ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Are the bible and science compatible?

Updated on August 1, 2015
Source

It’s very odd, but some Christians insist god created mankind and everything else just as Genesis says, about 6000 years ago. They don’t believe the science that says different.

Other Christians tell us that what science found is just the way god did it. The OT is metaphor, not to be taken literally.

One might think those two polar opposite views can’t be merged. But then comes the idea that the bible lines up with the findings of modern science. That’s what I’m here to explore. Can it be true?

It is true according to at least one Hub Pages Writer who I’ve had many arguments with over the last few months. I’m not naming names in case he doesn’t want me to. But if wants to be known for his words, or correct me on his stand, he is most welcome to comment and introduce himself.

Gen 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

First off, my friend insists that this is literal. The heavens and the planet earth are already created when this story begins. The rest of the story is from the perspective of god on the earth’s surface. So let’s start there.

“It says God was on the surface when He said "let there be light".

Not exactly: “2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.”

So he thinks this was from the surface of earth even though earth was unformed and void of everything. Then what’s the water doing here? When earth was a dust cloud there was no ocean of liquid water around it. And the people who wrote this had a completely wrong, though understandable, idea of the universe. There was no universe, just infinite sea with a patch of land, and a hard dome over it all separating one half of the ocean from the other on top.

What really happened is: an earlier star went nova leaving debris. That debris condensed and when it reached critical mass it became our sun. The action of nuclear activity caused solar winds which blew a great deal of debris away. That’s what eventually formed planets instead of stars because the amounts of debris were too small to reach critical mass. No overlap of reality with the story here at all. Sorry.

The first problem is an ocean of water over a dust cloud which isn’t what this is saying. The second and most pressing problem is there is no surface yet. Earth had no form so how could it have a surface? Then there is the problem that he’s not on something, he’s hovering over the “deep.” He’s above the entire thing.

That’s when he says let there be light. What light? Light in general? He doesn’t create our sun till later. Then he divides day and night. But that’s absurd. Day is sunlight, dark is when the earth rotates away from the sun. But again, no sun yet. So you saying this is where he created photons? Again, he’s talking light which requires a source like a star. But no mention of stars yet.

Next he divides the waters from the waters. He creates a solid dome between the waters. The argument is that this dome is atmosphere, not the universe as every scholar since the book was written and before has assumed. Yet it is here that he places the stars and moon and sun after earth is created, and after heaven is created. Those objects are not in our atmosphere, are they? No. That doesn’t line up at all.

Granted again that these people considered this small space between the land and the ocean above the land which they could see in the daytime because the sky is blue, as being all there is. You can say all you like about them misinterpreting the info they got, but this is what the book says. The one that is supposed to line up with science but obviously doesn’t.

“ So the point of view of the account is from the surface.”

Who was on the surface to see it? Not god, he was fluttering above it all. And again, there was no surface till god created the dry land on day three.

“ If you look at the actual formation of the Earth from the surface it does actually line up quite well with what you would see. For example, the sun/moon/stars on day 4, right after plant life, well after plant life the atmosphere became transparent, so for the first time in Earth's history the sun/moon/stars were visible from the surface.”

Right, lets say that’s perhaps what someone might see. But why would god hovering above the waters see it that way or describe it from that point of view? No one was there 4 billion years ago to see it. What would be the advantage for god to tell this to whoever he told, from a perspective no one ever saw? Why not say: “I created heaven, put stars in it, then created earth and a breathable space, (which isn’t even mentioned) then I spun the earth so you would have night and day. Oh, by the way, as hard as it is to believe you live on a ball.”’ That part would have lined up, and would have been information they couldn’t have guessed.

Instead, here, we see guessing going on. A pre-existing cosmic ocean, and around it? Nothing. God outside of it, sheds light on the subject, divides the water, and creates a bubble. Then he puts stars and the moon and sun in the bubble. They aren’t even guessing, they are describing what they see and understand from their perspective.

“Gen 14: And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so.”

This is day 4, not one. After earth is dredged up from the deep. Yet god said let there be light, light itself, on day one, and called that the first light the first day and night. So this is a second creation of light sources for earth specifically. It shows the minds of these people plainly. But doesn’t look good for a god that doesn’t know how light works. Again, why confuse these people by talking from a perspective they never saw? Day one couldn’t be the first earth day or night because there was no earth yet. He created earth/dry land, not a planet, on the third day, not the first. The so the first and second day and night were in heaven or something with no relation to a rotating planet.

And you can’t say they were already created in the first line where it says In the begging god created heaven and earth, because it’s clear that he creates heaven on the second day by parting the ocean, creating a dome between, that he calls heaven.

Gen 7: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven.

And he creates dry land on the third day which he calls earth. Dry land, not a planet.

“Gen 9 And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas.”

Clearly, demonstrably, indisputably, the first line tells what he did, and those after tell how he did it. There is no other rational or credible alternative interpretation of the story.

“And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars.”

The moon is not a light, and it certainly does not rule the stars, most of which are bigger than our sun. This is at the end of day 4. Nothing here implies or suggests that this is due to our view from earth. This is him creating these things on day 4 in “real time”.

And all of these lights were under a dome, in heaven. No idea. These people had no idea how big the universe is. They thought it consisted of what they could see and above that the dome holds back an ocean from crashing down on us. Well that certainly doesn’t line up with anything.

Right, so day six he creates birds and fish and all things that live in the sea. Cool. Birds came from water? Never mind.

Ok, so the argument is god told things to be fruitful and multiply. So that would take time. Hence evolution. The problem is, day five he creates fish and birds.... not single celled bacteria. He doesn’t tell that to multiply and eventually form cows and sheep, does he? No, he’s telling already formed pigs and goats to multiply.

Sorry, didn’t happen. Lines up with nothing. 3.5 billion years ago RNA cells formed. Bacteria and viruses, which are still RNA based as opposed to DNA based. (viruses that is) It took a long time indeed before anything even resembled a fish, let alone a rabbit.

Why not be straight with these people? Why not say we evolved? No, he forms clay into a human form and breaths into it. That really matches nothing.

You might want to say well sure, we evolved from inanimate matter which he brought to life by putting a bit of himself in us. But a god has no need to make things evolve. He creates people and animals fully formed. That’s what the story says and it didn’t happen that way according to modern science. Doesn’t line up with anything.

So, let’s see... God hovers over some primal ocean, divides it and slips a dome between so the bubble will hold back the other part of the ocean. He then moves the rest of the ocean below to one side bringing up land. He then puts the sun moon and stars in the bubble. Then he creates plants and animals and humans. Don’t know how he created animals, but he created just one male human, who couldn’t find a mate from among all the animals, not surprisingly, and so instead of just forming a clay girl and breathing life into her he creates a woman from his rib? Even though he created all other things with mates of the same kind?

All of it in 6 days.

Or, the universe was once in a compressed state called a singularity. That singularity expanded. Decompressing energy formed quarks and gluons, which formed protons. Electrons are elementary particles like photons but with a small amount of mass. Elementary particles were also a consequence of decompression. Together they formed the first atoms, mostly hydrogen.

These hydrogen clouds grew massive and reached critical mass forming the first giant hydrogen stars. Due to temp and pressure in different strata of the star hydrogen atoms were fused together with neutrons forming more complex atoms and most of the ones we see today. Iron formed near the core.

When these giants went nova, the implosions created the right conditions for the even heavier atoms to be formed, accounting for all the atoms that currently exist.

The dust from these stars started to condense again and again reached a critical mass. This time they blew off some the cloud that was around it. Being much smaller clouds they failed to reach critical mass and became planets, planetoids, moons and asteroids.

All the new atoms, including carbon which is the real star of the show, started interacting with each other creating new things like liquid water as the planet cooled on the outside. Amino acids were formed, proteins were formed from them. Cells formed creating the first plants, blue green alga then transformed the world by creating oxygen from carbon dioxide. That made larger organisms possible, leading to you and me, with appropriate human mates, none of which were fashioned from a rib or bits of clay and dog breath... sorry, god breath..

9 billion years from expansion to Earth. Another 4 billion to mankind.

How in the world do those two stories match up? They simply don’t.

There is obviously a lot more to this hypothesis, but if it already fails after the first line, what’s the point of looking at the rest?

I think it’s obvious we are stuck with our first two choice: The bible is true, science is false, or the idea I favour: bible is metaphor and myth, science is correct. It really can’t be both when it comes to origin.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      It's easy to get all distracted by the specific wordings of things, but let's not lose sight of the overall sequence. That is where it can't be denied. This text is thousands of years old, yet it lists the things that evolved in the order they evolved, and it does so from the point of view specified in verse 2.

      If you re-tread the formation of the Earth, and consider it from a surface point of view, it all lines up incredibly well. And this isn't some vague ancient story. It specifically claims to be an account of the Earth's formation. It's very unique in that way. It's not like other ancient tales that speak of the Earth being sneezed out by some god. It's much more specific than that.

      We can't get bogged down by the 'feeling' that this can't possibly be true. The natural tendency is to reject it because it can't possibly be true.

      And it's not just the creation account. It's the first six chapters. Not only does it detail the formation of the Earth, but it accurately describes the formation of the modern human world. It accurately sets the stage for what's to come. This goes well beyond just trying to refute it based on the wording of a particular verse.

      It's one thing to be able to twist around a vague text to try to make it seem like it's saying something. But six consecutive chapters where one cohesive explanation can be presented, and defended verse by verse? There's no hole here you've been able to find. There's an answer at every turn. This goes well beyond me just being delusional and 'wanting' to make it true. This is something much more than that, and it's time that be recognized.

      We all want the same thing here. We want the real truth. We want real answers. I want the same. So let's stop getting in our own way and open our minds to some truly astounding possibilities. Just think about it. How likely is it really that I could take some fictional ancient text and line up six consecutive chapters through wishful thinking? How likely is it really that I could do so and defend it line by line with explanation? I mean, this goes well beyond just the creation account. I can give you a full account, starting from here, and leading all the way up to the modern world we know now. I can show you how it all lines up with the evidence of what's known of our ancient history.

      What's the more likely truth here? That I'm just THAT delusional? Or that maybe, just maybe, there really is something to this? Is it really impossible that this could be true?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Also, the words translated as day, evening, and morning are translated that way due to assumption. The word used as day can be translated as an in-determined span of time. And the words for evening and morning aren't specific to the beginning and end of a single day either, but rather the beginning and ending of a span of time. They work just as well when speaking of an age.

      Again, I point out how the animals were commanded to be fruitful and multiply and to fill the Earth. Something that clearly can't happen in the span of a day. They weren't "miracled" into existence immediately in a single day. They procreated numerous generations.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Hey Slarty,

      First off I'd like to say how much I appreciate you dedicating real effort to this and not just dismissing everything off-hand as many do. Obviously there's a lot to cover here. To tackle it I'll probably just break my replies up in pieces, addressing particular points in each, so we're not both trying to cover the entirety of it in each comment.

      The first thing I'd like to address is the bits that have to do with the "heavens", the "earth", and the "sun/moon/stars".

      First I'd like to point out how the word "fattened" is quite accurate considering the universe itself inflated, and the Earth 'fattened' through accretion. Maybe a bit of a stretch, but I thought it worth mentioning.

      Yes, there are many interpretations and yes abstract spans of time are foreign to Hebraic thinking. It's worded in a way that breaks it up into periods. Ages. The fact that it's interpreted as 'days' confuses things. Clearly, considering the animals were told to 'be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth", even the most ignorant of bronze age people would understand this can't happen in a day.

      Your concept of "void and formless" would also be foreign to Hebraic thinking. Concepts like God floating over a not yet formed ocean, where it would later be, this is most decidely not what they meant and not the kind of thinking consistent with people of that age. That's a very modern reading of that description. Formless and void just means, "See all the trees and the grass and the hills and animals, none of that was there yet. There was no form and it was void. Empty. In a state before these things formed.

      What I'm trying to make clear is that the actual description of creation starts at verse 3. Verses 1 and 2 simply setup what came before that point... "In the beginning". Verse 2 describing an Earth already there. It's describing the state it's in. Formless and void. Not in the way you mean or there would be no "deep".

      The fact remains, what it describes, and the point in the account in which this description is given, are both accurate. There really was a time, before land, before plant life, before the oxygenated atmosphere or the Earth's water cycle, when the Earth really did have oceans that really were covered in darkness. What's important is not only the accurate description, but the accuracy of the sequence of things it describes.

      As for the "timing problem", it's not a problem at all. Understand, it's not saying God created the sun and moon during "day 4". It is speaking of the sun and the moon, then in a relevant comment about these two objects, it then states God made these as well.

      Again, the sequence of events is important here. After land (day 2)and plantlife on land (day 3), it then speaks about the sun/moon/stars and how God "placed" them in the sky. Sequence-wise, this actually lines up with when Earth's atmosphere became transparent to the point that the sun/moon/stars could then be seen from the surface. Before this the atmosphere was translucent, where the sun would light the dome of the sky, but you wouldn't actually be able to see the sun. There'd still be light of day and dark of night, just as it says, but no sun/moon/stars visible in the sky.

      I'll come back and address some other points when I can. Again, I appreciate the time and effort you've put into this.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      I’ve been taking some time to study this matter a little closer since you seem so adamant I’m missing something. What I’ve discovered is interesting, at least to me. We’ll start at the beginning, shall we?

      “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth”

      Your argument is based on the opening of the bible meaning: before day one earth and sky/heaven was already created.

      I’ve disagreed with that but I’m somewhat changing my mind, and I’ll tell you why.

      First of all, the mechanical translation says: “In the summit “Elohiym [Powers]” fattened the sky and the land,”

      Fattened, not created. This says to me he was working with a pre-existing medium. Not that he created the deep, but that it was a pre-existing space, if you will. Not that he created land, but that he exposed and “fattened” it. By fatten they meant filled/added to/processed or manipulated something pre-existing.

      What’s interesting is that there is another translation that makes the same point: Young’s literal translation.” In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth:

      Preparing. Interesting word, and like fattened, a word that is closer to the meaning of the Hebrew text than the word create, and a word that implies a pre-existent state or situation what was fattened/prepared, not a creation from nothing. Moreover, a manipulation in the same way we combine and manipulate material to produce something new.

      And as it turns out according to the writers of the Mechanical version: “In the summit Elohiym fattened.” The Hebrew word tysar reshiyt literally means the head or top of a place or time, what is prominent. The Hebrew word arb bara literally means to fatten but with the extended

      idea of filling up. In context, the first chapter of Genesis is about the importance of the filling up of the heavens and the earth.”

      They go on to say: “not its creation within a span of time (an abstract idea that is foreign to Hebraic thinking).”

      There are many versions or interpretations of these first few words, of course. Some add the idea of creation from nothing. But that’s not implied anywhere as far as I can tell. It’s not faithful to the actual Hebrew.

      New Life Version

      1 In the beginning God made from nothing the heavens and the earth.

      At first glance the Young’s version I mentioned agrees with you. “1 In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth –

      2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,”

      Notice how 1 and 2 are melded together. No other version does this exactly this way. But it implies that this isn’t about a creation, but a preparation of something pre-existing in a state of limbo, so to speak. And it’s reveal later on tells us it wasn’t created at all but revealed by parting the waters, and then “filled” as it were.

      The Message version:

      1-2 First this: God created the Heavens and Earth—all you see, all you don’t see. Earth was a soup of nothingness, a bottomless emptiness, an inky blackness. God’s Spirit brooded like a bird above the watery abyss.

      Here we have a version that agrees with my initial reading of what the earth being void and formless means.

      The Voice version:

      1 In the beginning, God created everything: the heavens above and the earth below. Here’s what happened: 2 At first the earth lacked shape and was totally empty, and a dark fog draped over the deep while God’s spirit-wind hovered over the surface of the empty waters. Then there was the voice of God.

      This version also agrees with my original argument in which I said the first line tells us what he did and the rest tells us how. I think they all do, but this one is saying it explicitly.

      You contend that everything after this is as seen from earth by god. You picture a water bound planet with god hovering over it’s oceans.

      I on the other hand contend, as tradition does, that the opening line tells us what he did, and the rest explains how.

      I say, as tradition says, that he hovered, not over the planet’s waters, but over the pre-existing deep. A chaos of sorts. No Jewish scholar has to my knowledge ever said this was an existing planet’s oceans, and even the Christian scholars up till the 20th century would never have held that view.

      The Catholic Church tells us that the Old Testament is not to be taken literally. Mainly because they had too many embarrassing run-ins with science over the years trying to take the OT literally, only to be proven wrong. And they’ve had brilliant scholars working for them for two thousand years. But you think it actually lines up with science?

      I could almost accept the idea that god hovered over the planet’s waters as you claim, but for the fact that god only later in the story creates the earth/dry land not planet, and the sky/heavens not universe.

      First off, the sequence is all wrong. Science says the universe is 13 to14 billion years old and started as a rapid expansion of highly compressed energy. 4 billion years ago earth forms, and mankind arrives as us, in our form, a few hundred thousand years ago.

      But god did it all in seven days, to which you reply: god’s days are eons, not 24 hour days.

      “And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.”

      “Morning: The time from sunrise to noon. Breaking of daylight. [masc] [AHLB: 2035 (g)] [Strong's: 1242]

      So is this an eon then? The first day? Clearly defined by a cycle of day and night. First day, not first eon. Sorry.

      “And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.”

      Not a second eon. Not an uncertain stretch of time like 9 billion years. One day, evening and morning.

      “And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.”.... “And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.”

      Literal day three. Not 9 billion years later. “And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.”

      “And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.”

      Very important. The lights don’t appear in the sky/heavens until day 4 and yet he made light day one and divided night from day. But not with the stars moon and sun because they weren’t made till day 4. He created light itself day one. More like he invented time and a way to tell it, light and dark, “And there was evening and there was morning”

      You could argue that day one he created the big bang, and hence the first light. But being there were no planets yet he couldn’t divide day from night as that is only relevant to large bodies like planets. Space doesn’t experience night and day. And earth isn’t around for the first 9 billion years.

      And the bible isn’t talking about eons or thousand year days as some would have it; it is specific: A day consists of morning and evening. One day and one night relative to a body in space. Not eons, days clearly stated no matter what translation. Not light from a source on day one. That happens day 4. He creates things that emit light for his purposes and places them in the newly formed gap between the divided primordial waters.

      Primal waters above us, primal ocean below pushed aside to raise dry land which the Jews thought floats on the sea, day 3. Not day one or as you would have it, before day one.

      No planet in this story. No. You could have jumped on the idea that the earth being unformed and void meant it was still in cloud form after the formation of the sun.

      But obviously there is a problem he

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      One other thing. You've mentioned a couple of times this idea of "Earth", or land, having to exist for the oceans to be there. A surface for the oceans to sit. Actually ....

      "When temperatures finally cooled sufficiently, the clouds began to condense into rain, and the primordial atmosphere produced storms of unimaginable proportions, under which the Earth groaned and flowed. At first, falling on incandescent rock, the rain evaporated, but the evaporation gradually cooled the crust until the water could accumulate in the depressed regions of the Earth's surface, forming the first oceans." - http://www.palaeos.org/Hadean#Formation_of_the_oce...

