Do you believe that the existence of God can be proved empirically?
- Chasukposted 12 years ago
0Specifically, the existence of Yahweh as he is typically conceived: the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, omnibenevolent Creator of the universe?
Note: When I say "empirically," I am asking whether you believe that his existence can be proved _without_ resorting to faith.nope...it is concept...we can say hypothesis...unproven hypothesis...
I agree with pisean282311.
God exists is a hypothesis, however we can form no theory with that hypothesis, hence invalid.
Proof is an opinion, Depends on the interpreter. The same proof is a proof for the presence of god for the theist and proof for the absence of god for the atheist.
It may be kind of a forced idea on those that would reject a God, to be able to prove him by observation and experiment. It seems the God of the Bible, for instance, doesn't want to be found in such ways, which if he exists, would be his right to do.
Believers constantly claim they have faith in their gods, yet they contradict themselves when they claim their gods talk with them or intervene in any way. If that were the case, then we should be able to test those interventions because they are part of the physical world.
My experience has been that rather than testing such things, such miracles are rather reasoned away as having any other possible effect than a God.
There isn't really any way to test such interventions that I can think of (that would satisfy say a materialist skeptic). I disagree that believers contradict themselves when they claim to have faith in a god, and then god responds to a prayer, say. (If he indeed is.)Oh no, the miracles of lightning and thunder have been proven well beyond a shadow of a doubt that Zeus and Thor are at it again.
You mean like prayer for a morsel of food for a starving child or prayer to find an obese Christians car keys?
Believers test god by Faith. Believers do sometimes get signals from God. God does provide for miracles. However, this is all according to God's plan, his timetable, etc.
We cannot test God. We can only test our faith in God.
I almost died about 12 years ago.It was a series of tiny miracles, right people at the right place at the right time they saved my life. You can call it a coincidence if you want. I call it divined intervention.
If you chose not believe in God, that is unfortunate. However,he will forgive you.According to the bible, god's time table ended more than 1900 years ago.
If you almost died and people came and did little things that helped you, that had nothing to do with god that had to do with the people who cared about you. You should thank them and not god.
I almost died once too but my survival is never going to have anything to do with god except in the eyes of the believer.
Of course in the eyes of a Hindi it was Vishnu, in the eyes of a Buddhist it was karma, in the eyes of a pagan it was fairies or some other god.
I'd rather place authority on what is real rather than what is fantasy and the only thing unfortunate about that is I don't live in a fantasy world all the time.
We don't need or want your forgiveness for this.I did thank the people who saved my life and I thanked God for giving them the skills and dedication they needed.
Tell me what do I lose by believing in God and then tell me what do you gain.
I am looking forward to an afterlife in a place that will be free of all the evil and tragedy that man, because he disobeyed God, causing a disruption in the order of things.
What do you have to look forward to when you die. If there is nothing beyond this life, then why are we here.What you lose by believing is the direction your life goes. Let me put it this way what do you think someone loses when they live in a fantasy vs a real world. When you answer that you answer both questions from my perspective.
You can look forward to a better after life (an unknown empty promise) or you can strive to make life happier for everyone I'm the real world. I think it's selfish to not strive to make everyone's lives better here and now rather than preaching some nonsense that is in some book that you can't even prove.
Why are we here? To live and make life good.
Can you give me the book, chapter and verse in the bible that said god died 1900 years ago. Considering that some books of the Bible are centuries old, the 1900 year figure if it exists is being taken out of context or has another meaning. It is impossible to accept all things in the Bible in a literal manner. A priest once told me, upon my questioning him, if 40 had any significance. Jesus stayed in the desert for 40 days. The great flood lasted 40 days. In the Catholic chuch calendar, lent last for 40 days, etc. He said from the Bibical standpoint, forty just meant a long time.
That reminded me of a discussion my late uncle and I had about a old cowboy movie. The Indian said that it had been many moons since something had happened. I said that was many months, because the moon's cycle is approximately one month long. My uncle said it was days because the moon is in the sky each night. He was an intelligent person, but he was wrong. Everything has to be in context to have any validity.According to revelations the world ends in the lifetime of the people who recorded the passage stating the end. It's been a while since I read this so no I cannot give you verse and chapter, the bible is not that important to me not is it relevant to our time or life nor is it's history even accurate to our own. 1900 is just a rough estimation for someone's life time.
So according to you or your uncle a life time is what? The life time of humanity or the life time of the authors?Actually Larry, I am Native American and I can tell you your Uncle was right. The phrase "Many moons since..." refers to every night the moon comes up counts as 1 moon. Natives worship of the sun and the moon was daily, therefore many moons would be a daily calculation.
Can we show that the entire universe empirically exists 100 billion years ago? Can we show that the entire universe empirically exists 100 billion years into the future? The entire universe could "come and go". So "empirically exist" would seem to require time parameters=when. Now, -What- empirically exists within these time parameters? Does a dog exist? A cat? A rock? It seems to me that these empirically existent things are not really things at all- but one thing= energy. So, one thing, that being energy, empirically exists within certain time parameters. Until we actually understand existence, it would be difficult to speculate on hypothetical creators of this reality. It is obvious that we would probably be very biased. We could look for clues I suppose to a hypothetical creator of reality, but "we are inside that reality" and all we can see is that reality.
Sounds like the Matrix..yet they absolved from one reality to another, and quite frequently went back and forth between them...that not withstanding though...
Sounds a lot like Quantum Physics...which a friend of mine, who is currently studying the subject, brought up an interesting point about Quantum Physics being able to give you a choice of immortality. I don't remember the whole conversation we had about it, though at the time, I found it extremely interesting.Yea, the Matrix is a great example that often comes up in discussions like this. They are all plugged in to that electronic world thinking they are individuals when they are not, they are just part of the program.
What is weird is that although all of our "seemingly" physical reality appears to be just one matrix to coin the word, we still seem to be more than the sum of parts. Are the concepts inside or outside a matrix the same or different? Is the fear or anger towards Mr Smiths different inside the matrix as opposed to the fear or anger towards the "program" Mr Smiths when they are out of the matrix? I think they are the same. Concepts (and qualia) are created, yet do not seem to empirically exist.
Our universe or reality produced biological machines that can create concepts that don't physically exist. Its head game for sure. More than the sum of our parts. Even a human that has passed on-their personalities are often remembered by family or loved ones or words they wrote or were recorded.
AWESOME Analogy! You are correct. In addition to that ...Which reality is the correct one? Is my reality and beliefs correct or is yours? Do I exist or am I just a figment of your imagination? No one knows the answers to alternate reality questions. We would like to think we do but until we are all considering these questions human evolution will not progress. We must get to the next level. Keep asking the questions and perhaps the answers will begin to come.
I very much doubt that God's existence could be proven.
I don't see how it could possibly be done.That is a little blurred, with regard to the appointment of empirical by "faith".
As it is coined, faith is considered simply the belief in or ones belief system (i.e. My Faith) which is largely the doctrine one accepts, and therefore, without deep research/experience, defines what a person considers true, real, factual.
However, by the method of practical faith or application (testing, searching, researching, aggressive go-to and find-out) empirical can certainly be established. This empirical can then be said to have a foundation of experiential faith. Such proof cannot be formed into a doctrine or belief system. It becomes void of choice [ Adamic Inception; Reason; Duality; Necessity ]. In such a stasis, a person experiences Free Will and the power of creation flows without reservation. Creator-creation unified. Elohim-elohim, so to speak.
Applying or Solidifying Empirical removes all Theos -by both equation and sensational approach, even though some effects of sensation (emote) and equation (logistics) can result from it.
Now, by the term of omni, many say a person cannot see the fullness of Creator, else they would be consumed by His 'fire' or 'brilliance', likening that brilliance to standing on or in front of a star. However, if creation (that is the manifest universe) is even a minute expression of Creator, then omni is clearly evident and Creator is known/viewed by this particular expression.
James.Sorry, but I don't find mixing theology with epistemology a useful exercise.
They are the same. My approach rejects them both (the approach of practicality/experience)
But, you are leaning now toward Hobbes v Hume, and for that I applaud you. By the same applause, however, I shake my head. First, because Voltaire was too much of a closet Romantic despite his persistence as a 'balanced Determinist' and Descartes very dark -- in many ways juvenile. In fact, M. Knowles, here on HP, reminds me greatly of "Voltairian" conflict.
To this day, however, none can thoroughly challenge Hume, or even Locke, regarding empirical evidence. I have written extensively on this subject as well, coming to some rather obscure -but not dismissive conclusions- regarding Free Will v Choice, Chance v Predestination, Empirical v Esoteric (aka Poetic Justification).
So, on that note, I would really like to further engage this conversation, without nitpicking.
James.I'm not leaning more towards Hobbes than Hume; I am methodologically ecumenical.
Based on the evidence, you reject neither theology nor epistemology, as you infer them both in your responses. You reject the labels.
