Is it possible to truly be religious as well as believe in the evidence of science with theories such as evolution, the Big Bang and dinosaurs existing prior to man not along side?
(Please keep it clean and civil guys, thank you.)
How is evolution and Biblical creation an ultimate showdown of human origin? Debating physical evidence against a Bonze Age belief is not even close to a debate let alone a showdown.
The obvious answer is yes.
The underlying question is why/how?
I'm an Ockham kind of fellow, at times, so will apply it to this scenario: "All things being equal (in this case science and sensation) the simplest explanation is often the correct one".
Science is the masculine expression of Theos while Sensation the feminine. At one time this estranged couple were one in the same. I suppose, one could say they were Androgynous. As of late, humanity is seeing more and more said estrangements reconciliation. Not long from now, Theos will be harmonious again. At that time, I believe, humanity will come to terms with its true self; its original stasis. The masculine would define it as human evolution. The feminine would define it as human restoration. In either perspective, humanity is about to forego its chaotic perception and be healed of its amnesia, once and for all.
Yes. I feel strongly about both. I sometimes think there is a connection at some level. Don't ask ask me to prove it, because of course I cannot.
Your question confuses me because you speak of evidence of science and theories as if evidence and theories are the same thing.
Take the Theory of Evolution, for example. It is an unproven theory and it is without evidence. Charles Darwin dropped out of medical studies after failing classes in anatomy and dissection, classes relatively simple in the 1820s compared to today. This was at the time before the Theory of Germs was proven, and doctors did not wash their hands after dissecting a corpse before delivering a newborn (with disastrous results).
Darwin published his Theory of Evolution in 1859. In the 156 years since, no proof of the theory has ever been found. That's a fact, and that's the difference between a fact and a theory.
Look at the chimpanzee and the human being. Chimpanzees are seven times stronger than the average human and have predator teeth.
Chimpanzees don't build cities or launch satellites. They can't even build something simple with Legos. According to Dr. Barney Maddox, a leading genetic genome researcher, "The difference between a human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is 1.6%." That doesn't sound like much until you realize that the gap represents a difference of 48,000,000 nucleotides and that changing as little as three nucleotides is fatal to an animal; thus, there is no possibility of change."
There is no fossil record supporting the Theory of Evolution – not a single fossil! Dr. Colin Paterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History (which contains the largest fossil collection in the world) was asked why he didn't included evolutionary transitions in a book he wrote titled 'Evolution' for the British Museum. He replied, "If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."
As for dinosaurs, there is a cave art picture of a mammoth fighting a dinosaur in the Bernifal Cave in France and a drawing of a mammoth in the Chauvet cave. There are petroglyphs of dinosaurs in Natural Bridges National Monument in Utah and near Los Lunas, New Mexico. Did monkeys draw those? In 1932, a mammoth skull with an arrowhead stuck in it was found near Winter Park, Florida. The Arizona Museum of Natural History houses a Columbian Mammoth skeleton with eight stone-tipped spear heads stuck in its bones. Dozens of sites in America yield mammoth bones found with ancient man-made tools. These are just a few examples of real evidence among thousands of others.
How was the universe formed? "Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a Spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe – a Spirit vastly superior to that of man, and One in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble …
"The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection ...
"The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books." – Albert Einstein.
Wow, all that time wasted on typing out a bunch of nonsense. Yes, there's overwhelming evidence supporting evolution. I assume you never heard of observation or DNA. You're just in denial and too mentally lazy to see for yourself. But maybe all that stuff is too complicated for you grasp since the Bible doesn't use big words and complex explanations. Aren't you one bit embarrassed about posting your ignorance on the internet?
Interesting to see no one had a decent response to what you had said.
I'm a little confused by a few points in that post. For one thing there are proto-mammal fossils that show clear signs of species of animals that share both reptile and mammal traits. These are in-between species that show a transition from one to another.
Second issue, the mention of mammoth drawings and mammoths with arrow heads in them. I don't think anyone is debating whether or not there were megafauna who existed during the time of early homo sapiens. In fact, it's pretty commonly agreed upon that homo sapiens are what pushed the megafauna into extinction. When homo sapiens migrated out of Africa megafauna quickly disappeared. Neanderthal was also a very avid hunter of megafauna.
If the mention of cave drawings of dinosaurs is supposed to suggest that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time, the only thing someone looking to prove this would have to do is used petrified fecal remains. There are plenty of specimens to choose from. All it would take is finding some dinosaur fecal matter with human remains in it. There isn't any.
Actually this would only be proof of a species that shared both reptile and mammal traits, not of evolution. A solid sequence of non-functional characteristics first appearing then transitioning into functional characteristics might be something, but one extinct species with combined functional traits we would today consider exclusive to one group or other would not.
It truly is a transitional species. There are notches in the skull right where holes later formed in mammalian species, yet it's a reptile. A progression can be seen as these holes formed over multiple fossils.
Another thing comes to mind. the poster even mentions the similarities between humans and chimps, there's no denying that we share genetic history. The beginning of our DNA strands match, and there's only one way that happens.
Even if that's the case, we know how DNA strands are physically realized. And the commonality between other species and us can only have come about one way. We see it in action and know how it works. I guess I just don't get the reason for putting that level of energy into speaking against evolution, as if it's somehow a threat. I'd think finding out there's coded information in each of our cells that makes possible the storing and passing on of information would in itself be a good argument for intelligent design. Why fight it?
Evolution relies on something being a benefit which is passed on. How are the dents that become holes a benefit before they are functional, (assuming for the sake of discussion that happened)? If it is not functional change immediately, it would at best be irrelevant to survival, at worst be a hindrance. What spurs the evolutionary process? A need? A need that would not be resolved for many generations yet continued to be worked on by chance?
That I don't know. I've asked the same question. A beneficial change only really increases the chance of a change propagating more widely. It's possible for evolutionary changes to be passed on that aren't particularly beneficial.
Same problem only more extreme when you go back to origins. Combinations must be extremely exact, and then have a short shelf life. Throw in millions of years as the magic potion and folks buy it, but for the components days would be too long. Nothing could be built, (or evolved), that way.
Yeah, there's definitely some gray area where origins are concerned. Even the simplest cell, to actually be a living thing, requires some complexity. Now it's possible for the polynucleotides that form RNA strands to have formed. But the bit that even Dawkins acknowledges as incredibly improbable is replication. Abiogenesis is far from understood, but once you get to simple organisms it's possible for them to live and replicate and for changes to accumulate over time. It's just getting over that first hump.
I think the closer you look you find the hump you are eluding to is totally insurmountable, as are the ones that would be required every step of the way. Among the problems are that shelf life issue which persists for alleged evolutionary steps, and functionless transitional steps. Beyond that is relational issues between food and energy sources, and environmental factors all requiring delicate balances and many with inexplicable inter-dependability.
I think it is an excellent argument for intelligent design. Encoded genetic instructions that build human brains that then decipher DNA. TMI. TMI. Evolution has some practical applications. Mostly to posit a contradiction to a personal, literal interpretation of Genesis. That is what is important. The seeming contradiction. Not important to actual scientific study. Important for atheists.
I'd also like to hear from that original poster what issue exactly he has with evolution. He even speaks of intelligence being involved the natural laws, which we know to form the heavens in purely natural/causal ways. Why would evolution be any different? What's the alternative? That this intelligence somehow formed animals manually? If the universe can evolve because of the natural laws, why can't animal life? How else would an intelligence have accomplished this?
I gave the reply it deserves and I am repeating it for your sake,
lol... thats not fair. if you see things wrong then address them. staying silent will just make it seem like he is completely correct.
How to address that much nonsense which is nothing but cut and paste from some apologetic site? Before posting, at the least, he should have known the difference between theory and fact.
i've talked to him before... he's not the cut/paste kind of person. normally does his own research.
maybe he doesn't know the difference between theory and fact... maybe you can guide him a little.
His post was all apologetic nonsense, may be that is the subject he does research on.
An upside down glass cannot be filled.
Chimpanzee's don't have the "Divine Spark", which can only be found in a human being. This spark causes us to reason. We have found this reasoning back when the bible was created. It is the Age of Reason, prophet words, mysticism and world religion. Chimpanzees do not know if they are going to die, we do. They do not worship. Scientifically, the ape has 3 extra chromosomes than we do. They are not evolving intellectually nor will they ever. Although, they may have dreams, they can't act on them. We can take our dreams and make them a reality. We have power unlike any living thing on the face of this planet. We are wonderfully made.
The only people who make an issue of science vs religion are the fundamentalists. Science and religion are distinct things. Religion is personal and as long as you don't take genesis literally then evolution is not at odds with a creation by creator, and therefore just how the creation evolved after inception.
For science there is no god in the equation, ever, because god is irrelevant to the question science is asking: How does it all work? Who or what started it all is not relevant to how it all works. Saying god did it is not an answer to anything science is interested in.
So even scientists can be religious without having the findings of science interfere with their personal beliefs.
But a fundamentalist, on the other hand, can't be an objective scientist, as long as they are looking to prove their version of god exists through science, or by refuting science, which is something that can not be done.
Which is why ID is a nonstarter.
Prove evolution wrong tomorrow and you have not proven a god exists. There may be dozens of other possibilities we haven't even thought of yet. Unless a god pops its head out of the clouds one day or literally takes charge of the world a believer can not prove their god exists, any more than any of the findings of science can prove a god of some sort does not exist.
They are separate things and will remain so, well after science finds a unified field theory, or realizes it may not need one; and well after religion has drawn its last breath.
The most intelligent reply I've seen in years! Thank you!
Whoever doesn't believe in God is a fool. A fool and his own understanding feels he is right. Proverbs 28:26, 18:2. This is not a personal jab to anyone in particular.
I have to say that when I look up at the stars and the universe, I see more than the books I've read on science. I also see more than anything man can or ever will create. What good is science without a creator? All things come from something and to believe otherwise is lacking wisdom. Things don't just pop up. Not even the pop ups on your computer. All things were created for a purpose and with purpose.
The shark swims to live. If it stops it will die. The swimming circulates it's blood. It never sleeps. It has double rows of teeth both top and bottom. No one truly likes them, especially when bit. However, it's purpose is clear. Keep the ocean clean. If you place sand at the bottom of a glass then pour red kool aid in it, the water will be red. Place a lid over it shake it up and the water will become clear. Similar to the waves brushing against our beach shore lines. It draws back and filters every single time. That's why things wash up on beaches. GOD IS OMNIPOTENT!
And can you provide proof of anything you said here (outside of a shark having teeth)? Or are you just spouting nonsense from your personal belief system?
(Hint - quoting ignorant shepherds from over 3,000 years ago is only proof that the speaker is gullible. Nothing else).
That you will neither do the research to find truth, nor believe those that DO provide evidence does not mean it is not there. Nor does finding some possible truth in scripture mean the entire book is true, regardless of how much you might wish it to be.
I've been accused of many things, not doing the research is not one of them. And who exactly provided evidence that I didn't believe? I provided ample evidence to show exactly what I'm saying is true. I challenge you to find anything, ANYTHING, to show it is not. Are you willing to do the research? As far as I can tell most of what you hold to be true you base solely on assumption and conjecture. I can illustrate through evidence that much of what you assume to be true is wrong and that everything I've said is accurate. Because I have done the research.
Just because you have nothing of an opinion to offer don't disapprove the books I've read. Yes read Man's Search For Himself. by: Rollo May.
And when you look into the sky and see more than the books on science you've read, what do you see? Anything, or does the wonder and majesty cause you to imagine there is more? Imagine (a god for instance) without ever being able to detect or show anyone else what you have imagined?
You've claimed that everything comes from something, but can you back that up? (Hint: study some quantum mechanics, where things come out of nothing all the time). And explain the formation of the universe - where were the raw materials that the god used being stored? In His universe (if so, where is that universe)?
You've claimed that everything comes from nothing, but can you back that up? (Hint: study some bible mechanics, where things come out of something all the time)
No, I didn't make that claim. Only that some things come from nothing; if you wish more information check into the field of quantum mechanics.
Yes, the scripture writers were in the same world you and I live in; the macro world we can all see and touch. Where a table is a solid object rather than 99% empty space it actually is. Understandable that the ancient shephards knew nothing of the reality of "things" in the far different world of the subatomic.
But why would I want to study bible mechanics (whatever you mean by that) for information on the subatomic world we inhabit but never see? Outside of claiming a god magically creates something from nothing (with no indication of how and with zero supporting evidence), what could I expect to learn?
Why would I want to learn quantum mechanics? Outside of claiming that things magically come from nothing, what would I expect to learn?
Nonsense, irrespective of whether ancient or modern, is nonsense still.
To learn. You might learn about the world around you, something more than dogs have four legs. The universe has a wealth of information for you, far beyond what is in the book, if only you will put forth the effort to learn it.
And yes, nonsense. It always seems nonsensical...until understood. A spherical earth. Flying machines. Plants and animals that change. All nonsense...to everyone that refuses to learn, whereupon it makes perfect sense and fits reality so much better than an ET from another universe that made this one just for us.
Universe doesn't have "information", what it contains is things. Information is what we make of it.
So you are happy with any nonsense as long as it is not god?
If you put the same effort you may "understand" bible too, at least, as much as you understand quantum mechanics!
All I can say is that I feel sorry for you if you truly think the universe around you isn't absolutely crammed with information.
When it fits reality, I am happy with it. I may not like it (I'm aging and not real happy about it, but accept it as reality anyway), but it's certainly better than making up stories that please me but aren't real.
(Sorry I did a little editing to the last post.)
Sorry you don't even know the meaning of information. Universe doesn't contain "communication", "knowledge" or "intelligence", what it contains is "things" and "intelligent beings".
As if quantum mechanics is about "real". (The reality not pleasing at all, neither is it nonsense). The only difference is in the stories that are made.
Well, I'm not real interested in arguing semantics (it appears that you are), but WILL point out that if the universe contains intelligent beings, with both knowledge and intelligence, then that universe MUST contain knowledge as well. (Basic Venn diagram of logic circles).