      These are two different things. First, you have the crust of the Earth. The outer layer of the once liquified form of the earth that cooled and hardened into the Earth's crust. This is what formed the floor of the sea. Then came the "Earth". The land. The continental plates that we now refer to as "land".

      So this whole concept of the 'deep' being water floating, or whatever, pardon the pun, doesn't hold water. Besides, even the word "deep" suggests it's not just freeform and floating, but actually has a base that's "deep", or far below. You know, if we're going to get all technical about the English words chosen in the interpretation.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      You - "Yes, the waters that already pre-existed in god's heaven. He then divides those waters forming a bubble he calls the sky. From the water under the bubble he raises some dry land. They knew nothing about a planet or water on it or other continents etc. They thought, by their own words, that an ocean is above us. That the lights were close by. They thought the land floated on the water."

      You see, the difference between you and me is you're not basing your conclusions on anything but what the words on the page inspire in your imagination. The text is subjective that way when you have no context to ground it. I'm using the context of the actual history of the Earth, which is what the text claims to be. And it's lining up. You just twisting the words around to mean whatever you want is all you. And is based on nothing at all really.

      "Earth in the bible isn't the name of a planet, it just means dry land. God created our sky with stars etc, and out of the sea he brought forth some dry land."

      Yes, and notice how what you just described is exactly what happened. Out of the sea He brought forth some dry land. And that's how dry land came about. In fact, it says the waters of the world were gathered in one place, which is true because the continental crust originally formed into one big supercontinent.

      But you're ignoring something really relevant to stick with this "earth" argument. The phrase that's translated as "the heavens and the earth" in verse 1 is a common phrase used to refer to all of existence. While "earth" in the later verses is indeed talking about dry land.

      You - "So in the beginning god created some dry land and sky. The dry land was not dry land yet, it was without shape and had nothing on it."

      Again, based on nothing but your casual interpretation of the English version of the text. No consideration like you'd give to anything else you're studying. This doesn't deserve your consideration so that's all we get. Something like the above statement.

      You - "Land under the sea has shape/form. So this isn't talking about that. This land was not yet formed. What does that mean? It was not in the form of land yet. The bottom of the ocean has definite form. We can only guess at what that might mean. That it didn't yet exist but was on god's to do list?"

      You're applying way too much of a modern sense of things to these words. All the "without form and void" is referring to is the world as they know it. The trees, the land, the grass, the hills and mountains, weren't there yet. There was no form, and it was void of all of that. It hadn't all formed yet. Basically, two humans talking to one another, one explains that all of existence before them wasn't like that yet. It was formless and void. You're way overthinking it. And again, based on nothing but what the English translation sounds like to you. No consideration for the way the Hebrew language is used, how it was used by those ancient cultures. None of that. Just a casual read through and here's what it sounds like to me.

      "Your entire hypothesis fails because of the waters above the sky, which you say is a lie and just means h2o in our atmosphere or some nonsense. But that is not what it clearly says, and it's not in any Jewish interpretation, nor does it make sense in the context of the myth."

      Not at all, in the Earth's actual history, the next significant thing that happened, after the oceans formed from all the water vapor trapped in the atmosphere condensed, which then allowed light to break through to the surface, is the Earth's water cycle formed, and the blue-green algae in the oceans began using that light and manufacturing oxygen, which created the atmosphere, which is what formed the sky (firmament). So, again, based on actual history, the 'waters above' is exactly right. It's an important development that had to happen before plant life would then be able to thrive after the formation of land.

      See, it all lines right up.

      "It specifically does not say that."

      You're right. But what it does say is incredibly on point ....

      Gen1:2 - Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep

      "In fact, the primitive Earth long remained covered in darkness, wrapped in dense burning clouds into which continuously poured water vapor from volcanic emissions." - http://www.palaeos.org/Hadean#Formation_of_the_oce...

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      "Yes they did. You clearly haven't read about the gods and myths of other cultures. The Norse thought we were born from the arm pit of a frozen giant, for instance. How likely is that?'

      You're missing the point. Yes, I'm sure the stories got embellished here and there. The primary point is that the antagonists of the mythological stories are the same throughout that region of the world. Male and female, human in form, but immortal. Greece, Rome, Sumer, Egypt, the Indus Valley, the Norsemen. Your explanation is that this is just how the mind works. Humans making stories up to explain things. But the pattern of similarities suggest something else. If what's described in Genesis actually happened, if beings like Adam and Eve were actually created in a populated region of the world, this is something we should expect to see.

      You - "The fact is we know a great deal about it already. More than you think, obviously. Yes it is a young science. We don't know everything by far. But you'd have us throw up our hands and quit before we get started so we can say god dun it. No thanks. I'll wait for more real answers. Some of which I've tried to impart to you unsuccessfully."

      A little dramatic, don't you think? I'm simply suggesting that what we've found so far is what should be expected if what I'm saying is true. I never said to stop looking. We need that information to figure out what's what.

      But you don't seem to be acknowledging one of the single biggest challenges regarding neuroscience. You just assume there's a lot I don't know and that what we do know is a lot. Wrong on both counts. The whole mental/psychological aspect of brain activity is completely unobserved. We can only really record how it's described by the subject, and we can only really interpret by relating it to our own mental experiences. So, neuroscience is inherently subjective. You don't get the objective certainty.

      And please, spare me the "real answers" you've tried to impart. You haven't told me anything I haven't already read and know full well. I'm trying to show you that all you're presenting as "real answers" is nothing more than rampant speculation. You're "real answers" are just as baseless as mine and should be dismissed by you if you consistently applied to yourself what you're applying to what I'm saying.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      You - "Nor did I ever limit our abilities to our senses as you keep saying. That's a bit of a straw man you keep attacking."

      Here's one of a few examples ....

      "If I were still looking, I’d be looking for a seam. I’ve done at least 40 years of looking. I’ll ask you what you always ask me: How long do I have to look before it becomes obvious it’s not there?"

      That's what science is. We have to have objective confirmation. Certainty has to be shown to the senses. It must be seen/heard/tasted/felt. Observed. Detected. Confirmed. All throughout this conversation you dismiss anything and everything that can't be "shown" to exist. This isn't a straw man, it's the backbone of your argument.

      You - "You want instant knowledge so god dun it is your only solution. That's not rational at all. Sorry. Just because you don't know doesn't mean it's supernatural. That's not a rational conclusion."

      It's not "instant knowledge". It's using the information available to me to find the best, or most likely, explanation. Discoveries like DNA should make it apparent that existence is deliberately intended. Intelligently designed. Intelligence and creativity and all the things our minds are capable of are natural products of this natural world. So why it's deemed inadmissible to consider the possibility is beyond me. It's just another case of trying to define prematurely what's what. Putting limitations on what the answer could be.

      "Until some thing is shown to be a fact, it's an invisible pink squirrel; a speculative hypothesis. Not to be taken as fact in any rational model of reality. You take it as fact."

      I'm just arguing it's merits. The theme of your hub is about the compatibility of the bible and science.

      And notice even here, just two paragraphs after stating that you "[n]ever limit our abilities to our senses", you do it again. "Until some thing is 'shown' to be a fact". And how is that done? By finding a way for the senses to be able to 'observe' it.

      The whole point is that there's plenty of merit to the idea. Your arguments for why it shouldn't even be considered fall flat on its face. The fact is, it's a perfectly rational and logical thing to consider.

      Besides, by your statements you could say the same about dark matter. It's something that hasn't been shown to exist. But isn't that how we ultimately get there. First we imagine what it could be. Then find a way to test. I think Einstein said it best ....

      “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”

      Exactly Al.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      "It says the "heavens and the Earth" were created "in the beginning", then it says when the Earth was "without form a void" that the spirit of God was "on the surface of the waters".

      Yes, the waters that already pre-existed in god's heaven. He then divides those waters forming a bubble he calls the sky. From the water under the bubble he raises some dry land. They knew nothing about a planet or water on it or other continents etc. They thought, by their own words, that an ocean is above us. That the lights were close by. They thought the land floated on the water.

      Earth in the bible isn't the name of a planet, it just means dry land. God created our sky with stars etc, and out of the sea he brought forth some dry land.

      No planet mentioned or implied.

      So in the beginning god created some dry land and sky. The dry land was not dry land yet, it was without shape and had nothing on it.

      Land under the sea has shape/form. So this isn't talking about that. This land was not yet formed. What does that mean? It was not in the form of land yet. The bottom of the ocean has definite form. We can only guess at what that might mean. That it didn't yet exist but was on god's to do list?

      Who knows?

      The water he moves to one side he calls the sea. Before this it was just the waters. Now the part on the level with the dry land has a name. Before it was part of the waters.

      Your entire hypothesis fails because of the waters above the sky, which you say is a lie and just means h2o in our atmosphere or some nonsense. But that is not what it clearly says, and it's not in any Jewish interpretation, nor does it make sense in the context of the myth.

      "What it says is accurate. Before everything else it specifically says, first the Earth was covered in oceans".

      It specifically does not say that.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      "The fact that you say I have no "knowledge" of this is kind of ironic considering there can be no real "knowledge" of the mind for that very reason."

      The fact is we know a great deal about it already. More than you think, obviously. Yes it is a young science. We don't know everything by far. But you'd have us throw up our hands and quit before we get started so we can say god dun it. No thanks. I'll wait for more real answers. Some of which I've tried to impart to you unsuccessfully.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      "Naive huh?"

      Yup.

      "Other cultures not in that region, should have come up with the same kind of thing if what you're saying is true. They didn't."

      Yes they did. You clearly haven't read about the gods and myths of other cultures. The Norse thought we were born from the arm pit of a frozen giant, for instance. How likely is that?

      Am I to believe you believe every primitive myth is true? I hope not for your sake. Of course yours is no more true than any one else s.

      And why in the world would you think all cultures would have the same myths? Not likely is it? But in the same region it's likely they would. So what?

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      "Again, it's broken logic to think all that exists can be somehow detected by the five senses we evolved just to survive this environment. You understand?

      There is nothing irrational about that. It's quite logical."

      Nor did I ever limit our abilities to our senses as you keep saying. That's a bit of a straw man you keep attacking.

      You want instant knowledge so god dun it is your only solution. That's not rational at all. Sorry. Just because you don't know doesn't mean it's supernatural. That's not a rational conclusion.

      Until some thing is shown to be a fact, it's an invisible pink squirrel; a speculative hypothesis. Not to be taken as fact in any rational model of reality. You take it as fact.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      You - "Yeah. it is absurd that you clearly have no knowledge of this subject but continue to try to argue with me about it. ;)"

      That's typical. I don't agree, I argue, so it's clearly that you're much more informed.

      What you don't seem to get is that, because this is the mind we're talking about, there's no evidence. No data. Just interpretations by people like you who think they get it. The fact that you say I have no "knowledge" of this is kind of ironic considering there can be no real "knowledge" of the mind for that very reason.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      "Tell us another one. Fiction is fun, isn't it? You are very naive to think no one wrote fiction back then. Not always intentionally, of course. They had dreams, they had inspirations and revelations. Not from a god; from thier imagination riffing on the idea of a god."

      Naive huh? Because you've never seen anything like that during your lifetime, it was never true. You weren't there, yet you can determine what is and isn't fiction. Hmm. The problem with that is that multiple cultures, who spoke a wide range of different languages, and who each developed independently, all came up with the same type of characters for their "fiction". And they all did so in the same region of the world. Other cultures not in that region, should have come up with the same kind of thing if what you're saying is true. They didn't.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Me - "The fact that anything exist, like the mind, that can't be detected means it's irrational to only include what is detectable."

      You - Clearly you don't understand what rationality means.

      Let me try again. The mind can't be observed. There's nothing to detect it. But it is happening. The only reason we know that is because we experience it. So, there's at least part of the story, a rather significant part, that can't be detected. Yet it determines so many physical things that happen. So .... part of the explanation is going to include what can't be observed.

      Again, it's broken logic to think all that exists can be somehow detected by the five senses we evolved just to survive this environment. You understand?

      There is nothing irrational about that. It's quite logical.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Exactly, Jewish interpretations, like religious doctrines, were formed centuries ago when we knew a lot less. For that reason. You're not supposed to "re-interpret", for that's heresy. Yet, one of the forefathers of the church, St. Augustine, said, "Biblical passages must be informed by the current state of demonstrable knowledge." It is just a fact that we now know more about what was going on in the age these stories are set than even ancient Jews.

      My 'interpretation' isn't really that. It directly says what it says. I'm just putting it in the right context. That if you step through each age of the Earth, from a point of view as from the surface, then it matches right up with what you'd actually see from that perspective. I'm just pointing it out. If it was just my 'interpretation' then you could just pick it apart. But what it's saying is true. I'm just pointing out that if read from that point of view, the one directly stated, it actually does line up.

      How am I fudging the timeline exactly?

      You - "No, nothing in the text assumes a planet with water covering it."

      It says the "heavens and the Earth" were created "in the beginning", then it says when the Earth was "without form a void" that the spirit of God was "on the surface of the waters". What it says is accurate. Before everything else it specifically says, first the Earth was covered in oceans. Between the formation of the heavens/earth, and the atmosphere, light did break through the atmosphere. That just makes sense in the progression as we now understand it. Each thing is accurately described.

      Check the Jewish dictionary, the "day" thing refers to a span of time. An age. The evening and morning of an age is basically the same as the evening/morning of a day, just over a long span of time. It's a literary device. That one word translated as "day" literally means many things that refer to a specific span of time.

      "Earth" was created in the beginning. Land on day three. It's clearly talking about land, "dry land", which did rise up out of the seas.

      The fact is each thing it describes really does describe the major eras of earth's history. Before land, before the atmosphere, any of it, there really were oceans covered in darkness, then light, then the atmosphere/water cycle, then land, then plants, then animals, it's all right. I'm not changing the definitions of anything.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      "Different "levels" have memory? It's getting absurd. "

      Yeah. it is absurd that you clearly have no knowledge of this subject but continue to try to argue with me about it. ;)

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      "That's because there really were beings like that. Who lived hundreds of years and were thus god-like to "mortal" humans, just as Gen6 says. "

      Tell us another one. Fiction is fun, isn't it? You are very naive to think no one wrote fiction back then. Not always intentionally, of course. They had dreams, they had inspirations and revelations. Not from a god; from thier imagination riffing on the idea of a god.

      People do it today. A kid is found ok in a well and it's: We asked god to help us find him and he did. by his grace our son is alive. Glory to god."

      In fact they don't know whether a god helped or not. But that's what they believe. No god required. Fiction being written every day by believers.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      "The fact that anything exist, like the mind, that can't be detected means it's irrational to only include what is detectable."

      Clearly you don't understand what rationality means.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      The text clearly does not say what you imply. Granted you created a great dark sucker, but that’s all it is. Traditional interpretations by Jewish scholars don’t come close to your interpretation and they should know. Saying Hebrew is hard to hard to translate doesn’t work in your favour. If no one else has it right how can you? And saying the Jewish encyclopaedia is a new interpretation is nonsense. It’s decades old on the net, yes, but the interpretations are from tradition spanning back to at least 400 BCE or more. Rabbinical interpretation isn’t new in any way shape or form.

      The only ones that try to meld current science and the bible in any way at all is modern Christians like you. And you are seen as heretics by the fundamentalists and young earth creationists. But that’s fine; they’re just a bunch of nuts.

      Don’t accuse me of misreading and misinterpreting what the words on the page mean when you are trying to make them say things they clearly don’t say. No one else looking at your hypothesis agrees with you. Why? Not because some may not want to, but because it is clear your explanation is not in the text.

      You fudge the time line because you say otherwise it makes no sense. Well that right there tells you something. It makes no sense in parts, period. Not my fault, I didn’t write it.

      If creation was done before day one then where is the dry land called earth or soil and rock and such before day three? No, nothing in the text assumes a planet with water covering it. They didn’t have a clue about that. Your argument about the sky/heaven is literally unbelievable in the extreme. Sorry but you’re off in dream land on that one.

      There is a clear time line. The book says 7 days which are counted by mornings and evenings just as they are today. Yet you contradict that and essentially say it’s a lie. Others have said god’s days may be a thousand years long.

      The trouble is, earth is created on day three and in fact it was created 9 billion years after light was created which was day one.

      You are correct. It makes no logical sense as written in today’s terms. But trying to make sense of it by changing the traditional interpretations of the clearly written but nonsensical text is a waste of time as you are just trying to change the meaning of the words on the page. Not going to happen. You can’t make a silk purse from a pig’s ear. It’s just a primitive myth. You can’t magic it into a logical text concerning reality. It never was and never will be.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      You - "Read the Jewish encyclopaedia on the subject. That’s where I got the interpretation."

      Let's also keep in mind that anything in that encyclopedia was probably formed decades, if no centuries, ago. Even though it's their native language, there's still the issue of trying to interpret it without context. The context has only come in the past couple of decades.

      Whether you want to admit it or not, the bible is much more on the nose than you're willing to admit. If it were nowhere close then I wouldn't be able to make a case for it. At every turn I can. That's because it simply fits. The difference between you and me is I'm willing to accept it could be true. I took it seriously. Considered it seriously. Didn't rule it out before even investigating. I didn't decide prematurely what it is. I was open to finding out.

      You - "It never mentions atmosphere. Sorry. God must have forgotten to explain that bit to the writers or originators of the myth."

      Yes, you're right, they didn't know to call it that. And how silly of you to think they should have. But it says water above and below. That's true. The Earth's water cycle formed after the oceans and before land. And part of that was the oxygenated atmosphere created by the cianobacteria (blue/green algae) in the oceans. That layer between the "waters above and below" are kept that way because of that layer.

      If you can imagine, the primitive Earth didn't have that pocket of space between the dense atmosphere, clouds, above and the ground. It was like storm clouds that reached all the way down to the ground. A dense, DENSE fog. Then came oxygen. A "a vault between the waters". It doesn't say "atmosphere", but what it does say is true and right.

      You - "You just said the sky was the atmosphere. What is sky then if not the atmosphere? Where does it end and the rest of the universe begin? Clearly the stars are in the sky and that’s the bubble surrounding earth like a dome separating the oceans here from those of heaven. They didn’t know there was a universe."

      That's exactly what I'm saying. They were told the details, but didn't have an understanding as you and I have. So they didn't get it like we do. They were just naming off all the things that came that they're familiar with and in what order. Told from a human POV, from the surface. And from their point of view, given their lack of knowledge, the sun/moon/stars are in the sky.

      You - "Your assertion that an aware thing can’t remember anything unless it’s got human consciousness is absurd. Let me repeat: I consider consciousness to be the human form of awareness. A high awareness including self awareness and a sense of self identity. There are many levels of awareness, and many of those levels do have memory and use them. Our subconscious awareness is very good at it."