Sophistry aside, faith has nothing to do with the empirical. The word "empirical" has no useful meaning outside of science and the scientific method, and it is in this context that I engage it. Central to empiricism is reproducible observation, which, for the faithful, is a moot consideration.
I don't believe in Free Will, in the sense that I don't see the possibility of it existing in a universe which functions in the same way that ours apparently does.
If you would prefer to discuss Free Will rather than the topic of this forum, I am amenable. However, I will continue to identify small problems, as it is only by identifying small problems that one is able to successfully forestall big ones.
Of course it can't (be proved). But, what difference does that make? Some people believe that - short of tangible evidence - all "religion/God" questions are so much hoo-haa.... Meanwhile, others - who are Hell-bent to believe that there IS a "God" don't need anything more than a Bible or other book (Torah, Koran) to convince themselves that THAT is enough proof for their needs.....
Agree and who are we to tell them that they are wrong. Some people NEED God. They would be a horrible person without it or they wouldn't want to be alive without it. Allow the people who NEED it to have it and the people that don't NEED it to believe it whatever makes them a better human being.
The thing about that is most believers are horrible human being because of it.
NOPE! God is our conscience and the misunderstanding of that inner voice is why we have war and hate!
Actually war and hate come from ignorance, fear and greed. Whether God exists or not most wars have been fought in the name of God and some of the most evil acts have been done for the sake of God.
The answer is NO.
God has never been seen, not even in the bible itself.
The Earth and the Universe are filled with defects, and these defects cannot be the result of a design or creation of a perfect God.
They are filled with death and destruction.
Science has found the history of the Earth and it took millions of years before humans came into existence.
Humans share over ninety percent of the DNA of other life forms on the Earth. So it is more likely than not we developed out of just another manipulation of DNA. It would be different if humans had a different special DNA that separated us from other life forms, but we don't.Actually there is some verse in the Bible that Describes God walking with someone having a face to face conversation with someone.
Ge 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. {aprons: or, things to gird
8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. {cool: Heb. wind}
9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
Now how do you hide yourself from someone you can't visually see?
And How does someone not physical (and omniscient) not see you hiding?
Contradictions of God's power and lack of physical presence... even if you "interpret" that line differently.Art is right. Early Genesis depicts God speaking directly to Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel. All of these were 'sons of God' who had lifespans centuries-long. Later, in Genesis 6, it says the 'sons of God' began having children with mortal humans who only lived up to 120 years, and explains that 'God's spirit' would not contend with these humans forever. Over subsequent chapters it illustrates a gradual decrease in lifespans. 20 generations later Abraham only lived to 175.
God gave the Israelites 613 specific commands known as the Mitzvah laws. Among those laws were both rules as far as what is okay and not okay to eat, including rules that have a decidedly spiritual kind of flare to them, like rules against boiling a calf in its mother's milk. There are also numerous rules that define just how close the Isaelites could 'keep it in the family' without getting too close.
In other passages, like in Ezra 9, it's made clear that the priority was to not dilute the 'holy seed'. The Israelites were forbidden from intermingling with other populations and were even at one point instructed to divorce anyone they had married that was not of their people. These provisions are what ultimately allowed for the 'immaculate conception' of the savior generations later through this same bloodline.
Long story short, there is a direct correlation between the level of 'God's spirit' present in a being and whether or not God could/would speak to them directly or through some other indirect means. Just as it illustrates in the stories regarding the Tabernacle, only specific members could enter after taking specific provisions to prepare themselves. If they didn't they would not survive.
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
God's existence cannot and will not be proven through any sort of scientific means because science is limited to the study of physical matter, or anything and everything from the big bang forward. God existed before this and therefore will not be detected through the study of it.
However, God's actions can be seen in history. Like the inexplicable changes that separated sauropsid reptiles from proto-mammals, for example. Changes that only served a purpose generations later began early on as changes way too insignificant to aid in survival in any form or fashion. Changes that led to mammals and eventually us. According to Genesis 1, this was a direct command from God on 'day' 6. According to those of the strictly scientific persuasion, these are merely random mutations that fortunately led to us out of sheer coincidence and could have gone any other way.
So in a case like that, your choices are either proof of God's existence and evidence of what's documented in Genesis 1 being accurate, or fortunate random mutations that coincidentally played a significant role in humanity existing at all.With respect I don't think Paul's statement works today. He had no alternative explanation for creation available other than the beliefs of pagans. We today do have alternative explanations supported by scientific observation, so people now do have an excuse for observing creation but not crediting it to God.
However, I read an interesting article on the BBC news website about how geneticists have seen their artificial DNA evolve when it interacted with other DNA. However this evolution was only possible by human design, thus evolution by God design makes sense.The book of Genesis isn't as much about universal creation as it is about the creation of the self. This is why God first appears in an embryonic state as if in the womb. The "creation" of light is the birth from the womb. Now, you might think I'm making this up...I'm just telling you what I see written there.
Allegory...oddly enough...I was thinking the same thing last night and this morning! I actually thought about breaking the bible down into allegory and writing about the various stories allegorically.
Trouble is, I get a few things from the Adam and Eve creation. It did strike me that, in modern terms, it sounds remarkably like cloning...right down to using bone marrow for a growth medium...which is precisely one of the best ways to do it. A year ago, I pointed out that the name of the first book Genesis, has Gene as it's root. The 'sis' draws together to form the very Greek symbol of medicine, the cadeucis. The staff of which is called "the staff of life". I really couldn't make this crap up...unless of course I wrote...and believe me, nobody wants that to be the case.
If Eve was cloned from Adam would she have been a boy?
It's actually very interesting. I find it fascinating though because I've heard you talk about the things that I've found in reading the book The Jesus Mysteries. I honestly never thought of the bible allegorically until then.
As for the Adam & Eve story, if you pay close attention, Eve is created TWICE in the bible. Once she is created from the earth just as Adam is, then she is created again from Adams rib. One she is an equal, in the other she is subservient. Either way though, I see your point of genetics and cloning. You could always write it as a hypothesis and post a page on it though. Just write it as a theory and not as a fact. Am sure more people would like to hear it.I'm not sure the fact that gene is in Genesis is an oddity. I assume the word was given to a gene on purpose. Since it had to do with heredity.
Genesis isn't the Hebrew name for the book, though, so I'm not sure that's actually relevant to anything. I don't speak Hebrew, but Wikipedia says the actual name of Genesis is בְּרֵאשִׁית or "Bereʾšyt."
If I am God I experience myself empirically.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXLHUThBib8Hi to all!
No matter what human mind can interpret, I still believe that our intellect is very far with the mind of our Creator.
Happines with God is only our purpose being here on earth.Speak for yourself, and as long as you do that I agree with you in your above sentence.
The proof of God is right in front of your eyes. There is nowhere you can gaze, that your eyes don't fall upon the evidence. Science has found God...and renamed him....this, so that you would not know him when you heard his new name. It is so obvious, that it would, under other circumstances, be, hilariously funny....I'll bet we keep God in stitches...in fact, I daresay that he's not going to let us off the hook for quite a long time....not quite an eternity. Maybe just one more millenium. See: Nostradamus.
As for Nostradamus...a lot of his prophecies have been translated wrong or pulled away from where they are suppose to be to fit the situation. So far..the only reason I say this is because if you read the book centuries (which I could send you a digital copy of) before the first century is even up he concludes that his prophecies are finished, then starts again at the beginning. It's been been poured over and poured over, but most only do it for specific events or references to the prophecies they say have been fulfilled.
Some say he could see to the third millenium, that's why I mentioned him. I've also been involved in others, like Edgar Cayce, because of my acquantance with one of the High Chiefs of the Iroqouis.
Nostradamus - Con-artist. Any one who uses metaphor instead of actual imagery for future events is using dishonesty to trick the reader into thinking that some event that happens later is one that was predicted even if that prediction could be placed on another similar yet different event.
I have met some "psychics" and have one friend who claims to be a psychic. He has a supposed 100% success rate with his clients and is very popular in this town. However, I once heard him tell another friend of ours... and I quote "You could be a psychic, Jim, you are a really good Liar." Jim never had stories that were true, he just liked to make stories up on the spot to express an opinion in an example.God is the idea used to express events for which people did not understand the natural events taking place. Imagine you didn't know ANYTHING about what the sun was and what the moon was and that the Earth moved around it and the moon around the Earth.... maybe to you they are Gods.... now imagine that you are witnessing a solar Eclipse for the first time and all your friends are there and they have never seen such a thing either..... what would you think? HOLY CRAP, THE SUN IS BEING TAKEN FROM US!!!! Now imagine that you believe the Sun is being eaten by a wolf, so you yell at the wolf and the sun comes back? You now believe you have evidence that a wolf tried to eat the sun and you made the wolf leave by screaming at it.
The concept of God is a human creation, he is the anthropomorphic spiritual creator of all things, but he only exists to explain the unexplained, the unknown or unknowable. Everytime new knowledge is found God's sphere of influence and creation diminishes. The more we know the less God had anything to do with it. God of the gaps.