Jomine, you might be surprised to learn that even people with an atheist disposition have read the bible, some of us are probably much more knowledgeable of it than yourself. (Not me personally, beyond having digested some of its pages during my time as a "convert.")
I am never "happy with nonsense," especially that which takes ancient writings, interprets them according to some religious expert whom you find attractive, then tries to teach others further nonsense.
I respect a person's individual desire to believe in a god of his/her chosing, provided it is not preached at me as something I "aught" to believe in too. Since writing this hub I have now edited in "desire to..." because I feel this is closer to the truth. I don't see it as a need, more of a desire. But subsequent posts have clarified your thinking, Jomine. Thank you.
You seem to be treating any other point of view as irrelevant and erroneous. IMHO
You think I am advocating bible? What I said is quantum mechanics and bible are both nonsense, irrational, the only difference is in the time one modern other ancient.
Something cannot come out of nothing and that means things are eternal, neither god nor quantum can create things.
"You seem to be treating any other point of view as irrelevant and erroneous."
Isn't obvious that it is nonsense, or do you find nonsense only if it's bible?
Ok, fair enough, sorry I missed you meaning there. Do you regard yourself as christian?
I note in another parallel discussion to this one, a hub about mega churches in the USA. I quote from that source:
"Who attends a megachurch
The average megachurch attender is consumer oriented, middle class, mobile and well educated with a family. Most are spectator/participants as opposed to those engaged in volunteering in the programs of the church."
Hardly a basis for truthful religion, don't you think? More like a Sunday Stage Show. But those who are lower class, socialist, confined to the house, out working their butts off for the less fortunate, and those who don't have "natural" families, i.e., shacking up with their own gender, will be very much in the minority.
At least, that's the message I get from it.
No, I am not a christian, I was though.
My position is simply this, rationally there is no god. Man is nothing but another animal and life is nothing but a series of chemical reactions.
The only thing we can be sure of is "things exist" and nothing can never be converted to a thing.
Ah, good, so we have agreement, at least on the first part, "rationally there is no god."
On the second part, about something coming from nothing, I feel this needs as much theoretical approach and supposition as the "belief" of the fundamentalist.
I can get my head around the idea of the two sides of a coin, i.e., On the one hand you have the infinite void, where no consciousness is possible; and on the other hand you have the finite "things," where difference and change make consciousness fully possible. This all makes sense for me. But of course I can never, and have no wish to, convince others of its veracity. Accept it or reject it, free choice.
I don't have to imagine. When I look up I'll tell you exactly what I SEE. On a clear night without any clouds blocking my view. I see we are standing on a planet who's atmosphere you can travel inside and out of. The other planets, you can not go on the inside because they are like rock. Knowing this tells me that if it wasn't for gravity everybody, everywhere on this planet would just float off. I see that without any strings attached or any hands that I can see this circle we call a planet is floating in formation with other planets, at the precise distance necessary to stay warm without completely burning up and rotating at the precise speed on an axis. It remained in this state for a very, very long time. This is NO accident. It makes me feel very important to something, or someone. Call it want you will A Creator or whatever. I also see a man titled "wilderness", who doesn't think much of his own existence. Why did you choose this name? Would you like me to look deeper? Not all of us have to put on a suit to know we are already astronauts. Maybe you should attend a few science fairs or go to a planetarium of sorts.
Yes, the earth is at the right orbit to support mankind. If it were not, if it were a little closer or further, life would be different and man would not exist. But that is an indication man evolved to fit the planet, not that the planet was placed to suit man; a creature that would not exist for billions of years to come.
Rotating at a precise speed - you are aware, are you not, that that rotation is slowing all the time? Tidal pull from the moon is primarily responsible, and the day used to be much, much shorter. In any case, the same holds here; man evolved to fit the environment - the environment was not set to suit a creature that wasn't around then.
But I do understand the reasoning here; it makes you feel important to think this was done just for you (and the rest of us) rather than accepting the tremendous insignificance of a single species on a minor planet in a minor solar system in a minor galaxy on the edge of nowhere. Much better to feel important than less than a grain of sand on one of the thousands of beaches on earth.
And if you think that if there was no gravity we would just "float" off earth, you might want to attend a few science fairs yourself (Think angular momentum here). Indeed, the thought that the earth is "floating" is ludicrous: to "float" requires a liquid of higher density than the earth.
Well, whatever the IT IS, in IT I don't know about you but I'm grateful and glad to be here. How about you? I could be lost in the Wilderness. LOL
Wilderness, it's because I can also see the logic and reasonable arguments concerning what you have just written here, that I cannot go along with the "personally responsive" and "Big Daddy" concept of "God." I suspect that both those concepts are designed and put up by humans.... out of a mental need of some sort.
I am continually flabbergasted by the awesome details of how living organisms are made up and function. I feel certain that the reality of our existence (the biological one) arises from some phenomenon that we cannot be aware of - for certain! We can continue to put up theories and hypotheses. We can continue to test, to experiment, to prove this, prove that.
We can continue to have surprises. I am watching a TV program as I compose this comment. It's about how rain is formed in the clouds. I had no knowledge of that before and the reality I find awesome! Indicating that we can open our minds to new information, new understanding..... IF we choose to.
And in no way am I being dogmatic here... just opening the conversation as well as my mind.
I love to learn new things, always have. Like a small child that way. There are so many wondrous things out there, things I know nothing about, and I want to know it all.
But knowing takes time and effort. It's so much easier to make up answers that fit the tiny bit we already know, but also so unfulfilling. When we haven't a clue whether the answers we come up with are right or not, it just doesn't satisfy. So yes, the need to know is there, but fiction doesn't fill that need.
The Bible is not the only biblical account of a God. There is the Qua ran and the Torah. Is that proof enough? Or do you need more? In reference to the shark, the mention of it was to illustrate all things have a purpose even if they are deadly. That things don't pop into existence, that there is a reason and all things have a creator. This is not from mine own belief system. It's common sense. Name ONE thing on earth that doesn't have a creator. JUST ONE! For many years Scientist haggled over why people were becoming ill and dying. Then they discovered the germ. For years they believed it to witchcraft because they had no other explanations. When folks went mad they thought they were possessed by demons. When in fact they had mental illnesses. So although, man may not have all the answers but it doesn't mean there aren't any. We have yet to discover many new things.
Yes, there is the Koran and the Torah. All started/written by the same set of folks that wrote the OT. But didn't you forget those writings and beliefs in Odin, Thor, Shiva and Poseidon? Don't those count, and aren't they just as valid as the three books listed?
Yes, there is a "purpose" (if you want to call it that): the "purpose" of life is to reproduce. Of course, that rather depends on just who is assigning that purpose - if it is the fish being eaten you might get a different answer.
Sure it's common sense that things don't pop into existence; our experience does not include that event (although we now know it is quite common). But then our experience does not include another universe with an omnipotent, omniscient entity that loves us, either.
Things without a "creator" (at least in the sense you mean): people, trees, sharks, rocks, water, stars, etc. Pretty much everything we can detect. There is no supporting evidence to think that any of these had an intelligent creator.
Yes, we have yet to discover the (very large) majority of things. Just as you point out, though, that isn't a reason to make up a god, demons, angels or anything else in an effort to provide an answer or explanation - an answer that almost certainly has no connection with reality and cannot be verified as true.
You just asked me, so I gave you a few. What you searching for? All the biblical text in existence.
Wilderness I don't care who invented the wheel you still have to push the thing for it to roll or use some sort of mechanical, or physical device. You can bring a horse to the water, but you can't make him drink. You can bring a kid to college but you can't make him think. Just saying.....
Kim, a few posts back, you quoted from Proverbs: "Whoever doesn't believe in God is a fool. A fool and his own understanding feels he is right. Proverbs 28:26"
Why do you need to quote from an ancient writer, when what he wrote has to be deciphered into our modern understanding?
I do not personally need to believe in a god, although I am free to do so if I wish. In most areas of life I don't consider myself a fool, although in some areas of life I will and do act foolishly. It has nothing to do with my belief or unbelief in a god.
From your latest post, it appears that you have a need to believe in "God," with a capital G. Fair enough, that is your choice. But then you go on to speak of the successful outcomes of modern science. So your mind is open enough to accept belief in God does not exclude an acceptance of scientific discovery.
Does not all of this point to us needing to keep open minds, everyone of us, so that we can continue to experience new things, think up new concepts, learn new truths?
The religious amongst us often speak of "only one Truth," as though their minds are definitely, 100% closed. I hope you are not one of those.
Thank you! I appreciate this. My mind remains open because I like to read and learn. Call the Big G, The Big Bad Daddy or The Creator whatever... I know that things just don't pop up, like wilderness exclaims.
I'm going to make my brief case backward so that I don't turn some people off before they understand my point.
Yes, I believe religious people can hold to their beliefs and believe in the findings of science at the same time.
Having said that, I believe there is one caveat for them to do this successfully. I'll use Christians as an example. The teachings in Genesis must be spoken of in religious terms, not scientific. Once the Christian begins to speak of Genesis chapter one as being consistent with science, problems arise. I'll list a few below.
1. An unidentified source of light Genesis 1:3.
2. Plants growing before the sun was created Genesis 1:11-13 plants. Genesis 1:14 Sun
3.The earth was created as a solid mass covered with liquid water on day one, but the sun was created on day four. God would have spent days one through three creating plants and animals in the midst of a great deal of ice since there was not sun to warm the earth.
Yes, Christians can hold to their biblical beliefs and to science, but they cannot speak of Genesis one in scientific terms since Genesis one is not consistent with the teachings of modern science or the laws of nature. They should speak of Genesis one in terms of its spiritual and religious truths only and not try to force scientific meaning into it when it will not fit.
Christians are free to say that God overrode the laws of nature and dealt with the aforementioned impossibilities by performing miracles at the time of creation. That is fine since it is a religious solution. Without special miracles by God, the Genesis account flies in the face of modern science and the laws of nature.
It's not that God overrode the laws. It's that you're not reading it in the right context. The text is right and is consistent with science. Take your first statement, the "unidentified source of light". That should be the first clue that you're not reading it right. Something's wrong. If there's anything humans have pieced together about the natural world, its that light comes from the sun. In fact, the text even explains the sun as being light, the light of day, specifically. So the author actually understood this.
Yes, at the beginning the Earth was created as a solid mass covered in water, which is true. It's described as "formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters". There is actually a period in the earth's history where this accurately describes the state of the earth. The end of the hadean eon. And it is indeed true that the formation of the heavens and the earth proceeded this era, and that the formation of the atmosphere and everything it specifically lists following that did indeed happen after that age.
The thing is, at that time, the oceans were shrouded in darkness because the early earth had a very dense atmosphere....
"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_oceans
It wasn't until after plantlife that the earth's atmosphere transformed from translucent to transparent. Up until this point the light of day could be seen, there was day and night, but the actual sun/moon/stars could not be seen.
As specified at the beginning, the point of view creation is described from is from the surface. It's not that there was an "unidentified" light source at the beginning. The sun existed. It was created along with the heavens "in the beginning". Only light was getting through ("let there be light"), but the sun could not be seen. However, right where it says, between plant life on land and animal life, the atmosphere became transparent where from the surface one could then see the sun, the moon, and the stars.
If you catch yourself dismissing bits of the text that the author has shown a clear understanding about, like disembodied light that lacks explanation, then there's probably something wrong with the way you're reading it. You're not reading it in the right context. Something is off. That doesn't mean the text is off, that doesn't mean they just have their facts way wrong, that means you have something wrong.
You know, you need to just go back and read Genesis one. When was the sun created? Day four. When was light created. Day one. It's right there in front of you. Read it please. It was an unidentified source of light in verse three which was day one. I'll ignore the rest of your post until you get this right.
Cam, you're not giving proper consideration to the fact that what we're reading here is a modern English translation of a very ancient text in a very ancient language. You're right, it does say God created the sun and moon during the day 4 portion. However, it is very common in that language, when bringing up a subject it wasn't talking about previously, to make a statement about it. In this case, God created it. This is not intended the same way we read it in English. This doesn't mean this is when the sun/moon were created chronologically. It begins speaking of them, and because it didn't specifically say it before, is saying it now, these too were created by God.
To read it the way you read it would mean having to dismiss the light at the beginning as some kind of inexplicable disembodied light though the author has already clearly stated he understands the light of day comes from the sun. It makes no sense.
Cam8510 The opening of Genesis is describing the ancient Sumerian cosmological model where the sun is not the light source of the universe but a distant light source somewhere in the primeval waters above and below earth (described as flat disk covered by a domed firmament). The sun was seen as a power source for their god Utu. This model was prevalent all through the Middle East and in Europe until 200 BC when theories of a round sphere came into being and the firmament was discontinued to be accepted by 1630. Genesis was written down in the 5th and 6th century BC by more than one author. There's at least 3 different writing styles within the first 5 Chapters - So much for the idea of it being written by Moses (a metaphor). Genesis also opens by saying the earth was already here but unformed and that there was more than one god. If you want to read the OT, don't waste your time reading the altered and edited versions of the Holy Bible. A classical example is a passage out of Isaiah 34:7 in the NIV says, " And the wild oxen will fall with them, the bull calves and the great bulls. Their land will be drenched with blood, and the dust will be soaked with fat." The actual passage from earlier King James and the Jewish Tanakh reads, " 'And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness." Go to the source and read the Jewish Tanakh, why? Because it was the Jews who wrote all this and they don't even take it literally! The OT was written by Jews for Jews and means nothing to non Jews. It talks only about a small tribe of Semites surrounded by big tribes of Semites. It describes their origins and creation, not everyone else's.
Regarding the rest of your post, this is the kind of "Science" that is a result of forcing religious text to agree with real science. So according to you, the sun, which the text says was created on day four, was really created on day one. Of course you have to say that, otherwise the Bible doesn't agree with science. You have to twist the words of the Bible and make them say what they don't in fact say, just so they agree with science. With this kind of thinking, you can't go wrong can you? You can twist the Bibles words and end up with something that agrees with Science. Don't you see the damage you do to your own Scriptures? Let them speak, believe them and rely on God to perform the miracles needed to solve the problems. That is better than twisting the Bible and making it say what it clearly does not say.
