywhere else, for that matter, as a single exception is sufficient to show they weren't necessary and we have more than a few of those.
Rough similarity in pictures and writing? Oh no, Wilderness, let's look at that again. Let's look at what you're tossing in the bin here. Notice it says another connection is the similarity in astrological knowledge. Now, unlike Chinese culture, there is no progression seen in Olmec culture leading up to that point of knowledge. They just knew it. The most likely explanation becomes more clear.
As there is no "astrological knowledge" to be had, I'm not impressed. All peoples have watched the stars and most have made up tales about them.
Now if you had texts from both, explaining the 12 houses, their names (that matched) and the proposed results of being born in each I'd be more impressed. Matching myths would be telling; myths that are only a little similar not so much. Consider that some of the thousands of god myths are quite similar, that most civilizations had stories about the equinoxes and other seasonal changes.
This is just a small bit from a whole book on the topic that you can see here ... https://books.google.com/books?id=hdeSB … mp;f=false
“Contrary to this dominant idea of migrations from Asia only by way of the Bering Strait, it is now possible to propose another assumption, guessed in the middle of the twentieth century, but never demonstrated. The traditional pre-Colombian civilizations distributed between southern Mexico and northern Peru, including Central American countries as well as Colombia and Ecuador, could be the product of random and multiple migrations of daring navigators coming from East Asia or from South India and Southeast Asia.
The navigators could have crossed the Pacific at the level of the equator, particularly at certain favorable periods corresponding to the climatic phenomenon of El Nino. They could have followed the dominant stream of its currents and winds, landing either on the coasts of Central America, or on those of northern South America but always close enough to the equator. Though this theory is quite old, it still remains controversial. However, recent archaeological and ethnological discoveries, as well as the description and the comprehension of the El Nino phenomenon, allows it to be illustrated in a captivating way." - Across the Pacific: From Ancient Asia to Precolombian America
By Christian Lemoy
And when evaluating the evidence it's often this direction that's favored because from the Bering Land Straight migrations would have worked their way south from there, but the evidence shows origination along the east coast of southern North America and South America.
"it is now possible to propose another assumption, guessed in the middle of the twentieth century, but never demonstrated. "
" could be the product of random and multiple migrations"
"could have crossed the Pacific"
"They could have followed"
"Though this theory is quite old, it still remains controversial"
So we will propose an assumption, guessed at but never demonstrated. That it might have been migrations, that they might have crossed the pacific, that they might have followed currents. An assumption that although old is very controversial (translation - only one archaeologist believes it). Or we can just propose an assumption that goddunnit, as it might have, although it remains controversial and unproven - wouldn't it be easier to just say the gods visited there, too?
First, this .. "translation - only one archaeologist believes it" is false. Just reading a small bit beyond what I copied here should make that clear, but rather than look into it yourself, you decided to just make the statement as if it were fact without looking at all. But of course I'm the one who only sees what he wants to.
Second, I think you're missing the larger picture here. This shows there to be some possible credence to a prediction my model made. Something I could not have known ahead of time. This is how it's been throughout the entire process of attempting to vet this thing. I continually come up with evidence that suggests that what this is suggesting could be true. And a lot of times it's very specific scenarios, not just some vague thing that could be made to fit.
The tower of Babel thing is a good example. Not only was I looking for an event that lined up both in location and date, but also an event that very much resembled what's described, mass migrations of humans, a "confusing of language", etc. And that's exactly what I found. A climate change that really did separate these people by causing them to migrate. And the fact that they migrated three different directions (three tribes of Noah's sons), each ending up with cultures that spoke different languages. So before long they would no longer be able to communicate with one another because their languages would actually be "confused'.
That's why I'm not just quick to accept some challenge and toss my hands up and say, "Well, I guess it's all bullshit." I've had too many experiences like this along the way that reassure me I'm on the right track.
Oh, I fully agree that there remains the possibility of an invisible god in an invisible universe. There will always be that possibility...but that is grossly insufficient to declare one exists or even that it is more likely that not.
Yes, there was a migration - one that lasted from 100,000 years ago to modern times. It even increased during biblical times to something perhaps a little more that a few families or small tribes moving a hundred miles from where they were.
But a migration that changed language so as to be unintelligible in a short period? Well, I guess so if you call a "short time" many generations. Personally I feel that gross exaggerations like that detract from a theory rather than add to it, but that's just me.
"Your mind still had to reach a point where it was driven enough to cause this chemical happening."
Yeah, it's called protein - the addition of large amounts of protein (via hunting) made large changes to our brain. And from there it (very slowly) gained the knowledge to add agriculture and animal husbandry to the list, which in turn gave rise to cities and all that implies. No god needed, no god implied and no reason to think there was a god involved. All the talk about the necessity for the supernatural is just that - talk without foundation. Particularly as as much of it happened independently of other tribes all over the world.