      Different "levels" have memory? It's getting absurd. It's not complicated. The brain forms memories of what it experiences through the senses. Where you're attention and "awareness" is pointed is relevant. My wife has a way better memory than I do primarily because she's always in the moment, fully engaged in what is going on and what is being said, while I am often in a constant state of brainstorm, like a child who can't focus. If you remember it, then you were consciously experiencing it.

      "Since when did consensus create reality? Sure people have deluded themselves about there being many gods through the ages. What makes yours special? Not a damn thing. Should we include Thor and Zeus then? They were believed in by millions for a long time."

      That's because there really were beings like that. Who lived hundreds of years and were thus god-like to "mortal" humans, just as Gen6 says. No, people aren't as prone to just making things up to believe in as you insist on thinking. You're dismissing too much, completely disregarding early humans as ignorant fools, and modern believers as the same.

      All the cultures that had myths about male/female human in form gods living among them are all from the same region of the world. These are clues. Not overimaginative humans. Consensus shouldn't be so quickly dismissed. People aren't as dumb as you want to make them out to be.

      "It’s only rational to include what is detectable now and leave absolute conclusions open to new evidence in the future. Including spaghetti monsters doesn’t do you any good, and that’s all the credibility the Christian god has: Without real evidence, zero."

      The fact that anything exist, like the mind, that can't be detected means it's irrational to only include what is detectable. Clearly there are elements that aren't detectable, therefore your whole concept is flawed.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Ah, I see. Because land is translated as "Earth" then you're juxtaposing the two. So to make this work you adopt a very modern concept of "without form and void" and say these people, though they didn't understand the planet was floating in space, meant that it was actually formless, as in, not in the shape of a planet. You're way overcomplicating it.

      What you need to do is stop trying to read into the words, which you have to understand are translated from an ancient language which doesn't translate very eloquently into English.

      The key here is that 'Earth' is paired with 'Heaven' here. There's a lot of significance there where Hebrew is concerned. It's speaking in this case of the planet. The oceans, everything we associate with Earth. This is about as close as they could come to referring to Earth as a planet. It's talking about the heavens (sun/moon/stars/night sky) and the rest of creation, the "Earth". Everything that's not "Heavens". It even says in the next line that the "Earth" was without form and void, and that it's covered in ocean. Now I know you take this to mean some floating body of water, which by the way also shows clear signs of being a meaning only someone of this age could dream up. You know Earth floats in space. So in your mind if the Earth doesn't have form yet then it must be dust not yet collected into a planet, or a body of water floating in the ether. That's well beyond what these people knew.

      Just simply look at what it says and look at what really happened. It puts it in context and proves itself accurate. Don't get to hung up on the English translation. Remember, you're reading an ancient text written in an ancient language. The English translation isn't exact. In Hebrew the context of the sentence is very important in understanding how the word is being used. Being paired with 'heaven' tells us all we need to know.

      [i]"The immediate context is verse 1, specifically the expression "the heavens and the earth" (12). It is a familiar expression (13) that is generally taken as a reference to all — the whole world, on the grounds that heaven and earth are the outer limits intended to include everything in between, i.e., the whole world (14)."[/i] - http://www.grisda.org/origins/08013.htm

      So, long story short, you're barking up the wrong tree with this "Earth" argument. It's not going to fly. The fact is, it's right. The heavens and Earth did form first. Created in the same action. Big bang. When the Earth first formed, following the Hadeon eon when the Earth was still molten. It held all the gases squeezed out by accretion in an atmosphere once the planet was large enough to retain one. A lot of volcanic activity that filled the atmosphere with dense cloud cover. So it really was like it describes, covered in oceans and shrouded in darkness.

      They were very right, the seas were first, then the land formed within them. That's exactly what happened. And it actually happened when it says chronologically with the other events it describes. First oceans, then oxygenated atmosphere, then land .... then plants, then syropsids (reptiles/fish), then synapsids (mammals), humans at the end. Yep, that how it happened.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      "They pre-exist heaven and earth, and become part of the flat earth and endless oceans after the earth has been made to rise out of them, after he creates the heavens/the universe by separating the ocean and creating a bubble.."

      “That's quite an imagination you've got there. And I don't believe the "Jews who wrote the book" think any of that.”

      Read the Jewish encyclopaedia on the subject. That’s where I got the interpretation.

      “The firmament is not the universe. “

      According to the bible they are one and the same. You don’t see god creating a separate universe do you? Fact: The writers thought that if you could get high enough on a mountain top you could touch the barrier between the firmament and the ocean above. Birds could fly to the moon and stars, as they were near and small. Sumerians believed similarly;

      “The firmament is the sky, which actually became a sky as we know humans know it now right where it says chronologically. When the oxygenated atmosphere formed.”

      It never mentions atmosphere. Sorry. God must have forgotten to explain that bit to the writers or originators of the myth.

      “ And no, the sun and moon aren't in the atmosphere, but they are in the sky.”

      You just said the sky was the atmosphere. What is sky then if not the atmosphere? Where does it end and the rest of the universe begin? Clearly the stars are in the sky and that’s the bubble surrounding earth like a dome separating the oceans here from those of heaven. They didn’t know there was a universe.

      "Yes, consciousness is a complex form of awareness, I said this from the beginning; and again, in humans it means all the things I talked about. Is a bacteria awake? Does it day dream? Think about that. You're arguing semantics here."

      “No, I'm not. I'm trying to help you realize that what you're claiming is utterly ridiculous. To say you 'quieted' consciousness and were left with nothing but awareness is just nonsensical. You couldn't recall it now to tell me about it if you weren't conscious to experience it. You can't be aware of something, yet unconscious.”

      Your assertion that an aware thing can’t remember anything unless it’s got human consciousness is absurd. Let me repeat: I consider consciousness to be the human form of awareness. A high awareness including self awareness and a sense of self identity. There are many levels of awareness, and many of those levels do have memory and use them. Our subconscious awareness is very good at it.

      And we can exist as purely aware beings for periods of time, though not for prolonged periods because we rely on human consciousness, reason, etc, to survive.

      “What I'm saying is very simple.”

      Yes. Simply wrong.

      "Right. So saying: "It's the only rational answer at the moment considering there's no spaghetti monster god from outer space." is irrational too? No difference. You and I can not prove either exist or don't. Therefore both are excluded from rational models."

      “Wrong. You can't prove it with physical evidence, but you can reach the logical conclusion.”

      We have a different definition of logic, I see. You can’t reach any conclusion about a thing you can’t even show is possible, let alone fact. That’s why you religious people rely on faith to make you believe it is real. Hardly logical to me. Any evidence you think you have can be explained in many different ways that don’t include the supernatural.

      “The spaghetti monster thing is a waste of time. I get the point you're trying to make, but it's a bad comparison. One God is written about in ancient texts that have remained relevant in every age since they were written. One God is the basis of the three largest religions, and is at the center of all the chaos that dictates that part of the world. Not the other. No comparison.”

      Since when did consensus create reality? Sure people have deluded themselves about there being many gods through the ages. What makes yours special? Not a damn thing. Should we include Thor and Zeus then? They were believed in by millions for a long time.

      Sorry, your rationalizations don’t work here. The spaghetti monster is as good as any comparison. Sorry you don’t like it.

      “But to say they're excluded from rational models is false. Rationality agrees that not all things in existence can be observed or detected, so rationality and logic says at least part of the story is beyond detection. It's irrational to try to say what's detectable is all there is.”

      It’s only rational to include what is detectable now and leave absolute conclusions open to new evidence in the future. Including spaghetti monsters doesn’t do you any good, and that’s all the credibility the Christian god has: Without real evidence, zero.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      '"Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth"

      " And there was evening and there was morning, a third day."

      Third day. Not first day not before first day. Sorry, it's in black and white in every bible. Hence you lose.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Seriously? And you followed that up by saying I can't read? Ugh. Okay, let's assess ...

      "1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

      2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

      Notice that line two starts with "Now the Earth...".

      That alone should be enough. In fact, I'll just leave it at that and, unlike you who call into question my ability to read, I'm going to give you the benefit of assuming you are capable of understanding. I know you're smart. It just needed to be pointed out, and sometimes that happens to the best of us.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      "Uh, heavens and earth verse 1, hovering over the waters verse 2."

      Utter nonsense. Verse one tells what he did. the rest tells you how. I see you still can't read.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Slarty,

      "Too bad for you he creates heaven and earth after he hovers over these waters. "

      Uh, heavens and earth verse 1, hovering over the waters verse 2.

      "They pre-exist heaven and earth, and become part of the flat earth and endless oceans after the earth has been made to rise out of them, after he creates the heavens/the universe by separating the ocean and creating a bubble.."

      That's quite an imagination you've got there. And I don't believe the "Jews who wrote the book" think any of that.

      "News flash: The universe is huge, not a dome over the earth. there is no ocean above us. And your attempts to say they are talking about atmosphere is ridiculous. Much later god puts stars in the dome and a sun and moon he says is a light. Moon and sun are not in our atmosphere in case you forgot."

      The firmament is not the universe. The firmament is the sky, which actually became a sky as we know humans know it now right where it says chronologically. When the oxygenated atmosphere formed. And no, the sun and moon aren't in the atmosphere, but they are in the sky.

      "Yes, consciousness is a complex form of awareness, I said this from the beginning; and again, in humans it means all the things I talked about. Is a bacteria awake? Does it day dream? Think about that. You're arguing semantics here."

      No, I'm not. I'm trying to help you realize that what you're claiming is utterly ridiculous. To say you 'quieted' consciousness and were left with nothing but awareness is just nonsensical. You couldn't recall it now to tell me about it if you weren't conscious to experience it. You can't be aware of something, yet unconscious.

      "What would you know about it? Actually you have to use techniques to achieve this which include not thinking at all."

      Clearly, and the thinking hasn't started yet, apparently. What I'm saying is very simple. You can't have memories of something if you weren't conscious while experiencing it. You have to be conscious to form memories of your experience. Otherwise you're not forming memories, therefore there's nothing to reflect on later and explain.

      "Right. So saying: "It's the only rational answer at the moment considering there's no spaghetti monster god from outer space." is irrational too? No difference. You and I can not prove either exist or don't. Therefore both are excluded from rational models."

      Wrong. You can't prove it with physical evidence, but you can reach the logical conclusion if you don't delude yourself with thoughts like assigning magical properties to matter or energy. The spaghetti monster thing is a waste of time. I get the point you're trying to make, but it's a bad comparison. One God is written about in ancient texts that have remained relevant in every age since they were written. One God is the basis of the three largest religions, and is at the center of all the chaos that dictates that part of the world. Not the other. No comparison.

      But to say they're excluded from rational models is false. Rationality agrees that not all things in existence can be observed or detected, so rationality and logic says at least part of the story is beyond detection. It's irrational to try to say what's detectable is all there is.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      "It says this right at the beginning right before He says, "Let there be light". So He said that while being on the surface. The beginning established the point of view. I'm not reading anything more than what's there."

      Yeah right.

      Too bad for you he creates heaven and earth after he hovers over these waters. They pre-exist heaven and earth, and become part of the flat earth and endless oceans after the earth has been made to rise out of them, after he creates the heavens/the universe by separating the ocean and creating a bubble.. He is not on the surface of anything. He is hovering over the "ocean of heaven," as it is known by the Jews who wrote the book.

      News flash: The universe is huge, not a dome over the earth. there is no ocean above us. And your attempts to say they are talking about atmosphere is ridiculous. Much later god puts stars in the dome and a sun and moon he says is a light. Moon and sun are not in our atmosphere in case you forgot.

      "To even be aware, you have to be conscious. If not then you're not consciously aware of being aware."

      You mean awake? Unconscious vs conscious? Lol... that's just a way of talking. Yes, consciousness is a complex form of awareness, I said this from the beginning; and again, in humans it means all the things I talked about. Is a bacteria awake? Does it day dream? Think about that. You're arguing semantics here.

      That's what makes it hard to talk about this stuff sometimes. We could spend days arguing about what words mean. When I am talking conscious, I'm talking left brain consciousness, self awareness, personal identity. Vs right brain subconscious awareness.

      I'm also talking degrees of awareness from basic to full consciousness.

      "Real meditation huh? Right. Quieting your mind is not removing consciousness. It's just quieting chatter. Something you consciously do and are clearly aware of."

      What would you know about it? Actually you have to use techniques to achieve this which include not thinking at all. You go into it with left brain conscious thought, but that's what gets shut down. You then move to subconscious awareness.

      When out of body, the first thought that creeps in, you are snapped back in to your body rather unceremoniously. Again, this is not basic awareness, it's subconscious awareness. Big difference.

      I said:"It's the only rational answer at the moment considering there's no god."

      You said: "Which is in itself an irrational answer."

      Right. So saying: "It's the only rational answer at the moment considering there's no spaghetti monster god from outer space." is irrational too? No difference. You and I can not prove either exist or don't. Therefore both are excluded from rational models.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Slarty,

      So you won't even give the authors credit for understanding light comes from the sun. There's a perfectly reasonable explanation for that, but you're not interested in that. You'd rather read it this totally ridiculous way because it supports your view. And please with the claims of dishonesty. If you're honest you'll acknowledge the explanation I already gave and how it does actually line up chronologically. But I'm not holding my breath.

      Me- "Recall that the point of view is from the surface. "

      You- "Bull shit. More reading in to it what isn't there."

      "... the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

      It says this right at the beginning right before He says, "Let there be light". So He said that while being on the surface. The beginning established the point of view. I'm not reading anything more than what's there.

      Scholarly Jewish people also did not have the information we have now. They were just as in the dark as everyone else. But when read in the context of what actually happened, whether you're willing to acknowledge it or not, it lines up quite well.

      "I'm quite sure you don't understand consciousness. For one, there is no reason you can't form memories when simply aware. Consciousness is the thinking process. Conscious deliberation. Logic, rationality, language, self awareness, self identity."

      Right, exactly. I know this because this is something my wife's always getting onto me about. She's always present and conscious in every moment. I'm often lost in my head. She recalls incredible amounts of detail, I don't. That's why. If you're not consciously processing and observing information, if you're not conscious, then you're not going to recall anything you experience. To even be aware, you have to be conscious. If not then you're not consciously aware of being aware.

      "In real meditation those things are gone."

      Real meditation huh? Right. Quieting your mind is not removing consciousness. It's just quieting chatter. Something you consciously do and are clearly aware of.

      Consciousness is more than just the thinking process. Consciousness is also awareness.

      "It's the only rational answer at the moment considering there's no god."

      Which is in itself an irrational answer.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      "Are you reading that to mean God created light, separate from the sun? Light by itself?"

      That's what it says. Read it. Much later he creates a sun. Don't twist the time line to suit your needs. Yes, they obviously thought light was created before stars. That's what it says. Try dealing with it honestly for a change.

      "Recall that the point of view is from the surface. "

      Bull shit. More reading in to it what isn't there.

      "No, I haven't. It lines up point by point. The only things not matching are the incorrect ways you're interpreting it."

      Well we are simply never going to agree on who is correctly interpreting the book. So far you haven't convinced me that any of your interpretations match reality because they don't make sense in light of the words on the page nor any scholarly Jewish interpretation. And they wrote the thing.

      "Where'd you get all of that? Realize how much of this is on the page and how much is coming from you."

      It's obvious from the text. Again, it's even traditional interpretation.

      "I'm not projecting. I'm describing exactly what you are demonstrably doing."

      No, you were projecting because you were saying I was doing what you yourself were doing. Which I wasn't.

      "I'm not sure you understand what consciousness is. If you actually realize and recognize your awareness, then you're conscious. If you're not conscious then you're not forming the memories to later draw on to remember this occurrence. "

      I'm quite sure you don't understand consciousness. For one, there is no reason you can't form memories when simply aware. Consciousness is the thinking process. Conscious deliberation. Logic, rationality, language, self awareness, self identity.

      In real meditation those things are gone.

      "You assume, again. That must be how it works because you already "know" how it all works, you assume, so this must be all it is. Again, answering questions prematurely"

      It's the only rational answer at the moment considering there's no god.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Slarty,

      Yes, it says "let there be light". There's the words on the page, and then there's what you read into it. So how are you reading that? Are you reading that to mean God created light, separate from the sun? Light by itself?

      Recall that the point of view is from the surface. Early on, during the age when the earth actually resembled what's described, the Earth really was shrouded in darkness due to a dense atmosphere. But as the water vapor condensed and formed the oceans, light was able to get through. Again, it's how you're reading it. Don't say I'm being dishonest. I may be wrong about this or that, but I am not being dishonest. I wouldn't waste your time or my own if I knew something to be false. I don't say it unless I full on believe it.

      Your version assumes these "ignorant" bronze age people didn't even realize the light of day came from the sun. That should be an indicator that something's wrong with your interpretation, and not the scripture itself.

      "I'm not the one trying to twist the words on the page. You've been proven wrong by the book itself at every turn."

      No, I haven't. It lines up point by point. The only things not matching are the incorrect ways you're interpreting it.

      "Be fruitful and multiply doesn't imply evolution. It suggests the opposite. the directive is given because they were just now created in one day, and had not been fruitful nor had they multiplied. They were created as is, not as single cells evolving into cows. Because by then they had done nothing but to get to where they are."

      Where'd you get all of that? Realize how much of this is on the page and how much is coming from you.

      "No. stop projecting. that's what you are doing in spades."

      I'm not projecting. I'm describing exactly what you are demonstrably doing.

      "You wish. You have no evidence and get upset when asked for it."

      When did I get upset? I'm just trying to get you to realize that asking for evidence is illogical. If you understand what we're talking about then you understand how counter-intuitive it is to ask for physical evidence.

      "If you shut down the conscious side of the brain you find the subconscious part of the brain. You are aware and awake but not conscious."

      I'm not sure you understand what consciousness is. If you actually realize and recognize your awareness, then you're conscious. If you're not conscious then you're not forming the memories to later draw on to remember this occurrence. It just doesn't make sense. Stopping the chattering of your inner dialogue is not removing consciousness. It's removing the chattering from your consciousness.

      "But what I was actually talking about in that sentence was that a single cell doesn't have a conscious side, or a subconscious. Only very, very, basic awareness through chemical cues. A sense of proximity, a sense of temperature and pressure. That kind of thing."

      You assume, again. That must be how it works because you already "know" how it all works, you assume, so this must be all it is. Again, answering questions prematurely.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      "What makes you think that? Why do you think God can just poof and miracle everything into existence instantaneously?"

      Oh come on, be honest about it at least. He says let there be light and magically there is light. The words on the page, man, not your silly interpretation. You can't put science and the bible together. You are being dishonest.

      Light was created by the formation of stars 9 billion years before earth was formed. But in the bible it says he spoke it in to existence. You twisting things to fit the facts in with this obvious fantasy doesn't work no matter how hard you try. The words on the page don't imply what you want them to. Not once does it say or imply he said anything from the surface of the planet. That's all in your imagination. You want it to be there but it very clearly isn't.

      I'm not the one trying to twist the words on the page. You've been proven wrong by the book itself at every turn.