Believe me, I'm not forcing anything. I'm not here to mislead anybody and that would be misleading. That would also mean misleading myself. I'm simply doing what St. Augustine, one of the primary father figures and thinkers of the church, suggested ....
“Interpretation of biblical passages must be informed by the current state of demonstrable knowledge.” - St. Augustine
This goes well beyond creation. Chapters 2-11 line right up with Mesopotamian history. A culture that lasted the same length of time as pre-flood Genesis, destroyed by a flood, then a mass dispersion of the surviving people of that land to other lands all around the world, just as the bible describes. And this took no twisting to find. It simply took laying a template of the events and timeline of Genesis over actual history. Each event was right where the model predicted them to be. No twisting.
The only reason I do what I do and point out what I'm pointing out is because I believe in my heart it's the real truth, and I believe it's a relevant truth that every human should recognize, religious or not. These events in our history that Genesis depicts aren't just some randomly cherry-picked events that kind of sound right. These events that line right up with the Genesis timeline prove to be the key events that led to the formation of multiple modern civilizations. This is the modern human origin story, and very much relevant information to every human, whether you're a believer in God or not. Whether or not you buy the God aspect of the story, what's being described, both creation and the key events of mesopotamian history, are accurate and that should be recognized.
Genesis tells of an altered history of Mesopotamia after the fall the Sumerians (who settled the southern region in around 6000 - 10,000 BCE) and the Akkaid Empire. If you want to read about ancient Mesopotamia, read an actual history book of Mesopotamia, a real book. The Tower of Babel was actually the tallest zigurrat on record (360 feet tall) and it simply a temple only accessed by the high priest. There was no breaking up of language because there were many Semitic nations in Mesopotamia and they all had different dialects. Sumerian was the universal language until the invasion of the Persians in the 5th century. Noah's grand kids did not found any city there. Noah's flood was a rip off from a popular Sumerian flood myth that was based on the flooding of the Euphrates River that overran the levees of a city/state. To find out more look up Sumerian Flood Myths. There was no world wide flood. If so how come the Egyptians, Canaanites, Celtics and other cultures of the world never mentioned it or experienced an serious interruption in their progress?
Since there are a lot of threads that contain religious subjects, I've read the bible a little. Something I haven’t done since I was around fourteen.
But it’s been okay looking up all that information. I love research, and learning
Now on to my reason for replying to what
you wrote, because I’m seeing it differently
This is all coming from me so it’s not expert
I believe Genesis is speaking more of “Order” than of “Creation”
Genesis is simply giving the order, and the timeline of the Creation of everything, everywhere. Like everything in the sky (Planets, Sun, Stars) When animals came about (Fish, Fowl,Land Animal) etc, but it’s not giving the time of each individual creation.
For instance when it speaks of forming Adam and Eve, it is speaking of the order in time that mankind came into existence, not about creating two people.
Genesis says that the earth was dark and without form. Darkness is all there was.
I watched something on Nova about the Earth having water all over it, which froze, and later heated up. There were erupting volcanoes, fires, and lava, and after a lot of chaos, the land emerged from the water..so I can see something like that in Genesis
So that was the time, or order when there was only darkness
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep
Before Genesis speaks of the Order, or time that the heavenly bodies came into existence, it speaks of the light. He made a new day/age and he divided the light from the dark
A time when the universe was light and darkness wasn't the only feature. That would become the time when man was in the thoughts of God, because the darkness was gone
I learned somewhere that it was called “first”, "second" etc, and those who translated it did so as “day one”, “day two”, et cetera
Which goes along with my premise that Genesis is revealing the order of creation, and not the creation of particular items
We can’t say God created the plants to grow in darkness, or cold before the Sun was created, because it doesn’t tell us that.
It tells us only in what order everything was created, which in the case of plants, they came about after all the darkness was gone, and the light had been created
He divided the age of darkness from the age of light, the same as the dark and light are separated in one day.
This makes the Bible a book of riddles. If God were going to communicate with man, there would be clear teachings, not riddles that need to be deciphered. I read Genesis one and accept its clear statements. They do not coincide with science for the reasons I have stated. The only way they do agree with science is if we twist them to the point of being unrecognizable as the Bible any longer.
According to the bible there are hidden things so that only the worthy, which are those who seek, will find
The very last verse in Genesis 1 speaks of the sixth day, then…
“And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day”. (Genesis 1:31)
Then In Genesis 2:1,2 it says this:
“Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them”.
and then it speaks of how he rested on the seventh day. which makes it look as though God created heaven and it’s hosts between the sixth and seventh day. But heaven and earth were created in the first verse of Chapter 1 of Genesis. They were created first
“And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made”
So you can’t go by what order things are in the bible, and that could be for some hidden mystery we are suppose to seek to find
Anything and everything created has a purpose and a creator.
Proof, please, that your statements contain fact and truth rather that opinion and supposition?
Why even bother asking for proof? You'll just ignore it.
Headly, you never provided even the lightest evidence, let alone proof, of a god and you know it. All the cities, all the inventions, all the social changes - none shows a god.
You want to prove a god, produce one.
I told you then and I'll tell you again. This isn't about proof of God. This is about showing that the stories of Genesis are literal truth.
Oh I thought it was the problem with my computer.
(Jumping in and speaking in general to my observations here......) Headly, thank you for taking the time to research and share what you have found. I have been observing this "from a distance" so to speak, and not saying much. I imagine others are as well. I believe in God and that he created us, but its not "just belief" for me. I think and conclude that it is what actually makes the most sense of our world and the actions of humanity over time until now, science, reason, logic and so much more.
I think God makes a way for people to know him that might ever want to. There are multiple forms of revelation, this is one not talked about much. What a wonderful gift to have such records from so long ago, that match up with so much of what we know now, rather than contradict it. (Which could be shown rather than just casually dismissed/denied and the rest without giving sufficient reasoning.) Anyway, I wanted to say thank you, and I hope that in the face of possible frustration, I hope you feel encouraged overall and keep up the good work of evaluating everything, to test all things against what we know, and not anyone get you down. (Again, speaking in general and overall here in the thread and elsewhere.) Much more is going on than meets the eye, and what might seem like little yield at times, I think will one day produce great reward. You just may not see it exactly when it happens. I trust that you know this deep down and see the great value to at least some degree, to be able to go through all this effort. It's no small thing. So thanks....
Thank you for that, Oceans. I am usually aware of others who may be following along, hoping somebody's at least getting something out of it, but it's nice to hear. I just wish these conversations could actually delve into the material and the evidence so maybe we could start reaching some deeper things, and maybe get into some truly interesting territory, but instead I'm constantly being sidelined by accusations and what people imagine I must be doing to come to these conclusions. I think it could really lead to some interesting discussions if someone actually challenged what I'm saying with some sort of effort. If someone actually tried to delve into the material and actually tried to disprove it. For once a discussion that's usually mired in philosophical intangibles and mindless back and forths with no concrete context could actually reach some real conclusions and maybe even find some real resolution. That's what I'm always hoping for and why I like to engage the people of these forums that I know to be intelligent and generally well informed.
Does that include the stories that God created A&E? Or flooded the world? Or scattered the people of Babel? Or destroyed Sodom and Gomorroh?
Or just that there was a city, way back when? Or another one called Babel? Because few would disagree, although the locations might be under "attack". I have no real argument of your work, right up until you decide that a god came by and fed the people information while changing their mental prowess and abilities. You data just doesn't support such claims, not at all.
Did we not cover this already. Yes, it includes Genesis 2-11, which is the Adam/Eve story through the Babel story, which includes the flood.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about if all you can say is, "You data just doesn't support such claims, not at all." I'm sure you just haven't looked at it with any sort of real consideration, or you'd know better.
"This isn't about proof of God"
How do you separate proof of a god from a tale whereby a god makes Eve from the rib of a man and still call it "literal"? Or a god from deciding that a god fed knowledge and information to an entire people?
Answer: a god didn't do it. It was a purely natural event, and Eve didn't come from a rib. The Garden didn't exist and neither did the trees or apple. The people learned by themselves, not a god, and the tales are not literal. This I can agree with - just leave the exaggerations and the notion that a god did it all out of the equation.
But you don't. You continue to insist that your data shows a god, all while saying you aren't trying to say a god existed. It is only there that we have a sticking point.
So how have you determined these things you've stated are actual exaggerations? By what standard do you decide one thing may be literal but another is exaggerated?
Let me use an example to illustrate. One might determine, based on what's observed around us in the world in this age, that giant reptiles can't have actually existed. That that must be an exaggeration. Because nothing like that is known to exist throughout human history. But we know it's not an exaggeration. We know that at one time that was literally true, though it is not and cannot be anymore.
You just seem to know, instinctively, what you will and will not accept as literal truth. I'd like to know exactly how you determine that.
If you're looking for magic you're not going to find it. Proof of God is a universe that's shaped by natural laws to become what it has become. Proof of God is coded information in each of our cells. How God operates is what we deem "natural". There's no telling the difference between God's actions and nature. They're one and the same.
And that's why we disagree. You look around and declare that "It's obvious! A god did all this!" while the rest of us want something a little (a lot) more concrete in the way of proof.
You first have to understand what you're looking for before you can even know whether what you're looking at constitutes proof. That's why I've taken the approach I've taken. I realize there's no resolution to discussions about God's existence in general. But something can be concluded about what the bible states to be actual history. That's concrete. What I've pointed out is concrete. You say that's what you want, but it isn't. You don't actually want what you say you do, because when it's provided, you opt instead for general dismissal.
You are quite mistaken; I have no real quarrel with the concrete evidence you've presented (although very slim and mostly that "it's obvious" or conjecture). I have a problem when you conclude a god was present and interfering in the natural progression of events. THAT your data does not support.
Let me explain again. The evidence I've presented shows that the stories of Genesis, if taken literally, reflects exactly what one should expect to see if they actually happened as described. I'm talking about the things that can be determined through evidence. I never said anything about a God being present, just that the actual events as described are supported by evidence.
And again, I have no quarrel with the timeline/scenario you've presented...until you require a god to perform certain acts that could have happened very well without any god at all.
If you think Genesis is to be taken literally, with an intelligent ET creating A&E, can you describe how that was accomplished without a god? If the people of Eridu suddenly gained god-given intelligence and knowledge without any god, how did that happen? These events are described by scripture as things a god did; if you wish to say these descriptions (including the god) are supported by evidence...well, you have to show a god to do it - concrete evidence of that god, not just the biblical description which does NOT support a god. Just fanciful story-telling.
You understand you can't show evidence of God. God's actions are indistinguishable from what we deem 'natural'. That's how He works. His will is realized through natural processes.
So the best we can do is vet the events in Genesis through actual history. And they show to be parallel.
"God's actions are indistinguishable from what we deem 'natural'. That's how He works. His will is realized through natural processes. "
What I get from this is that we pick what natural actions we'll call god's work and leave the rest to being natural. Without ability to choose between the two we have no reason to make any distinction and certainly no ability to do so; the question then becomes why we think ANYTHING is coming from a god? The simpler explanation for everything that happens is that it is a natural process.
"So the best we can do is vet the events in Genesis through actual history. And they show to be parallel."
So Genesis depicts natural events, but you wish to attribute it to a god (see paragraph above). Why? Because the people that made up Genesis did? Given that the people back then attributed everything to a god, from a locust infestation to illness to eclipses, it doesn't seem much of a reason to follow suit.
Or because it you think it lends credibility to the unnatural events Genesis mentions but that can't be vetted? It doesn't. Whether attributed by you or by the early bards it does't indicate that either a god did anything OR that anything supernatural ever happened. This is exactly what I've been telling all along; that because some of Genesis is correct is absolutely no reason to think that all of it is.
All natural processes are God's work. But again, this isn't about proving God. It's about finding historical relevance and fitting into a proper context to better understand what's happening. And doing so does just that.
The 'unnatural' events of Genesis can be vetted, to an extent. Here, let me give you an example. Just think about this ...
Notice all the cultures that spoke of human-in-form gods living among them are right here in this part of the world. Other cultures, just as advanced, didn't. But all of the cultures of this area of the world told very similar stories. They speak of these gods as if they're real. They really interacted with them. Often mated and had children with them. Given this, it doesn't make much sense to attribute this to these people just coming up with some imaginary explanation, all independently, coming up with such similar explanations. If it was just some peculiar way of the mind explaining things then we'd expect to see it elsewhere. We don't.
Another is the rapid advancements we see in Sumer and other connected cultures that we don't elsewhere. There's no other explanation that fits as we don't see the same duplicated elsewhere where we see similar conditions.
"All natural processes are God's work. But again, this isn't about proving God."
No, it never seems to be about proving god. Nevertheless the first sentence does NOT stand alone; it requires proof when stated as factual as it is here. So, without supporting evidence or proof, we must assume it is false and that "natural" processes are just that: natural. Not from a supernatural god, which kind of ruins the rest of the post - it is quite possible that the gods of that region happened "naturally", without godly intervention (and you forgot about the Norse gods, that very much interacted on a human basis). Unlikely as it might or might not be (you provide no statistical analysis) it is still possible and without a proven god we must assume it was a natural occurrence.
There's no way to prove it because there's no way to observe natural processes without God to compare and differentiate. But natural processes show intent and purpose. Living things having coded information embedded in their cells, information that is actually used and is retained and passed on, that allows for changes to be accumulative, this is something that shows intelligence.
Intelligence, in and of itself, is something that occurs 'naturally'. It evolved naturally on this planet. So, it is not inconceivable to think intelligence probably exists in other forms elsewhere. So, the most likely explanation for what we observe in nature is that it's intelligently intended.
Life is compelled by a will that we know is there, yet we cannot explain it. It, like many other things, is something that is undoubtedly there, yet lacks explanation. Life is compelled by some unseen force to be. It's the force that pushed life through the teeth of evolution. Without that life would not have prevailed.