IF God existed and were some sort of intelligent designer/creator, he would have either been found, or if his personality were as the Bible describes he would have made his presence known. IF God existed and were as vengful, spiteful, lonely, or any other human emotion he is said to have in the Bible, he would have shown himself.
If God existed, he would have to have a link to his creation which we could all find, whether by asking, by studying nature or natural occurances, science would have come to some conclusion about God being the origin of it all.... yet the further back they look the further and further they have to continue to look... As close as we look or as far as we look, God does not exist but in our imaginations. We don't need him, he needs us, in order to exist.Just suppose for a minute the whole point of this existence is to enable free will to exist. God, being capable of creation of existence and life, chose existence over non-existence, and chose beings with their own will rather than beings who only live according to His will with no will of their own.
What would that require? Free will means the ability to create nearly anything you can imagine. You can make choices based on what you feel is best for the greater good or you can make choices that are more selfish and self-serving. Not knowing the full extent of the effects of each choice you make you are fully capable of either purposefully or accidentally causing harm to others or just being generally destructive. There's no way of knowing without first understanding all the parameters. You know, that whole 'with great power comes great responsibility' thing.
So how do you gain the knowledge/wisdom required to properly wield free will? Can it just be given? Can wisdom be gained through any other means other than earned through experience? How does a child best learn? By reading rules you wrote down in a book? By listening to you lecture about how you should behave and why? Or do they best learn by experience?
Now, if you're attempting to introduce beings with free will, and you're attempting to teach them what they'll need to know to wield free will responsibly, do you think they would learn best if God were visibly standing over each of us watching our every move? Or do you think the best scenario for allowing everyone to really learn would be to step back and let them doubt He's even there?That statement and your questions are somewhat meaningless in the sense that they are all based on assumptions and not necessarily on facts. First assumption is that we obtain our morality from a god of which is in question at this moment. You wonder what a society based on anything but "God's will" would look like. Well, assume for a second that you know that god doesn't exist and the way the world is at this moment is a result of there not being a god. Now you can fully understand that the questions you ask have an answer but not one you would expect. What is free will and is there actually such a thing? With or without a god the answer is, no. How is that? We are social animals, everything we do is based on social outcomes and expectations and motivations. We cannot act in any other manner than that. Our morality comes from the need to function within our society, to make a good living, to have friends, to not go to prison... If society were to dismiss us then we would dismiss society.
Now think about all the subcultures that creates within a culture. Think about all the different moralities exist within each culture/society.
God has nothing to do with morality, free will or existence.I simply offered an alternative explanation to your 'if God existed' scenario that offers reasons behind the behaviors you presented. If the whole thing was hypothetical, then both yours and my input are equal in meaning.
Besides, if you were to take the same conclusions you reached regarding moral societies being a natural result of social behavior and interaction, then roll the clock back and apply that same reasoning across the board throughout the earlier ages of human development, then it doesn't match up with how things actually played out.
According to your view, moral societies should have formed as long as the conditions were right. However, there are numerous examples of regions in human history where the conditions should have yielded the same result, yet did not. Nearly all of Eurasia was fully populated by 20000 BC, yet civilization consisting of established government and laws only happened in one place about 15000 years later, and spread out from there. The same region and time frame that early Genesis is set in.
The same goes for the Americas. While similar conditions existed in ancient Mayan and Inca cultures, they yielded very different results. Society as we know it was not established until people of the civilizations from across the ocean reached them.
In fact, history more matches my claim. Early humans throughout the world did not actually have a free will of their own. Their will simply consisted of what was commanded by God of them in Genesis 1; be fruitful and multiply, fill and subdue the earth, and establish dominance in the animal kingdom. This is exactly what early humans did. Free will was not introduced until Adam's creation somewhere around 5500 BC in Mesopotamia.
The 5.9 kiloyear event (3900BC) literally dispersed human populations in that region in the same way Genesis describes the dispersion of people at Babel. This also matches the time frame given, 1656 years between Adam and flood (see end of Ubaid culture in Ur), then Babel 100 or so years later). In the centuries following that climatological event there is a noted increase in violence in both artifacts and in ancient depictions and carvings dating to around this time, resulting in the establishment of civilization and eventually the first dynasties in Sumer and Egypt, all of which happened around the same time civilization cropped up in the Indus Valley in India.Your view of history and prehistory is funny and I completely disagree with your conclusions and your assumptions. You can make the claim all you like that society didn't become as it were until your god was in it because it contradicts your belief that your god was in always in it. I find that hilarious.
Was society less moral in the past than it is now? I think not. Different but not less so. Take for example India, the Hindu religion is far more civil in many ways than the Christian religion. If a society falls do you think it's due to moral less culture? I think not. Did they fail? No more than we can fail. Societies rise and fall. Your view that history matches your claim is in error since your view of history is set in your bible which history doesn't quite follow and our current history from 5000 bc to now is no more moral than previous. Our nation and almost all other nations are plagued with a history of attempted genocide. Including the United States towards it's native people. To say we are more moral and have more free will than previous eras is a joke that from my studies in anthropology and early western history I find no distinction. The only thing we have different from them is our collected knowledge thanks to a written and recorded language. We have learned from our mistakes only because of this. From our beginning 40,000 years ago till now we have been growing to be a better society, it is not unusual for us to be better than the past. As a child grows into an adult so does a tribe grows into a society. And don't make the claim that children have a parent so it must be a god. Our parent is the world, it's teachings are life and death.No, you're not getting me. Having free will doesn't make you more moral. It makes you capable of moral decisions. Whatever you do without free will is neither moral nor immoral because it's not your will. You're simply following instinct. Your instinct is for the good of the tribe. Good of the group. Survival. Procreation. Free will is simply a will apart from God's. Decisions outside of God's will have the potential to be evil.
Free will is different in that it's the introduction of the potential for selfishness. Numerous individual humans, each capable of making self-serving decisions. That's civilization.
Just look at the native americans, the tribal cultures in southern africa south of the sahara, and the aborigines of australia. Basically all of the humans who were geographically cut off from the budding civilizations in Eurasia and Africa from 12000 BC on (Bering Land Bridge). They lived in harmony with nature. Some still do. There's no desire to 'improve' their quality of life through invention. No self-serving need to take more than they need. And in many cases they feel no need to cover their naked forms, unlike Adam and Eve who immediately realized they were nude when their 'eyes were opened' (Gen 3).
You're right, there have been all kinds of atrocities throughout human history. It's full of 'civilized' cultures wiping out or enslaving the 'natives' or 'savages'. That's the difference. 'Civilized' humans had a will of their own and could decide it was for their own good to wipe out populations. Drive native tribes from their lands. Enslave these native people to do their labor and build their cities and monuments.
God was there all along and Genesis explains this distinctly, as long as you first realize Adam wasn't the first human. That misconception throws off everything else. Once you clear that up it makes a lot more sense. He...
- Created a planet and populated it with animals and humans (Gen 1/ 5.4bya - 10000BC)
- Created Adam and Eve, introducing Free Will into an already populated world (Gen 2/ about 5500BC)
- Adam/Eve/Cain all acted on their own accord against God's will (Gen 3/4)
- Cain driven from land/builds city (Gen 4/ (Eridu, 1st Sumer city est. 5400-5300BC)
- Adams descendants (sons of God) have children with mortal humans (Gen 6)
- Flood 1650 years after Adam/ 1500 years after Cain banished (abrupt end of Ubaid culture in Sumerian city of Ur due to flood (4000BC))
- Dispersed descendents of Noah in all directions at Babel, confusing language and spreading knowledge of agriculture and civilization along with seed of free will throughout the world. (Gen 11/ 5.9 kiloyear event (3900BC))
- Sumer and Egypt bud into civilizations/dynasties. Introduction of Indus Valley culture in India (3400 BC). Rapid advancements in technology and craftsmanship across the board. Increased violence noted historically during this period. Akkadians up north a couple of centuries later blend with Sumerians. Each of these 4 civilizations in relatively close proximity had their own unique languages and all of them wore clothing beyond functional purposes.
Civilization is evidence of free will. It's the result. Humans no longer living in harmony with nature, but rather living in opposition of it. Outside of nature's whim. Humans choosing of their own free will to invent and build and completely alter forever how humans exist on this planet.
Can you maybe now start to see what I'm talking about?I understood from the beginning what you were talking about, I just disagree.
So if your definition of free will is any will apart from god's and all animals have no free will but instinct the god wants us to be like animals? Ha ha, just kidding. If that is how you define free will then that concept has no meaning for me since I don't believe in the existence of god. However, the free will as you describe it does not exist, since you seem to think people living in tribes on instinct were not selfish and that we are any different from them. We may be 100 times more complex but we are not that different.