      Be fruitful and multiply doesn't imply evolution. It suggests the opposite. the directive is given because they were just now created in one day, and had not been fruitful nor had they multiplied. They were created as is, not as single cells evolving into cows. Because by then they had done nothing but to get to where they are.

      "You're committing the cardinal sin of drawing conclusions based solely on unproven opinion."

      No. stop projecting. that's what you are doing in spades.

      "I don't let my own whims dictate what the truth can be. I'm open to whatever the truth may be. The evidence leads me here. Logic and reason leads me here."

      You wish. You have no evidence and get upset when asked for it. There is no logic in taking the OT as literal or as truth. You have faith. You couldn't come to any other conclusion if you wanted to.

      "And yes, awareness without consciousness is more than just possible."

      "How do you know? Do you mean to tell me you experienced this?"

      Of course.

      " The obvious question is, if you're weren't consciously aware, then how did you form memories to then recall the experience? That doesn't make any sense."

      If you shut down the conscious side of the brain you find the subconscious part of the brain. You are aware and awake but not conscious.

      Consciousness uses inner dialogue, conscious logic, conscious reasoning. This inner chatter destroys "spiritual" states of being. Once shut down different states can be attained including out of body experience, experiencing a connection to all, a state of just understanding everything. and much more.

      All without conscious thought or deliberation. Just from a will felt in the stomach area. A very strong will has to be cultivated.

      But what I was actually talking about in that sentence was that a single cell doesn't have a conscious side, or a subconscious. Only very, very, basic awareness through chemical cues. A sense of proximity, a sense of temperature and pressure. That kind of thing.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Slarty,

      In the case of a miscarriage, that's life. It's imperfect and temporary. If there are some who live to 110, there will be some who die before they're born. Life isn't guaranteed. Tomorrow is literally not a guarantee for anyone. It's an important element.

      Humanity has a chance to live and make choices. We're all interconnected spiritually. We'll all be able to share in all human experience throughout history as if we lived it all ourselves. Even that baby who was never born is a part of it. He/She played a role and was real for a time. If you're looking for it all being "fair", as my mom used to say to me, "the fair's in October". There is no fair. But, because they never made a willful choice, they never got out sync with God.

      Bacteria is life too. When it dies, the life that animates it and compels it to live goes back to source, so to speak. I think what's significant about us is we actually have an individual will. What's significant is that we retain our own individuality and independence beyond death. Bacteria don't. It just dies. It's life force can carry on, but it's not an individual. It's just life.

      "Why use evolution? He could just magic things in to existence with a word."

      What makes you think that? Why do you think God can just poof and miracle everything into existence instantaneously? That's clearly not how God works. God wills it and the natural world becomes it. It all works exactly as He wills it. All but us. That's significant. There's purpose to all of it.

      "The bible says exactly that. He magically creates all animals as they are today."

      Does it? From what I can see it says God said (remember, while on the surface) let the waters bring forth this and that. Then, once on land, the land bring forth and then came mammals and eventually us. No, it doesn't say "evolution", but it does "be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth", which is of course how evolution is accomplished. So, no, no contradiction.

      Just a quick sidenote, there seems to be two instances here where your assumption about something, (it seems God would just make things magically appear, the bible says this), your own flawed interpretation, and this is what you test against to determine whether God's there or not. This is what you think you should see? "Evidence" of magic? Evidence of animals just appearing?

      "But something amazing is going on, much more amazing I think than egotistical tyrant gods and supernatural magic souls."

      Yes, something amazing is going on, and it's not a "tyrant" god or anything magic. It's spiritual. The distinction was made a long time ago between what is spiritual and what is physical. It's actually a pretty big theme in the story. It is amazing. But if you're reading it as if God's a tyrant then you're missing the amazing part. You're misunderstanding. All complex systems require order. The DNA gives the body order. A queen ant gives a hive order. It's how systems work. If there's going to be free will, where we're capable of acting however we want, it's going to be necessary that there be rules and order. And we're going to have to all willfully acknowledge the one being qualified for the job. It's simply necessary, not the ego of a tyrant.

      "And yes, awareness without consciousness is more than just possible."

      How do you know? Do you mean to tell me you experienced this? The obvious question is, if you're weren't consciously aware, then how did you form memories to then recall the experience? That doesn't make any sense.

      "There is never a reason to resort to belief in fables just because its easier than sorting out the truth, even if you never find it in your life time."

      You're committing the cardinal sin of drawing conclusions based solely on unproven opinion. What you have already deemed "fables" I have considered seriously. That's the only difference. You've already defined what is and isn't true. Based quite a lot on a flawed interpretation it would seem. Probably because you deemed it irrelevant nonsense prematurely, so you never gave it due consideration.

      I don't let my own whims dictate what the truth can be. I'm open to whatever the truth may be. The evidence leads me here. Logic and reason leads me here.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      Ok, so what happens to the soul of a miscarriage? It’s supposed to experience free will, but never gets a chance. Do they go to heaven to be raised by angels? Does god risk it? What if they turn out evil in heaven? Or do they just die? Your idea that we all come here to learn and use free will in training for heaven, rather than being born there so we don’t mess up heaven has its logistical problems for god. He takes more in miscarriages than abortions by far. What a dick if he just lets them die after killing them.

      And you say all animated things have this supernatural soul. So what about a bacteria? If it has a soul, does it go to heaven when it dies? What does it learn while here? I take it it doesn’t have free will, so that suggests it’s doing god’s will? Nice.

      Why would a god create bacteria? Why other animals? Why use evolution? He could just magic things in to existence with a word. Why are animals so difficult that he has to use evolution? The bible says exactly that. He magically creates all animals as they are today. No evolution. Yet we know otherwise. Even you believe in evolution, but the bible contradicts you. Evolution is proof of a natural system at work, which is why fundamentalists hate it and wish it would go away.

      Yes life is special. Not just a machine. So what does that say about the energy that forms life? To me it says a lot, but all of it is speculation. Is there a cosmic consciousness? Is energy itself inherently aware, or does it inherently create awareness? I don’t know. But something amazing is going on, much more amazing I think than egotistical tyrant gods and supernatural magic souls.

      And yes, awareness without consciousness is more than just possible. And a bacteria is an individual, even though it has no concept of that or what it means to be “I”. It just feels needs and tries to fulfill them.

      Sorry, no, the version of a god created by primitives is hardly a good place to look for facts. What you do is take facts and try to marry them to myth and fable. Unsuccessfully, I might add, though you do try hard.

      There is never a reason to resort to belief in fables just because its easier than sorting out the truth, even if you never find it in your life time.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      "No contradiction there. I’m not and never have said single cells had consciousness nor self awareness. But if you don’t see complexity in single cells you aren’t looking."

      Oh yeah, there's complexity, but all the complexity is in the behavior. There's actually only a dozen or so components. But the way it acts, the way it responds to stimuli, you're right, gives at least the impression that it's aware on some level. It would have to be to react as it does.

      But therein lies the problem. You don't have the complexity of layers and layers of components to attribute these actions to. Just the behaviors without the mechanistic explanation as to how exactly that happens. Just that it does.

      "Will is a manifestation of genetics, how you are wired, so to speak. A single cell has DNA. You should know that. It has needs and is set up to meet them. Otherwise it wouldn’t exist. Yet it is one step farther than auto response. And if it is aware and feels needs, it is the most basic awareness."

      Again, notice how the explanation turns into supposition when you get down into the bits that can't be seen or directly observed or explained. It must just be aware, which must just be an extension of a simple auto response. Or, there's something more to life and living things than just the material that we can see. I don't think it's such a strange thing to consider. I think logic eventually takes you there.

      "No you don’t know that. You assume that because you already believe in souls so you have to try to fit them in."

      I'm not just making souls up. I'm applying something already described as being there, and already described as something spiritual and not the same as the material natural world. I'm acknowledging that according to all we've seen thus far, the most likely explanation is that this is exactly what we should expect to see if what's described is true.

      You, on the other hand, are going the other way. You assume, because you already believe that we already understand the natural world in principle and that we're just waiting on the details to be filled in, you're willing to really stretch the capabilities of energy to make it fit.

      I'm checking out the merits of an explanation that seems to be accurate. If considered appropriately.

      "For all the plenty I bet you can’t name a single thing that can actually be shown to exist. As far as anyone knows there is but one substance: energy. And all is created from it. Show a substance that isn’t. Can’t do it. I know."

      That's the point. It's not material. It's not physical. You're not going to detect it naturally/materially/physically. The lack of evidence, the inability to "show" something exists, is an expected result. It's consistent with what it claims to be. The evidence is the lack of evidence. And yet still a lack of explanation, even with all we now know. There's a gap there, for a reason. Because what fills that gap can't be detected.

      "That’s our problem. You don’t know the difference between awareness and consciousness. Conscious thought, for one thing. Simple awareness doesn’t have it. Shut down the chatter in your brain completely and you have awareness. But in humans there is a more powerful subconscious/instinct which can be accessed. We have enhanced awareness even when consciousness is removed."

      Yes, I get that, you're not getting me. Something, someone, has to BE aware. Awareness is only awareness when there is one who is aware. A being. An individual. That's the point. 'You' is what I'm talking about. Without a 'you' awareness is nothing. SomeONE has to be aware.

      "Because it has no need to get gas. You do. It has no need to drive anywhere; you do. A car has no needs of its own;"

      Yes, exactly. Exactly. And why doesn't the car have any needs of it's own? Because it's not "alive". Everything alive is compelled by some unseen force that originates from within to take action and respond to need. There are more components necessary to make this interaction successful. The need alone doesn't do it. It's the 'will' that drives the living thing to pursue those needs that creates the action.

      "No. Not to a simple man made machine. But biology is not manmade."

      Yes, you're exactly right. It's not man-made, but it's made. It was deliberately determined. I agree.

      "The system."

      Really? Did you type that with a straight face?

      "An aware part perhaps, but not conscious."

      Hmm. Perhaps? Again, just like to point out how the "perhaps"s start coming out when you're dealing with these bits that can't be observed. So awareness without being conscious? What is that exactly? Are you really aware if you're not consciously aware of being aware?

      But your explanation does bring up an interesting duality going on in the body. The biological body has a mind of it's own, it would seem. You can't willfully stop it from living. You can't hold your breath or it's going to fight back. If you consciously decide you want to die, you actually have to kill the body. And it's going to resist.

      "It has a very good chance of being right on the money. It also has the virtue of being testable; unlike your model."

      Mine has just as much chance. More, really, considering mine was written about by people who didn't know any of this stuff. It's an established explanation. Yours is just an assumption based on the what's known in extending that out to explain what isn't understood. Mine is testable in that it can't be observed. It'll be action beyond physical explanation. It'll be a gap in the chain of causation.

      "No, your belief in gods and souls insist on it. They depend on it. You can’t afford for there not to be."

      Why not? If there's no God then there's no afterlife. We just cease to be. What's the harm in that? Why would I need there to be more? I don't. But I can't ignore what I see. It's obvious there's something more. That science can only really define where the physical borders are. It's inability to observe beyond those borders doesn't mean there's nothing out there. It means there are limitations to science. The much more likely scenario.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      “Right, so you're unaware of the contradiction. You keep trying to assign all the behaviors of the mind, the consciousness, self-awareness, and such, to the brain's complexity. Yet in a single cell there isn't complexity.”

      No contradiction there. I’m not and never have said single cells had consciousness nor self awareness. But if you don’t see complexity in single cells you aren’t looking.

      “ So whatever causes this behavior, this 'will', these actions that help protect it or help it attain needs, these can't be dismissed as being the result of complexity. I agree the cell is capable of these things, but your material/mechanistic explanation isn't lining up.”

      Will is a manifestation of genetics, how you are wired, so to speak. A single cell has DNA. You should know that. It has needs and is set up to meet them. Otherwise it wouldn’t exist. Yet it is one step farther than auto response. And if it is aware and feels needs, it is the most basic awareness.

      “I'm simply saying that two spiritual/material beings are capable of creating another spiritual/material being. How exactly that is accomplished I don't know.”

      In fact whether or not it is accomplished, you don’t know.

      “ But what I do know is that there's more to the story than just the material/biological matter at play.”

      No you don’t know that. You assume that because you already believe in souls so you have to try to fit them in.

      "And, you can't ever have a hope of proving any of it because you can't even prove a soul exists. You are making this shit up as you go along. I commend your imagination but there's no substance to it."

      “But it's justified because it attempts to explain what's beyond the material, of which there is plenty. And none of it is accounted for.”

      For all the plenty I bet you can’t name a single thing that can actually be shown to exist. As far as anyone knows there is but one substance: energy. And all is created from it. Show a substance that isn’t. Can’t do it. I know.

      "Nonsense. It emerged from basic awareness. Consciousness is evolved awareness."

      “So what exactly is aware other than consciousness?

      That’s our problem. You don’t know the difference between awareness and consciousness. Conscious thought, for one thing. Simple awareness doesn’t have it. Shut down the chatter in your brain completely and you have awareness. But in humans there is a more powerful subconscious/instinct which can be accessed. We have enhanced awareness even when consciousness is removed.

      Remove that or scale it back and you have simple awareness. The farther you scale it back the more basic the awareness becomes, till you end up with auto response. Simple awareness might feel proximity, sense heat and cold, perhaps even feel hunger. In other words feel its needs, but not be able to think. In other words, relying on instinctive or hard wired response.

      "Need produces/triggers the will. You don't get it do you? Hungry? What to do? Eat or suffer. Hunger produces the will to find food. Without hunger/need you wouldn't eat and you would die."

      “Yes, that's how hunger works. So my car has a need for fuel, so why doesn't it's need create the will to go get it itself?”

      Because it has no need to get gas. You do. It has no need to drive anywhere; you do. A car has no needs of its own; hence does nothing on its own. It didn’t form directly from nature as a car. It formed as rubber and metals and sand and the chemicals we make plastics from. Not one of those things need to get themselves gas or drive you around. And as a whole it isn’t a self sustaining system. It’s just a bunch of parts that do not interact with each other naturally in the way we engineered it to when we add the fuel that makes it do what we want it to do; hopefully.

      “There has to be something there that doesn't enjoy the pains of hunger to be motivated to solve it. That's why we feel discomfort and pain, because it motivates us to solve the problem. But without a willful conscious self who experiences and finds these feelings dis-pleasurable, it serves as a motivator. But not to a machine.”

      No. Not to a simple man made machine. But biology is not manmade.

      “I get the fact that these needs compel us, but it's the actual part where we're compelled that you keep glossing over. The fact that we're motivated by displeasure, or hunger, or pain, or whatever. We actually want to bring these things to an end because we care that we're experiencing it. You're right in that these needs compel us, but compels what exactly?”

      The system.

      “I don't doubt memory evolved, but unless there was a conscious part of us capable of experiencing and using these memories, then it would serve no purpose and therefore would not have evolved.”

      An aware part perhaps, but not conscious.

      "But do they think? I wouldn't think so. Are they conscious? hardly. But are they aware? Certainly. But it's a very rudimentary awareness. All living things have it. Even single cells. That's biology at its most basic, one step up from pure auto response."

      “See, you speak as if that's a determined fact. It isn't.”

      It has a very good chance of being right on the money. It also has the virtue of being testable; unlike your model.

      “ Whatever awareness or consciousness is, it can't be detected or measured.”

      So you keep saying.

      “ I agree with you it's there to some level in living things. But the mechanistic explanation that should be there isn't.”

      I disagree.

      “Opinions change when they're shown to be in error. Beliefs, however, have a tendency to stay the same in the face of challenges.”

      Lol. I’ll let you know when you show any of my opinions being in error. It hasn’t happened yet. But feel free to keep trying.

      “Not at all beyond reason. Reason is what tells me there's something more than what can be explained mechanistically.”

      No, your belief in gods and souls insist on it. They depend on it. You can’t afford for there not to be.

      “ What's described in the bible is the best explanation to date, especially given all we now know and the fact that those gaps in our knowledge are right where they ought to be if what the bible describes is true. “

      You’ve got to be joking.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Slarty,

      Right, so you're unaware of the contradiction. You keep trying to assign all the behaviors of the mind, the consciousness, self-awareness, and such, to the brain's complexity. Yet in a single cell there isn't complexity. There's just a handful of components. That's a contradiction. That cell can't have the same characteristics that are dismissed as being the result of complexity if it doesn't have the complexity to justify it. So whatever causes this behavior, this 'will', these actions that help protect it or help it attain needs, these can't be dismissed as being the result of complexity. I agree the cell is capable of these things, but your material/mechanistic explanation isn't lining up.

      I'm simply saying that two spiritual/material beings are capable of creating another spiritual/material being. How exactly that is accomplished I don't know. But what I do know is that there's more to the story than just the material/biological matter at play.

      "And, you can't ever have a hope of proving any of it because you can't even prove a soul exists. You are making this shit up as you go along. I commend your imagination but there's no substance to it."

      But it's justified because it attempts to explain what's beyond the material, of which there is plenty. And none of it is accounted for.

      "Nonsense. It emerged from basic awareness. Consciousness is evolved awareness."

      So what exactly is aware other than consciousness?

      "Need produces/triggers the will. You don't get it do you? Hungry? What to do? Eat or suffer. Hunger produces the will to find food. Without hunger/need you wouldn't eat and you would die."

      Yes, that's how hunger works. So my car has a need for fuel, so why doesn't it's need create the will to go get it itself?

      There has to be something there that doesn't enjoy the pains of hunger to be motivated to solve it. That's why we feel discomfort and pain, because it motivates us to solve the problem. But without a willful conscious self who experiences and finds these feelings dis-pleasurable, it serves as a motivator. But not to a machine.

      No, no, no. You're just making this up. I mean, I get it. I get the fact that these needs compel us, but it's the actual part where we're compelled that you keep glossing over. The fact that we're motivated by displeasure, or hunger, or pain, or whatever. We actually want to bring these things to an end because we care that we're experiencing it. You're right in that these needs compel us, but compels what exactly?

      I don't doubt memory evolved, but unless there was a conscious part of us capable of experiencing and using these memories, then it would serve no purpose and therefore would not have evolved.

      "But do they think? I wouldn't think so. Are they conscious? hardly. But are they aware? Certainly. But it's a very rudimentary awareness. All living things have it. Even single cells. That's biology at its most basic, one step up from pure auto response."

      See, you speak as if that's a determined fact. It isn't. Whatever awareness or consciousness is, it can't be detected or measured. I agree with you it's there to some level in living things. But the mechanistic explanation that should be there isn't. It can't even be detected. And unlike a human brain, in plants and cells you don't have the complexity to dismiss it as.

      "That's not a belief. It's an opinion based on science."

      Opinions change when they're shown to be in error. Beliefs, however, have a tendency to stay the same in the face of challenges.

      "You already believe in souls and god on faith alone, because you can't prove either even can exist. So its no wonder you insist beyond reason, and without reason they must have something to do with it all."