You can just say it's all 'natural occurrences', but that doesn't exactly explain it. A rock formation is natural. A living thing being compelled to get up and climb out of the sea and move and seek out food and all the rest is something not yet understood. We're compelled by some inner will. Our bodies actually take action to survive, even if you consciously don't want to live. You have to kill the body. And the body will fight back.
The point is you have to allow for things that can't be proven. To think all that reality is can be in some way observed by the five senses we happen to have evolved just to survive is short-sighted. Chances are, like frequencies of light or sound, there is more outside of our ability to observe it. It's just common sense. And there's plenty to suggest that's true.
Of course there's a way to observe nature without a god; look around at it. Saying natural processes show intent and purpose is identical with saying there is a god and thus requires proof. That DNA exists is insufficient for evidence - it is no more indicative of a god than a salt crystal is (it, too, has "information" dictating how it will form, just in the form of chemical bonding).
Wait. "Intelligence forms 'naturally'" so the most likely explanation is a god ("intelligently intended")? Say that one again?
Inability to explain all details does not indicate a god - it indicates ignorance. Which man has in abundance. "Life is compelled by some unseen force to be" is another statement requiring proof; as it stands it is stated factually but is only opinion. Unless you refer to the strength and activity of chemical bonds?
You may be compelled, but I'm not (except by my wife!). Another statement that requires proof, unless you mean hunger or a desire to live. Both will be required by evolution and no god needed - any species lacking either one will not survive.
We agree that a great many things are not yet proven (not sure I agree that they cannot be). And that many things cannot be detected by our 5 senses. Neither is a reason to assume that a god is real. While it might be a reason (with which I would disagree) to postulate a god, until that god is shown to exist it is only a postulate. Not a factual statement.
Here's the problem, as I see it. "Goddunnit" is an answer to every question that might ever be asked. Whether "What are these big bones from?", "Where did we come from" or "Why did Mommy have to die", Goddunnit answers the question. And these questions have already been answered by that; it is only as we understand dinosaurs, the big bang and cellular aging do we begin to understand that "Goddunnit" is woefully short as an answer and indeed may be flat out false. "God" is currently defined in such a way (undetectable by any method) as to ever be possible to know if the ubiquitous "Goddunnit" is true or not.
So "Goddunnit" can only last until we figure out the "natural" answer. We can never know if it is correct. It answers every question, but never, ever with a full answer or explanation. Just a "graball" phrase that really answers nothing.
Correction. DNA is sufficient for evidence. It supports that there is intelligent intent, it is just insufficient to prove it. Evidence can support, but not wholly prove, something.
Yes, because it occurs naturally, it is not out of the ballpark to hypothesize it could have played a role. Intelligent intent, given that along with what we observe, is therefore the most likely explanation. Given the environment that allows for our existing, and the fact that we do exist. And not just that we exist but that we are conscious and self-aware and intelligent and care about things.
You simply have to use our brains to piece together what can't be observed. Just as we generally hypothesize something, then determine what, if anything, is testable. Hypothesizing is a big part of science. Making predictions based on what's imagined.
See, this statement right here is a perfect example. You say evolution explains the will to feed hunger and live. Yet we don't know what causes it. We can't explain the mechanistics that make it happen. So you can't say, without proof, for certain that it happens without the need for a God. That goes both ways. And, you are compelled. Or, rather, your body is. If you need proof try holding your breath.
There is a boundary to what is "knowable". Here's a good series to watch that covers just that done by high energy particle physicist and professor Russell Stannard.... https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P … 0179B12F8D
I highly recommend them.
Yes, you're right. We can't just arbitrarily say "Goddunnit" to anything and everything. But we do have to acknowledge that there will inevitably be things beyond what can be known or mechanistically explained. There are some things that inevitably go beyond what can be known. And just as I can't say these things for certain prove there is a God, you cannot say there is no God. There is certainly room for a God. Evolution doesn't prove no God is required. The Big Bang doesn't prove there's no God required. Because there are components involved in both that still lack explanation. What causes the natural laws, or what animates living things cannot be explained. So you don't know these processes don't require a God because nobody can say exactly what's required for these things to work.
How is DNA evidence of a god (not proof, but just evidence)? Simply because it is possible a god used it for information purposes? That could be said of ANYTHING - that a god might have used it as a tool.
Same for our existence, or self awareness. A god could have used it, yes, but it is not evidence that one did.
Yes, we make prediction based on what we hypothesize. And then test them for validity - kind of hard to test for a god.
Outside of not being able to know the future, and a few such things like not knowing exact position AND velocity, I disagree. The physical constraints and attributes should all be knowable. I watched a couple of your videos, but neither indicated a real impossibility of knowing. Just that we can't do it now which is not what I refer to. How big is the universe? Go to the edge and find out! That kind of thing (super simplistic, I know, but hopefully you'll get the meaning).
Absolutely we cannot know there is no god (or God, or billions of gods). But that is not a reason to say there is, and certainly not a reason to say one made our universe or us. Not a reason to say one made mankind or watches us every moment. These things require proof, not just ignorance on our part.
Always keep in mind that lack of proof of a god's non-existence, or our ignorance of how things work, is not proof or even evidence of a god. At best we could say from the lack of proof of non-existence that a god might exist, but that is a far cry from evidence that one does exist. And of course ignorance is only evidence of ignorance; not anything else.
Because the only other example of information being recorded and used was created by intelligent minds. It closely resembles the way we store and pass on information to be used by later generations. It's something that resembles intelligence.
Right, a God could have, so in that way it can be counted as evidence for a God. It doesn't prove it, but it supports it.
Right, but the inability to test for something doesn't nullify the possibility of it being true.
The fact is there are limits. Boundaries. And because there are boundaries there will inevitably be something beyond them.
But it is the reason why your statements that this or that doesn't require a god is invalid.
Except that a God like the one described, a lack of ability to prove is an expected result. If God is indeed as described, then our inability to detect Him is in keeping with that description. If we were able to detect then He wouldn't be as presented.
So, He can not be ruled out. Given the book that describes Him has proven accurate only goes further to that end. It's still a possibility and nothing we've learned scientifically has anything to say on the topic. It just continues to prove that what we should expect to see is truly how it is. The universe truly does have a beginning, and everything by all appearances appeared to have formed all by itself. Expected result that's consistent with what's described.
Your logic is faulty. You're still trying to use ignorance as evidence of a god, but it doesn't work.
"Because the only other example of information <that we know of> being recorded and used was created by intelligent minds." (bolded words added). Ignorance doesn't mean there isn't more; if you wish to use that kind of reasoning you would have to find a thousand instances, not just one. There is also the problem that you have limited your total examples (1) to just one type of life; other planets may have other forms of DNA. At best you might claim circumstantial evidence, and that's never enough, not matter how much there is, to prove anything. The same goes for anything that a god might do or use; that we can't rule it out is not evidence it exists. Or do you agree there is evidence that there is an invisible pink unicorn living under your bed?
Boundaries do not indicate there is anything beyond, or do you have positive evidence there is something beyond the boundary of the universe? Or the edge of a meson? Inside the planck limit for length?
Except that a made up god, intended to be described in such a manner as to make non-existence non-provable will have the exact same attributes. It thus is not evidence of either one.
But the book that describes has NOT been shown accurate in any factor, large or small, that has anything to do with the supernatural. Only a tenuous connection to natural events and happenings that do not require a god to be true. Your research seems thorough and shows at least a fair correlation to biblical history, but 100% of the connection to anything supernatural is pure supposition and conjecture.
*shock* "The universe truly does have a beginning, and everything by all appearances appeared to have formed all by itself." Without a god, you mean?
Like I said, this isn't about proving God exists. It's about showing there is room for a God. He can't be ruled out. Nothing we've learned changes that. And now we can see the Genesis account could have actually happened. What we can see is consistent with what we should expect to see if true. That we can't rule it out is not evidence that one exists, true, but it also means you can't say a God isn't required for anything that relies at least partially on something we don't yet understand. For example, we don't know what causes the natural laws that shape the universe. Yet they play a pivotal role. You can't say a God wasn't involved, so you can't say that anything shaped by the natural laws doesn't require a God. You don't know that and can't say that for certain.
Boundaries do not indicate something beyond. But the chances are better something lies beyond.
Let's not forget what all we know to be accurate by those that 'made up' this God. Like the universe having a beginning. They called that 3000 years before we knew it.
The book has shown accurate in accordance with history. It's events line up with real events. If what it says happened actually happened, what we should expect to see is there.
"But the book that describes has NOT been shown accurate in any factor, large or small, that has anything to do with the supernatural. "
This is where your logic is faulty. The natural sciences can only address what is 'natural'. 'Super-natural', by definition, falls outside of its jurisdiction. So, requiring empirical proof of the supernatural is flawed.
This is why the most brilliant minds that ever lived were rationalists. Some were believers: Kant, Descartes, Leibniz, some others were Spinoza, Plato and Aristotle and their contributions to rationalism.
"The criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive"
Rationalists believe reality has an intrinsically logical structure. Because of this, rationalists argue that certain truths exist and that the intellect can directly grasp these truths. That is to say, rationalists assert that certain rational principles exist in logic, mathematics, ethics, and metaphysics that are so fundamentally true that denying them causes one to fall into contradiction. Rationalists have such a high confidence in reason that proof and physical evidence are unnecessary to ascertain truth. -wiki
Feigned empiricism is intellectual weakness, in my opinion. Real empiricism is justification of knowledge that comes only or primarily from sensory experience. Rationalism relies on deductive logic. One relies on pure logic and reasoning and will stand the test of time and any possible place, while another relies on "show me" and maybe I will believe, maybe. And maybe it will be true in 1 trillion years, but probably not, and in another possible world, I am not sure.
"The criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive"
Well said. We should put all of that on a plaque and hang it up somewhere around here.
All of reality seems encoded just like DNA. Only it's encoded with things like geometry, mathematics and logic. That reality produces minds that can perceive geometry, mathematics and logic. It's like finding a million year old store receipt and upon closer examination the receipt has detailed information on how to build a barcode scanner, it builds itself just from the information and then it accurately scans the receipt. While the empiricists are concerned with the more conspicuous items and amounts/charges on the receipt and whether they add up right, the rationalist wonder how come there was a receipt at all.
I've thought that as well. Can it really be counted as unremarkable that something invented by the human mind, like mathematics, to find out the 13 billion year old universe actually conforms to it? So was mathematics invented, or discovered?
An example I sometimes use is the components of abiogenesis. Lipids and nucleotides. Lipids naturally attract one another and they naturally attract nucleotides. When lipids join together they naturally create a spherical form. The spheres naturally attract nucleotides. Nucleotides are allowed to pass through the walls of this sphere where they're protected inside. When two or more nucleotides enter the same sphere they bond together, forming polynucleotides. While nucleotides can pass through the walls of the lipid sphere, polynucleotides cannot. So what naturally happens is nucleotides enter these lipid spheres, bond together, and stay there. This actually encourages the formation of polynucleotides. And it turns out these elements existed in a clay that just happens to be the perfect catalyst for this process. This is how it's believed the first elements of RNA formed.
"That's just chemistry" I've been told. Well yes, it is. But is it not the least bit convenient, or remarkable, that these elements, that presumably formed independent of one another, that work together in such a way as to form the building blocks of DNA, exist close enough together in the environment so that they can interact? It's like digging a cake up out of the ground and dismissing it as being anything significant because eggs, flour, sugar, chocolate, salt, vanilla, etc, all exist in the soil together where it was found. Is that in itself not just a little odd that these various ingredients are present together in the same environment to begin with? It amazes me the kinds of things that can be dismissed as unremarkable just to bolster the idea that it all could have happened haphazardly on its own without a deliberate creator.
Well all that is over my head. Chemistry and biology are not my forte, but it sounds like you are very knowledgeable. I like your theories about the very early history of mankind and how you believe it aligns with early written history and the Bible as well. I know you have spent considerable time and effort developing it and I believe it has merit.
One thing I would add or mention is, once again how human beings and especially, empiricists, materialists, physicalism are all biased to objects, things etc. As you were talking about organic molecules; lipids and nucleotides etc, what comes to my mind is the taking for granted of (not you), shapes, sizes and the relationships between them. The phenomenon end of it. It seems more than just ingredients: flour, salt, sugar. There has to be a 1/4 cup of this and not too much salt. Some have to be spherical and the right proportions and the relationship between multiple things have to be complimentary. It seems that is true from the subatomic, molecular to galactic. It is also true with living things. As humans we can look at some people with dogs and a frisbee. We have a real tendency to see humans, dogs and frisbees. But there is relationship between all of them that is taken for granted. It can't be weighed, it has no color, but yet it cannot be denied.
To me the relationship or phenomenon parts are the most important and are dramatically taken for granted. Instead of people playing frisbee with a dog, we would have a stray dog, wandering around, a frisbee laying on the ground and total strangers, walking through a park. They would still have relationship but it would be more disconnected, just a variation. It is the relationship of it all that makes it all go round. I think it is the same for all of the physical world or reality.
Right. All you really have to understand with that example is how these multiple elements work together in very particular ways. As if they were made for one another. And when they do they become something far greater than any of their component parts. Yet each of these things formed independently of one another. Yet, not only do they work together to become something exponentially more complex, but they also happen to exist together in the same microcosm as one another, in a clay that proves to be the perfect catalyst for this process. It hardly seems a coincidence or a causal haphazard accident. It seems almost deliberate.
More than the sum of their parts.. We tend to look at the parts, even look at more than the sum of the parts, but I think it is the "more" itself that is the key. I was thinking about the phenomena of relationship and interconnectedness that is often taken for granted and I saw this from Goethe.
In nature we never see anything isolated, but everything in connection with something else which is before it, beside it, under it and over it. - Goethe
I was also thinking about those zany ignorant sheepherders.
Ignorant men raise questions that wise men answered a thousand years ago. - Goethe
You've hit on a sensitive topic for me. We 'modern folk' tend to dismiss the people of those ancient cultures are "ignorant". We tend to look at them and say the probably just made up gods to account for things they didn't understand about nature. We assume the most simplistic idea of them. Nevermind they're the inventors of modern language and mathematics and astrology and civilization and government and laws, etc.