It IS confounding that so many people absolutely demand a god, a spiritual, a supernatural world. Everything we see, nature could have done so there is no need for any of the fantasy world, but people still demand that it exist. And continue to demand it in the face of convincing evidence otherwise with comments like "It's still a non-material mind making something material happen to your material body that then aids you in getting through something." without a shred of evidence to support it.
Indeed, "mind" is kind of like "god" in that the believer insists it is there. They don't define it, they won't look for it, they don't have a clue as to how the brain works or what it is capable of but still insist that it must have that supernatural "mind" thing to do the actual work. It is confounding.
No, no, Wilderness, let's not do that. The migrations you're talking about and the one in particular I'm talking about are two very different things. Let's not just start making comments before we know what we're talking about. You're already trying to come up with an argument and don't even know what my claim is yet. That right there is a big problem. That's how these discussions get so far off track with one side having no idea what the other is talking about.
The migration in particular I'm talking about happened one particular time, in one particular part of the world ...
"The 5.9 kiloyear event was one of the most intense aridification events during the Holocene Epoch. It occurred around 3900 BC (5900 years Before Present) and ended the Neolithic Subpluvial and probably initiating the most recent desiccation of the Sahara.
It also triggered migration to river valleys, such as from central North Africa to the Nile valley, which eventually led to the emergence of the first complex, highly organized, state-level societies in the 4th millennium BC." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.9_kiloyear_event
These were the people who lived in Mesopotamia back before it was a desert. They lived a sedentary life for generations. But then came this climate change and this part of the world became part of the Sahara desert. The people who lived there went basically three directions. Some went east along the Nile, some went north along the Tigris-Euphrates, and others went west to the Indus Valley area. Each of these places, being along river banks, were already populated with humans. Each group speaking a different language. So, eventually, the people that migrated there picked up that region's language. Therefore their languages were "confused".
You - "Yeah, it's called protein - the addition of large amounts of protein (via hunting) made large changes to our brain. And from there it (very slowly) gained the knowledge to add agriculture and animal husbandry to the list, which in turn gave rise to cities and all that implies. No god needed, no god implied and no reason to think there was a god involved."
God damnit, the hypocrisy is really hard to stomach at times. After you've accused me of so many things that I take such great care to not do, then you go and make a statement like this. As if it's fact, no less.
That's your answer? That's how we began to farm and began to keep and tame animals and that's what gave rise to cities and such? Increased protein? You do realize humans all over the world were hunting and eating protein, right? You do realize that for what you just stated to make any kind of sense we'd have to see a pattern in protein eating human societies beginning to farm, beginning to keep livestock, building cities, etc. And we don't. Not even close. I know you've been involved in some of these discussions in the past where I've gone over the pattern of these progressions. Without getting too deep into it here, just know that the patterns we see of these progressions don't in any way support what you just stated as if it's fact. Not at all.
You "It IS confounding that so many people absolutely demand a god, a spiritual, a supernatural world. Everything we see, nature could have done so there is no need for any of the fantasy world, but people still demand that it exist. And continue to demand it in the face of convincing evidence otherwise with comments like "It's still a non-material mind making something material happen to your material body that then aids you in getting through something." without a shred of evidence to support it."
"... without a shred of evidence..." Unbelievable. Is this thing on? Can you hear me? Have I not covered this at length? And you're still going to make statements about my lack of evidence?
"nature could have done so there is no need for any of the fantasy world" ... you think so, huh? For nature to do what it's done, matter/energy have to behave just as they behave and the natural laws have to be set just as they are. Do you know what determined matter/energy's behaviors? Do you know what set the natural laws? No, you don't. Nobody does. Yet, without this crucial information you still feel comfortable making this statement that all of this can just happen unaided.
For your information, a natural world that by all appearances forms itself, THAT is what evidence of God looks like. You can't see Him, you can't see His hands poking out of a cloud forming a cow like a piece of clay, but you can see His influence on the natural world. The laws that dictate behavior. The behaviors themselves. What something created by God looks like is something that just formed itself. But since you don't see any hands or a physical being there doing it, it's just happening, you come to the conclusion that it can just happen on its own with no need for a God. That's like saying a pie can just make itself with no need for a baker. Ridiculous.
You - "They don't define it, they won't look for it..."
What the hell do you think I've been doing all this time?
Yeah, protein made an enormous difference. Yeah, we began chowing down on animals long before the time you're concerned with...the people 50,000 years ago or so started it all with their developing brain. Leading to agriculture and cities. What's so difficult to understand about that?
Yes, that are of the world likely (only likely because we don't truly know) were probably the first to use agriculture. But you immediately jump from that to a god gave them the information, which isn't shown at all. Not even the need for a god is shown.
You wish to pick a particular portion of mankinds long migration and declare that because people spoke different languages before and after than small sub-migration that it means the tower of babel existed and, once more, goddunnit. Doesn't follow.