Individual life forms whether by themselves or in a group are primarily selfish and only use social groups to further their own survival. Social groups help in ensuring not just the group but the individual. Strength in numbers. Watch any show on animals, whether apes, wolves, birds, any. If another nation attacks us are we going to fight individually or create an army?The complexity is the difference. Physically, we are no different. Same bodies. Same physical brains. I'm not trying to suggest they're somehow lesser than us. Early humans were no slouches. They were given a task and they did it well, the biggest being establishing dominance. Homo sapiens knocked megafauna off the top of the food chain. No small task. And they managed to push Neanderthal out of existence, making them the only remaining species of the homo genus. Not to mention the ability to adapt to diverse conditions allowing them to populate the planet. The thing is, they didn't go beyond that.
It's the imagination and inspiration and invention and using it for personal gain that's different. It's the need to examine and study and understand that's different. And it's not all bad. This capability is the whole point. God wants us to have that. But he wants us to wield it responsibly.
The only way to learn is to experience. To let life play out. The very nature of free will allows for the possibility of destructive decisions and actions. You can tell a being with free will what not to do, but the very nature of free will means we want to. We want to know why not. We want to know who says we can't and why. We don't and can't know all the potential outcomes of our actions because we don't fully comprehend. We have to learn. Without a knowledge base that allows you to first fully comprehend, we have the potential to be both constructive and destructive.
History illustrates that. And you can actually see where it began using the accumulated knowledge we now have. Just look at the bit in Genesis where God dispersed the people at Babel, and specifically what He said ....
Genesis 11:4-6
And they said, "Come, let us build us a city and a tower whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth."
And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower which the children of men built.
And the LORD said, "Behold, the people are one and they have all one language, and this they begin to do; and now nothing will be withheld from them which they have imagined to do.
These 'children of men' were problem solving. They were imagining and conceptualizing an outcome and were constructing this idea into physical form to serve a specific purpose. So God dispersed them and confused their language. Not long after we begin to see the same imaginative activities spring up again, only instead of just being located in one place in Southern Mesopotamia (Sumerians), it was also happening to the west (Egyptians), to the east (Indus Valley culture), to the north (Akkadians), across the Mediterranean (Greeks then Romans), etc.
Interesting note, there is a base of a Ziggaraut at the site of Eridu that some believe may be the tower of Babel.Your worldview seems coherent, but I don't understand why you would devise it.
It's obvious this whole science/religion thing is an extremely divisive topic. Rather than bicker and argue back and forth carrying on the same old conversation, I'm attempting to find real answers using all the accumulated information our modern world has to offer. Personally, I just can't see 50% of the entire world being completely wrong, in either direction. The most likely answer, just as is always the case, is that both sides are mostly right.
Besides, this is not something I set out to do. For as long as I can remember I've had this kind of algorithm running in the back of my mind trying to reconcile my fascination with science and my faith in God. My faith is unshakable for reasons I won't get into here and that could easily be dismissed as coincidence by anyone who's not me anyway. And unlike my family and friends and people at the church I grew up in, I refused to reject science and found their explanations when pressed lacking.
What I'm writing about now is the result of a lifetime of reconciliation between these two seemingly opposing views. I only began to discuss it with others once it began to offer much more sensible explanations for all kinds of things across the proverbial board than what others were saying.
I recognize how delusional it must sound for some guy on the internet to claim to have found an answer that has eluded experts for centuries. That is not lost on me. However, everywhere I looked to rule out what I figured had to be a ridiculous conclusion I came up with to make peace with both sides of my brain only offered further support. Whether I looked to the rest of the bible, scientific evidence, or known history.
So I began to bounce the idea off of others. While I have found enormous opposition from both believers and non-believers, I've yet to run across anyone who can simply rule it out with any kind of hard evidence. Only that they disagree philosophically.
If I'm wrong then my worldview is jacked and needs to be corrected. But if I'm right then this goes a long way towards maybe explaining who we are, where we come from, and why we're here. Not to mention an explanation for the dawn of civilization, the inspiration behind all of those gods of ancient mythology throughout that region, why similar flood stories are found throughout the world, as well as potential proof not only of the existence of God, but specifically the existence of the God of the bible.No - you are wrong.
It is a religion/reality thing that is extremely divisive. Particularly your religion. No matter what nonsense you make up to try and keep believing in majik - reality keeps rearing its ugly head and you will need to fight and argue and - not to put to fine a point on it - concoct nonsense to combat the reality science is in the business of attempting to explain.
Sorry dude.We have proved one thing--the futility of these forums. No one has changed anyone's viewpoint or thoughts.
So to the non-believers in God, I urge you to continue your study, someday you will come up with a question that your theory cannot answer and then you may have to look at the concept of a higher power. In the meantime, remember, despite what you claim to believe or not believe, God still loves you and you ae his children--like it or not.And yet again a believer contradicts himself. This is why your religion causes so many conflicts. You simply do not think about what you are saying.
Which is it? Is discussion futile - or do you still want to urge me to believe nonsense when I don't have an answer?
Science has no answer? Must be goddunit then."So to the non-believers in God, I urge you to continue your study, someday you will come up with a question that your theory cannot answer and then you may have to look at the concept of a higher power." Ever heard of the concept God of the Gaps? Stephen Hawking has a program on youtube that talks about the fact that God is an unnecessary being for the existence of the universe. Every time there is a question that cannot be answered science seems to be able to find the answer. What question do you find that has not been answered by science that can only be answered by God? Why are we having this arguments? Not because we are necessarily trying to convince you that we are right and you are wrong but we are defending our ability to freely express our ideas without being told that God will punish us for it. Well, God can't punish anyone, he doesn't exist. This is a challenge that ALL believers have failed to achieve, prove to the nonbeliever that God exists or is possible. The Amount of nonbelievers is statistically growing, so I don't think these forums are futile. If we can get one person to think about reality rather than fantasy the better world we will have, we will all be thinking rationally about making the world better realistically rather than wasting our time praying that some invisible omnipotent creator of everything does it for us.
I have no problem believing that 50% of the world can be completely wrong, partly due to cynicism, and partly due to my innate rejection of argumentum ad populum.
I appreciate entirely that "this is not something [you] set out to do." I am frequently hostage to the same -- or similar -- insistent algorithms. I also appreciate that you are willing to abandon and/or modify your worldview, when, or if, you discover it to be demonstrably wrong. That requires a great deal of intellectual integrity.
I cannot rule out anything that you have said with any kind of hard evidence. Actually, I don't believe that it is possible to do so; not because I believe that your assertions are true, but because I believe that they are epistemologically inscrutable.
I have had personal experiences that would have made my faith unshakable, if I were most people. I say this not because I am elevating myself above anyone else, but because there exist millions of people who have had lesser experiences which gifted them with unshakable faith. However, for me, it is because they are _personal_ experiences that I distrust them. Nothing is so unreliable as personal experience.
Now I'm going to invoke Occam's razor, albeit in a complicated fashion. First, I have no faith, at least when the claims under investigation concern a question, or questions, of fact. Yes, I mean questions of fact in the courtroom sense, in which the claim must be answered by reference to facts and evidence. A question of fact necessarily has one correct answer, and one correct answer only. I'm not saying that the answer can't be nuanced, or in multiple parts. I'm saying that the answer to a question of fact can't contain any contradictions, whereas the answer to a question of opinion can. Angelina Jolie and Christina Applegate can both be the most beautiful woman in the world, whereas Calista Flockhart is either the fattest woman in the world, or she isn't. Yahweh either exists, or he doesn't. My opinion doesn't matter. However, I accept on faith John Doe's insistence that Angelina Jolie is the most beautiful woman in the world, because his belief makes it true.
My second point is an extension of the first: I have no faith, specifically and especially, in claims of the supernatural. Finally, Occam's razor kicks in: if I have no faith in a claim, it becomes unnecessary as a consideration, by both logical and practical fiat. Any unnecessary claim, as an unnecessary hypothesis, is axed by the law of parsimony.I can appreciate your view. Personally, I believe there is one ultimate truth that once realized will tie together all the seemingly disjointed puzzle pieces and make complete sense out of everything. The closer you get to that ultimate truth the more capable it is to provide clear, consistent answers to anything and everything regarding existence.
I understand your view regarding 'questions of fact'. The reason I cannot subscribe to such a stringent worldview and accept a causal-only existence as explained through the natural sciences is simply because there are things we know to exist that cannot be in any way detected scientifically and where empirical facts cannot be determined with any certainty. Namely our own conscious minds.
Like God, you cannot empirically prove the conscious human mind exists. Yet there's no doubt it does. The only reason we know that it does and are not here arguing its existence as well is because we all experience it. Without having our own experiences to relate, the conscious mind to us would appear to be nothing more than oxygenated blood flow, neuro-impulses, and chemical changes in a person's brain. Yet it's the single most dynamic and creatively capable thing in known existence.