I understand the justification for everything being interrelated in nature. They're all systems that evolved together, with one another. So it makes sense. But we do tend to look at the parts a bit too closely and tend to overlook the overall significance. Like looking at the 'parts' that make the body work, yet overlook the fact that we still have no idea what ultimately animates living things and 'runs' these 'parts'. Or look at the parts of the universe yet not consider just how convenient it is that we have a moon that is not only highly reflective, offering a second source of light, but that it also literally stirs our oceans. Seems a bit convenient to me.
There is a huge tendency to want to see things from the bottom up and rarely consider reality from the top down. We see toy building blocks, a childs hands, stacking them, we see the child, then his imagination as he builds and finally the improvisation that he may use. It is the qualia-like phenomena from the top down that is animating all this reality. It has no weight it has no color.
All the empiricist sees is toy building blocks.
I think you're more right than you may realize. There's a particular weed, don't recall the name, that's causing problems in the middle east and elsewhere because it's so aggressive it's choking out crops and such.
Now, plant life in general is pretty fascinating. If you film plant life where you can see both above and underground, and you speed up the playback, you'll see that plant life actually behaves a lot like animal life. You can see it's roots 'sniffing' around searching for minerals. They look like worms. They just work on a much longer timescale. Rather than having muscles to move, they have to rely on growth to move.
Now this particular species it was found out is so efficient about choking out competition because they don't compete with one another. These plants can actually tell which plants around it are related. And if they're related they share resources. If they're not they don't. Isn't that a trip?
Plants actually communicate with one another and with insects through releasing particles into the air that have particular smells. Did you know that smell of freshly cut grass that many humans find so appealing is actually the smell of a plant under duress calling out for help? Kind of sick when you think about it that we enjoy that smell so much when it turns out it's actually the grass screaming that we smell.
Some need proof that a triangle has three sides. A priori knowledge seems to elude some, so some live only in a posteriori world. They have to be the observer, reality has to bend to their will. It is always the same.
God created a flat earth (which already existed) with a domed firmament and the great bright light to rule the day and the lesser bright light (even though the moon is not a light emitting source) on day 4. This is describing an early Sumerian cosmology model of the universe that was accepted through out the middle east and Europe a couple thousands years before Genesis was written. Genesis was copied from the Babylonian Eridu Genesis - also written 1000 + years prior to the Biblical Genesis. Genesis (in the Torah and early English Bible translations - not the butchered later editions and versions of "god's word") also acknowledges the existences of other gods and people living living prior to Adam and Eve. Biblical Genesis was written around 600-550 BC by Jews under Babylonian occupation. As far as debate between science and religion, there is no debate. Religion is just an ancient belief, easily debunked with a few minutes of research.
Your posting here, Paul, could easily put all argument to rest. But we know it will not of course. Such an explanation does not fit with what some people wish to believe
We've discussed those things already, and you're being mean again
Read my answer here, I give my opinion on those things
You too Johnny
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/128565? … ost2708519
Speaking of explanations people wish to believe, Paul's description here is most certainly a good example. It's interesting how our wants and wishes can alter what we think. This is a prime example of that. Though Paul is clearly a well-informed guy, his mind chooses to ignore copious amounts of relevant information that's directly in conflict with his chosen belief.
What's written is true. The facts line up. Certainly, people of that age held a much more simplistic concept of the natural world. Their minds probably couldn't contemplate the flat landscape they stood atop of being the surface of a giant globe. But this story didn't stick around like it did, didn't survive each and every era in every age since, because it's BS. These events really happened. This God is real and the things He did in this age when He directly interacted with humans really happened. It caused modern society. There's a reason humans are no longer an indistinguishable branch-off of the animal kingdom.
I'm sure it's comforting to dismiss all this troubling religious stuff as easily-tossed aside rubbish. It's comforting on some level to think there's nothing we owe our existence to and nothing holding us accountable. Or to think we're the highest form of intelligence there is, and that all this over-bearing religious rubbish is actually based on nothing but pure hogwash.
The fact is, any guess as to when the books of Moses were actually written is exactly that ... a guess. The current model is the "documentary hypothesis" which dates the writing of the oldest portions of the bible to 950BC. The truth is, nobody knows who wrote it or exactly how old it really is. The dates given are based on the oldest surviving forms of the text, but the chances of those being the oldest, or the originals, is highly unlikely. Considering these stories accurately document events that happened between about 5500BC and 3500BC, the chances of this story remaining this consistently accurate over the course of 2500 years only as an orally passed on tale is remote.
It's ignorant to try to dismiss the bible this way. To completely ignore the obvious and significant impact these texts have had, the incredible history that has ensured its survival, the fact that it's still a well known, probably the most well known, of any ancient documents, still to this day in this age. To think you can just dismiss this as old-minded rubbish is broken logic at best. There's a reason it's significant. There's a reason that part of the world where it originates is still in perpetual upheaval. Because the events it describes really happened. The shock waves of those events can still be seen all over the landscape, like ripples in a puddle of water. To think this is all just the product of mass delusion is delusion in itself.
Plus they seem to think because those people may have thought the earth is flat that it proves there's no God
They pretend to be of science, and yet dismiss it for that simple reason
Scientists need open minds to search for truth, therefore they are not scientific
I think it's interesting that so often the "hypothesis" they're testing against is such a specific idea of what to expect to be true if God existed. Like this, to expect the bible authors to show modern levels of knowledge about the natural world. The idea is that if these texts were truly inspired by God, then a God-level of knowledge and insight should permeate the details of the text. Never mind how broken this idea is in itself. The primary theme of the bible is free will. For God to "puppet" humans to write exactly what He wishes word for word is in direct conflict of that. God can inspire, but taking and acting on that inspiration is still the action of the humans involved and bound by their level of knowledge and understanding. Ultimately, as usual, it comes down to a total lack of respect for the topic they're "investigating". If the same lack of attention to detail were applied in the scientific realm, we'd be lucky to have learned anything of worth.
Like those who consider that a causal explanation has been found to explain animal life, or the universe, or whatever. And from this they reach the conclusion... See, no God necessary. And these are supposed to be some of the great minds of our time. That's like saying, see, an egg beater and the whipping action it did is what is responsible for this cake being made. See, no baker necessary. It's broken logic being bandied about as 'high-minded'. While actually, in the end, it's yet another example of the typical mistakes in thinking that humanity is notorious for. Different day, same sh*t.
Yes of course
Just keep it simple
Without science they're wouldn't be a religion
And without religion they're wouldn't be science
And everything is possible
Religion is more like meditation science i'd say
And what's wrong with believing in dinosaurs? i think they're pretty cool
depends on which religion. with my specific religion you can believe in science , the big bang and dinosaurs. not evolution though. it just doesnt fit.
I think that mainstream science is just another religion. It is just another view of the same thing. I think there can be a perfect marriage between science and religion. I think Quantum Physics bridges the gap pretty well. Just my opinion of course, but science is mostly theories, Big Bang theory, the theory of evolution, just theories not proven facts. I saw a news article recently where scientists were saying that the big bang could not have happened, seems that the laws of physics completely break down when we try to put our universe into a tiny little point. This is one of my favorite topics.
The apparent conflict between science and religion has been on for all time, almost. I suppose that this has been so because science is concerned with matter, while religion deals with spirit. Until spirit can be explained logically like science, this conflict is likely to continue.
This would require a paradigm shift, in which existence is understood to go beyond matter, to include mind, spirit, and soul. Then, soul would be the product the mind; which would be a collating and processing center for input from spirit and matter. And the quality of soul would depend on the quality of the mind.
Input from matter would be understood by the mind as waves, with its two, 2 features. While input from the spirit would be interpreted as forms, with its three, 3 features. And a mind that functions optimally would reduce phenomena into the essential five, 5 components that give it being.
While physics has settled the issues with waves, psychology is still working to define forms. Forms open up spirit to logic and measurement
The responses to your question demonstrate one thing clearly for me. People tend to be "religious" no matter what their actual beliefs.
The philosophical naturalist has an absolute set of beliefs that are not susceptible to scientifically established fact or logic when naturalism's fundental assumptions are challenged.
The Big Bang proves that the First Cause was not "naturalistic". DNA is s code and codes do not occur naturalistically. The hypothesis of evolution within a species is perfectly consistent with intelligent direction, much more so than a absolutist natural hypothesis.
Religious types abound, some are more honest about it than others. Fundamentalist naturalists will adhere to the strictures of naturalism reagardless of contravening discovery even if it's reveled under the auspices of methodological naturalism.
The Big Bang proves it was naturalistic as there was no "First Cause". DNA is a chemical; the bonds of that chemistry cause more complex chemicals to form all naturally. Evolution is is consistent with intelligent direction because everything is, but it is also consistent with natural events, because everything is also consistent with that.
See how that works? One person gives out unsupported opinions, the next denies those opinions with more unsupported opinions and nothing changes.
Yes it is possible. I believe in both God and evolution. I see the bible as the story behind the science. God was the guy who put science into motion.
"Science" is the human pursuit of understanding our world and everything about it.
You would be more accurate in your understanding if you said "God put the world in motion." (Not that I agree with you necessarily, just pointing out the error of your statement as I see it.)
"God" did not put "science" in motion. Human minds did..... just as they put the concept of "God" into being.
I was wondering about the science in motion thing, however maybe he was thinking of matter and energy, or maybe he meant the properties of science
Yes, I consider all of our rhetoric and argument sometimes belittles reality. Some of the earlier posts in this thread point more to the way I see things.
Evolution and "creationist" ideas might be (probably are) all so ignorant of the truth because they are concepts built up by us humans to satisfy our desire to have a simple understanding. When in fact we cannot, nor will we ever, be able to know that truth because we live on a totally different plane from anything "spiritual."
When we argue about religion all friendliness, wonder, marvel, mystery, awe, celebration of life, seem to go out the door. So pointless and a waste of time very often.
Yes, it is possible, science is not far from reconciling with religion
To reconcile the two, one must only accept that the ancient stories are just that: stories. While they may have a tenuous connection to reality, the actual words and meanings must be..."interpreted"...to match reality. One day must become a billion years, while 5,000 years is 4 billion years. Flooding the earth and killing all mankind must become a tiny portion of the world and a handful of dead. "Dust" must become a collection of materials in the form of a living animal and a "rib" the same.
So yes, they can be reconciled if one changes the "history" that religion presents to match what actually happened. Re-write the religion, in other words.
What you interpret as the "history" that religion presents is an example of how human interpretation can be flawed. Nothing about the stories of Genesis conflicts with science. Creation, for example, while described in a six day format, is clearly not talking about six literal days. For example, days 4 and 5 describe this God commanding life to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. It doesn't say this God 'miracled' the Earth full of life. It says they were commanded, via natural procreation, to fill the Earth. Something everyone should realize would take much longer than a day to accomplish.
As for the flood, this portion has to be read from the understanding that from the author's point of view, "all the world" was the particular valley they lived in. They had no way of even knowing the world is an entire planet. There's significant archaeological evidence that shows a flood much like what's described actually did happen in the valley where these stories are set. A flood that actually did play a large role in ending a 1500 year old culture. Just because this was described by the authors as "all the world" doesn't mean "all the world" the way you and I read it today.
Exactly! The 7 days of creation were obviously impossible, so we will twist it and change the meaning of the words to be something other than what they say. The same with the flood; any god "inspiring" the writings will obviously know the world is larger than a small valley but we still find it necessary to change the meaning of the god given term "world" to mean just a tiny portion of it.
Wouldn't it be much better to simply accept that they are just imaginative tales, perhaps based on what the (human) writers thought might have happened, but still just tales? Take the philosophy in the book as a useful tool for living and recognize that the other parts are just stories from ancient barbarians that had a penchant for making things up and exaggerating what they did know? Just as people do today as well?
Look for the "moral of the story" in other words, rather than distorting an otherwise entertaining story into something it never was?
Sure, we could do that. We could assume these "barbarians" were just simple minded fools making things up. We could ignore that these simple-minded fools are the ones that gave us mathematics and astronomy and the first written language and invented civilization and the first organized government and written laws and etc. Let's just assume they were ignorant morons and that their writings have no value what so ever.
Or... we could maybe consider that they were total morons and give more than just this passing consideration to what they had to say. That's when we find out that there actually was a society that lasted as long as pre-flood Genesis, the first society to show signs of a behavior change that mirrors what's described happened to Adam/Eve, there was an actual flood that destroyed this 1500 year old culture, then a climate change that actually did disperse the people of these lands in all directions like the Babel story describes.
These events have proven to be the key events that led to the formation of those first civilizations. Meaning these Genesis stories are insights into one of the most pivotal ages of our human history. Describing key events that shaped modern society.
Or, we could just do as you suggested and assume there's no value beyond maybe some philosophical meaning, and dismiss them categorically without ever really knowing.
I do believe that that's what I said: "Wouldn't it be much better to simply accept that they are just imaginative tales, perhaps based on what the (human) writers thought might have happened,"
So we look for what actually happened, using their tales as a beginning point. Sometimes it's pure imagination (Adam and Eve being created from dirt) and sometimes there is a kernel of truth at the bottom (a flood that happened, or a climate change that scattered a small portion of humanity).
What we should not do is accept their exaggerated tales as truth in an of themselves. Such stories seldom are - we can look at the current trend in some places to deny the holocaust or to put the evil US government in the position of mining the twin towers with explosives. There is no reason to think our ancestors were any different; "history" from the winners never seems to match the same event as told by the losers.
That's an interesting point you bring up about the deniers of the holocaust, because that's exactly what I'm talking about. What if they're not imaginative tales? What if you're denying something that actually did happen because it's just too hard to believe, like a mad man killing hundreds of thousands of people?
Think about it like this. Let's say you witnessed something that in your mind you know to have been fantastical. Something you knew shouldn't happen, but you saw it yourself. So you might be driven to write about it. To record this phenomenon because you feel people need to know that this thing that shouldn't have happened happened. However, because what you're trying to tell people about is so hard to believe, people just start to dismiss your writings and dismiss you as an over-imaginative person and therefore never benefit from this phenomenon you witnessed and documented.