"Do you know what determined matter/energy's behaviors? Do you know what set the natural laws? No, you don't. Nobody does. Yet, without this crucial information you still feel comfortable making this statement that all of this can just happen unaided."
And so we will use the goddunnit explanation. I do believe this is what I've been saying - our ignorance is intolerable so we'll make up an answer for anything we don't know. We're ignorant of what caused the Big Bang (if anything - there is strong indication there was no cause), so "goddunnit" is the automatic answer to "solve" our ignorance. And yes, I'm lots more comfortable with thinking naturedunnit instead of postulating an invisible god in an invisible universe that did it all for very human reasons and purposes. Whether nature (in this case the rules governing a singularity) actually was the cause is unknown...and I'm lots happier in my ignorance than in making up and accepting an answer that I can provide no evidence for.
You aren't, though, so will use the goddunnit instead, thinking that answers anything.
I'm at lunch trying to type on my phone, so I'm just going to address one thing here is like you to redskins to specifically, then I'll respond to the rest of your comment.
You- "Yeah, protein made an enormous difference. Yeah, we began chowing down on animals long before the time you're concerned with...the people 50,000 years ago or so started it all with their developing brain. Leading to agriculture and cities. What's so difficult to understand about that?"
Okay, so going by your numbers, people 50,000 years ago were eating protein, which you see as the cause of farming and cities 40,000 years later?
How do you make that connection?
Well, don't hold me to that 50,000 years - the intention was that it happened considerably before agriculture did. Which is true - we went through a long hunter/gatherer stage before agriculture.
And yes, there was a long period between the two. Long enough for evolution to produce changes that the higher protein diet allowed to happen. And when the brain grew "smart" enough, it eventually stumbled across the concept of actually growing plants rather than merely collecting them - a pretty big achievement given that plants just magically appeared before their eyes, probably provided by the gods and making the jump even harder. Consider what it took to stick what is very often the most (or only) edible part of that god given plant into the ground, in a spot getting the right amount of sun, and make sure it is protected and watered. "God gave us this food, so we'll stick it in the ground and dump water on it! But not too much water! And then we'll wait a year to get it back!"
Nor did agriculture happen overnight. We didn't suddenly plant an acre of crops per person and quit gathering. It happened over generations, whether by gods or our own brain. Heck, my own g'grandfather had a farm + hunted extensively + gathered berries and other plants + maintained livestock, preserving it all for later use.
It's more like 100,000 years. As long as humans were on the Earth before farming they were hunters and eating protein. But that's one hell of a stretch to say eating protein for, what, 2500 generations, eventually led to those things. See, what's cool about the whole this caused that thing is that you can look for patterns. If what you're saying is true then we should see the same, or similar, progression in humanity all throughout the world. If eating protein caused those things then we should see that progression pattern. We don't. In fact, farming spread almost like word of mouth. Was probably learned/taught.
But the key is that the spread of farming and the spread of civilization/cities do not coincide much at all. Farming spread like wildfire, but civilization did not. I've covered with you many times how it spread. If what you were saying were true, we'd see a different pattern.
You - "Yes, that are of the world likely (only likely because we don't truly know) were probably the first to use agriculture. But you immediately jump from that to a god gave them the information, which isn't shown at all. Not even the need for a god is shown."
I'm curious, you say this a lot. When you say "not even the need for a god is shown", what exactly do you mean? What would the need for a god look like exactly?
I don't just jump to god gave them the information. That's what the story says, and it says it right in the right place timeline wise for it to be accurate. I'm just repeating what the story says. (Gen1:29).
You - "You wish to pick a particular portion of mankinds long migration and declare that because people spoke different languages before and after than small sub-migration that it means the tower of babel existed and, once more, goddunnit. Doesn't follow."
Actually, no. I told you my process for reaching that conclusion. My hypothesized model predicted a human migration and event similar to what's described in the Genesis story around 3900BC in Mesopotamia. When you look at Mesopotamia at 3900BC, that's what happened. A massive human migration that actually did lead to these people's languages being confused.
You - "And so we will use the goddunnit explanation. I do believe this is what I've been saying - our ignorance is intolerable so we'll make up an answer for anything we don't know."
You're completely missing the point. I'm not presenting this to you as my 'answer'. I'm not saying 'goddunit'. I'm simply trying to help you understand what God's involvement would look like. It would be invisible. It would be a natural world that just appears to form itself. It would be unseen rules with no explanation as to how they were set ruling over everything in the universe. Just as we see. What you call nature, this nature you say needs no god, no help.
You - "You aren't, though, so will use the goddunnit instead, thinking that answers anything."
See, you keep assuming I just default to that answer when no answer can be found. Not true at all. After evaluating all the data, all the parameters, this is the most likely explanation. It's not some default answer for where specific answers are lacking. It's a logical conclusion based on observations.
I know you're intelligent enough to get everything I'm saying. But you have a preferred truth that it's important for you to stick to. I get it.