If something as dynamic and capable of creativity and invention as the conscious human mind exists, yet is undetectable, then it stands to reason that it is not the only thing in existence that is capable of creativity and invention and just as undetectable. In fact, in my mind, it's the more likely answer than any explanation on how something like human consciousness developed on its own in a causal-only existence where nothing else like it exists.
And it's that same view of human consciousness that lends to my view that half the world will not be completely wrong, as well as my placing importance and relevance on the bible's impact on humanity. That conscious human mind we still to this day struggle to comprehend and grasp in itself is an indicator in my mind. People have insight and instincts and intuition that guide belief and behavior beyond comprehension. And while I like you tend to be skeptical at the personal level where each individual can draw radically different conclusions, I trust that when observed from a more collective perspective.When I read your words, "there are things we know to exist that cannot be in any way detected scientifically," I groaned (figuratively). I've encountered this claim thousands of times, and, in every instance, the claim has proven without substance.
Imagine my delight when you presented the evidence that you did. Indeed, the mind does incontrovertibly exist, yet its existence cannot be proven empirically. While I believe that it exists as a consequence of the corporeal, I also believe that it is, in itself, effectually intangible. Arguably, its existence can be inferred, but I can't give inference the same weight as observation or experiment, not in the case of consciousness, in which the inference concerns one's own subjective experience.
I am not prepared to extrapolate as far as you have, but I thank you for introducing me to the first new possibility that I've encountered in over thirty years of searching.Be careful. This is tricky territory. That which we tern "the mind" is much like the application program "Word" in that it is dependent upon the CPU to have any effect. When the brain dies (the CPU), the application program (the mind) that depends on it can no longer operate.
The reason "the mind" cannot be empirically shown to exist is that it is a compilation, it is an activity that occurs among various "real things or real parts", and that activity delivers an end product we call "a thought". The mind is not a real thing but a conceptualization of all the working parts, much like "Word" is a description of the application program but in reality it is not a single thing but a compilation of many interactions and moving parts.
In death, we can still identify the real parts that constitute the CPU, the chemicals, neurons, glia cells etc. are still there. They are real and exist irrespective of life or opinion about them. "The mind", though, has flown the coop - because it never "existed" in the first place other than as a conceptualization in another "mind".That's a good analogy, Winston. Using that same analogy, in the same way an application like Word is in fact dependent on the CPU, it is also dependent on a user before anything actually happens. Something to launch it. Something to determine what actions to take, what editing to do, what effects to apply. Without a user it is stagnant and useless.
Just as the mind is a kind of 'compilation' as you put it, it's the will that drives it that really complicates trying to attribute nothing more than the physical brain and its processes to its make-up. We can watch the physical brain and how it behaves in relation to this stimulus or that. We can see that this part 'lights up' based on this type of stimuli and so forth. We can even see multiple sections in use when the subject is faced with a morally complicated scenario.
But it's that conscious will that basically makes you who you are and that drives the mind that really throws a wrench in things. That willful, purposeful driver that ultimately decides using the memories/images/words/intuition/inspiration/etc. Like if you focus your attention on just listening to the right side of a room. Or focus your attention to 'looking' at something out of the corner of your eye. You can actually feel a kind of shift in focus that you totally control. As if you're driving the process like a user drives an application.SO - it is majik then? You could save yourself an awful lot of time by just saying so.
This is nothing more than an appeal to common belief - there is nothing substantiated about our having "free will". In fact, modern neuroscience tends to find results contrary to the idea of free will.
Before you can make a case, a valid argument, your premises must be true. We do not know that the premises you assert are true. Just as your attempt to find a mind behind the CPU only resolves into endless chasing of one's tail, the infinite regress."In fact, modern neuroscience tends to find results contrary to the idea of free will."
So, okay, if free will is a will apart from God's, and God cannot be proven/measured/observed in any sort of way, how exactly can neuroscience find results contrary to the idea of free will?
"Before you can make a case, a valid argument, your premises must be true. We do not know that the premises you assert are true. Just as your attempt to find a mind behind the CPU only resolves into endless chasing of one's tail, the infinite regress."
The infinite regress is purposefully staying in a stalemate where no resolution will ever come, yet continually have the argument. I'm trying something different. You can't prove God empirically. You also can't prove human consciousness empirically. We know at least one exists. So how do you go about finding out if the other does or not?
You find another way. There's a book that's claimed to be the word of the most popular and the most widely accepted God. It makes direct claims. Some of those claims are testable.
So I am illustrating how Genesis first off accurately describes the creation of the earth and all life on it, then through the next 10 chapters matches up with known history. You can't in any way prove God directly through science, but you can see if what Genesis says happened actually happened.
For a long time the answer has been 'no'. But that 'no' is not nearly as certain as it once was. Once we clear away the pre-conceived ideas of what Genesis says, it's pretty clearly telling a very specific story that lines up with a series of actual events in history that did play a vital role in forever changing how humanity exists on this planet. And when I say they line up, I mean they are the same number of years apart as what is specified in Genesis.
Is that not a valid argument in your eyes? Considering the nature of what we're talking about? Should we just continue to bicker endlessly, or should we maybe try to find an alternate resolution to the problem?Headly,
This is the point where you go off course. If you want to make a (for want of a better term) "scientific" presentation, then you must define precisely the key words in your address. The key words above are God, human consciousness, and exist. Without a precise working definition, you are simply making baseless claims supported by fallacy, the appeal to common understanding.
We do not "know" how something exists until you tell us the parameters that separate existence from non-existence. Until you spell out exactly what makes human consciousness exist you have no basis for any claim.I'm not making a 'scientific' presentation. I'm not a scientist and don't pretend to be one. I'm simply using the history of the earth and humanity as defined by scientific understanding and accumulated knowledge to show how well Genesis matches up with earth's creation, the formation of life, and the series of events that led to civilization and the world as we know it today. And when placed there I point out how, if true, it appears to answer a lot of questions that still currently lack a solid conclusive explanation.
A big theme in early Genesis is free will. The ability to do wrong. It gives specific clues like telling us that Adam and Eve immediately became aware of their nakedness when their 'eyes were opened', informing us of a self-awareness that wasn't there previously. When you take a step back and look at the entirety of human history, there is an abrupt evolutionary leap forward that forever changed how humans live that began in the same age and region that Genesis is set in, a region commonly known as the 'cradle of civilization'. A change that can be explained if a fundamental shift were to have happened in humanity in that region in that age. An shift like a free, individual will that did not previously exist.
But if this were true, if there really were beings that lived for centuries created in an already populated region, then surely there would be some kind of mark left that would show they were there. Well, it turns out, every civilization in this region spoke of multiple immortal gods, human in form, who existed in the ancient past and who intermingled with mortal humans making beings that were of both bloodlines.
The Sumerians in particular, who were the humans that populated the same region Genesis is set in specifically, made rapid advancements in technological capability and craftsmanship in a very short amount of time. When their ability to write became advanced enough to be able to record the stories passed down verbally throughout the generations, they began writing these incredible stories about these immortal gods who showed up one day and taught them civilization. More specifically, they were given the 'gifts of civilization', each known as a 'me'.
I'm trying to simply point out that there are some pre-conceived misconceptions that get in the way of understanding Genesis. When you recognize that then all of the sudden you're able to see that Genesis is telling a very deliberate story that is grounded in real history, and even manages to clear up some really old mysteries along the way.
Could be a gigantic coincidence, but I seriously doubt it.
I'm not in any danger. :-)
I haven't suddenly decided that "mind" is anything mystical. It know that it dies when the body dies. However, I have been given the first logically explicable evidence -- not proof -- that something empirically non-detectable actually exists, even if only in a non-tangible way. I know that _I_ exist, so the process, or the state, that constitutes me is "real" in some sense of the word.
Hey, no problem. I love it when that happens. When someone says something or puts a new spin on something I've never before considered. That's a big motivator for trudging through discussions like this for me. The few diamonds of wisdom you encounter speaking to people from differing viewpoints make the mounds of frustrating crap you first had to traverse to get there well worth it.
And I have to say it's nice to encounter someone open minded enough to actually accept and further consider something new from a differing worldview. Many here will reject everything I say categorically simply based on the fact that I am a believer. I get it, but that doesn't make it any less frustrating.
You make many assumptions about what God wants, maybe based on your interpretation of the Bible but considering Genesis, God warned Adam not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge. From the onset it seems God did not want us to go this route. In fact free will doesn't seem to have ever been his intention, directly anyway. But still you are assuming that God exists and the Bible is true. We have no evidence that God is real or that the Bible is anything but human mythology. We aren't here to debate God's will or intentions but his existence and whether or not we are what we are or the world is what it is God has nothing to do with it unless you can prove he existed and prove that he is the one who did it. Both.
"You make many assumptions about what God wants, maybe based on your interpretation of the Bible but considering Genesis, God warned Adam not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge. From the onset it seems God did not want us to go this route. In fact free will doesn't seem to have ever been his intention, directly anyway."