What you don't seem to get is not only are there events that mirror the events of the bible, but the very things we should expect to see if some of the more fantastical elements of the story actually happened are there as well. For example, a behavior change chronicled in our human history, that swept across the human landscape and completely altered human history, began right where those stories took place, very much mirrored what those stories described, was actually described from people of other cultures who witnessed it. Or, let's consider something like beings living for centuries. We nowadays know that's not possible, right? Yet, every culture from that age in that region tell very similar stories about these god-like figures that lived among them. Interacted with them. Sometimes even bred with them. The Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians, the Sumerians, the Akkadians, the Indus Valley Culture, and many others. All of them wrote very similar stories about these beings that lived among them. That taught them things. Things we know they really did accomplish. Like the Sumerians. All the things they actually did before any other human culture, they directly claim they were taught these things by these beings.
Can we not get over ourselves just long enough to consider the fantastical? Just because these things don't seem possible in the time we've been alive, in what we've experienced, whose to say they were never possible? Whose to say it's impossible that beings could have been created separate from the naturally evolved humans who actually did live much longer lives? How can you be so certain that these must just be made up stories? That they're impossible? Any more impossible than humans actually flying to and landing on the moon? How do you know? If you actually allow for this possibility then you'll find that a lot of what you'd expect to see if it were actually true is there. We actually do see significant advancements in human knowledge and capability. We actually do see significant advancements in civilization. Things still to this point not entirely understood or explained. We just know those ancient cultures were quite advanced in a lot of ways. We just don't quite know exactly how or why. According to them, they were taught. That behavior change, that thing that happened to Adam/Eve in that story, happened across continents and completely transformed humanity. And it was such a sweeping change that other cultures saw it as a change worthy of writing about. Like the Roman poet Ovid. We can now trace these changes in our archaeological record and see that they happened right in the same culture that lines up with pre-flood Genesis, and actually spread following that event that mirrors Babel to all those other cultures. And each place it went we see the emergence of more advanced things happening. Like each culture developing their own form of writing, though their languages were completely different.
It is denied not because it is hard to believe but because it is not only impossible but also nonsensical.
It shows that human beings every where are the same and think similarly. Also most of these cultures had inter communication.
PS: We have no idea what the Indus people wrote.
"It is denied not because it is hard to believe but because it is not only impossible but also nonsensical."
Impossible because it's never happened during the time we've been alive? Nonsensical because nothing like it has ever happened during the time we've been here? Doesn't mean it's never happened. Doesn't mean it's impossible. Who's to say what's actually impossible. Some might have said at one time that giant reptiles are impossible or nonsensical. Why? Because they don't exist today?
"It shows that human beings every where are the same and think similarly. Also most of these cultures had inter communication."
We assume it's just that human beings everywhere must think the same way because that's the only explanation that makes sense to us because anything else would be nonsensical and impossible, right? Yet, if iit turned out that beings like this really existed, one thing you'd expect to see is multiple cultures talking/writing about them. An expected result is exactly what we see.
"PS: We have no idea what the Indus people wrote."
True, we don't know what they wrote, but we know from images they created that they had numerous deities.
Life and intelligence are products of evolution. And no aliens except microbes can come from space.
Nobody said anything about anyone coming from space. But those who were introduced by God interbred with humans, so there'd be no indication to separate their descendants from naturally evolved humans, unless specific genetic information could be isolated. Neither life nor intelligence was born of this. They evolved, as you said. This interaction introduced individual wills capable of behaving of their own will and want, and whose behavior wasn't dictated by natural law.
Where ever you go in the world, a horse is a horse, a cow is a cow, an ape is an ape. Humans are different. And have been. We have a different outlook, an acute self-awareness, that makes us see ourselves and think of ourselves differently. And that has very particular effects on our behavior. Behavior changes that can be seen archaeologically and tracked.
For god to be non contradictory he should be dead! Otherwise he too is evolved.
This God is described as the one that set the causal natural world into motion. The maker of the causal chain can't be a link within it. He originates before time existed, before there existed a 'beginning' or 'ending'. All we know has a beginning and and ending because we are products of this universe. He is not.
It would contradictory for Him to be as you describe Him. Then He couldn't be as described.
You do realise that you are describing a past event?
This explanation is self contradictory. You are assuming a time without motion and reifying time.
I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean past event as in speaking of God being from before all of this, then yes, it is the past. Because time began at the onset of the universe, it began before now.
The Beginning of Time
The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now.
MY NOTE: I wonder if it'll collapse while going through a black hole, then come out the other side to regenerate, and become a new universe
That's an interesting thought, that may eventually play out that way. Afterall it is black holes that create singularities. All of the matter/energy of this universe may have come from a previous universe that did the same. That passed through a black hole and was condensed into a singularity that then 'banged' out again. This is similar to the theory known as the "big bounce". That our universe is one of many, one after another.
What the math says is that our universe will continue to expand out until it runs out of energy and heat. It'll just go cold.
How do you know this past event?
How do you know this god?
You assume there was a time in the natural world without motion.
You suppose a beginning and non beginning at the same time, contradiction.
Time didn't 'begin', time is conceived.
I know this past event from the recording of it in the bible. Same for God. I don't assume there was a time in the natural world without motion. Based on the mathematics, there was a period "before" time/space existed. Both time/space and matter/energy came into being in the same instant. This universe, including space/time, does indeed have a beginning. Before time, there is no such thing as a beginning or an ending. These are concepts that only apply where time exists.
You mean you take a book for granted even though it is nonsense and contradictory? Why the circular reasoning?
Based on mathematics, if today is day '0' and yesterday day '-1', when was the beginning day '-6000 years' or '-3billion years'? What happened the day immediate prior, "-6001" or "-3 billion one"? Which was the day that time did "exist"?
How do you know that when these two "concepts", time and space, came into "existence"?
What's the basis of such an assertion?
You understand what a "concept" means don't you? Why then the reification?
It is neither nonsense nor contradictory.
That's a tricky topic you're venturing into. I would actually love to hear this addressed by Tyson or Hawkings. Technically, for the bang to have begun, for that singularity to have changed states, to progress, to begin, would require time you would think. So if time didn't exist until the moment that singularity began to bang, how does that work? How did the singularity begin to change states to then create time/space before time?
That's what the math says. If you role the clock back to the beginning, time and space came into existence the instant the universe did.
The big bang theory
Kudos on the use of 'reification'. That's a word you don't often have the opportunity to use, and most would miss using it if the opportunity ever presented itself.
They are abstract concepts used to describe time. They only apply if time exists. If time doesn't exist, they have no meaningful purpose.
Haven't you read the bible, beginning with the first chapter it is nonsense and contradiction? "
Genesis 1:1 'in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth', now you are saying it is the singularity and not 'heaven and earth'.
You assert that time "exists", does it exist like in 'chair exists' or 'love exists'?
"If you role the clock back to the beginning"
-1, -2, -6000, -3 billion, ...... when will you get to zero, the beginning?
What is outside the singularity, the black thing that contours it?
"They are abstract concepts used to describe time."
What about time? Isn't it a concept?
What? The result of the singularity is heaven and earth. The bible says God created heaven and earth and we find out heaven and earth literally came about from a single point.
Yes, time exists. Something that doesn't exist couldn't have the impact time does. Time ages us. Time moves. Time is real. Time exists and is more real than love.
To get to zero rolling the clock back you have to roll back roughly 13.7 billion years.
There is nothing outside of the singularity. No time, no space, no matter or energy, nothing.
After singularity is not earth, earth is formed millions of years after that. In the "beginning" there was no earth. 5 million years ago, there was no earth only heaven with other stars and planets.
So you mean time exists like 'chair exists'? Or you mean it exists like "love" a concept?
Time doesn't move but the earth does and the movement of the earth is called time. Time do not age us, our aging in relation to the earths movement is time.
You mean -13.7+(-1)=0?
See that picture, the singularity is surrounded by a black "thing", what is that?
Space is our conceptualisation of "nothing". It is that "nothingness", space, that contours and gives shape to objects. So when you say nothing was outside, it means space was outside.
The picture of the singularity is rather deceptive. But it's understandable. It is not an easy concept to depict.
The idea is that the universe IS the singularity in an expanded form. You live inside this singularity which is still expanding. The original state of the singularity would be all the energy of the universe compressed together.
The idea that there was no time in that state comes from the idea that time is relative to distance. The space between objects creates time. So, no space between anything, no time as we know it.
But then again, were I to be able to shrink a room to the size of a grain of sand with you in it along with measuring devices, you wouldn't know the difference unless you looked outside, and your ruler would say you are 5 foot 8 and your table would still be 4 feet long and 3 and a half feet wide, and it would still take you 3 seconds to cross the room by your reckoning.
But step out your door and it would suddenly take you a hundred years to walk to the next house, if conditions didn't make it impossible to get there at all. Oxygen atoms would be too large and too far apart to breath.
If all the energy of the universe were compressed to a grain of sand would some form of distance and time still exist? It seems to me that it might but it would be nothing like what we experience.
What is outside the universe? We don't know, and we don't even know that it is a valid question. There may not be an outside.
But there are plenty of speculative hypothesis including the idea that this is just one universe in a super universe with as many universes as there are stars in ours. Or that black holes are singularities that compress energy and spew it forth creating new universes, and that indeed a black hole in another universe created ours.
But all that is speculation.
As to empty space being nothing, that's not the case. Empty space is not empty. It is full of quantum activity called quantum fluctuation which forming particles from apparently nothing; that nothing being the fabric of space that Einstein talked about. Those particles the annihilate each other just as fast as they are born in pairs of matter and anti matter.
Hawking has a hypothesis which includes the idea that this universe may have come from such fluctuation. Also speculation.
Penrose on the other hand postulates a static universe that undergoes periods of rapid expansion that look like the BB, but aren't that. In that scenario there is no beginning to this universe.
However, even in BB theory where there is a beginning for this universe, that does not constitute a beginning for energy itself, as that is what the singularity in its compressed form was.
Rationally one must accept that if there had ever, and that is a deceptive word in this case, there was a point where nothing existed at all. (And I mean at all) then nothing would exist now, as you obviously can't get something from absolutely nothing at all. Therefor there can be no ultimate beginning, only beginnings to specific events or conditions like this universe, your birth, etc.
The best natural candidate we have for that something which has always existed is energy, as it can not be created or destroyed, but it's transformations create all that there is.
It can be considered god if god is defined as that which created all this. It is then just a question of whether or not a conscious god exists or not, as it does not seem to be required.
Again, like the question of what is outside the universe or what was before time as we know it, such questions as: is there a conscious god, are rather meaningless to science as we have no way of testing to find out by definition.
It is nonsense hence. If it exists it can be depicted.
It doesn't matter where one lives, if singularity exists it must have a shape and the shape is contoured by the space outside.
The motion of objects is considered time, more specifically the rotation and revolution if earth. Since we are taking it as a standard, we can count time by comparison. That's how we are able to count to a time before earth.
Objectivity is nit based on what I "see".
Experience has nothing to do with objectivity either. Distance is measured between objects nit concepts like energy. If there is only one object in this universe time has no meaning but remember we are keeping a clock that is standardised to the earth.
There is nothing "outside", because universe has no boundaries and in consequence it cannot expand. Only a thing with boundaries can expand. What can happen in universe is distance between objects can increase or objects like stars that may expand.
Not only speculation but nonsense. Reification.
"Nothing" cannot fluctuate, only a thing can. Nothing is not 'fabric' of space but space.
Hawkins has said much nonsense.
There is no beginning for universe - sensible but not even god can compress a concept.
Not energy but it is matter that exists.
For this you will have to contradict what you said just above. If it has no beginning, there is nothing for god to create, that is, by god if you mean creator. If by god you mean your "energy", an unconscious god should exist, shouldn't it?
Définition is part of science, and we define before testing. Without defining god how can you look for god?
If you define god as energy and a theist define god as creator you both will be looking for and discussing different things, won't you?
So, matter is mass. Mass is achieved through what is known as the Higgs field which lends mass to energy slowing it well below light speed, which allows interactions. Without the Higgs field no matter would exist.
Photons are massless, which means that light is energy not matter.
The equation E =Mc squared tells us the amount of energy a bit of matter has. All matter has a vastly larger amount of energy in it than mass. It also tells us that all mass has energy and indeed that matter and energy are the same thing in different form. You can in principal convert energy to mass and mass to energy. But as photons show us, not all energy has mass.
Going back to BB theory, the state of things in the first seconds was one in which there was no mass so different forms of energy could not interact. Therefore until the Higgs field developed all that existed was free range energy. No mass and hence no matter.
There were no atoms in the beginning, there were different types of quarks and other subatomic “particles” which were massless. Again: compressed energy.
Because of Einstein we know that energy is not just work, it’s actually in the category of thing. In fact I would say it’s the basis of everything. Matter is energy with mass.
This, for me, explains particle/wave duality better than the standard model usually does.
Time is just the ever changing now. There is no past to go back to nor a future that pre exists. They are both just a way to talk about events over space. This is also what Einstein said when he explained that time is relative to space and that it does not exist without space.
We tell time relative to the earth and it’s movement in space. Events do not happen except through movement, and movement can’t happen without space/distance.
So time and space are again like energy/matter . They are different aspects, if you will, of the same thing.
I agree that Hawking has said some dumb things, as have most string theorists. But he has given us some interesting hypothesis to test and build on as well. And he has admitted errors in the past and has corrected them. So he’s not all bad.
Matter is not mass, mass is a meaningless term.
Energy is a concept hence cannot be converted to matter, an object, or vice versa.
Sub atomic particles are things we know almost nothing about, scientists are like the blind men who tries to find out what an elephant is by touching it, all they got is some photographic plates which shows some "footprints" which they have no idea how to figure out.
"We tell time relative to the earth and it’s movement in space. Events do not happen except through movement, and movement can’t happen without space/distance."