"What would the need for a god look like exactly? "
Something that violates natural laws. That a smart animal learned to grow food is not such a thing.
Yes, I know. You use the ancient, lying, text of the Christian scripture. And have arranged a sequence of events that, if left alone and outside the rest of the universe, show it to be true.
I know. A drought "predicted" a migration - something has happened over and over in the world and not hard to predict. And the migration happened, just as it has throughout history. Out of curiosity, did it predict the migration from central US when the dust bowl developed? Or from Kilimanjaro? Across the Bering Strait? Because all of those were the same in being absolutely predictable.
God looks exactly like nature operating on it's own. OK - why introduce another universe into the equation as an "explanation" for what was happening anyway? That IS one of the main sticking points (along with being defined as invisible) - that no god is necessary, that there is a perfectly rational, natural explanation for what happened.
Right - the most reasonable explanation. That a God performed actions that is indistinguishable from what nature does all the time. I trust that you understand what that sounds like.
You - "Something that violates natural laws. That a smart animal learned to grow food is not such a thing."
What's the logic behind that conclusion? Why would God, if He created the natural world, then need to violate the laws of His own creation to make something happen?
You - "Yes, I know. You use the ancient, lying, text of the Christian scripture. And have arranged a sequence of events that, if left alone and outside the rest of the universe, show it to be true."
Not at all. I took a very specific timeline that it gives, and a very specific series of events that it gives along that timeline, and found a place in history that matches up with it. Very different from "arranging" anything.
You - "I know. A drought "predicted" a migration - something has happened over and over in the world and not hard to predict. And the migration happened, just as it has throughout history. Out of curiosity, did it predict the migration from central US when the dust bowl developed? Or from Kilimanjaro? Across the Bering Strait? Because all of those were the same in being absolutely predictable."
This was no ordinary drought. This event is what transformed the Sahara region into desert. It has been a desert since this event. This isn't something that happens over and over.
You - "God looks exactly like nature operating on it's own. OK - why introduce another universe into the equation as an "explanation" for what was happening anyway? That IS one of the main sticking points (along with being defined as invisible) - that no god is necessary, that there is a perfectly rational, natural explanation for what happened."
I didn't introduce a God. I'm talking about God in the context He's described in. If He's as described, then this is what that means. I didn't introduce another universe. I simply pointed out that if God created this universe then clearly He exists apart from it. He's not also a product of it. Seeing God in this context also clears up some things about how He's described in how He perceives time and such.
When you say no God is necessary, what does that mean? What would it look like if God was necessary? You're saying He should have been manipulating things along the way? Why? It makes way more sense to me that God would create a universe that doesn't require His constant attention. Doesn't that make more sense?
You - "Right - the most reasonable explanation. That a God performed actions that is indistinguishable from what nature does all the time. I trust that you understand what that sounds like."
Nature does all the time? As long as it's been created and set in motion by God. It didn't just show up out of nothing for no reason. If that's what you think then that's sad.
If a god doesn't violate our natural laws, then it is nature doing it all. Including starting the process. That's simple enough, leaving only the cause for the Big Bang. You're left with only the feeble excuse that everything we know of in the macro world includes a causal effect, so the "world" of a singularity did too, and thus a god was necessary that one time.
But droughts happen over and over (look at California) and last plenty long enough to drive people out of the area. Over and over and over, coupled with other natural "disasters". For Pete's sake, there is a valley near where I live that had almost all the topsoil scraped off it during the Bonneville flood - what the flood didn't kill the lack of topsoil would have. And to this day that valley grows very little, 14,000 years later. Another result of the same flood is the Great Salt Lake in Utah, when it turned from a lake covering 2 states and providing fresh water to all living nearby to a big puddle of water unfit to drink, surrounded by miles of salt flats.
Yes, all of our information (or lack thereof) indicates that there is no reason nor purpose for our existence. But what is sad is that that is so objectionable to some that they demand a god to give it purpose; a purpose that fits within the morality and desires of mankind. And then make up a god rather than accept that they are, in the grand scheme of things, less important than a grain of sand on the beach. Truth is often not what we wish, but it is what it is and we should be able to accept that whether we like it or not.
Where do you think nature came from? Why do you think nature works at all? Just because? No reason? That's just how the chips fell? Would it not be wiser for God to create a universe that doesn't require His constant maintenance? God's required to determine how matter/energy works and how the natural laws work. The elements that make nature work were set that way. It wasn't just some cosmic role of the dice. And this idea that God has to override and manipulate things is just a flaw in your concept. So you're determining that nature doesn't require a God based on a flawed concept.
Did you actually read the link I provided about that "drought"? I'm guessing not. But the name of the event should be enough to answer your question. The "5.9 kiloyear event". That's referring to 5.9 thousand years ago. 3900BC. One event. Once.
You - "And then make up a god rather than accept that they are, in the grand scheme of things, less important than a grain of sand on the beach."