Think about what is specifically spoken about there in Genesis 2. Notice the very first thing God does after creating Adam. He didn't tell him what to do. He didn't even explain the whole good tree/bad tree thing yet. He brought the animals to Adam to see what he would call them. Think about it, this was the very first being God created that could make something that was not the result of God's will. In this case a name. Adam could conjure a name up with his imagination based on his impression of that animal. Then God named the animal that name. Adam created titles that did not exist before.
Then God explained about the tree. He told them not to eat from it and He told them what would happen if they did. Then they did. And He knew they would. It's not like they totally messed up all of His plans after He had done all the prep work. That action illustrates they now have a will outside of God's. The whole chapter before depicts every single thing God created doing exactly what He said. Come forth from the sea. Become this and that. Populate the earth. Then, afterwards, He'd look on everything and proclaim it 'good'. He said it, it happened, He deemed it good. Chapter 2, He said don't, explained what would happen if they did, they did anyway. It's pretty clear that the main theme here is Adam and Eve's capability to do what they wanted outside of God's will.
"But still you are assuming that God exists and the Bible is true. We have no evidence that God is real or that the Bible is anything but human mythology. We aren't here to debate God's will or intentions but his existence and whether or not we are what we are or the world is what it is God has nothing to do with it unless you can prove he existed and prove that he is the one who did it. Both."
Illustrating that an ancient document accurately details events in earth's history that happened millions and billions of years before the existence of humans would be pretty compelling evidence that God exists, don't you think? And not just a god, but the God specifically described in those documents.
Many are quick to dismiss it, but the fact is we don't know who wrote the books of Moses or how old they are. All we know for certain is they originate in the 'cradle of civilization' and they somehow manage to remain a relevant and influential force in human history. They obviously appeal to a lot of people on a personal level.
Everything you or I or anyone else has ever been told about what Genesis says (Adam was the first human ever, global flood, etc) are interpretations conceived by humans over the centuries that knew way less than we know now and had no reason at the time to think otherwise.
So I took another hard look at it keeping that in mind and found that it's actually telling a very coherent, deliberate story once you make just one small correction. This one change takes Genesis out of the realm of myth and plants it squarely in real history. It manages to both clarify the rest of the bible and fill in gaps in science and human history that did not previously have a solid explanation all in one stroke.
If I can illustrate that does that not at least upgrade Genesis from totally out of the question to something we should maybe take another good hard look at before ruling it out completely?"If I can illustrate that does that not at least upgrade Genesis from totally out of the question to something we should maybe take another good hard look at before ruling it out completely?"
After 2000 years and thousands of debates and all the scientific findings, I think it would be foolish to not dismiss the Bible as anything but a folktale that only provides information for the beliefs of primitives of that time period. You can interpret it any way you want.But what you're leaving out is the fact that many of those scientific findings that have given us enough information to actually see what I'm trying to point out have only been known for the past decade or two. So you would not have even been able to see any of it just a couple of decades ago. That's one difference.
The second thing to consider here is the people involved. Those who would generally be more apt to consider what I'm suggesting are the same ones who hold on so tightly to the traditional interpretations they were taught because they feel doubting those is one and the same with a lack of faith. So those most likely to actually see it simply won't.
Those on the other side of the fence are more from the mindset that it's old ancient texts that can't/don't in any way apply to us so it's not given anything beyond that, and therefore simply isn't considered.
What I'm trying to point out is that from this modern perspective we're at now we can actually see how it all lines up. But we've got too many pre-conceived 'certainties' getting in the way that make us blind to it.
So it's not necessarily the same old debates and it's highly likely that it could have been totally overlooked. It's also likely I could be completely wrong. However, it's pretty unlikely that this many facts would line up no matter what topic you follow if there was absolutely nothing to what I'm saying.
The bible claims that god separated the people into different regions and languages but they were already separated long before this incident. When people develope separately they develop different ways of communicating, it doesn't take a god to do that just a need for man to explore and settle. It's why people of different regions of the US speak differently and have different slang words.
If I'm right about when the Babel event happened then it predates writing by about a thousand years or so. It's pre-history. We have absolutely no way of knowing anything about the evolution of language before written history. It's a logical assumption to say language developed separately because they're different, but it's still an assumption.
But isn't it a little odd that at least four different civilizations cropped up literally within decades of one another all in the same general region that all developed their own system of writing totally independently of one another earlier than anywhere else on earth? Not just language, but written language?
From a natural progression standpoint that's a little hard to swallow. It would make more sense for either there to be just one written language, or multiple languages further apart either time wise or location wise, or both. But for there to be four totally different languages, all in close proximity, all at relatively the same time, to actually advance to written form? Which one sounds like a more likely explanation when you consider that, yours or mine?Actually, it's not an assumption to know when and how language developed because words many words are related. And in order for Babel to have been created it would have had to take place during written language at least. Communication is the key to building something that won't fall down immediately. You don't need god to tell you that if you don't know how to build something so tall and don't have the proper material it probably won't make it so high.
Babel is a nice story but it's just not a true story. It's an interpretation of how we are different minus actually knowing.
It's not that surprising to see different civilizations popping up, no, man is nomadic, they traveled with the idea that they were going to start their own city, find better food, have less rivals. It's all very natural. Now if they developed their language there would be fewer and fewer related words the longer distance they went from the original. We see this.You seem to be referring to the traditional interpretation of the tower of babel as being this incredibly high tower that spirals up like an ancient skyscraper into the clouds. Ancient Sumerian/Akkadian/Bablylonian ziggurats got progressively taller, but all were elevated for the intent of the temple being closer to heaven, which is what is given in Genesis as its purpose.
The ziggurat located in Eridu is by far the oldest and its original base dates back as far as 4100 BC. Writing beyond a crude cuneiform numbering system developed way later, towards the beginning of the 3rd Millenium BC.
Of course the dispersion was natural. It was caused by a 'natural' climatological shift in that region. A dramatic climate shift that happens to line up chronologically with Genesis and that resulted in the mass dispersion of the humans in that region just as Genesis describes. The dispersion in and of itself would be enough to confuse the languages after a handful of centuries.You are speculating, the "dispersion" has nothing to do with the event or time period nor any sort of climate shift... And I think you mean geological catastrophe since a major climate change would not destroy a tower made of stone.
It doesn't say the tower was destroyed....
Genesis 11:8 - So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city.
"You are speculating, the "dispersion" has nothing to do with the event or time period nor any sort of climate shift..."
Nope, not speculating....
"The 5.9 kiloyear event was one of the most intense aridification events during the Holocene. It occurred around 3900 BCE (5,900 years BP), ending the Neolithic Subpluvial and probably initiated the most recent desiccation of the Sahara desert. Thus, it also triggered worldwide 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 organised, state-level societies in the 4th millennium BCE.[1] It is associated with the last round of the Sahara pump theory."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.9_kiloyear_event
You are also speculating on the event having to do with and climate change. Even if there was a climate change that caused people to split that has very little to do with the babel tale and the separation of people into different languages because there was already this separation. The only truth this tale might have from the bible perspective is that the author of the tale lived at a certain time to relate a story and attribute the natural events to a god and give it a reason.... Questions one light ask at that time were "why do people speak different languages and what happened to that city, why did they stop building it, was it because of the storm, how did tre storm happen?" without an understanding of nature and natural causes, science, social understanding and other learned things we take for granted, they would always attribute these events to a god.
I get what you're saying, but you do understand that that too is an assumption, don't you? Assuming people attribute this and that to a god by default as a blanket explanation here? It's a logical assumption, but still an assumption. And in many cases it can apply. In the more rudimentary types of religions where each and every significant thing has some type of god persona assigned to it you can maybe apply that kind of reasoning. Like those that assigned god personas to the sun or the moon.
But these particular stories are way more intricate and cohesive than that. And I don't think you're really taking into consideration the level of difficulty and complexity required for people who actually lived in that age to be able to describe one consistent God and attribute Him to anything and everything like you're suggesting.
Especially the level of difficulty it would take to build a story around numerous events over the course of many centuries and explain them as actions carried out by this same consistent idea of a God. To create just one persona of a God that remains consistent to His character and to retain that consistent persona while telling one specific and purposeful story arc that includes numerous real events spanning thousands of years goes well beyond the simplistic 'just attribute everything we don't understand to a god' view that you're suggesting.
This is something we're still arguing and debating thousands of years later for good reason. The God described in this ancient text goes well beyond the kind of scenario you're referring to.
"But isn't it a little odd that at least four different civilizations cropped up literally within decades of one another all in the same general region that all developed their own system of writing totally independently of one another earlier than anywhere else on earth? Not just language, but written language?"
Not really, it's competitive civilizations, If you knew your enemy in a neighboring region was developing a written language wouldn't you strive for a similar communications, and if you were enemies with someone would you not communicate with them at all so that your language would develop totally different words even if you were in the same region this is very likely. It's not even speculation at this point because much of their writings suggest it.