      Not at all beyond reason. Reason is what tells me there's something more than what can be explained mechanistically. What's described in the bible is the best explanation to date, especially given all we now know and the fact that those gaps in our knowledge are right where they ought to be if what the bible describes is true.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      No contradictions here. I've laid out a logical science based model. You are insisting on voodoo magic supernatural gibberish being the answer. There is no contest.

      So now you want us to believe that souls have kids. What, they take a little from mom's soul and a little from dad's soul? Souls mix like DNA? Come on now you must see you are stretching this to the limit? No mechanism, no instructions, no DNA, but souls divide like cells combine like DNA and do all manner of magic tricks all without a way to do it?

      And, you can't ever have a hope of proving any of it because you can't even prove a soul exists. You are making this shit up as you go along. I commend your imagination but there's no substance to it.

      "Yet consciousness has to be there to be able to make use of the capabilities the brain evolved. So consciousness had to already be there."

      Nonsense. It emerged from basic awareness. Consciousness is evolved awareness.

      "That's ridiculous. A will has to be there driving us to pursue those needs. Again, your logic is backwards."

      Need produces/triggers the will. You don't get it do you? Hungry? What to do? Eat or suffer. Hunger produces the will to find food. Without hunger/need you wouldn't eat and you would die.

      Then there is the question of how to get food. Getting food is a need that facilitates creativity. How to get food faster, better, more of it. How to preserve it. All different desires brought on by one need.

      Thirst. A need for water. Where to get it, where to get a clean source. Life or death need that forces willful action. No feeling of need and you would die of dehydration.

      Controlling body temp is another need. Too hot, you suffer. Too cold, you suffer. That need brings about the need for shelter, clothes, heating, cooling, etc.

      And the list goes on.

      Your will is genetic predisposition as are your needs. Needs felt triggers will to resolve needs. No needs, you'd sit there like a veg.

      Not ridiculous at all. Basic facts you should know and acknowledge.

      "Woah, woah, there you go, your cart is clearly in front of your horse. How did memory come about if it wasn't in service of an individual being making use of those memories? The way the mind evolved, with the ability to store and recall information, with a pleasure center, these things are telling."

      Yeah, it tells us basic auto response evolved into basic awareness, which evolved to self awareness and consciousness. Awareness is not consciousness or anywhere close. But they are different degrees of the same thing.

      Memory is fundamental to most organisms. That's how animals learn. But again, the ability to learn is measured in degrees. A small animal has a limited range of what it can learn. More complex animals have a larger range. Our memory, like our brain, evolved.

      It in no way suggests divine aid. I know you wish it did but it doesn't.

      " Yet they don't have a brain. Are you acknowledging plants are aware as well? Without a brain? Explain that."

      I''d say yes, they are somewhat aware. You suggesting plants have souls?

      Plants have an endocrine system. Same as humans. It acts like a nervous system in many ways. An endocrine system is what nervous systems and then brains developed from.

      Plants have hormones and other chemical information which gets passed along down the line via their circulatory systems. They can even communicate chemically with other plants, though in a very limited way.

      But do they think? I wouldn't think so. Are they conscious? hardly. But are they aware? Certainly. But it's a very rudimentary awareness. All living things have it. Even single cells. That's biology at its most basic, one step up from pure auto response.

      That's not a belief. It's an opinion based on science. A model. And It is also my opinion that it is far more likely to be right or in the ball park than super natural answers just because because the details are to hard for some of us to fathom.

      You already believe in souls and god on faith alone, because you can't prove either even can exist. So its no wonder you insist beyond reason, and without reason they must have something to do with it all.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Slarty,

      A soul has likes and dislikes because it's an individual person. Not a machine. An individual has preferences. They like some things, dislike other things, and really don't care about some things. You insist on understanding this to this degree, wanting to know how it all works, yet you don't even have this level of understanding of your own view. That shows that you as well have a preference.

      A physical biological body is created through procreation. But the individual soul that breathes life into that lump of flesh was created as well. Because both physical/spiritual beings are creating physical/spiritual beings. We can only observe/detect the physical side of that, but there's clearly more at play than that.

      "Consciousness comes about by a set of conditions and physical attributes. The most important of which is memory."

      Woah, woah, there you go, your cart is clearly in front of your horse. How did memory come about if it wasn't in service of an individual being making use of those memories? The way the mind evolved, with the ability to store and recall information, with a pleasure center, these things are telling. They're telling us what was there to begin with that these functions actually aided. You can't have consciousness coming about because of memories. You have to be conscious first to even make use of them. See how backwards that is?

      "Souls don't animate people, needs do."

      That's ridiculous. A will has to be there driving us to pursue those needs. Again, your logic is backwards.

      "A single cell has awareness but not full self awareness or consciousness."

      Interesting. Yet a single cell doesn't have the complexity you usually dismiss these characteristics as being the 'how'. Yet you acknowledge individual cells as having some level of awareness? Is that somehow created by the nucleus? Given the simplicity involved, you should be able to clearly illustrate how this mechanistically works.

      "Plants don't have them because they don't need them."

      Actually if you watch plants, both above ground and below, sped up, you'll see that they actually act quite a bit like animals. They compete for resources, they share with familial relations and don't share with non-related, they move through growth, but still pursue needs. Yet they don't have a brain. Are you acknowledging plants are aware as well? Without a brain? Explain that.

      "In other words the brain and consciousness evolved together."

      Yet consciousness has to be there to be able to make use of the capabilities the brain evolved. So consciousness had to already be there.

      "I don't see your problem here. The atoms everything is made of are interactive and creative. Those atoms are energy. Energy is animate and so the things made of it are animate and interactive. Souls don't need to do that. Its built in to the human system evolution created, as well as all the other biological systems that exist. Your objections don't make a lot of sense to me."

      And your explanations, which are much like the standard scientific answers, are clearly lacking. That's what makes it apparent that this is a belief system. The logic isn't there, yet some of the smartest people I know have no problem just going with it.

      Like you, clearly an intelligent and well informed individual, yet you'll say without hesitation that a single cell is aware, seemingly unaware of the contradiction you're creating by doing so.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      So a soul is immortal, but it gets its likes and dislikes how? You still haven't answered that. We know for a fact that we get them from DNA.

      A soul gets its likes and dislikes through DNA? After all, you seem to be saying that a supernatural thing is created by natural procreation. That's rather odd, isn't it? How? Where in the DNA code are the genes for a soul? What chemical set of cues create that?

      Consciousness comes about by a set of conditions and physical attributes. The most important of which is memory. We have limited sensors that create a world for us. They also isolate us. Memory gives the system continuity. Even though every cell of your body has been replaced several times from birth to old age, and you as a unit are clearly not who you used to be physically, memory serves to anchor our sense of self.

      Needs play an enormous part in all this. they force us to act. Souls don't animate people, needs do. You don't even blink unless your eyes need moisture. You would do nothing at all without stimulus. And of course there is plenty of that from both outside and inside the system.

      Consciousness starts with awareness of the outside and how it effects you. A single cell has awareness but not full self awareness or consciousness. But as cells join in greater numbers and the form moves from place to place a brain is required. Plants don't have them because they don't need them.

      The sea squirt has offspring that are like tadpoles. They have a brain because they actually swim and navigate to their new residence. Once they find a nice place they root themselves, and while they are waiting for that process to be able to feed them, they digest their brain.

      Animals developed better brains because they needed to hunt and forage. Lots of moving from place to place. Animals like mammals have a pretty good set of emotional responses to things.

      Higher animals like apes have a good sense of self, and of course in humans its very well developed indeed.

      In other words the brain and consciousness evolved together.

      Humans have voice boxes that make many sounds. An ape doesn't have that capability. Some birds do but they don't have the brain power to develop language. We did. And that one attribute is why humans are so successful. Apes communicate with each other as most animals do, and we can teach them human sign language. But complex language never developed for them because their physiology doesn't facilitate it.

      That was the giant leap man kind made. Then writing was next.

      I don't see your problem here. The atoms everything is made of are interactive and creative. Those atoms are energy. Energy is animate and so the things made of it are animate and interactive. Souls don't need to do that. Its built in to the human system evolution created, as well as all the other biological systems that exist. Your objections don't make a lot of sense to me.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Yes, I get all of that. What I don't get is how these layers of systems combine together to become a conscious willful being with a favorite song and favorite color. You see no need for a soul because all the characteristics that do constitute a soul you're assigning to energy. Nothing about anything you said even begins to justify a conscious being.

      A soul is immortal. You come into being when you are created by the choices and actions of your parents. That creates a soul. You are you right from the start. A spiritual being doesn't become over time. You learn yourself and what's already there over time.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      Again you talk about energy as if it can only act one way. But you conveniently ignore the fact that a system is many different forms created by energy that together act in unique ways.

      Hydrogen acts in a specific way. Oxygen has its own characteristics. Add oxygen to hydrogen and light a match and the combination is explosive. But as the hydrogen burns it mixes with the oxygen to produce something that puts out fire: water.

      See how it works? Add different things/substances together and they act differently from all its constituent parts. Its a system, which is what you desperately try not to understand.

      Of course electrons don't act like humans. Simple matter doesn't act like humans. Come on man. How can you just say energy/matter doesn't act this way? Of course a photon doesn't. Of course a human system does.

      Humans are complex systems made up of trillions of atoms, billions of cells, millions of different compounds, thousands of different systems, all acting as one. That's clearly what everything is: systems within systems.

      I see no need for souls. You keep saying I have no proof, but that's not the case. All of science points to the fact that the simple becomes the complex through interaction following simple rules, according to the laws of physics. This is as well established as evolution, which itself is this pattern.

      "You're right in that we don't choose what we like. It's already set. Right from the beginning there are things we like and don't like. As a baby we reject some foods, prefer others, laugh at certain things. It is already set right from the beginning what you like, which of course in your line of thinking means it's conditioning. Must be. Except that that doesn't make any sense at all."

      It makes perfect sense, and you still fail to enlighten me on when and how it all becomes set if we have a soul. So I'll try again: How does a soul get it's likes and dislikes? Are you avoiding this question?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Slarty,

      Yes, I get all of that. But the problem I have is you're still assigning human rationality to machinery. What does a mechanism care whether or not there's benefit to one choice over another? Yes, they're practical, to us. Because we have preferences. Because we want to limit discomfort and increase comfort. Because we actually care that we're in discomfort or we actually care that we're inconvenienced in some way. And that didn't happen because of energy. Energy doesn't care either.

      What value does a soul add? That right there. You and your preferences. Your loves and likes and dislikes. You like that particular song or that particular movie because of who you are. Not because of the conditioning of your ancestors, but because you are a spiritual living conscious willful being.

      It just doesn't work mechanistically. "environmental conditioning and genetic predisposition" ... much like your criticism of my insistence there's a soul, you have the same problem with this. You can explain it all you like, but you have no proof. It's all rampant speculation and nothing more.

      You're right in that we don't choose what we like. It's already set. Right from the beginning there are things we like and don't like. As a baby we reject some foods, prefer others, laugh at certain things. It is already set right from the beginning what you like, which of course in your line of thinking means it's conditioning. Must be. Except that that doesn't make any sense at all.

      I don't get why you keep asking what value a soul adds. Without it you wouldn't be animated. You wouldn't be an actively conscious being. You wouldn't be anything, really. So the value a soul adds is ... everything.

      We like what we like and base our decisions on our individual will. Because we have a soul we experience and actually prefer pleasure. Which is why the brain has a pleasure center. Because whatever is the 'decider' in the brain can be coaxed by the promise of pleasure. Because the brain evolved that way then it only makes sense that this has been true throughout.

      What I can logically take from this is that this is definitely not the behavior of energy or material of any kind. It's strange. An anomaly. Completely different in every way and therefore something else.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      So, the problem for me is, I know what will is. We want certain things because we like them. We prefer one outcome over another, we choose to act in specific ways for various reasons. But why do we like certain things rather than others? Why do we want specific outcomes? Why do we choose to act one way over another?

      These questions are all answered in different ways. We want specific outcomes because they beneficial to us or others . Want electricity? You have to pay the bill. Want to live comfortably you need a job or money from somewhere. These are practical considerations specific to being human. So our human condition provides many of the reasons we want specific outcomes, and why we act in certain specific ways.

      There are many other kinds of reasons we act in specific ways. Those center around two factors: environmental conditioning and genetic predisposition. These two factors played against each other determines our actions, and the ability to learn causes us to change as we go along, changing our dynamic.

      Why do we like what we like? That entire dynamic again.

      We never choose what we like, to us, we just like it And on that basis we act. A desire is like a need. It becomes need, and needs trigger rationality, logic, and creativity to resolve need.

      Will is the manifestation of our unique conditioning. Will manifests as desires and wants. And in the actions that correspond to needs.

      In every way we make the choices we want out of our own separate will. The only thing we don’t control is what we desire. That’s controlled by our conditioning/predisposition. In every way we make the choices want, even though we may not know why we prefer vanilla ice cream, or steak and potatoes and having a wife and kids.

      Now, what value does a soul add? What degree of freedom? Why does a soul like what it likes? What does it base its decisions on? Does it choose what it likes and what it doesn’t? By what criteria?

      This is what must be answered for a soul to make sense, and yet I can’t see how it, a supernatural thing, gets its wants if not through some sort of mechanism. Can you logically answer this?

      I’ll answer your other posts tomorrow night.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Slarty,

      More on this ...

      ""Like what you are doing? I’m only going by what you claim a soul can do and not do even though you can’t know any of what you claim because you can’t even produce one or give any proof of their existence. Others have other ideas about souls and what they do. No one can prove their claims so who shall I believe? No one.""

      It can be determined. That's what we've been talking about. The inconsistency with the rest of the natural world, the implications about whether or not we truly have conscious willful control, this is all related. It can't be willful control if it's all material matter, no matter your insistence to assign magical properties to energy. If you simply acknowledge the error in that then you have one conclusion left. There's something more at play here. It's a matter of deduction. Take away what can be observed and detected, find where the line of material ends and that's where immaterial begins. There's a whole world beyond the observable unaccounted for. And it's not for a lack of looking. It's because we're dealing with something else. Something more.

      All while accusing me of injecting 'god dun it' you're injecting 'energy dun it' in the exact same way. You hold a belief about energy being capable of this, and you reject all rationality for what your beliefs state to be true instead. Holding out, through faith, that what you believe to be true will be one day confirmed scientifically. And that it's not God or anything supernatural at all, it's just a gap in our understanding not yet filled in.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Slarty,

      "Then where am I in dreamless sleep or under anesthetic?"

      Well you're not dead, so you're still in there (though "there" suggests existing spatially). Only your mechanism that grants you access to the outside world is out of commission. So you're not forming memories or anything. So whatever's going on isn't being recorded.

      "But you have no idea how energy can behave in a dynamic system. You are the entire system. You have will, you have to make determinations. Everything is determined by natural law, and natural law facilitates boundless creativity. No supernatural required."

      I know it can't behave as you say it does. Just because layer after layer of organized systems may have accumulated, that doesn't then equate to conscious willful control. It's not that energy in a larger system is continuing to achieve it's needs in the same fashion. No, these needs are now the realized manifestation of a conscious being. I'm sorry, complexity doesn't even begin to explain it, and suggesting my understanding of energy is just lacking because I disagree is a cop out.

      I find myself in the rather fortunate position of having found a flaw in my understanding while discussing it with someone who has a deep understanding of that very same topic. So, please, make me understand. Lay it all out and show me how it works. Show me the way. Don't leave me hanging.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      "What’s incredibly short sighted is thinking conditions stay the same. We don’t have to rely on our senses anyway. We test and find answers we couldn’t find with our senses. We also have reason and logic and mathematics."

      Right, and that's my point. You can't dismiss things that can't be detected based solely on the reason that they can't be detected. There are components of the explanation that aren't going to be observable. Either directly, or in some way made observable through whatever means.

      "How absurd. No wonder you’re confused. Tell me the experience of being a car. Should be easy. It’s a machine."

      But we can observe exactly how a car is a car. When we peer into the mind we find nothing but more questions. You're missing the point. The mental experience is something that is definitely happening, yet can't be observed. If all we had to go on was our ability to physically observe a functioning brain, and didn't experience the mind for ourselves, nothing about brain activity would give us any sort of a clue as to what's actually going on in there.

      "Again, So what? How absurd of you to expect an MRI to give you that information. Hook someone up to a computer with the right software and maybe we could. But it would still prove nothing for your side one way or the other; unless the computer spotted your soul, of course."

      Yes it does. It's something happening in the natural world that isn't observable. So .... part of the explanation could very likely not be observable or detectable in any way. Logic and reason should indicate the involvement of intelligent intent given the organization and order and such. But that's not allowed because it's not "science". The whole concept is logically broken.

      "Like what you are doing? I’m only going by what you claim a soul can do and not do even though you can’t know any of what you claim because you can’t even produce one or give any proof of their existence. Others have other ideas about souls and what they do. No one can prove their claims so who shall I believe? No one."

      I'm sorry you can't have the comfort of the verify-ability of physical evidence, but that's just the facts of the case. We're going to have to employ logic and reason to fill in what can't be determined physically. Either that or we'll never have any hope of the whole story. It always be incomplete.

      "I have no beliefs about them so I can only critique yours."

      Yes, exactly. I welcome it. If there's a flaw, I want to know about it. If it stands up then it stands up.

      "For all we know the universe could be an atom on the top of the C of a coke can in an empty parking lot on a world in a massive universe, which is an atom on a bump on a log in even a bigger one. So much for: for all we know."

      I'm making the point that if the brain is asleep, then that's why you don't remember "thinking" while sleeping or whatever. I'm trying to make you understand in the context as you've been explaining to me this whole time. It's physical information. Physically stored in a physical brain. Physically recalled at will (somehow, but that's not important) and experienced. But if the mind is asleep, whatever your soul is doing in that time, whether it's actively thinking or wondering or whatever, it's not being stored in the brain to then be recalled or "remembered". I'm pointing out the flaw in your logic in your attempt to dismiss the soul.

      "According to you it’s not in my control. According to me I want it, I agree to it, I do it, It’s in my control even if the reason I want it isn’t. And I see you have no idea what to base your actions on besides your likes and dislikes/conditions."

      According to me? See, you're still not getting it. This IS the reality of your viewpoint. If it's actually as you say it is, this is the reality. It's cold hard fact. Matter is matter and does what it does. You can only be the product of your conditioning. There is no willful control or choice in anything. Anymore than a river has control over what path it takes through the landscape.

      "Right, you simply don’t understand it at all. That’s ok. I wouldn’t expect you to admit your god is a nut job ego maniac even though its obvious to anyone who can read, but isn’t under the influence of the god meme/virus. You will say black is white to defend your myth."

      Right, you can say that if you first put God in the place of a human. But as God, the creator of the universe, there's a cold hard reality that must be faced. An "ego maniac" is ridiculous. It's not God's ego. It's necessity. It's reality. It's the fact of the matter. You being God's creation, existing as a part of God's creation, but in an unnatural state, there is a very real problem there. Like cells in your body that behave according to their own wants/needs rather than in adherence to the DNA of the body. They're rogue. Cancerous. Dangerous. I'm sorry you can't believe God has the gall to demand allegiance. It's simply a necessity when you're dealing with the creator of the universe. Not God's ego.