You don't call yourself a humanist, do you? We're less important than a grain of sand? Yikes.
"Where do you think nature came from?"
The singularity, coupled with natural laws (that also came from there) providing "guidance" for whatever else was inside. Where do you think God came from?
"Why do you think nature works at all? Just because? No reason? That's just how the chips fell?"
Yep. Pretty much. We are, as far as we can tell, we are the product of coincidence. Of course that doesn't rule out that there are forces we are unaware of that required the natural laws to form as they did. Perhaps a god, perhaps something else - we have no information at all there.
"Would it not be wiser for God to create a universe that doesn't require His constant maintenance?"
Wiser? That would depend on the wisdom of the god, and it's ability. And while we define our god with an infinity of both, we also cannot know that to be true, either. Certainly there are improvements that could have been made in both our species and planet, but was the god capable of that?
"God's required to determine how matter/energy works and how the natural laws work."
See above. If we actually know that to be true we would know if, and what, was causal to the Big Bang. But we don't, notwithstanding the glib statement that we do.
"And this idea that God has to override and manipulate things is just a flaw in your concept. "
The inevitable conclusion is that god never has overrode, then, for an omnipotent being that could set it up that way certainly would. He did not do anything, take any action or make any changes in Mesopotamia, then. He did not create a second race (Adam), He did not flood the world or cause the migration. Only nature.
"That's referring to 5.9 thousand years ago. 3900BC. One event. Once. "
Or more accurately, one location out of the tens of thousands that, in total, make up the mass migration mankind has been on since Olduvai Gorge. Which, as pointed out above, God played no part in. Need I point out that you're eating your own tail here?
"You don't call yourself a humanist, do you?"
I suppose - humans and the most important thing in the universe (or should be)...to other humans. To the universe we are less than a grain of sand; our whole planet is less than a grain of sand.
But do you consider yourself a humanist?
"Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence over acceptance of dogma or superstition. The meaning of the term humanism has fluctuated according to the successive intellectual movements which have identified with it. Generally, however, humanism refers to a perspective that affirms some notion …"
"The singularity, coupled with natural laws (that also came from there) providing "guidance" for whatever else was inside. Where do you think God came from?"
Well, considering time didn't start until the big bang, and considering something having to "come from" somewhere is ultimately a time-based question, that question kind of answers itself. Give it a think.
Right, the singularity, the natural laws. This magical concoction of just two ingredients. Matter/energy and laws. Once they react with each other they form stars and galaxies and planets and, ultimately life and then intelligent/self-aware life. Like a bean stock bean. Don't know where that came from. Seems a little beyond mere coincidence though, I have to say.
Actually, it's kind of like what I would imagine if a God just created a universe. Out of nothing. From a single point. It just expanded and became. Amazing. You're probably right, no God required here. The singularity was just a seed that came from somewhere that just makes universes. For no reason. That's just what happens.
"Yep. Pretty much. We are, as far as we can tell, we are the product of coincidence. Of course that doesn't rule out that there are forces we are unaware of that required the natural laws to form as they did. Perhaps a god, perhaps something else - we have no information at all there."
No information at all? You're admitting the possibility's there, but there's still no reason to think that ancient text that comes from the cradle of civilization where it all began and directly claims to be an account of this God actually interacting with people? That's still just out of the question?
I like to think I'm a pretty rational person, and I see no problem with that. But that's just me.
You - "Wiser? That would depend on the wisdom of the god, and it's ability. And while we define our god with an infinity of both, we also cannot know that to be true, either."
I don't think this requires a philosophical discussion about 'what is wiser?'. A universe that requires God's attention for each person born or tree grown or whatever just sounds like way more trouble than it's worth. If you're able to make it so that it just perpetuates itself, that's how I'd do it. Is that not reasonable?
You - "See above. If we actually know that to be true we would know if, and what, was causal to the Big Bang. But we don't, notwithstanding the glib statement that we do."
Well, according to the book, everything in nature is because God willed it. Think of it like this. What if we existed in the mind of God? Couldn't you too just imagine a universe and all the details and make it exactly what you will it to be? You too can just create, like nature creates. Nature actually created your ability to create.
You - "The inevitable conclusion is that god never has overrode, then, for an omnipotent being that could set it up that way certainly would. He did not do anything, take any action or make any changes in Mesopotamia, then. He did not create a second race (Adam), He did not flood the world or cause the migration. Only nature."
That's where you're wrong. He did take action in Mesopotamia. And it's specifically because there and then He created an element that didn't behave the way His will dictated. Free will. That's why He had to start getting involved. See how it all just kind of flows together?
"Or more accurately, one location out of the tens of thousands that, in total, make up the mass migration mankind has been on since Olduvai Gorge. Which, as pointed out above, God played no part in. Need I point out that you're eating your own tail here?"