Exactly and space is the static distance between two objects, the nothingness that separate the two objects. It is not part of the object. Space is our conceptualisation of nothingness, time is similar so is energy. Space is a static concept while the other two are dynamic (energy = motion transferred)
I don’t know too much about it, but matter is a physical substance that occupies space and possesses rest mass, and mass is a large body of matter that has no definite shape. So matter IS mass.
I'm pretty sure energy is real, but is separate from mass
Some say both are same. But mass has many defintions hence meaningless in a discussion.
I respectfully disagree, mass has only one definition, and is physical matter.
It has no definite shape, but mass is mass, separate from energy, or thought
We just recently went over mass, and matter, in one of my classes
"In physics, mass is a property of a physical body which determines resistance to being accelerated by a force and the strength of its mutual gravitational attraction with other bodies. "
See there are other definitions.
Take all the extra words away, and you said
"mass is a property of a physical body
In other words mass, and matter
A physical body is both matter, and mass
Just as I said before
matter is a physical substance
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/128565? … ost2708484
mass is physical matter.
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/128565? … ost2708487
Just different words
Both? mass, and matter?, or mass, and energy? If it is the latter, we know that's not true
must be a follower of fatfist and his ilk. Sorry to see it.
Did I show you how you contradict yourself and challenge your preconceived notions?
hardly. lol. You showed how illogical you are.
As if the followers of ATM and his ilk knows ration and logic .
ATM? I'm not familiar with that reference unless you are talking about bank machines, which I doubt.
In any case I don't follow anyone or any school of thought. I don't "believe" or have faith in anything. I accept facts conditionally.
I understand the science behind things like BB etc, I have a very good working knowledge of physics. That doesn't mean I think that all of it reflects reality. Science works mainly with models. Some better than others. I also study logic and base my life on it.
I was just explaining the science to you but the answers I got smack of the ideas of fatfist and that x communist spy that hangs around hubpages and thinks that he is a physicist. Which after reading his theories and philosophy along with his hate for science; I can tell you he most certainly is not.
There was a fellow who called himself "A Troubled Man" who talk like you.
I told you energy is a concept which even a laymen know.
I told you what the scientists do, explaining based on the results of what occur in photographic plate and how that may not be accurate as it is like trying to figure the animals based on a foot print, the difference is we know about animals and its general mechanics while we know almost nothing about what is inside an atom except that there is electron, proton and neutron and we will never know as we cannot see inside.
You "believe" the scientists and hence all I got was an insult. All you were doing was regurgitating your faith, saying things that are unknowable. That is not how a discussion is done.
Logic is based on premises and logic don't define the truth of the premises while physics is explaining. You should explain without contradicting yourself, but you did contradict.
So you think only you know logic?
"I understand the science behind things like BB etc"
There is no science behind BB as it suppose a beginning and as you yourself said, something cannot come out of nothing.
Again, I do not believe the scientists conclusions, I accept them as models based on observations which are repeatable. The data collected are facts while interpretations of what the facts mean are not always correct and most often incomplete.
No, energy is not just a concept. Stick your finger in an electric socket if you need proof of that. I won't bother explaining the consequences of E=Mc squared again; only to say that technology including the atomic bomb would not be possible if it didn't reflect reality at some basic level.
In fact, without that equation we probably still wouldn't have invented them.
So the word energy represents a real phenomenon, I don't care what word you want to use for it, and the math allows us to know exactly how much energy is in any object. Again, that has been proven by repeated testing by people trying to find flaws in the model. That is what science does. More so by far than trying to prove something is right which often can't be done, science tries to prove hypothesis and theories wrong which is a far more logical approach.
I am sorry that I insulted you. But to me it is not logical for a person to try to debate a topic they know nothing or very little about. Your statement that mass is meaningless and matter is all that exists shows your real lack of knowledge on the subject, In fact mass is very well defined where as matter is a very unclear concept with many definitions depending on the field of study, which is why physicists use the word mass instead.
Particle physics does smash things together and try to decipher what it is that happens in the patterns they see, you are right. And they have developed models based on those observations and interpretations. Again, something is happening. The patterns appear for a reason. What do you suggest the reason might be if you feel the standard model is incorrect? And how will your hypothesis match up to reality under testing?
The kind of logic science uses is inductive, not deductive, which sets it apart from philosophy, so your comments about that are a little misguided as well.
Now please tell me how I contradicted myself.
Then please do an in depth study of physics. I'm not telling you to believe it, I'm telling you you need to understand it. Once you understand it you can begin to formulate alternatives and back them up with logical arguments and perhaps even tests. Nothing a scientist likes better than to be able to prove a well known theory wrong. It's their bread and butter, and fame and fortune if they can do it.
Thus far no one has proven Einstein wrong about energy, or the standard model wrong about quantum mechanics, and believe me everyone would like to. The string theorists have tried and are still trying after thirty years with nothing to show for it except more unfounded speculation.
But even they know that.
I know the standard model may not be the absolute truth of it all, and I know it isn't because it is not complete. It is the best model we have, though. And models are valuable if they work; and it does.
If it didn't we would still be no farther than the industrial age.
As for you saying there are things we will never know, you can't know that even in principal. We'd be back in the stone age if everyone thought that way.
I'm not saying the opposite is true either, but we won't know which is correct until we know a lot more. And in the mean time we have to keep trying to find out.
Oh yes, BB is not something from nothing, it is something which has expanded to form this universe as we know it. Again do a bit more study, then you can make logical arguments.
That something is compressed energy according to the theory, what ever you might like to call it. And I never said I thought BB was absolutely correct. Too early to tell, and it is certainly not a complete model.
But if you want to criticize it you should know what it is, which is what I was trying to tell you.
Don't tell me the put your finger in the socket thing! You as well as I know what happens, "electron" passes through your body and change the molecular nature of protein as it is electron that is the basis of all chemical bonds.
Put your finger in the socket after standing on a wooden plank, you will no nothing there is no "energy".
Energy is the 'ability to do work', ability is the property of a body not the body. It is dependent on the body not a stand alone. My old physics teacher used to explain like this, take a ball one increases its potential energy. Actually nothing happens to the ball, what happens is that if you drop it and it hit another object the motion is transferred to the second object and it moves and distance moved is work. So it is the "ability" that is called energy. It is simply the motion transferred. In atomic bomb also similar thing happens only it is in the subatomic level, it is motion transferred.
You can always asses the speed and the motion that is transferred, is it not and attribute the discrepancy to the dissipating 'forces', that doesn't make motion or energy a stand alone thing.
Matter is synonymous with thing. Thing and nothing are dichotomies. What ever exist in the world is a thing, that do not exist is a concept.
Mass has so many defintions as you very well know, equated with matter to inertia to gravitational drag. A term with various definitions cease to have meaning for the purpose of discussion if it is the term in contention.
I didn't bring any hypothesis, did I? I am not a singer, should that mean I should never criticise a song. When I say god is rationally and logically impossible, do I have to bring another hypothesis?
Logic, what I said about logic is that logic cannot determine the truth of its premises not about deduction or induction.
Contradiction " particles from apparently nothing", "nothing being the fabric of space", then something cannot come out of nothing.
We will never is not a reason to propose patently false models, is it?
BB has two problems, one is that it talk about energy. Second is that it says space expands.
I have no problem if it said all the matter in this universe was once compacted into a single thing but what it says is that space too was inside that thing while space is actually the nothing outside of it.
Ah, Newtonian physics. Energy is work. Not a thing. That’s a reasonable classical definition which in the macro world is a very usable model of energy, so we use it when appropriate.
The definition of matter most people use in conversation is: Matter is anything that has mass and volume. But to me a better definition for matter has to do with what it is made of. Matter, of course, is made of atoms. More specifically combinations of atoms that create chemicals and substances.
The biologist’s definition of matter is: The material that makes up an object. I like that one because when it comes down to it matter is material; in the same sense as building material.
Mass is often meant to give us the measure of the amount of matter in a physical object. Really it is the characteristic of matter that makes it tend to stay at rest if it is at rest, or stay in motion when it is in motion. Mass is the amount of inertia in an object. So it is relative to force and acceleration as per Newton's Second Law of Motion. Mass then is the major factor in determining an object’s resistance to changes in speed/acceleration and/or direction . But what is mass?
The mass of an object is not dependent on gravity, so it is not weight. However, the weight of an object is determined by how gravity interacts with matter. Even though your weight and mass are the same number or close on earth, in space you don’t weigh anything but you still have the same mass. On another planet your weight might change depending on the gravity of the place, but your mass wouldn’t change. Neither would your matter.
The problem in the early part of the twentieth century was, photons have no rest mass or volume. All “things” have mass and volume, right? So light must be an illusion then? Just a concept perhaps?
Probably not. So what is it?
We equate energy with movement even in classical physics. Quite so. Photons, for one, obviously travel at the speed of light, and can’t sit still. No thing with matter or mass can do that. The closer an object gets to light speed the more mass it acquires and the more energy required to get it going even a little faster, until the object acquires so much resistance that it could never reach the desired speed no matter how much energy you add to propel it. Remember that: the more energy added when accelerating the more mass is acquired.
Electrons get close but never reach it. In physics an electron is considered an electromagnetic wave.
So what are photons then if not matter? Energy? That’s all I know of that exists, matter and energy, right? That’s why I’m a materialist.
But that’s a different use of the word energy from the classical use. We always assumed that matter itself had this ability to do work. Humans push a rock around, they are doing work. Work is defined as: moving objects., exerting force in order to accomplish a task. Of course exerting force expends energy.
Now matter is material. How is this material formed? As I said: All material things are made of atoms. All of these atoms interact producing different types of material. The materials interact to produce compound substances.
All of these interactions are the result of the rules of physics.
Well what are atoms? Are they matter?
We said early on that matter has mass and it takes up space. Certainly atoms have mass and they take up space. So they are matter. But experiments have shown that they can be both particle and wave, depending what you are looking for.
That’s a bit odd, isn't it? So what does that mean? It means that it isn't as simple as saying they are matter. There is more to it than that.
Big bang theory had a problem in the beginning too. That problem was that according to the math the subatomic particles like quarks which make up protons etc, would not have had mass to begin with. So where does mass come from?
Higgs and a team of others developed the idea of an energy field that actually slows most other forms of energy down to below light speed. It was based again on mathematics done from the consequences of the Big Bang and it fit. But until recently it had never been found in any experiments, and of course it is hard to find because it’s a field, not just the odd particle or wave here or there. Have they found it? Possibly. They certainly found something that looks like it.
The Higgs field would lend mass the same way running in water slows you down considerably, as opposed to running on dry land. Interactions between quarks etc that create atoms would have a hard time happening at light speed. These reactions happen in condensed states, which in turn happen below light speed.
So that’s were mass comes from then, but does mass actually create matter? No, it’s an aspect of matter.
According to relativity, rest mass itself doesn't constitute the amount of matter in a system: the energy–momentum tensor does. In other words: The density and momentum of the energy in a system is a way to determine the amount of matter in a system. He’s saying in essence that compressing energy allows material to form.
E=Mc squared has consequences which tell us that mass and energy are the same thing.
E stands for energy, M stands for mass and C stands for the speed of light. So energy is equal to the mass of an object times the speed of light squared. You can convert units of energy to units of mass, But we can’t convert mass to energy of course, and the reasons for that should be obvious: Mass is already energy. It’s kinetic energy.
You can, in principal, convert matter to energy however, just like you can turn water to ice or vapour, but it remains h2o. A dramatic example is an atomic explosion where in massive amounts of energy is released from a relatively small bit of matter. The matter is all but gone but its energy and mass are conserved in the by-products of the blast.
So what then is the difference between energy and matter? Mass? No. You can’t have mass without energy, but you can have energy without mass. So which is the base? Which came first?
When you can’t have one without the other, but you can have that other without the one, which is the stand alone? Mass is a consequence of the nature of energy. A consequence of relativity is that: matter is a product of energy, not the other way around.
There is really nothing but what we call energy: that which is animate. As I said: according to relativity, rest mass itself is not matter. Energy under specific conditions creates matter. Energy is certainly not just work: whatever it is, it seems to be the default state. Matter is condensed energy at its root.
It gets more interesting. The laws of conservation tell us that energy cannot be destroyed or created. But it also tells us that mass can’t be destroyed either. Both are conserved no matter what transformations they go though. Energy is mass, and mass is energy in a specific state. They are the same thing.
Material /matter /a specific system or configuration, can be destroyed because it is made by a specific configuration of atoms, but the energy and mass of those atoms can’t.
What shows us that matter is not exactly mass is the fact that adding 90 mega joules of any form of energy at all to any object increases its mass by 1 microgram even though no extra matter gets created.
So no extra atoms have been added, but the mass increases as energy is added. This tells us that matter is the material created by energy/mass.
Protons are made of gluons and quarks. Like photons, Gluons have no rest mass. The mass of a proton is 99 percent more than the mass of all three quarks that make it up due to the energy of the gluon field that binds them together, creating more kinetic energy.
So kinetic energy is mass, but gluons, like photons, have no rest mass. Where does the extra mass come from?: The energy of the gluons and quarks produced by their movement within the proton account for all the extra mass. The energy–momentum tensor.
In our definition of matter, one of the requirements is that it takes up space. Protons do take up space. But quarks and gluons don’t.
So protons are the first form of what we define as matter. It has mass and volume. Subatomic ‘particles” don’t fit our definition of matter as some have no mass and others no volume.
It’s probably not a completely Newtonian world, as good as it’s arguments sound. The problem for them is that Relativity has not been proven wrong, and has proven correct in its predictions and applications in the real world time and time again. As has QM. Why not use the model s that work? We do. And when we do, a sign that they work is the new tech and new discoveries their use brings.
We have a very different view of energy in the macro world as opposed to the micro world, and while the macro world is based on the micro world, the two layers behave differently. Or so it seems. In this layer of reality classical physics and deductive reasoning are fine for most applications. We can get to the moon with Newtonian physics alone, no problem.
But the micro layer is not so approachable by common sense deductive reasoning. Science these days relies on math and testing. Many of the major findings of physics in the last 100 years or so were very counter intuitive.