      "Lol.. give it up. Anger is a base primitive emotion you only defend because your god is primitive and base. Wow. What next? Jealousy is a good thing?"

      They obviously served some sort of service in our survival because they exist. Anger and jealousy both arise because you care what happens to others and whether or not they love you back or respect you. There's nothing wrong with the emotions themselves. It's how you respond. You're telling me it's the actual feelings that are the bad thing. And you're the enlightened one? Not quite. Clearly it's how you react that's the issue. And reacting in a positive way to these emotions isn't enlightenment or some kind of high-minded horseshit, it's maturity. Pure and simple.

      "No, your reading is coloured by your belief in myths."

      No, my allowance of these things that you've already deemed inadmissible, based on ... well ... nothing really, is the only difference. I don't predefine what can and can't be true ahead of time, and immediately dismiss all the writers and anyone else involved as being less than myself to believe such ridiculous things.

      "More silly speculation. That’s your problem. You can’t wait to know, so your quick solution is god dun it. That’s just silly. Don’t you ever want a real answer? I’m beginning to think not."

      And that shows the fundamental disrespect you have for me and my view that renders you completely unable to get it. I by far am not just stamping "god dun it" across something explainable. It's a logically and reasonably reached conclusion. Don't cheapen it with your projections.

      "I don’t claim to know everything. You claim your god does, and then for the sake of your fantasy free will, you claim he can’t know everything."

      Let's just focus in on this one sentence and everything that's wrong with it so you can maybe understand where you're still not getting it right. Like this ...

      "... you claim he can’t know everything."

      Nope, never claimed that. I quite clearly said He knows everything THAT CAN BE KNOWN. But to be known it has to happen. Has to exist.

      No matter how many times you try to twist it up, I've been consistently saying the same thing, and you've been consistently wrong. You think you've got an easy 'get' here to go ahead and dismiss everything I'm saying, but you don't. You're fooling yourself.

      "Right. So god always knows what’s in your heart and mind is bull shit. I’ll call the Vatican. The pope should be clued in. God is not all knowing. He has to test people before he knows things."

      Uh, it's right there in the book. I'm sure the pope is aware. It's you that seem to be coming around to this realization for the first time. It's not going to be news to the pope, but it certainly is an update to how you think believers think, or the pope thinks in particular.

      Free will and everything I'm saying informs the whole story. It's a central thread in the overall story. It's kind of hard to pull out and then still make sense of it. It's an important element, and if you're not reading the story in that context then you're not reading it correctly.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      "The soul IS you. Useless makes it sound like it's supposed to be serving you in some way. It is. It is you."

      Then where am I in dreamless sleep or under anesthetic?

      "That's why this is such a significant point. Because matter behaves only in the way it can. According to the laws of nature. But we at least think we have freedom of will. We hold people accountable for their actions. Yet we are made of the same stuff as everything else. Everything else is determined by natural law."

      But you have no idea how energy can behave in a dynamic system. You are the entire system. You have will, you have to make determinations. Everything is determined by natural law, and natural law facilitates boundless creativity. No supernatural required.

      And yes, I know what you think this world is for. I really don't.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      “We've already found one. Two, actually. But even without that, to think our five senses, which evolved to serve us in this particular environment, would be capable of perceiving everything that exists is incredibly short-cited.”

      What’s incredibly short sighted is thinking conditions stay the same. We don’t have to rely on our senses anyway. We test and find answers we couldn’t find with our senses. We also have reason and logic and mathematics.

      "Not undetectable at all. I don't get what you expect to detect."

      “The mental experience caused by that brain activity.”

      How absurd. No wonder you’re confused. Tell me the experience of being a car. Should be easy. It’s a machine.

      “Think of it this way, if we didn't each experience the mind for ourselves, nothing about the behavior of the brain would give us any sort of inclination of what's actually going on.”

      So what?

      “We don't see information, we recall images and sounds and smells. At will. Nothing about any of that can be seen, but we know it's happening because we experience it.”

      Again, So what? How absurd of you to expect an MRI to give you that information. Hook someone up to a computer with the right software and maybe we could. But it would still prove nothing for your side one way or the other; unless the computer spotted your soul, of course.

      “You're not getting it. This seems to be yet another case of you forming an idea in your mind of what a soul is, then using that to check against.”

      Like what you are doing? I’m only going by what you claim a soul can do and not do even though you can’t know any of what you claim because you can’t even produce one or give any proof of their existence. Others have other ideas about souls and what they do. No one can prove their claims so who shall I believe? No one.

      I have no beliefs about them so I can only critique yours.

      “For all we know when each of us sleep we could actually be reintroduced to the spiritual side of life. We could be spending that time in heaven. But because the brain/mind isn't operating and taking in physical information, when you wake up, there's nothing to recall.”

      For all we know the universe could be an atom on the top of the C of a coke can in an empty parking lot on a world in a massive universe, which is an atom on a bump on a log in even a bigger one. So much for: for all we know.

      "Love is the desire/act of making something part of self. What you base your acts or desires on are certainly conditions. So what? What else would they be based on? Got any ideas?"

      “Uh, love. Think about it in the context of marriage. When you marry you agree to terms throughout life where you promise to do this and that. But according to you it's not really in your control. So how can you make those promises?”

      According to you it’s not in my control. According to me I want it, I agree to it, I do it, It’s in my control even if the reason I want it isn’t. And I see you have no idea what to base your actions on besides your likes and dislikes/conditions.

      "Clearly you have no idea what enlightenment means. Turn the other cheek is your game, not mine. React with cool logic and rationality to find solutions. If attacked defend yourself. Kill the attacker if need be. But don't do it in anger, and don't be the attacker."

      “Yeah, I do. But if we're going by what you're describing, you're describing a sociopath. You remember Hannibal Lecter from Silence of the Lambs? When he was beating that guy to death they noted how his heart rate never increased, he didn't get angry or lose his cool. He was "enlightened".

      Right, you simply don’t understand it at all. That’s ok. I wouldn’t expect you to admit your god is a nut job ego maniac even though its obvious to anyone who can read, but isn’t under the influence of the god meme/virus. You will say black is white to defend your myth.

      "Natural, yes. But unnecessary, and something we can rise above. Your god should already be above it. But he's not, apparently. And yes it is weakness of the intellect."

      “No, it isn't. If enlightenment led you to that conclusion, then there's an obvious flaw in that ideology.”

      Lol.. give it up. Anger is a base primitive emotion you only defend because your god is primitive and base. Wow. What next? Jealousy is a good thing?

      "Oh it's realistic. It's fact. Read the bible some time. lol..."

      “Clearly I have. None of that is in there. Which means that's coming from you and your cynical inclinations. They're coloring what you read and how you perceive it.”

      No, your reading is coloured by your belief in myths.

      “That's the problem. I understand time well enough to be able to hypothesize what it would be like without it.”

      Sure you do. Not.

      “ It's really simple. But yet, in light of how clearly flawed this is, you're choosing instead to wait it out for someone to come along and figure it out. Like that's the problem. It's not something that needs to be figured out. It's figured out. It's flawed. “How'd it get compressed? Good question. That comes before the universe, so however it happened, it's supernatural and beyond the jurisdiction of science. Another one of those boundary lines.”

      More silly speculation. That’s your problem. You can’t wait to know, so your quick solution is god dun it. That’s just silly. Don’t you ever want a real answer? I’m beginning to think not.

      "So being all knowing is impossible. You make my case for me. You just won't admit it.

      Stop trying to change the meaning of all knowing."

      “What? No. “

      What? Yes.

      “The only thing impossible here is getting you to understand this. It's really simple. What number am I thinking right now? I haven't told anyone, haven't written it down, so it can't be known. There's nothing to know. It never physically happened in any way. Nothing can be known. I'm not changing the meaning of anything.”

      I don’t claim to know everything. You claim your god does, and then for the sake of your fantasy free will, you claim he can’t know everything. You are contradictory and confused. Either he knows all or not. You can’t have it both ways, and from reading the bible he clearly is not, and being all knowing is a fantasy. Cool were it possible, but it isn’t.

      “If Abraham was never put in a situation where he'd had to make that choice, there'd be nothing to observe or inquire about. No information available. Creating the situation made it knowable. Now God knows. Because it happened.”

      Right. So god always knows what’s in your heart and mind is bull shit. I’ll call the Vatican. The pope should be clued in. God is not all knowing. He has to test people before he knows things. He doesn’t know the answer to “what if” questions. Yup, he’s limited. That’s the problem with primitive minds. They haven’t got the logic to see the contradictions and pass on primitive contradictory gods. Pity. But funny.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      More on souls ...

      "So souls have no memory, no identity? If I'm thinking and not remembering I'm not thinking. Not so it could help me at all. I'm not feeling either.

      In other words the soul is useless."

      The soul IS you. Useless makes it sound like it's supposed to be serving you in some way. It is. It is you. You have been created and exist. This physical body allows you to experience existence in a material space. A controlled environment. Where nothing is permanent. It's all temporary. We are not. All of this was created to create us. Individuals with their own minds and wills.

      That's why this is such a significant point. Because matter behaves only in the way it can. According to the laws of nature. But we at least think we have freedom of will. We hold people accountable for their actions. Yet we are made of the same stuff as everything else. Everything else is determined by natural law.

      If we do truly have freedom of choice, then we are something else. We are physical, yes, but something more than that. We can willfully and deliberately behave and choose our actions and carry out our own plans. We're the only thing in all the known universe, that doesn't behave totally according to natural law, but according to our own wills.

      So, basically, we are each given the opportunity to live life and use that freedom of will to choose to willingly do what the rest of nature does 'naturally'. Acknowledge God as the authority. To be able to do that we have to be given the chance to live with our own minds and wills and willingly choose.

      That's what this place is for. That's whole point to everything. To create individuals who aren't just working as everything does, according to God's one will, but who each have a mind and a will of their own.

      But there's a danger to that. For the will to be free then the alternative must be a real possibility. Evil. A true free will is a will that God does not control or have any say so in what it does. So we are capable of evil. And evil makes us 'unnatural'. The only things in all of existence not adhering to natural law/God's will.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Slarty,

      "Nun you'll ever find ;)"

      We've already found one. Two, actually. But even without that, to think our five senses, which evolved to serve us in this particular environment, would be capable of perceiving everything that exists is incredibly short-cited.

      "Not undetectable at all. I don't get what you expect to detect."

      The mental experience caused by that brain activity. Think of it this way, if we didn't each experience the mind for ourselves, nothing about the behavior of the brain would give us any sort of inclination of what's actually going on. We don't see information, we recall images and sounds and smells. At will. Nothing about any of that can be seen, but we know it's happening because we experience it.

      "So souls have no memory, no identity? If I'm thinking and not remembering I'm not thinking. Not so it could help me at all. I'm not feeling either.

      In other words the soul is useless."

      You're not getting it. This seems to be yet another case of you forming an idea in your mind of what a soul is, then using that to check against.

      For all we know when each of us sleep we could actually be reintroduced to the spiritual side of life. We could be spending that time in heaven. But because the brain/mind isn't operating and taking in physical information, when you wake up, there's nothing to recall.

      "Love is the desire/act of making something part of self. What you base your acts or desires on are certainly conditions. So what? What else would they be based on? Got any ideas?"

      Uh, love. Think about it in the context of marriage. When you marry you agree to terms throughout life where you promise to do this and that. But according to you it's not really in your control. So how can you make those promises?

      "Clearly you have no idea what enlightenment means. Turn the other cheek is your game, not mine. React with cool logic and rationality to find solutions. If attacked defend yourself. Kill the attacker if need be. But don't do it in anger, and don't be the attacker."

      Yeah, I do. But if we're going by what you're describing, you're describing a sociopath. You remember Hannibal Lecter from Silence of the Lambs? When he was beating that guy to death they noted how his heart rate never increased, he didn't get angry or lose his cool. He was "enlightened".

      "Natural, yes. But unnecessary, and something we can rise above. Your god should already be above it. But he's not, apparently. And yes it is weakness of the intellect."

      No, it isn't. If enlightenment led you to that conclusion, then there's an obvious flaw in that ideology.

      "Oh it's realistic. It's fact. Read the bible some time. lol..."

      Clearly I have. None of that is in there. Which means that's coming from you and your cynical inclinations. They're coloring what you read and how you perceive it.

      "How do you know? You can't because you can't know the laws of physics in that state. Perhaps we will someday, but not today. And how did it get compressed? Some hypothesis suggest black holes compress universes and spew them out the other end to re-expand. All speculation, of course."

      That's the problem. I understand time well enough to be able to hypothesize what it would be like without it. It's really simple. But yet, in light of how clearly flawed this is, you're choosing instead to wait it out for someone to come along and figure it out. Like that's the problem. It's not something that needs to be figured out. It's figured out. It's flawed. How'd it get compressed? Good question. That comes before the universe, so however it happened, it's supernatural and beyond the jurisdiction of science. Another one of those boundary lines.

      "So being all knowing is impossible. You make my case for me. You just won't admit it.

      Stop trying to change the meaning of all knowing."

      What? No. The only thing impossible here is getting you to understand this. It's really simple. What number am I thinking right now? I haven't told anyone, haven't written it down, so it can't be known. There's nothing to know. It never physically happened in any way. Nothing can be known. I'm not changing the meaning of anything.

      know- be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.

      If Abraham was never put in a situation where he'd had to make that choice, there'd be nothing to observe or inquire about. No information available. Creating the situation made it knowable. Now God knows. Because it happened.

      You stop changing the meaning of all knowing.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      "No. Only what actually happens can be known."

      So being all knowing is impossible. You make my case for me. You just won't admit it.

      Stop trying to change the meaning of all knowing.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      "But time has to exist for something to be able to change states. The singularity had to be able to change states for time or space to even begin. Whatever started it wasn't beholden to natural law as everything in this universe, including energy, is. Being compressed doesn't matter without time. As long as the compression was held in that moment, there's no time for it to have to maintain that compression or force. It's stagnant, like it's paused."

      How do you know? You can't because you can't know the laws of physics in that state. Perhaps we will someday, but not today. And how did it get compressed? Some hypothesis suggest black holes compress universes and spew them out the other end to re-expand. All speculation, of course.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      "I find this view to be overly cynical. You're basically suggesting the Jewish people knowingly and deliberately created the world's oldest and most successful form of propaganda. It just isn't realistic."

      Oh it's realistic. It's fact. Read the bible some time. lol...

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      "What, like a sociopath? That's how they respond. Ask any psychologist or sociologist and they'll tell you, anger is a natural reaction."

      Natural, yes. But unnecessary, and something we can rise above. Your god should already be above it. But he's not, apparently. And yes it is weakness of the intellect.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      "If humans throughout our history had been "enlightened" we'd be nature's doormat right now. So, if someone slapped your wife or your mom, the right reaction is to not react? React like you don't really care?"

      Clearly you have no idea what enlightenment means. Turn the other cheek is your game, not mine. React with cool logic and rationality to find solutions. If attacked defend yourself. Kill the attacker if need be. But don't do it in anger, and don't be the attacker.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      "So you only love what you love due to previous conditioning? Doesn't sound like love to me. Sounds more like a condition."

      Love is the desire/act of making something part of self. What you base your acts or desires on are certainly conditions. So what? What else would they be based on? Got any ideas?

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      "Everything in your mind, your whole concept of reality and existence, is built on physical data collected throughout life. You could very well be actively thinking when you're sleeping, but if the physical brain isn't active to record the information, you can't be consciously aware of it later when you're awake."

      So souls have no memory, no identity? If I'm thinking and not remembering I'm not thinking. Not so it could help me at all. I'm not feeling either.

      In other words the soul is useless.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      "Because there's a clearly a limitation to science. "

      Nun you'll ever find ;)

      "Something we know exists, but only because we each personally experience it. So .... there are things happening in the natural world totally undetectable."

      Not undetectable at all. I don't get what you expect to detect.

      "Which blows the whole materialist defense out of the water. This 'well then show me' nonsense is a farce."

      LOL... you wish.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      "I think when I dream. Not in dreamless sleep. But why would shutting down the body/brain make a soul go to sleep? It shouldn't. So I should understand that the body is sleeping but my soulmind should be active. Its not."

      Everything in your mind, your whole concept of reality and existence, is built on physical data collected throughout life. You could very well be actively thinking when you're sleeping, but if the physical brain isn't active to record the information, you can't be consciously aware of it later when you're awake.

      "No, but I didn't choose to love it either. I just do."

      So you only love what you love due to previous conditioning? Doesn't sound like love to me. Sounds more like a condition.

      "To an enlightened individual there may be no point where they can be pushed too far. Anger is a flaw, not a virtue."

      If humans throughout our history had been "enlightened" we'd be nature's doormat right now. So, if someone slapped your wife or your mom, the right reaction is to not react? React like you don't really care? Anger is a response because you care. Because it matters. There's nothing wrong with anger, only what you then choose to do in anger. But anger itself, not the problem and not a sign of weakness or whatever.

      "The fight is best fought with cold logic and empathy."

      What, like a sociopath? That's how they respond. Ask any psychologist or sociologist and they'll tell you, anger is a natural reaction.

      "Yours is a primitive view of anger. One we need to rise above."

      Primitive. Pfft. Whatever. It's realistic.

      "Well that's how you explain why you are currently in a world where life sucks even though you started as god's chosen. That doesn't diminish how humans see themselves as superior to everything else and in charge of it all. Its all there for us to use as we like by divine right."

      I find this view to be overly cynical. You're basically suggesting the Jewish people knowingly and deliberately created the world's oldest and most successful form of propaganda. It just isn't realistic.

      "Not apparently caused by anything. It was compressed. Hence no time because no space. Time is distance. Space and time are the same thing.

      Expansion of energy caused this space/time.

      That doesn't mean energy didn't exist or that there are no laws governing it in that state."

      But time has to exist for something to be able to change states. The singularity had to be able to change states for time or space to even begin. Whatever started it wasn't beholden to natural law as everything in this universe, including energy, is. Being compressed doesn't matter without time. As long as the compression was held in that moment, there's no time for it to have to maintain that compression or force. It's stagnant, like it's paused.

      "If something can't be known to your god it's not omnipotent. That's the end of story."

      No. Only what actually happens can be known. It can't be known how you'd handle yourself is stranded on Mars because it never happened. Not knowing that doesn't mean you don't know everything. Everything is only what happened and can be known. God exists in every moment everywhere from the beginning of time to the end, so He therefore knows all that can be known.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Slarty,

      "Seen? sure. So what? What do you expect to see? The content of thoughts? Why would you expect to be able to see that?"

      Because there's a clearly a limitation to science. Something we know exists, but only because we each personally experience it. So .... there are things happening in the natural world totally undetectable. Which blows the whole materialist defense out of the water. This 'well then show me' nonsense is a farce.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      "It's not an excuse. God does know all. All that has happened or will happen. Those tests involved making things happen. If they don't happen then they can't be "known"."