You're getting too hung up on this climate change thing and how common it happens and you're missing the point. The Babel story says those people were scattered 100 years after the flood. 100 years after the flood a climate change caused these people to scatter. That's all there is to it. How often these types of climate events happen, irrelevant. Other times humans have migrated, irrelevant. This is the one the story is talking about. A real event where what it describes really happened.
"I suppose - humans and the most important thing in the universe (or should be)...to other humans. To the universe we are less than a grain of sand; our whole planet is less than a grain of sand."
How do you know so insignificant to the universe? Because we make up such a small part of it? We may be small, we may have only existed the past 100,000 years, but we are the only bundles of matter to our knowledge whose behaviors aren't determined by natural law. If you watch the "boundaries of the knowable" series on youtube you'll hear a physicist who says by all appearances the universe bent over backwards to ensure we're here. I think we're a little more important than you think.
Getting too long, so will pick just a couple (or so).
Yeah, I get that talking about the "before" (or causal agent as that is always "before") the big bang is confusing. Language doesn't handle it, but I'm sure you understand what I mean, just as I understand you mean that a god existed "before" the BB and caused it to happen.
Was all that more coincidental than the exact sequence of genes that make you up?
"A universe that requires God's attention for each person born or tree grown or whatever just sounds like way more trouble than it's worth. "
You've already said that God never interferes; that it is only natural actions. Are you backtracking or what?
"That's where you're wrong. He did take action in Mesopotamia."
You are again arguing from a predetermined endpoint, that a god did it all. We (I) just showed, by your own reasoning, that a god did NOT do it, but you insist that He did any way because it is a part of the proof that He exists. Doesn't work well.
"but we are the only bundles of matter to our knowledge whose behaviors aren't determined by natural law
And because we haven't even checked a single other star means we're really, really, important, right? I think not. Personally, I think it is extremely likely that there is other life in the universe, including intelligent life. Not that I think Betelgeuse or Polaris cares one whit about intelligence...seems to me that only intelligence will value intelligence.
I have never seen a more incoherent statement than the one you posted ie." The singularity coupled with natural laws (that also came from there), providing guidance for whatever else was inside..."
So what exactly is this singularity you are referring to? Was it something material/physical? If so where did it come from. Was it created? If so who or what created it. If it was not created, could you conclude that this singularity is eternal ie no beginning and no end?
If this singularity was so poswerful, that it created the universe or multiverse for that matter... what is so wrong about referring to it as GOD?
Ask yourself the same questions about your god. When you have verifiable answers, come back and I will give answers to the singularity.
The point, which I'm sure you understood, is that no one knows. So they formulate a god they DO know about because they designed and defined it.
Perhaps it is God. If god is defined as whatever created this universe, then it certainly is. Of course the artificial attributes mankind gives to that god will have to go by the wayside (omnipotence, omniscience, intelligence, kindness, love, etc.) as there is no evidence the singularity was any of those. Or you can make them up, pretending they are known facts and tell everyone about your superior knowledge.
In other words you really don't know anything about this Singularity you are so avid of...which just goes to show that sometimes one just have to pluck whatever one takes fancy of from whatever source one gets to use, to give answers to questions that are not truly perplexing or confusing
"The point, which I'm sure you understood, is that no one knows."
I'll repeat it a third time: no one knows anything about the singularity. But you're right here:
"which just goes to show that sometimes one just have to pluck whatever one takes fancy of from whatever source one gets to use, to give answers to questions that are not truly perplexing or confusing."
Yep - if no one knows, and you demand an answer anyway, then you have to make one up. Like a god - any of the thousands we've made up.
Good thing I didn't try that with the singularity as you would surely have called me on it. But then I know better than to make up stories and declare them to be true, though it can be fun to speculate on possibilities.
That's very interesting. ..no one knows what this singularity is and everyone including you keeps mentioning/discussing it as if it is the best thing that ever happened in the whole narrative of creation.
So I'm now really stumped. You not a believer in creationism but keeps mentioning an entity that you seem to think started the whole slabang. Or are you still holding to the idea that the universe just came out of nowhere because this singularity just kept expanding and lo behold matter began forming that over billion of years became the universe that we now perceive with awe and wonder. ....not created but patterned without intent and purpose, thus no intelligence required.
In my wildest dream I could never imagine the universe being just a pattern and not a design. In its supreme complexity and perplexity, the universe shouts creative design, just like life's existence...with its own sets of complexity and perplexity.
Guess it's a matter of making up an invisible god that *poof!* made the universe out of nothing just for little humans to occupy or using what we do know about the creation. Along with another universe for him to be born in and occupy until it decided to make us all. Also invisible, of course.
In my wildest dreams I would not think that something from my imagination made us all. But then that's the difference in us, isn't it - I will stay on the side of trying to find out what happened - you will go with your pretend gods that someone thousands of years ago made up because they were curious about where they came from.