A modern example? GUI Operating systems: Microsoft, Apple, Linux, Android, all developed in the same region all different in how they work and are written and all for the purposes of running programs visually.
People from one side of my town speak totally different from people on the other side of town, mostly because they don't talk to each other. Kids in the same school in different cliques (groups) with totally different slang to communicate with each other. Just observe. Too many examples I can't understand why you can't believe such a thing could happen and does happen all the time. Look at Asia and Africa? So many neighboring regions yet there are hundreds of different dialects. And writing? If you are from the same region then your development would definitely be similar progressions yet different depending on what side of the mountain you were.I agree with you. I'm not arguing that. People in different regions will speak differently. That's why I said that just splitting people up in and of itself would cause diversification in language over the course of a few centuries.
The significant bit is that actually developing a written language is no small feat when it's the first time it's ever been done. And while there was interaction between these civilizations, to some extent between Egyptians and Sumerians, and definitely between Sumerians and Akkadians, developing a written language where you previously did not have one goes a little beyond simply knowing that's what your enemy is doing and doing the same to compete.
Language is second nature to us nowadays and we don't think anything of it. We tend to underestimate the accomplishment it really is and the level of sophistication that must first be established in the language before a written form can be established. From my perspective it makes more sense because there was an already established language first, then separation, then new languages including written language. This would be people already familiar with the concept going into making their own. That's totally different than 4 individual civilizations making such groundbreaking strides all on their own based on nothing more than a need to compete or a vague outside perspective.
An interesting note to maybe ground what we're talking about a bit more. When the Akkadians came along from the north, they basically adopted the Sumerian way of life, Sumerian mythology, but kept their own language. They did, however, continue to use the Sumerian language in more science-minded ventures similar to how we use latin today. I just find that generally fascinating.Ever see a cave painting? That is called a written language, written language never just popped out of nowhere. Because we have a collection preserved in a city of the earliest known writing doesn't mean that the creation of the city is the first time writing has been observed or existed.
It was a long time coming. Same with their languages, they didn't just pop up. But to come up with a better way to communicate that can be almost instantaneous.You bring up a good point. Think about the amount of time that passed between the earliest cave paintings and the era we're speaking of. There's literally tens of thousands of years of human history that illustrates what appears to be long migration paths across all of Eurasia that some refer to as 'trade routes' because tools and other artifacts that appear to have been made by one tribe are found in the possession of others way over here.
Yet it's only in this age and in this region that we're speaking of that civilization first sprang up, and in a very short amount of time considering the time line we're talking about. Think about how writing first began in Sumer. The first writing came in the form of cuneiform tablets that were actually baked because they were records kept in a very simplistic number system to track commodities and labor. Thousands of these cuneiform tablets have been found.
This more supports what I'm trying to get across. This type of record keeping coming along so much later suggests a sense of individuality that wasn't there before as the necessity that required the invention of writing. A need to track what's owed to an individual.
There's little denying that humanity became very inventive in this era and region. Beyond writing the Sumerian's are credited as the inventors of the first monarchy, the first use of wide-spread year-round agriculture which requires an understanding of crop rotation and the ability to track seasons, the first laws and jails, astronomy/astrology, just to name a few.
The extended timeline in and of itself is an indicator. When you step back and look at the whole thing it becomes pretty clear just how incredible the leaps forward the Sumerians and other civilizations in this age took. Was it that these things (like writing and the wheel and farming) simply weren't necessities enough to inspire invention, or is it that something changed fundamentally in humans in this era that made individual need more important than the ages before it that resulted in this inventive boom?
Presupposing a god and rationalizing that we couldn't have gotten here without one is a logical fallacy. Arguing from ignorance. You don't understand how we got here without a god so a god must have been responsible. You must first prove a god before you can blame a god. That is pretty much what this forum is about. Proving a god exists or is possible. Not one scientist has done this and faith is the only reason to believe in a god.
First, nearly all of Eurasia was _not_ "fully populated by 20000 BC." Second, the existence of "moral societies" does _not_ depend on the existence of "civilization [s] consisting of established government and laws."
Although presupposing the existence of God does sidestep the criteria of my original question, I do deeply appreciate that you have at least attempted empirical proofs.
Sincerely, thank you.No problem. I subscribe to St. Augustine's view. He felt God reveals Himself to us through what he called the 'book of nature' and the 'book of scripture' and felt that if at any time the two appear to conflict, then it's human interpretation that is flawed.
Using this view I have found what appears to be cohesion between the two by simply recognizing that Genesis does not say Adam was the first human. There were other humans already in existence when he was created. This view actually manages to clear up some previously unclear things along the way both throughout the rest of the bible as well as historically and scientifically.
Also, FYI ...
"Homo sapiens appear to have occupied all of Africa about 150,000 years ago, moved out of Africa 70,000 years ago, and had spread across Australia, Asia and Europe by 40,000 years BC. Migration to the Americas took place 20,000 to 15,000 years ago, and by 2,000 years ago, most of the Pacific Islands were colonized. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_migrationRespectfully, I disagree with St. Augustine, but that's a tangent currently too large for my weary brain.
As for Homo sapiens having occupied all of Eurasia by 20000 BC, I actually don't disagree with you. My dispute was with the words "fully populated" which has no logical meaning other than "completely filled." Homo sapiens obviously could not have "completely filled" all of Eurasia by 20000 BC, but they certainly inhabited all of it.
I apologize for my pedantism. :-)Thanks Chasuk, I am with you on this.
As far as most any saint of the past goes, their knowledge of the world rarely goes beyond the prejudices of their own religion... Meaning they know little else than what their bible tells them is true, anything they learn outside of it must correspond to it and if it doesn't they must rationalize a reason why it really does.
If the existence of God could be proven, someone would have done it by now.
If you read Zacheriah Sitchin and some of the other scholars, their research indicates that Yahweh was a space dude, but they can't seem to agree whether he was Enki or his brother Enlil of the Nephilium, who by the way, are mentioned in the Old Testament (the Nephilium, not Enki and Enlil by those names, just called Yahweh. It's pretty easy to see how an advanced culture could hold itself out to be Gods if they created a "universe" on earth. So in that light, it could be empirically proven.
You can empirically "prove" Sitchin's science fiction to the same degree that you can empirically "prove" L. Ron Hubbard's.
Sorry, I was just trying to throw some humor into your "oh so serious and unanswerable question".
My bad. I'm frequently not good at detecting humor. Unfortunately, I'm one of those people who seem hardwired in "serious" mode. Even my levity strikes some as grim and foreboding. Not literally, and not always, but too often. :-)
Thazok. It's harder to see humor in the written word than in voice inflection, and sometimes my levity is misunderstood. I have been accused of "I can't tell whether you are joking or not". I was hoping my use of the term "space dude" would tip you off. I see that your question has been provoking a lot of thought, and I congratulate you.
I think that it cannot be proved. Because if someone proves it then it would lose all the mysticism about the question opf God.
And, mysticism is helpful, how? Are you saying you prefer to remain ignorant about something because it's steeped in mysticism?
I do not believe it can be proven for if one does present proof it is still based on acceptance of that proof. example: a glass of water can be seen as half empty or half full- which one is?
More nonsense. The glass of water can be proven to exist. Your Invisible Super Being cannot be proven because it does not exist.
Well the infamous Mark Knowles is still lurking about.
Years ago people believed in a lot of different things such as the world was flat, space travel was impossible, Pluto was a planet.
However their disbelief did not make it so.
[Nice avatar by the way]Who said God was indivisible. He may walk among us every day and we would not know it. We will meet our maker. I have never met you. How do I know you exist--just because there is a name attached to some writing, you could be anybody. I am accepting you at your word who you are. I accept God at his word that he is who he says he is.
Even though the author could have made him up? The thing about god is he doesn't speak, he doesn't use words, except 2000 years ago when the bible was written but nothing after the new testament. The thing about believing we exist vs god is you are having a back and forth conversation with us. True we could be artificial but we are real entities whether flesh or programming. But what evidence does god have. You should question our validity as well as we say to question gods. NEVER take anyone at their word unless you have evidence of a persons character and can tell whether or not they would lie to you.
At one time the Vikings believed that the gods controlled everything, they had a god for everything. There was even one that became a wolf and would eat the sun during solar eclipses. They would yell at the wolf to try and scare it away and they knew they had done it because the sun would come back. I saw that on a program yesterday.
- ScottHoughposted 11 years ago0
I was reading about this guy named Nietzsche: he seemed to think that maybe there was a God at one point and then God died. Nietzshe seemed to think that He probably died in the mid to late nineteenth century from what I gather. I don't think he offered much empirical evidence though.
I have mixed feelings about this, however it really does give one something to ponder.God did not die. God was the beginning and will be forever. You cannot put physical laws to the existence of God. His spiritual nature is beyond our power to prove or disprove. It is a matter of faith and a promise of an afterlife that will be our eternal reward.
People spend to much time trying do disprove the existence of god. It is impossible for me to accept all of the wonders of nature just happened by chance.