      If something can't be known to your god it's not omnipotent. That's the end of story.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      "Right, there right from the beginning, and apparently 'caused' by something supernatural considering it's origin is pre-universe. Where it came from there is no time or space."

      Not apparently caused by anything. It was compressed. Hence no time because no space. Time is distance. Space and time are the same thing.

      Expansion of energy caused this space/time.

      That doesn't mean energy didn't exist or that there are no laws governing it in that state.

      "Which brings up an interesting point. How did the singularity actually change states to 'begin' without time? Time is required for something to change, isn't it? Or is it that, like tachyons, some energy maybe isn't compliant to time? Can maybe continue to behave outside of time?"

      Who knows the laws of physics in a singularity? No one I know of. But there are plenty of hypothesis. We may get more insight by studying black holes.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      "The book is one long story of the Jews failing in the eyes of this God. Kind of an odd take being that they were tooting their own horns."

      Well that's how you explain why you are currently in a world where life sucks even though you started as god's chosen. That doesn't diminish how humans see themselves as superior to everything else and in charge of it all. Its all there for us to use as we like by divine right.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      "Anger is the response to being pushed too far."

      To an enlightened individual there may be no point where they can be pushed too far. Anger is a flaw, not a virtue.

      "The breaking point. The point where the fight back begins. "

      The fight is best fought with cold logic and empathy.

      "It's an important part of the ebb and flow of life."

      Important to try to get rid of it in ourselves.

      " Sometimes running isn't an option, or isn't the best one. That's a very human-centric view of anger."

      Yours is a primitive view of anger. One we need to rise above.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      "You love it, huh? Did you learn that?"

      No, but I didn't choose to love it either. I just do.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      "You do think when you sleep. You're just not conscious."

      I think when I dream. Not in dreamless sleep. But why would shutting down the body/brain make a soul go to sleep? It shouldn't. So I should understand that the body is sleeping but my soulmind should be active. Its not.

      " The brain is sleeping, so the soul's connection to the natural/physical world is disconnected."

      To the physical world yes, but is it not connected to the supernatural world? Or even capable of its own consciousness? If not its going to be useless when you die.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      "Yes, I get what you're saying. The mind is created by the brain. But the mind is clearly more than what can be seen to be happening."

      Seen? sure. So what? What do you expect to see? The content of thoughts? Why would you expect to be able to see that?

      "All we see is brain activity."

      Which is what we expect to see with current tech.

      " But the person experiences something that can't be seen in any way. "

      Why would we expect to be able to judge that through seeing brain activity? Want a text readout? I don't get your problem.

      "It's a behavior, a characteristic, a property. It's something that exists and must be accounted for."

      It is.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Slarty,

      "It doesn’t exist apart from the brain. Mind and brain are the same thing. There really is only brain."

      So why do we bother differentiating mind and brain? Yes, I get what you're saying. The mind is created by the brain. But the mind is clearly more than what can be seen to be happening. All we see is brain activity. But the person experiences something that can't be seen in any way. It's a behavior, a characteristic, a property. It's something that exists and must be accounted for.

      "You only say that because we do sleep when the brain sleeps. But if the soul is really me, even given that I couldn’t relate to the physical world, which is not a real given at all, I should still exist as a mind capable of thought. Why not? When I’m dead I’ll still be able to think, right? So I should be present at all times if I am a soul. But I’m not."

      You do think when you sleep. You're just not conscious. The brain is sleeping, so the soul's connection to the natural/physical world is disconnected.

      "Well I disagree, of course. We learn. Machines don’t. We are dynamic systems. So if this is what it’s like to be a natural dynamic system, that’s fine by me. I love it"

      You love it, huh? Did you learn that?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Slarty,

      "Neither does energy. And it exists right here. Have you proven there is an outside the universe yet? There probably isn’t."

      Well, considering the universe is finite, ie not infinite, then I'd say it's highly likely. But there you go again asking for proof of something beyond provability. Beyond the big bang is beyond being observed or detected in any way. You might find it convenient, but it's just a fact.

      "Hardly. There you go again thinking intelligence is the be all end all."

      And there you go again dismissing something clearly significant. Learn, adapt, survive? So which one did we use to put a rover on Mars? It's capability is well beyond just survival needs. That's another one of those primarily imagined explanations. Being able to accurately throw a spear doesn't equate to mathematically understanding the universe.

      "It’s possible energy always was in one form or other. No, it was not created in the BB, it is the BB. The singularity was the total amount of energy of the universe, compressed. The universe is the singularity expanding. Universe/singularity = energy."

      Right, there right from the beginning, and apparently 'caused' by something supernatural considering it's origin is pre-universe. Where it came from there is no time or space.

      Which brings up an interesting point. How did the singularity actually change states to 'begin' without time? Time is required for something to change, isn't it? Or is it that, like tachyons, some energy maybe isn't compliant to time? Can maybe continue to behave outside of time?

      "You say he isn’t yourself. Do we need to go in to it again? Dozens by now have told you that if god needs to test people he can’t by any means be all knowing. You say its because of free will. Well that clenches it then. No use trying to worm out of it. Your excuses make no sense."

      It's not an excuse. God does know all. All that has happened or will happen. Those tests involved making things happen. If they don't happen then they can't be "known". It makes perfect sense. God is present in every moment everywhere, from the beginning of the universe until the end, so therefore He knows all. It's really simple.

      "It’s very much a speculative myth."

      A speculative myth that makes more sense now 2000 years later than it did then. It actually matches up with what a creator that existed 'before' the universe would be. Lucky guess I guess.

      "Really? It’s base. Unworthy of an enlightened human, let alone a higher being."

      Anger is the response to being pushed too far. The breaking point. The point where the fight back begins. It's an important part of the ebb and flow of life. Sometimes running isn't an option, or isn't the best one. That's a very human-centric view of anger.

      Yes, cruelty is subjective. It can't be measured. Something you might rate as a 10 on the cruelty scale I might rate a 9. Therefore subjective. Conscious intent means purpose behind it. I can lay out for you clearly how everything God did was for the 'greater good' as far as the priority of the events being described. Life is learning and gaining strength in facing down adversity and obstacles. If it were all good all the time we'd be pathetic. And we'd have no real concept of what good even is. It would just be the normal. With no bad there's no concept of good.

      "Then he is responsible for the consequences far more then we are. But of course will is a manifestation of conditioning, learning and predisposition. Nothing free about it. No god required."

      Machine then. No actual willful control. Only the illusion of control. Yikes. If that's really what you think.

      "Wow. I’ve seen crocodile tears before. That insult you? Come now. It’s pretty darn obvious. The OT is about the first Jews. How they were god’s chosen people. How much more in to themselves could they have gotten? History and origin stories are almost always that pattern."

      The book is one long story of the Jews failing in the eyes of this God. Kind of an odd take being that they were tooting their own horns.

      Yes, I find it offensive. Think about it this way. Say you walk outside one day and witness something truly magnificent. Something that shouldn't be physically possible. You might feel compelled to somehow record this event as significant. You might feel that others should know it happened. But people like you many generations from now who might dig up and discover your telling of this event will immediately dismiss you as ignorant because what you claim to have seen couldn't possibly have happened.

      What might have actually happened might have been much closer to what they were talking about. They may not have had our level of understanding of the natural world, but they weren't morons either. They invented mathematics, astronomy, the written language, philosophy, and a whole ridiculous list of other things.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      "Because it doesn't exist. Its a set of conditions. Remove some of those conditions, damage the brain, and the mind disappears"

      “Really? That's how you're going with this? So, if something doesn't exist, how does it then disappear?”

      It doesn’t exist apart from the brain. Mind and brain are the same thing. There really is only brain.

      ‘”The mind undoubtedly exists. It's there. It's happening. We're experiencing it. But it does not exist spatially “

      Right, because it’s a set of conditions. It’s all brain.

      “That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It does, and it has a real impact on the real world. It has to be accounted for. You can't just act like it isn't there.”

      But it really isn’t. Just like there is no separation between conscious and subconscious. All of it is one system; the brain.

      “I never said anything about the mind being separate. You're clearly still thinking in terms of space, it doesn't exist spatially. I have agreed that it is caused by the brain.”

      Glad to hear it.

      “ But that means the matter in our brains is capable of things we can't see that it's doing, unless we experience it directly. Meaning, there could be much more going on within matter that we can't see or detect.”

      I’d say that’s a given.

      “Intelligence could exist, a mind capable of creation and reason ingenuity could exist in forms we don't even know about.”

      I’d say that’s speculation.

      “See, you clearly have a very particular concept in mind of what you think a soul is. Explain why sleep wouldn't be possible in the same way. Why? The brain is physical. It has limitations. It needs to be fed, it needs to rest, it needs to repair. If the physical body/brain actually enables a spiritual self to interact with the natural world, then it is limited by the same limitations as a physical body. When the brain is sleeping, the soul can't decect the physical world.”

      You only say that because we do sleep when the brain sleeps. But if the soul is really me, even given that I couldn’t relate to the physical world, which is not a real given at all, I should still exist as a mind capable of thought. Why not? When I’m dead I’ll still be able to think, right? So I should be present at all times if I am a soul. But I’m not.

      “Yes, you're still you. But 'you' is more than just a biological machine or layers of complexity whose behaviors and actions are wholly determined by physical law. You are a conscious willful being. Not a machine. Not possible if it's as you say. You can only be a machine.”

      Well I disagree, of course. We learn. Machines don’t. We are dynamic systems. So if this is what it’s like to be a natural dynamic system, that’s fine by me. I love it

      Again, what do you want for nothing? Your money back?

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      “God exists apart from the universe, therefore outside of time/space, so no He doesn't evolve.”

      Neither does energy. And it exists right here. Have you proven there is an outside the universe yet? There probably isn’t.

      “An intelligent being setting things up from the start is a much more plausible answer, given that intelligence is actually a natural product of this universe, so energy and matter already behaving as it needs to behave to eventually become all it became is a clue.”

      Hardly. There you go again thinking intelligence is the be all end all. It’s not. It’s a biological necessity. It allows us to learn and adapt and survive. Gods don’t need those things, right? Energy doesn’t need to learn. Does your god need to learn? If you can claim your god always existed, that intelligence always existed, and you expect no one to call you on it, then I can do the same.

      It’s possible energy always was in one form or other. No, it was not created in the BB, it is the BB. The singularity was the total amount of energy of the universe, compressed. The universe is the singularity expanding. Universe/singularity = energy.

      “Why can't God be omnipotent or all knowing?”

      You say he isn’t yourself. Do we need to go in to it again? Dozens by now have told you that if god needs to test people he can’t by any means be all knowing. You say its because of free will. Well that clenches it then. No use trying to worm out of it. Your excuses make no sense.

      “ He exists apart from time/space,”

      So you say.

      “so from His perspective He can see all time all at once and from our perspective that means He remains the same, unchanged by time, in every moment, everywhere. It's very much possible. And more likely considering His existing before/apart from the universe and space/time.”

      It’s very much a speculative myth.

      “Anger isn't bad.”

      Really? It’s base. Unworthy of an enlightened human, let alone a higher being.

      “ Cruelty is completely subjective.”

      No it isn’t.

      “Nature's cruel, isn't it?”

      No it isn’t. It doesn’t do anything with conscious intent. Only conscious intent can be cruel.

      “So if this God is the embodiment of the natural world, wouldn't it make sense that He shares traits with the natural world?”

      Then nature created him? I agree, but I think you believe it created nature. Your analogy doesn’t quite work the way you intended.

      “God didn't create imperfection. God created free will. Without the capability to behave outside of God's will, there is no free will. He created exactly what was intended.”

      Then he is responsible for the consequences far more then we are. But of course will is a manifestation of conditioning, learning and predisposition. Nothing free about it. No god required.

      “There you go again discounting the entirety of human history as egotistical and ignorant. Horrible. Yet it's the atheists that lay claim to the title "humanist", which I find ironic and a little insulting.”

      Wow. I’ve seen crocodile tears before. That insult you? Come now. It’s pretty darn obvious. The OT is about the first Jews. How they were god’s chosen people. How much more in to themselves could they have gotten? History and origin stories are almost always that pattern.

      I’m not a humanist, though it doesn’t offend me.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      God exists apart from the universe, therefore outside of time/space, so no He doesn't evolve. An intelligent being setting things up from the start is a much more plausible answer, given that intelligence is actually a natural product of this universe, so energy and matter already behaving as it needs to behave to eventually become all it became is a clue.

      A perfect model that worked right from the start exactly as it needed to to ultimately become life and intelligence and all of that. Rather than evolving that way, it started that way.

      "Well it’s not possible as described. Simple really. It can’t be omnipotent or perfect or all knowing, it has human flaws in spades. It’s vengeful, egotistical, quick to anger, jealous, cruel, need I go on? It is not all love and forgiveness as one part of the bible says according to other parts. It’s a contradiction."

      Why can't God be omnipotent or all knowing? He exists apart from time/space, so from His perspective He can see all time all at once and from our perspective that means He remains the same, unchanged by time, in every moment, everywhere. It's very much possible. And more likely considering His existing before/apart from the universe and space/time.

      Anger isn't bad. Cruelty is completely subjective. Nature's cruel, isn't it? So if this God is the embodiment of the natural world, wouldn't it make sense that He shares traits with the natural world?

      God didn't create imperfection. God created free will. Without the capability to behave outside of God's will, there is no free will. He created exactly what was intended.

      There you go again discounting the entirety of human history as egotistical and ignorant. Horrible. Yet it's the atheists that lay claim to the title "humanist", which I find ironic and a little insulting.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      “But it's not a plausible answer. Energy is as it is, not through a process like evolution that allows for the emergence of useful and usable functions.”

      That’s what gods are too, remember? Does yours evolve?

      “ Energy behaved as it behaves since the beginning.”

      If there was one. But yes, since that’s all that actually exists in all these forms and others including potential, it’s always behaved according to what it is.

      “This building block became all kinds of fascinating things. That's what God looks like. Intelligent, deliberate intent in natural things. Things that serve a purpose and accomplish amazing things. Just naturally.”

      So cut out the middle man you can’t prove exists, and you have a perfect model of reality as we know it.

      “You seem so certain that this God isn't the Christian version. Based on what? How'd you reach this conclusion?”

      Well it’s not possible as described. Simple really. It can’t be omnipotent or perfect or all knowing, it has human flaws in spades. It’s vengeful, egotistical, quick to anger, jealous, cruel, need I go on? It is not all love and forgiveness as one part of the bible says according to other parts. It’s a contradiction.

      Why can’t it be perfect? First off because a perfect thing would have no needs, so no need to create anything. Also, the imperfection that it created speaks volumes and, if imperfection exists anything perfect is affected. So perfection can’t happen until everything is perfect. Perfection is thus impossible.

      “The God of the bible is the most plausible one there is.”

      Don’t make me laugh.

      “The fact that the story focuses in on behavior right from the get go is telling. This is because, as we've determined through science, all things (except humans) behave in very particular ways. "Natural law". The bible says humans deviated by this and explains how. This is the single most relevant thing a God of this natural world could be interested in. I think there's good reason to consider the Christian God the prime candidate for THE God. Yes, the God of energy as well.”

      Humans think highly of themselves, that’s true. And we do have an edge. But we are a species of ape, and natural as lice. Don’t kid yourself. The bible is just humans thinking they are the greatest thing ever. Wow.. Who didn’t see that coming?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      "But you are right that biology is not an ordinary machine. You assume it should be if its natural, which is dead wrong. Energy is the process, its the rules, it's what everything is made of including biology.

      Yes its amazing that energy developed biology and consciousness. But unless you show us a god, its the only plausible answer we currently have.

      Energy IS god. Just not the Christian version."

      But it's not a plausible answer. Energy is as it is, not through a process like evolution that allows for the emergence of useful and usable functions. Energy behaved as it behaves since the beginning. This building block became all kinds of fascinating things. That's what God looks like. Intelligent, deliberate intent in natural things. Things that serve a purpose and accomplish amazing things. Just naturally.

      You seem so certain that this God isn't the Christian version. Based on what? How'd you reach this conclusion? The God of the bible is the most plausible one there is. The fact that the story focuses in on behavior right from the get go is telling. This is because, as we've determined through science, all things (except humans) behave in very particular ways. "Natural law". The bible says humans deviated by this and explains how. This is the single most relevant thing a God of this natural world could be interested in. I think there's good reason to consider the Christian God the prime candidate for THE God. Yes, the God of energy as well.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Slarty,

      "Because it doesn't exist. Its a set of conditions. Remove some of those conditions, damage the brain, and the mind disappears"

      Really? That's how you're going with this? So, if something doesn't exist, how does it then disappear? The mind undoubtedly exists. It's there. It's happening. We're experiencing it. But it does not exist spatially. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It does, and it has a real impact on the real world. It has to be accounted for. You can't just act like it isn't there.

      I never said anything about the mind being separate. You're clearly still thinking in terms of space, it doesn't exist spatially. I have agreed that it is caused by the brain. But that means the matter in our brains is capable of things we can't see that it's doing, unless we experience it directly. Meaning, there could be much more going on within matter that we can't see or detect. Intelligence could exist, a mind capable of creation and reason ingenuity could exist in forms we don't even know about.

      "Were mind a separate soul, I should still be me no matter what. Sleep wouldn't be possible in the same way."

      See, you clearly have a very particular concept in mind of what you think a soul is. Explain why sleep wouldn't be possible in the same way. Why? The brain is physical. It has limitations. It needs to be fed, it needs to rest, it needs to repair. If the physical body/brain actually enables a spiritual self to interact with the natural world, then it is limited by the same limitations as a physical body. When the brain is sleeping, the soul can't decect the physical world.

      Yes, you're still you. But 'you' is more than just a biological machine or layers of complexity whose behaviors and actions are wholly determined by physical law. You are a conscious willful being. Not a machine. Not possible if it's as you say. You can only be a machine.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      "Actually, you can."

      Actually, you can't.

      But you are right that biology is not an ordinary machine. You assume it should be if its natural, which is dead wrong. Energy is the process, its the rules, it's what everything is made of including biology.

      Yes its amazing that energy developed biology and consciousness. But unless you show us a god, its the only plausible answer we currently have.

      Energy IS god. Just not the Christian version.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      "No, and here's why. Because the mind isn't observable. "

      Because it doesn't exist. Its a set of conditions. Remove some of those conditions, damage the brain, and the mind disappears. The brain may even still function enough to keep the body functioning, but you are gone.

      You keep assuming the mind is separate but you have no evidence for that at all. And the fact that drugs can alter it shows us its all brain, despite your insistence that it isn't.

      Were mind a separate soul, I should still be me no matter what. Sleep wouldn't be possible in the same way.

      No, everything is consistent with brain and mind being the same thing. Not consistent with being separate..

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Slarty,

      "Exactly. You don’t know. If I were still looking, I’d be looking for a seam. I’ve done at least 40 years of looking. I’ll ask you what you always ask me: How long do I have to look before it becomes obvious it’s not there?"