Nobody here made up the God we're talking about. This one in particular was "made up" thousands of years ago, yet even still to this day can't be ruled out. In fact, the more we learn the more it seems what's described is accurate. From realizing the universe does in fact have a beginning, to realizing the Earth formed much like what's described.
And I know what you're going to say about creation. But consider this. They were "making up" a big powerful God, yet they didn't described the Earth just *poof* appearing. No, they described it forming element by element, much like it actually happened. And all of this long before anyone could possibly know.
I think you're missing the significance of this. And the bit about the "other universe", that's actually accurate too, if true. Also something they couldn't have possibly known, yet they described accurately. Consistently.
Instead, you put all this energy into trying to rationalize all of this away as just humans with an overactive imagination. In your eagerness to do so I think you're overlooking some pretty significant stuff. But hey, whatever makes you feel better.
Of course you've made up your own god.
Theirs made the first humans on earth - your's made (or changed existing ones) long after people lived here.
Theirs destroys a planet full of life, cities, and everyone it doesn't like. Your's operates only in the most subtle manner, influencing through time travel (which theirs can't do).
Theirs constructed everything in a different order than what happened (consistently so )- yours carefully followed what we know of creation.
Theirs gave a few little things like manna - yours gave the gift of civilization.
Theirs has the morals of an alley cat - yours more closely matches those of today (as far as you've said, anyway).
Now you can say that it was all in the interpretation, but the fact is that their god is, and operates much differently, than anything you've described. They are NOT the same creature, any more than yours is a god that throws thunderbolts aka Thor. Man has ALWAYS designed their gods to explain the unexplainable and to at least come close to what we consider right and wrong, and the differences between the god(s) of the ancients and yours is no different.
Again, if I remenmber correctly you mentioned in passing ---in one of your post, perhaps in another forum, when we were discussing the value of imagination and Einstein's take on it-- that you have allowed your imagination to go wild and woolly once in a great while.
Kindly humour me if you could again let your imagination go wild and crazy, and describe with great detail, for my elucidation, what would an alternative world would be that has not been tainted or painted with theism.
As you are contemplating your response, I would be willing to describe in one word what that world would be without theism. NIHILISTIC. And I have not even allowed my imagination to go too far outfield in that regard.
If I had to pick one word it would be "extra-terrestrial". For thousands of years of human history has produced pretty convincing evidence that humans are all too often too impatient (and too lazy, for that matter) to actually look for answers. They require immediate gratification for their curiosity and, if truth is not available, will make up a goddunnit answer.
Now, given that humans are making the morals of religion and that those morals are most often evil and destructive, what makes you think that nihilism is the answer? Or that people, superstitious or otherwise, fine no meaning in their life and thus nihilistic?
Because the only meaning you find in yours is to be a slave to a god so far superior to you that you are but an ant is the only meaning you can find in your life means that everyone else can't either? Is that it?
Or have I put too much reason and thought into the answer? Let me try again: a world without theism would be a world of thought and reason, discarding superstition and mythology until such time it was apparent there was a reason to believe it to be (probably) true. A world without the power struggles, murder and controls religion places on its subjects. A world without a priesthood laying down the law for everyone else - a law that inevitably supports said priesthood without need to produce anything of value. A world free of physical torture to "convince" people to believe in myths. A world where discovery is accepted rather than rejected because it disagrees with religious dogma.
Is that better? Take theism out of the world and it would be a much better place.
Sadly your anti-religionist views have severely clouded your interpretation of historical perspective.
Not surprisingly, religion being a human construct and enterprise has been degraded and ultimately devalued by human ego, greed, and as you so rantingly mentioned, human predisposition towards evil. But to conflate the absolute and pure belief in a Deity with religious relativism, fanaticism and sophistism is way beyond what could be considered rational and logical.
Theism does not lead to nihilism....atheism does, because atheism leads to reductionism and objectivism. And the evidence for that is glaringly obvious on HubPages. Atheists, in their denial of the,spiritual and the divine, would
be more than willing to reduce humans as mere objects, and their existence devoid of intent, meaning or purpose because,what created them ie nature is itself devoid of intent, and meaningful purpose. Absurdism at its most toxic.
Before I forget. ....you might want to remove the sign on your door that says: Atheists live here, and, Atheism rules. That way, those zombified religionists wold stop knocking on your door trying to convert you to their religious impertinence.
You're exactly right. Reducing humanity down to material biological robots is a dangerous mindset. Humanity loses all that makes it most significant.
Atheism, in all it's eagerness to abolish religion, I think is acting a bit prematurely. Even from the atheist mindset it should be obvious, if this is indeed something the human mind made up, don't you think that's for a reason? Is it really a good idea to yank that particular building block out from beneath everyone? Would the world really be a better place if you successfully convinced the masses there's no God above watching over us, no inherent point to life whatsoever?
All animals love, and love would be my God. Atheist only lack the belief in God.