God is real. God is alive and God loves you. All you have to do is accept him.First, this is grossly misinterpreted.
"Fred" Nietzsche never implied God had actually died.
His statement was: "God is dead", which appears in many of his writings, especially The Gay Science, implies that with the increase of sciences, the division/segregation of Europe and massive industrialization, the "God of Abram" would be killed off.
Nietzsche also strongly believed this "death" would eventually lead to the loss of any universal perspective on life's true purpose, reducing society to nothing more than a robotic slave, to the power of industry and greed, ultimately imploding.
He wasn't so aloof now was he.
Until his madness set in, Nietzsche wrote some outstanding works! Read Twilight of Idols and The Antichrist together, which explains greatly his position. In fact, any who call themselves a philosopher ought to read much of his work. The man was brilliant, IMO.
James.The statement is rich with meaning, "God is dead."
I do understand that Nietzsche didn't believe that literally.
I think it's possible that he used the phrase to catch people's attention, instil an emotional response and then hook them with solid logic. I think he is referring to a sort of "reflection" of God that was created through people's belief and faith. That changes in society would lead to less faithful people and the ramifications these changes would have on the future.
I mean if he didn't literally mean, "God is dead," he meant something else. If he meant something else why didn't he write something else? Because the statement is an accurate euphemism for what he saw around him and that it would catch people's attention and help them understand what he was trying express. IMHO
I see a new hub that just came up arguing that God will be dead in fifty years. Nietzsche was way ahead of his time.
For the most part, I think he was spot on. When I look at my father I see: "...the loss of any universal perspective on life's true purpose, reducing society to nothing more than a robotic slave, to the power of industry and greed." And my father is a respected teacher. He not only doesn't believe in God, he finds the whole idea of faith or spirituality laughable. I have a thirty year argument going with him that, "Thou shalt not bear false witness," means that, "lying is wrong." My dad has raged at me for thirty years that lying is ok and that everyone does it. "Thou shalt honour thy mother and thy father," is tripping me up
I'm reading the Book of Job currently as well.
Nietzsche’s ideas have real appeal for me. I am going to keep reading his stuff.Certainly, as a poet, writer and free thinker, catching public attention is critical. What he saw happening in his modern world must have been astonishing.
huge separatist movements; the church getting richer while Europe got poorer; the building blocks of socialism; the beginning of the industrial revolution; the foundations of WWI (1914-18, less than a 10 years after he died and where his sister continued his work). No doubt a morbid view, one that pushed him -everything in him- to the edge.
And yes, since the globalization of the modern sciences, from medicine to technology, society has become a collective of awestruck slaves, entertained to the level mental stupidity/numbness.
No one wants to 'think' about Creator anymore because right now there is something more interesting/nouveau happening on Twitter. Who needs God when they have instant gratification at the touch of their iPad button or science has induced a euphoric coma, because they found a bone in the desert which somehow reaffirms/proves empirically their concept of evolution...
James
PS, nice to meet you Scott.
The "death" that Nietzsche described was metaphoric, in the sense that God "died" in the hearts and minds of man. Nietzsche didn't believe that God had ever literally existed.
Larry... I would disagree that God doesn't conform to physical laws...he wrote them. The mathematical perfection displayed in the universe speaks very loudly to this. There are levels to physical laws which we have not fully considered the implications of. I believe that science knows exactly where and what God is. They renamed God so that others might not recognize the evidence, when it has been traveling incognito, under their very noses all along. People speak of God as being supernatural, when in fact, it is man, and man alone who stands outside of nature. We are the most super-natural creature on this, and maybe every planet. We shake our fist at nature.
Interesting concept, except God is forever. Everything else has a definite life span. Trees may live for hundreds of years, but will die. Man dies usually in less than 100 years.
If God is a physical being, how did he come into existence. Also, while your theory is interesting, I do not think you can provide any convincing proof.
Man may be the ultimate lifeform in the universe. We may truly be unique. Then again, we will not know.
It would be aruged that God so love the world that he sent his only begotten son...did he do that on other worlds, or did man get it right and on those other worlds they are living in Paradise while we struggle with the sins of today and of the past.
I am not a Bible scholar. I am just a believer.It's debatable that his exists at all, you either don't believe because there is no evidence or you believe despite the evidence or you continue to think that god exists because you can't understand the point of existence without god. But then you must ask what is the point and purpose of the existence of god? If we had to come from some intelligent being then god whether physical or spiritual had to have a creator. The problem is that you have no proof that god did it except some guy wrote a book a long time ago saying he was inspired to write a book by a god. You know I could do that. I am a really good story teller. Not to mention people write books on the origin of the world by their gods before the bible that is still believed to this day.
You asked the question what if you are right and I am wrong? What if we are both wrong?
- erickcbposted 11 years ago0
I like to imagine a god that agrees with my spiritual self or core self. The root of my being. My spiritual self doesn't care about money or intellectual things like college. It is always in search of something more meaningful, more beautiful, and offering more connection to the world surrounding me. It is solely rooted in emotions, beauty, and good will. Fully living in these things collectively amount to a certain state of being which I call my "noble" state. It is the embodiment of serenity, love and feeling more alive. All of these things, the love, the beauty, etc. coupled with a direct connection with wisdom via intuition, tells me my god is a good one. I believe in a spiritual being that is not above the natural laws because that automatically creates a hierarchical separation between it and the rest of its creation. Loves dies and dictatorship, hatred, fear, and slavery rule in this tiered existence. Some say well, god is perfect and thus is a perfect dictator. I say, dictatorship is always refused when the ruler truly cares for the people. Thus, I do not believe in this model of creation. I believe at my core lies love, and love itself is: deep and profound physical-emotional intimacy. The total opposite of a dictatorship... The proof of this, in my eyes, is the inter connectivity of all of the natural laws, and beings that exist here. My god is very much alive and lives AS the laws. It IS the laws of nature, physics, emotional, spiritual etc. Cant get any closer than that. We live in it as it lives in us in perfect, eternal harmony. I actually prefer the term Creation not Creator or God.
One of my favorite quotes to put it all into perspective.
Trillions of complex, interrelated, interdependent processes are functioning in cooperation and in harmony every second. -Jack DavisThis reminds me of one of my favorite quotes. Sadly, I'll have to paraphrase it, as I no longer remember it word-for-word:
"Chance is a word invented by man to express the visible effects of all unknown causes." -- VoltaireIt seems everyone has their own definition of what God is, hence why God will probably never be anything but an idea whose time has passed yet people still find relation with just like our invisible childhood friend we invented when we were alone.
DreamThis, howdy. I'm a recognized Medicine Dreamer. Been on my path 'many, many moons' Some of these folks have been viewing the spirit world around them. Some of them are really blind to it. There is no alternate reality. Just one reality. All else are just branches off of the main. Tributaries of the one river.
The actual wording in the non-Judaic texts is that Adam and Eve " heard the voice of the Lord God, walking in the garden." Which does open the question: How does one hear a voice walking. There was another man thing in the garden. Male AND female. Says so. Can't you see it?
The three monkeys...hear no evil, speak no evil and se no evil...just saw what Adam an Eve were doing in the garden!
God dwells inside of you, why wouldn't he be able to speak to you directly. These Sons of God lived many times. You are a son of God.
Manitou isn't that ancient, just as old as anything else, I geuss. It's considered a given. Immutable. Solid.
Related Discussions
- 521
Please provide proof that atheism is true and correct
by spiderpam 14 years ago
"Absolute truth implies that truth cannot be subject to one's own mind, but is rather established by an absolute and common Creator, therefore proving God's existence. If there is no absolute truth, it cannot be absolutely held true that God does not exist." unknownWith the above in mind,...
- 15
Would proof of God's existence alone be enough for you to worship Him?
by Jason2917 11 years ago
Would proof of God's existence alone be enough for you to worship Him?(This is not a trick question and I'm not looking for a debate. I am genuinely curious in what someone who doesn't believe in God would think. Consider it this way, if all of the sudden all of the evidence of His existence was...
- 14
Atheist say that they can't prove that God do not exist,so....
by Apostle Jack 12 years ago
Atheist say that they can't prove that God do not exist,so.......that make them just as ignorant about the matter as those that they say can't prove that He does.That is a clear view of the Pot calling the kettle black.Do you agree.There is more proof that He does exist than He doesn't.They don't...
- 30
Would ever god's existence be proven or disproven?
by pisean282311 11 years ago
God ....the word which has been with human beings in one form or another since humans began to think...So many religions , school of thoughts and version have come out of god ...No body has been able to disprove or prove existence of god...Do you think we as human beings would ever have such proof...
- 14
Why do non believers of god always argue with believers of God's existence?
by bulldogrocks 12 years ago
Why do non believers of god always argue with believers of God's existence?
- 5
What is our premise in proving God's existence or non-existence?
by MarlonFulo 13 years ago
What is our premise in proving God's existence or non-existence?