      But the gap is still there. There's something missing. Something that connects one thing to the other. To this point, despite all of our technological capability, we still don't 'see' anything. How long are you going to wait for the "right" technology or the "right" perspective to fill this gap? Until that happens, it's faith and faith alone that says it's not what I"m saying, can't be, it can only be what you insist it is. Something we haven't figured out yet. There's your seam.

      "So far you’ve failed to show anything of the sort. Keep trying."

      There you go again with that "show". Our five senses are only evolved for this one environment. Just common sense wise, what do you think the chances are that absolutely everything that exists can be detected by these senses? I mean, we already know there's a whole spectrum of light and sound beyond our eyes ability to see it. Aided by technology we can, but we had to first wonder if there was anything there. You're basically saying, there's nothing beyond what our eyes can see or we'd see it. If there's something beyond what our eyes can see then show it to me. Do you see how silly that sounds?

      "No. I’ve told you over and over: I’m not even entertaining anything that has no evidence to back it up. Give me evidence and I’ll re-evaluate. I have an open mind, but not so open my brains fall out."

      Well then I think you might have lost some out of the opening. Let me try it this way. All matter and energy is the result of the big bang. If there is a first cause, then it existed "before" the bang (though technically there's no such thing as 'before' as time didn't yet exist). So, it's undetectable. Science can only detect what resulted from the big bang.

      If God is the creator of the universe, then it wouldn't fit that He could be physically detected. How can the maker of the causal chain actually be a detectable/observable link in that chain? It's a paradox that you're suggesting. It's impossible, not because it's convenient, but because it's just a simple logical fact.

      That's why I ask what it is you're looking for in the evidence when you make determinations like no God needed. Because you must have some idea of what it should look like if there were a God involved. But because you see only natural/causal happenings, because you don't see these processes being overridden or manipulated in some way, then it just happened like that, no aid required.

      So you have a bad hypothesis you're working off of. Genesis 1 explains that the natural world becomes what God wills it to be. So a natural world that by all appearances seems to have formed itself is an expected result. That's exactly what you should expect to see. Only, even though it all 'just happened', somehow a coded DNA system arose that allowed for the evolution of a biological computer capable of some truly astounding things. A feet duplicated, because of DNA, billions and billions of times.

      What evidence of God looks like, so you know what to look for, is intelligence in what 'just happens' naturally. Like DNA and the brain and consciousness and self-awareness, etc.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Slarty,

      "Really? Who says? You can’t determine what a computer is doing by simply determining the behavior of the elements involved. Why should a brain be different?"

      Actually, you can. It would be difficult, for sure, but each tick of the system's processor clock carries out a function. And there's a hierarchy. And these things are achieved by breaking everything down into a digitized system of on/off switches. Just determine what's happening with each cycle through the processor, string them together, and there you go.

      It's mechanical. When I write code to automate functional tests, I'm manipulating physical things. I'm tying into the software that works with the processor and memory and disk drive and motherboard to affect physical happenings. It's all physical. I'm just arranging the on/offs in such a way as to carry out a desired sequence of events.

      But that's the thing. SomeONE built the computer to work that way. Gave it rules to abide by so there's order. An organized system. Without those rules, without clear and concise parameters to determine hierarchy of importance it would be a mess. The processor can only carry out one job at a time. But it still requires that someone 'drive' it.

      All complex systems require a set concise set of rules to allow the system to work. That's what it's all about. Behavior. Following rules to allow a complex system made up of many moving parts to work. A computer can only work the ways it's designed to work. It can't determine for itself what it prefers to do in what order. It doesn't have preferences. And it's not persuaded by the promise of pleasure or relief from pain or discomfort or whatever. It's mechanical, and it works like a machine.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Slarty,

      Yes, I read all about neuroscience and I know what's known and what isn't. What you don't seem to get is that there is nothing concrete about the mind. Like your statement....

      "There is plenty of evidence that mind and brain are one"

      No, and here's why. Because the mind isn't observable. One half of that scenario is completely undetectable. We can only go by what the subject says and then compare that to our own experience, to try to determine what's going on in the mind at any moment. Then you tie that subjective piece of the puzzle to what the brain activity was at the time. But the whole mind side of the equation, invisible. So you can't prove anything.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      “You're the one making determinations, based on evidence, as to whether or not they exist or are "required". So I'm asking as an exercise to make you realize how wrong your approach is and how to fix it.”

      Exactly. You don’t know. If I were still looking, I’d be looking for a seam. I’ve done at least 40 years of looking. I’ll ask you what you always ask me: How long do I have to look before it becomes obvious it’s not there?

      “You assume. Not that I disagree. Personally I think anything we physically experience, any sensation of feeling or thought we experience, is physically caused in some way. So I'm not arguing against that.I'm trying to point out where the facts stop and the beliefs begin in your view, because you seem to be blind to it.”

      So far you’ve failed to show anything of the sort. Keep trying.

      “That right there is the problem. You've already closed your mind. You've already predefined what can and can't be true, answering questions prematurely. So you're dictating what you are capable of recognizing and acknowledging. You're close-minded”

      No. I’ve told you over and over: I’m not even entertaining anything that has no evidence to back it up. Give me evidence and I’ll re-evaluate. I have an open mind, but not so open my brains fall out.

      “Given all we've learned, do you really think everything that exists is the material? That there's nothing in all of existence that actually exists that doesn't exist materially?”

      Yes. There is nothing but energy. Show me something else. I dare say you can’t.

      “The mind doesn't exist materially.”

      Nonsense. Mind=brain.

      “ It's a construct created by the physical processes of the brain, we assume. But when not being created it doesn't exist. It doesn't exist spatially, it doesn't exist a a material thing, but it does indeed exist,”

      Imaginary things do not exist in the real world as the things imagined, but they exist as physical patterns in the brain. Information. So everything we can think of exists physically but not always in reality as imagined. Concepts exist as coded information even if they are wrong, and by wrong we mean they don’t line up with reality. Unless you’re a string theorist. Then everything we can think of is real in some other universe or dimension, which seems insane to me. But then, string theory is dying as we speak.

      “ and it does indeed have an impact on material things. That's why psychology and psychiatry are only subjective. We have to account for it and understand it and it's impact on us and the world around us. But it's not material. So, that alone proves your statement false”

      Yeah sorry, it does no such thing..

      “Right, what I'm saying you've deemed unreasonable based on your demonstrably flawed standards.”

      Lol... you wish.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      “Given our level of understanding of physics and matter, we should be able to determine the behaviors of the mind by simply determining the behavior of the elements involved. “

      Really? Who says? You can’t determine what a computer is doing by simply determining the behavior of the elements involved. Why should a brain be different?

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      “Oh no, I most certainly do know what I'm talking about. The mind doesn't spatially exist.”

      Because its the brain, not something separate.

      “There's nothing that can be detected or measured or quantified in any way.”

      Not if you think mind and brain are different. That mind doesn’t exist. Nothing to quantify.

      “So you have no evidence. The evidence you're speaking of is the evidence gathered about the behavior of energy, which you are then projecting onto the mind.”

      No, the behaviour of energy is where it starts, for everything, including the development of the brain. But that’s not what I’m talking about here specifically. We know a lot about how the brain works already and we’ve just begun. Do you read stuff about neuroscience? There is plenty of evidence that mind and brain are one, as well as how we think and store information. But its a fledgling field of study so there is a lot yet to learn, no doubt.

      What there is zero evidence of is souls or the need for them.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      "Sorry, you obviously don't know what you're talking about."

      Oh no, I most certainly do know what I'm talking about. The mind doesn't spatially exist. There's nothing that can be detected or measured or quantified in any way. So you have no evidence. The evidence you're speaking of is the evidence gathered about the behavior of energy, which you are then projecting onto the mind. Not the same thing. Your projection is nothing more than that. So you can't say you have evidence based on that. You can't. You don't.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Slarty,

      "You are the one who claims they exist. You tell me what to expect."

      You're the one making determinations, based on evidence, as to whether or not they exist or are "required". So I'm asking as an exercise to make you realize how wrong your approach is and how to fix it.

      "Nonsense. Thought is based in the physical."

      You assume. Not that I disagree. Personally I think anything we physically experience, any sensation of feeling or thought we experience, is physically caused in some way. So I'm not arguing against that.I'm trying to point out where the facts stop and the beliefs begin in your view, because you seem to be blind to it.

      "So I should look to what? Voodoo? Immaterial is another word for imaginary; nothing more."

      That right there is the problem. You've already closed your mind. You've already predefined what can and can't be true, answering questions prematurely. So you're dictating what you are capable of recognizing and acknowledging. You're close-minded.

      Given all we've learned, do you really think everything that exists is the material? That there's nothing in all of existence that actually exists that doesn't exist materially?

      The mind doesn't exist materially. It's a construct created by the physical processes of the brain, we assume. But when not being created it doesn't exist. It doesn't exist spatially, it doesn't exist a a material thing, but it does indeed exist, and it does indeed have an impact on material things. That's why psychology and psychiatry are only subjective. We have to account for it and understand it and it's impact on us and the world around us. But it's not material. So, that alone proves your statement false.

      "I’m buying in to nothing, including your rhetoric and baseless accusations. That’s the point. I listen to reason, but what you are saying isn’t reasonable."

      Right, what I'm saying you've deemed unreasonable based on your demonstrably flawed standards.

      "Shows you know nothing of science or logic. You are sounding desperate now. Lol... And you’re projecting. Typical."

      There is no evidence. And I know plenty of both science and logic. There is no physical evidence of anything where the mind is concerned. Nothing. We only have subjective assumptions that this or that mental experience is linked to this or that physical brain activity. But the mind is a construct that can't be observed or detected or measured in any way. So there is no evidence. Yes, there's evidence of the behavior of energy, which I'm sure is the evidence you're saying your view is based on, but that's ridiculous. Transposing evidence from one field onto another and then saying that evidence supports what you're saying is intellectually dishonest at the very least. I don't think you're being deliberately dishonest, I think you yourself believe what you're saying. If you really think about it I think you'll find no other choice but to correct your mistake.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Oh no, this has nothing to do with what I want to be true. I would have no issue with ceasing to exist after this life. This is me acknowledging what should be apparent. You're attempting to fit the square peg of humanity in the round hole of materialism.

      Given our level of understanding of physics and matter, we should be able to determine the behaviors of the mind by simply determining the behavior of the elements involved. But it doesn't work that way. Something else governs the workings of the mind.

      It's not delusion on my part, it's your instance that this fit the mold you insist on that prevents you from acknowledging what I'm saying. Acknowledging the real truth of the matter. We are indeed something more than mere machines.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      "And it stands to reason that if this were indeed just a progression of physical processes that there'd be some kind of recognizable behavior in there somewhere. So far all we see is completely alien to all we know."

      That's what you want to believe, and its understandable.What kind of "recognizable" behavior you talking about? Your talking nonsense again. You have too much invested to see reality. All you want is to prove your myth is real so you can be sure you will live forever. Good luck with that.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      "Yes, I work with a model too. The only difference is while everything where the bible is concerned is open to interpretation, except of course specific timelines given, there is something to compare it against. Yours, where the mind is concerned, there's nothing to verify, nothing to measure. It's all conjecture, which is all it can be."

      Sorry, you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      "When evidence warrants. Not till then."

      “This is what I mean. If you're going to look at anything and make a determination based on what you're looking at, you kind of need to understand what you're looking for. So what exactly should the evidence look like, do you think, if God were real? What is it that we should see that we don't that leads you to the conclusion that no God is required?”

      You are the one who claims they exist. You tell me what to expect.

      “Are you expecting some sort of manipulation of physical processes?”

      No. I’m not expecting anything.

      “ If so, what would that look like in the evidence? Nothing really. Just an undetermined gap. Besides, given that God is described as the creator of the natural world, why is it you think He'd need to override and manipulate His own creation to make things happen?”

      So what?

      "There isn't anything but natural as far as I know."

      “As far as you know, huh? Where's this knowledge? Can you show it to me? Can we see it? Can we measure it? Weigh it? Nope. The irony here is the very "know" you refer to as being the entirety of what you know being natural, is in itself a non-physical thing. It's a non-physical constuct created, we assume, by the physical material of the mind. Behaviors and capabilities that the matter our brains are made of is capable of creating, yet is totally undetectable or observable.”

      Nonsense. Thought is based in the physical. Just because you can’t see the flow of information doesn’t mean it’s not material. You’re guessing. The most reasonable view is that the brain stores information by physical means. We have a physical memory. No evidence whatever of nonphysical thought. Lots for physical process.

      "Again, I don't know that immaterial thought is even a real thing. You claim it is but I know of nothing in science that claims immaterial thought exists. I know thought exists but no one but you claims its immaterial."

      “You don't know it's real because nothing in science claims it exists? Dude. Listen to what you're saying. "immaterial" .... "nothing in science". Do you know why that is? Because it's IMMATERIAL. Not material. So why are you looking to science, which only deals with material? It's like trying to use a screwdriver to loosen a bolt. It's the wrong tool.”

      So I should look to what? Voodoo? Immaterial is another word for imaginary; nothing more.

      "So unless you have some game changing logic for me, it ain't happening."

      “The logic is there. You've just bought into another belief system and you are devout. Unable to hear reason. Typical of a believer, haven't you found?”

      I’m buying in to nothing, including your rhetoric and baseless accusations. That’s the point. I listen to reason, but what you are saying isn’t reasonable.

      "Big difference. I'm giving you a model which is based on facts and has a better than zero chance of being true. Your model hasn't reached the stage of better than zero probability yet."

      “Oh Slarty. Your belief system is showing again. These two aren't even in the same ballpark, and not in the way you think. The other way around. Mine is verifiable”

      Lol... by your own words that’s bull shit.

      “ There is actual evidence to point to. Actual things to check against it. Validate it. Yours is nothing more than rampant speculation. You say it's based on facts, but is it really? No. It's 100% speculation and nothing in the way of fact-based.”

      Shows you know nothing of science or logic. You are sounding desperate now. Lol... And you’re projecting. Typical.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      And it stands to reason that if this were indeed just a progression of physical processes that there'd be some kind of recognizable behavior in there somewhere. So far all we see is completely alien to all we know.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      "That's because it is the right answer. Differences between humans beliefs and behaviors have historically been cultural.

      No, not supernatural."

      You don't know that. You assume that. You buy into this logical progression of how it must have happened as if that is fact. It's only a rationalization. Nothing more.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      No, there is no data where the mind is concerned. No data, no facts. Just statistically based, subjective data with nothing concrete to base any of it on. Just the subjective process of relating one's own experiences with the mind with that of a subjects in an attempt to understand.

      Yes, I work with a model too. The only difference is while everything where the bible is concerned is open to interpretation, except of course specific timelines given, there is something to compare it against. Yours, where the mind is concerned, there's nothing to verify, nothing to measure. It's all conjecture, which is all it can be.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      "There's nothing about this that's easy. It's the world's most complex puzzle. All the world's best minds are trying to piece it together. That's what you're waiting on. Others to figure it out and then explain it to you."

      Not at all. I'm waiting for others to verify my findings with proof. I derive my model from the implications I have discovered in what science has already found. I don't have the means to do the testing myself and there is a wide area to cover. But I keep looking for more clues in what others are finding. It's a never ending endeavour.

      "Yet you already have it all figured out, don't you? No data yet to substantiate any of it, yet you know. It seems you do work that way."

      Again, I deal in models. And yes I have created one I think has a good chance of being correct. But we’ve talked about this before. You seem to forget. It’s my opinion based on facts and their implications. And yes, there is plenty of data, and there are plenty of facts.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      "You can speculate all you like. Just don't try to sell it as fact."

      "But that's what you were doing when you were using your speculated explanation as the 'right' answer as opposed to my 'wrong' one."

      That's because it is the right answer. Differences between humans beliefs and behaviors have historically been cultural.

      No, not supernatural.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Slarty,

      "Which is why you will never find the real answers. You want them now. Doesn't work that way. Patience, my friend. And if we don't know by the time we die, there's no shame in that. The shame is in jumping to easy conclusions.

      There's nothing about this that's easy. It's the world's most complex puzzle. All the world's best minds are trying to piece it together. That's what you're waiting on. Others to figure it out and then explain it to you.

      Yet you already have it all figured out, don't you? No data yet to substantiate any of it, yet you know. It seems you do work that way.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      "When evidence warrants. Not till then."

      This is what I mean. If you're going to look at anything and make a determination based on what you're looking at, you kind of need to understand what you're looking for. So what exactly should the evidence look like, do you think, if God were real? What is it that we should see that we don't that leads you to the conclusion that no God is required?

      Are you expecting some sort of manipulation of physical processes? If so, what would that look like in the evidence? Nothing really. Just an undetermined gap. Besides, given that God is described as the creator of the natural world, why is it you think He'd need to override and manipulate His own creation to make things happen?

      "There isn't anything but natural as far as I know."

      As far as you know, huh? Where's this knowledge? Can you show it to me? Can we see it? Can we measure it? Weigh it? Nope. The irony here is the very "know" you refer to as being the entirety of what you know being natural, is in itself a non-physical thing. It's a non-physical constuct created, we assume, by the physical material of the mind. Behaviors and capabilities that the matter our brains are made of is capable of creating, yet is totally undetectable or observable.

      "Again, I don't know that immaterial thought is even a real thing. You claim it is but I know of nothing in science that claims immaterial thought exists. I know thought exists but no one but you claims its immaterial."

      You don't know it's real because nothing in science claims it exists? Dude. Listen to what you're saying. "immaterial" .... "nothing in science". Do you know why that is? Because it's IMMATERIAL. Not material. So why are you looking to science, which only deals with material? It's like trying to use a screwdriver to loosen a bolt. It's the wrong tool.

      "So unless you have some game changing logic for me, it ain't happening."

      The logic is there. You've just bought into another belief system and you are devout. Unable to hear reason. Typical of a believer, haven't you found?

      "Big difference. I'm giving you a model which is based on facts and has a better than zero chance of being true. Your model hasn't reached the stage of better than zero probability yet."

      Oh Slarty. Your belief system is showing again. These two aren't even in the same ballpark, and not in the way you think. The other way around. Mine is verifiable. There is actual evidence to point to. Actual things to check against it. Validate it. Yours is nothing more than rampant speculation. You say it's based on facts, but is it really? No. It's 100% speculation and nothing in the way of fact-based.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Slarty,

      "You can speculate all you like. Just don't try to sell it as fact."

      But that's what you were doing when you were using your speculated explanation as the 'right' answer as opposed to my 'wrong' one.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 years ago from Ottawa

      "Sorry, I don't have centuries to live and see what's figured out. I'm utterly fascinated by all of it. I can't help but want to know how it all works. I'm not throwing my hands up. I'm taking all the information available to me to figure out the best explanation."

      Which is why you will never find the real answers. You want them now. Doesn't work that way. Patience, my friend. And if we don't know by the time we die, there's no shame in that. The shame is in jumping to easy conclusions.