Well then I'm curious. What is love to you? In the view of the materialist and according to science, the sensation you feel when you feel 'love' is just a chemical in your brain. Is that your god? That chemical? That feeling? That chemical happening in your brain, its generally thought to just be a random mutation that happened somewhere along the way that aided in survival because mammals looked after one another.
Even crocodiles love their young so tenderly. Love is when two people/animal or thing are stronger together than a part.
All living throughout the Universe, all creatures are connected by love. The most important purpose and behavior in this entire world is love. We are loosing too much of love by fear. It is the reason I'm fearless and not even afraid of death. So confront away!!!!
I agree with you. I just can't think that way and maintain this material only atheist/no-god mindset. They don't work together. If no God, what is love? Unintended causality? Pure chance? If it's not deliberately created or intended then it is ultimately meaningless. It just exists by pure chance alone.
So then how can you follow it so blindly. In faith, just knowing all will be fine, if there's nothing about what it is that even suggests that's possible? If it's pure chance it can't in any way assure it's "right" thing to do, or that it will ensure all goes well for you or the way it's "meant" to.
I just don't see how the two views can coexist in the same head.
There is different kinds of love. My mother was an atheist and brother a pastor we all love each other. Most scientist are Atheist their love for bio mass and thing orientation are very strong humanitarian purposes. Scientist have been the driving train engine since mid 1800s more than doubling our life span.
I don't understand atheist obsession with Religion and don't understand God's love when most of us will be punished far worse than our crimes in hell.
Love can go blind when we over focus in one area like giving our entire soul over to one God to cause wars with other Gods and non believers. Love is meant to be spread worldwide to all cultures and earthings. For all we have in life is what we give away, what is better than love to give away, if you have it.
"Love is meant to be spread worldwide to all cultures and earthings."
That right there doesn't work. Love can't be "meant" to do anything in the environment you're speaking of.
I think organized religion did everyone a huge disservice with this whole dooms day hell scenario they concocted. And I can't believe so many people buy into it. I used to as well. That's what you're taught. But it doesn't fit the rest of it. For example ...
John 3:16 - "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in Him, shall not perish..."
Perish - suffer complete ruin or destruction.
Burning for eternity in hell, but never dying, that's not perishing. That's actually the opposite of perishing. Actually, I think it's much more reasonable than that. If you don't acknowledge God and acknowledge the terms necessary to participate in eternal life, you simply perish. Cease to be. Like before you were born. Sounds reasonable to me.
I don't belong to any group except in the area of the arts and nature would be my religion.
As far as Hell , I think it's the worst concept ever made up in the history of Mankind. There are things in each culture like religion that can be positive and can be incorporated into my life. Overall most major religion are world champion at BS stories and Government a close second and both hold back the humanity from advancing.
What are you going to do with 85℅ of the world's population that are religiously impaired? Love some sense into them, they need it most.
Well that's the world we've created for ourselves. Humans were created with their own minds and wills and the world we live in is of our making. Religion and Government both have been used throughout history to try to control the masses. Controlling free will is difficult. God couldn't even do it.
But God made it as easy as it can be. Simply believe in this one thing and that automatically means you acknowledge God and His power. You acknowledge God's authority then you're granted access. But that's a requirement. Not because God's mean. That's simply how it must be. It doesn't work otherwise.
But the whole concept of hell, that's another example of people trying to control people through fear.
But that's the only way love can matter. Like this desire you feel to give love. To put love back into the universe. That too doesn't make sense if you and I are just matter and energy. If we're just biological machines.
Hell drives more religious members than anything else.
Religion and political are much the same in over authoritarian control over our kingdom of our own Domain.
That to me isn't faith. That's cover your ass. That's fear. Believing to avoid hell.
Religion and politics are both forms of power. To stay in power you have to keep the people in check. Either you're providing security or you rule through fear.
Do you really think hiring these bullies and pay them with most of our money. Then have these world champion BSers boss us around every day and all day. Then go over to other countries around the world steal much of their stuff plus kill many of them.Then boss them around all day. Then kill most of the wildlife's on the planet. Then pollute the air, water, earth to point it's the greatest threat to mankind. Then threaten the world with nuclear war. Then when all gose well for our above God authoritarian leaders with licences to steal and kill who and what ever they want. Then we have One World Religion and have New World Order.
Then Zionist can exceed Catholic Hitler's dream, a fema camp prison planet with no escape for us slaves. Then depopulated us to 2 billion people, NATO, corporatism and UN dreams. Many want it down to a half a
We are not allowed to dream or think for they are doing that for us.
We can have people power through peaceful means and valenteerism. Hell we out number them by 99 to 1 and out smart them on most things in life. Do we not!!!?
Already 80℅ of public disapprove of Government and 90℅ are predominately Religious wars now. Only 96℅ don't trust mainstream media. we are most of the way there Baby!!!
We can wait to suffer more and let the disease kill the host after it has killed most of us.