It might help some people to know that Einstein considered energy like photons to be a form of matter even without mass or volume. Perhaps it’s a good time to revisit common definitions of matter? Or those of energy? After all, according to modern science they are the same thing, whatever that may be.
And I say whatever that may be because things don’t have explanations of what they are attached to them. Best we can often do is talk about something in terms of how it behaves, and give a name to that pattern of behavior. The name is, of course, nowhere near as important as the package of information it represents.
Atom is a definition, a theoretical construct - the smallest part of matter that retains its characteristics, so your definition will make it circular. Matter is anything with volume, is OK that means matter is anything that have length, breadth and width. There is no need for a mass (as mass is “Mass is often meant to give us the measure of the amount of matter in a physical object.”), that which can distinguish itself from nothingness by virtue of its shape/volume.
Expends energy? You know that what you call expending energy is the motion of molecules that happen by the breakdown of glucose which is changed into motion of muscles? So it again is simply changing motion from one object to another.
Yes., by the very definition.
Matter has mass and take up space? Space is that which is outside matter, so how can matter take up space? Particle is another term for small objects, while wave is what an object does, moving to and fro.
If light is photon and if photons have no volume we won't be able to see light, light will not be able to distinguish itself from the surrounding space.
"What is it?" You tell me, instead of repeating the nonsense the scientists propose, that it is a wave particle. I have no theories or hypotheses. I told you I am only like the audience, I hear the song and appreciate it, say whether it is good or bad, I do not sing.
Light should exist, and if it exist it should have volume. If it has no volume, it do not exist, then it is only a concept.
That is because all definitions are subjective. Einstein simply made everything observer dependent. But science is objective, and if science is done objectively there is no “counter intuition”.
Fallacy of equivocation. Here the definition of mass is not "measure of the amount of matter in a physical object".
How do you propose to add this 90 mega joule? Do you take it and "pour"into the matter? What are you measuring after adding this "energy"?
ATM=A Troubled Man became ED=EncephaloiDead
He had an uncanny knack of stirring people up for entertainment.
Jomine, you have to understand, the way you're thinking right now, the way these comments make clear the way you're thinking, is in the vernacular of a product of this universe, as you and I are. To you and me, space and time and matter has always existed. Therefore it seems nonsensical to think of something that has no beginning or end to us, nonsensical to think of an element that exists yet has no shape or can't be depicted. But it isn't.
You saying "if singularity exists it must have a shape" is like you talking about colors in an environment where there's no light. Colors are meaningless where there is no light. Without space there are no dimensions. There's no height or width or breadth. Space is more than just the blackness we see in what we commonly call "space". Space is dimension. Just as time is a dimension. And neither are absolute. Both have a beginning. Neither existed when the singularity did. Even me using the word "when" in that previous sentence is technically wrong. But we have always existed in an environment where time and space always existed, so that's how we think. We think in terms of "when" and "where". That doesn't apply before the onset of the universe.
What doesn't have a shape doesn't exist, it cannot differentiate itself from the surrounding nothingness. Space and time are concepts, like love, do not exist.
Color is a subjective feeling, do not exist.
Length, breadth and width are dimensions and it denotes the orientation of an object, nothing to do with space. Only events have beginning and end.
Time and space are our conceptualisation not universe's.
Universe has no beginning, it's present configuration can have but it cannot.
The beginning of the chapter simply gives a starting point. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The key line is verse 2 ....
Gen1:2 - 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.
This line describes the state of the earth where the description of creation begins. It describes what the earth looked like at the end of the Hadean Eon. There were oceans, but no light as there was still a dense atmosphere blocking out the sun.
Time does exist. It has an effect on us. On everything. It has to be accounted for in the mathematical equations. It's one of the elements that shapes reality.
No, space does not equal nothing. Space is space. Space, like time, came into existence at the same time. It's tough for us to even imagine because our whole reality is based in space and time, but it is possible for neither to exist. How it's depicted in a picture, usually with black space, is just a limitation to how to depict it. Nothing is truly nothing. Space didn't exist yet.
I might be reading a different bible, can you tell me which version you are reading?
According to the bible, I got, it is together, Gen 1:8 "god called the firmament heaven" and sun was created the fourth day 1:15,16.
You still haven't answered the question. I didn't ask about your experience and about maths I did ask you whether-13.7+-1 is 0?
"Space is space", is that a definition? What is space that which you confidently assert doesn't exist?
Black "space"? What is the limitation?
The "firmament" is the atmosphere. If you compare the actual formation of the earth with what's described it clears some things up. The point of view specified in verse 2 is from the surface. The rest is described from that point of view. The period of creation this is speaking of is when the oxygenated atmosphere formed.
The sun/moon portion during "day" 4 can be confusing. In actual history, the period following the evolution of plants and coming just before the evolution of animal life on land is the transition from a translucent atmosphere to a transparent one. So, from the point of view given, from the surface, this is when the sun/moon/stars first became visible. Before, there was light/dark, but through a translucent atmosphere, so the sun/moon/stars were not visible.
It's common in the Hebrew language to make a statement about something it's speaking of. Like to follow its mention of the sun and moon with the statement that God made these. This doesn't mean it was at this point that they were created.
Yes. Prior to the 13.7 billion years that the universe has existed there was only a singularity. No time, no space, no matter, no energy. That equals 0.
Think about it like this. Imagine you're a cartoon character who lives in a 2D world. There is only left and right, there's no such thing as a third dimension. Where there is no space, there is no third dimension, there is no second dimension. There are no dimensions at all.
What makes you say that the early atmosphere was not as transparent as it is today? All of the gases then present (hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, even oxygen) are transparent. Why would the atmosphere be only "translucent"?
The fact that plant life evolved to breathe carbon dioxide strongly suggests there was an abundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Combine with that the fact that oxygenated air didn't exist yet, making this a 'reductive' atmosphere, and the chances are strong that the atmosphere was translucent. For one thing, all the water that makes up the oceans was already here, but carbon dioxide as we all now know is a greenhouse gas, meaning it would make for a highly humid environment. Plus, without oxygen you lack that pocket of stratosphere that makes up the first 4 miles or so of our atmosphere.
Plus, plant life didn't evolve eyes. All life that evolved eyes came after.
No, that plant life exists strongly suggests that there is enough CO2 to support plants. Not that there is "an abundance" of CO2.
That it was a reductive atmosphere has no bearing on whether it is transparent to the frequencies our eyes receive. All the gases of such an atmosphere are also transparent in those frequencies, strongly indicating that the atmosphere is also transparent.
Humidity is a measurement of how much water vapor (transparent) air CAN contain compared to how much it DOES contain. Only when the humidity reaches a high percentage do we see liquid water, which while fairly transparent also diffuses light and would cause translucence as compared to transparency. The amount of CO2 does not affect the total amount of liquid water in the air at all; just the temperature and thereby the amount of water vapor the air can contain. It thus has no affect on the transparency due to liquid water in the air.
The stratosphere is the second, not first, layer of atmosphere and extends from about 7 miles to about 30 miles above the surface. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratosphere). Without large quantities of oxygen it may not have existed, but that would not have affected the transparency of the atmosphere as a whole.
Plant life probably did not evolve eyes for a variety of reasons. There is no nervous system to interpret the electrical signals eyes provide and they would be useless in any case as plants are typically not motile and can take only very minimal advantage of what might be seen. Everything has a cost, and the price for eyes to a plant would be quite high for a nearly zero return (survival wise).
Truthfully, it appears that this proposed translucent atmosphere (that the non-existent man could not see the stars through) is made up to provide some sort of validity to biblical stories, but without any other evidence or reason. There is thus no reason to believe it happened that way.
A transparent atmosphere is a far less common occurrence than you seem to realize. Most planets that do have an atmosphere have a translucent one (ex. Jupiter, Mercury, etc). An oxygenated atmosphere creates a layer of oxygen that makes up most of the atmosphere between us and space. Without that we would basically have the cloud cover we see now, only not 4 miles up, but on our level. Combine with that the greenhouse gas content and you've got an abundance of water vapor in the air, low level cloud cover, much like a fog.
The fact that plant life evolved to breathe CO2 doesn't just mean that it existed, but that it was most likely abundant. The same goes for the evolution of eyes and the existence of light. What evolved when is an indicator of the environment that they evolved in.
Mercury has very little atmosphere, and what it does have is quite transparent. The gas giants have an atmosphere that would be transparent if it weren't thousands of miles thick; that that distance our own atmosphere would be (at best) translucent as well.
Most clouds are already under 8 miles in height, putting them into the troposphere, not the stratosphere. Why would they drop even lower if there IS no stratosphere? As you point out, the stratosphere holds it down, not up.
Evolution happens when something is not only present, but useful for survival of the organism as well. As eyes will not aid a plant is survival/reproduction there is no reason to develop eyes (and the nervous system to use them). Another example is sonar; very few animals use sonar but those that do (dolphins, bats) can make use of it because it is superior to vision for them. Using your logic here we should all be able to see in IR and UV, not to speak of being able to see gamma and X rays, because they are all common on the surface of the planet.
"Why would they drop even lower if there IS no stratosphere? As you point out, the stratosphere holds it down, not up."
That statosphere is determined on all sides by what's holding what down as well as what's holding it up. Each layer is where it is because of what's above and below it. Density, pressure, etc. Without the oxygenated air to create a troposphere to hold the stratosphere where it is, the stratosphere would then be the most dense and would be at land level. So all the cloud cover and weather we experience today few miles overhead (most of the time) would be right on the land. It would be a perpetual fog, dense. You could see light from the sun, refracted light through the dense atmosphere, but you would not be able to see the sun, moon, or stars. Not until plant life, which filtered the CO2 out of the atmosphere and replaced it with O2.
How can you say eyes would not aid a plant? A plant is capable of sensing where the sunlight is and is then able to grow in that direction. Eyesight would be an even better locator or sunlight. Plants behave much like animals do, just over a much longer course of time. Where we have muscles that can cause immediate movement, plants have to depend on growing to move. But they seek out food like we do, compete with one another like we do. If eyes are beneficial to us, they'd be beneficial to plants too. Eyes evolved multiple times. Independently 50 to 100 times over.
This is creative reinterpretation. God called the firmament heaven not atmosphere. And there are waters above it??? You mean plant life evolved without seeing light?
You didn't say why heaven and earth is not created together.
Still -13.7+-1 is not zero. What happened to the maths? clock is still ticking, then how do you say there was no time.
That equals 0, nothing there was nothing?
That is not a definition of space.
Your eg: there still is one more perpendicular direction left.
Take a solid sphere, there is no space still it has three dimensions.
PS: I didn't see this reoly before that's why I didn't answer.
Yes, there's water above it. We call them clouds. The oxygenated atmosphere does indeed separate the waters above from the water below. Chronologically in Earth's history, this is indeed when the Earth's water cycle was established. Not a coincidence. Two things needed to create the firmament and the water cycle, two specifically named things. Oceans and light. Not a coincidence.
In ancient texts, the firmament is the dome of the sky.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, or what exactly you're disagreeing with. Are you suggesting time is constant, and didn't begin?
Space - the dimensions of height, depth, and width within which all things exist and move.
If there were no space, then there would be nowhere for that sphere to exist. The whole reason there is 'space' for that sphere to have circumference and mass is because there is space.
God called the firmament heaven and it was created along with earth. There was nothing about singularity or earth appearing after heaven or sun.
Time is a concept, it is the smaller hand of the clock moving around twice. So 13.7 billion years before it was moving around. The beginning is our conceptualisation. There is no time in this universe.
Dimensions are for a thing, we imagine a thing if there is none.
Space is nothing, so it is nonsensical to say no space. Space is that give shape, (circumference), it is the what is beyond the edge of a thing, absence of thing. Space has no boundaries.
Do any of the peoples out of that small crescent of the middle east think that the one true god came down and mated with people?
Incas, Aztecs, other new world inhabitants? Australian aborigines, the far east, Europeans? Southern Africa? Any of those believe the Christian god came to them to mate? Or even to build things for them or create the earth?
And yet various gods, both male and female, are said to have left children behind on earth and to taught people things as well (Prometheus comes to mind). Most peoples have legends that various gods made the earth (Camaxtli). It would seem that people DO think the same everywhere and there doesn't seem to be any real reason to think the Christian version was any different than the others except that Christianity has been the most violent in forcing conversion. And more subtle in some cases as well, as they worked with both words and sword.
No, the God of heaven isn't among the ones that mated with humans. Those were the others. The human-in-form gods that lived among them. Like the gods of Sumer ...
An, Enlil, Enki, and Ninhursag - The four most important deities as they were the four creator deities who created all of the other gods. - God (An), Adam (Enlil), Cain (Enki), Eve (Ninhursag)?
An (God) - god of heaven and the sky, lord of constellations, and father of the gods
*""An" was initially the head of the pantheon, but he was eventually seceded by Enlil."
Enlil (Adam) - god of the wind, head of the Assyrian pantheon
Enki (Cain) - god of the Abzu, crafts, water, intelligence, mischief and creation and divine ruler of the Earth and its human inhabitants
Ninhursag (Eve) - earth and mother goddess
* "Ninhursag was regarded as the mother of all living beings."
* Gen 3:20 - And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ … Iraq_1.htm
And these closely resemble stories of other cultures. Those born of Adam/Eve lived for centuries, and therefore seemed god-like, or immortal, to mortal humans. The descendants of Noah, after the flood, in result of that climate event (5.9 kiloyear event) were flushed throughout the land. Some went to Egypt, some to Greece, Rome, Persia, India (Indus Valley). Each being civilizations populated by mortal humans along river banks.
Can we then conclude that while horses are horses, cows are cows and humans are humans? That their tales of creation are all similar (a god made us) although the gods are very different? That ancient people nearly always lived on a riverbank (or maybe a lake) as water is a necessary ingredient to life?
(I always thought Jesus was the son of god AND the son of Mary, a human. Am I wrong here?)
It does seem like we're saying the same thing all the time - that religions the world over are similar, that people...expand... their stories and that those stories are often loosely based on fact. The earth DID form, after all - all it needs is a tall tale to explain the how's and why's of that formation. People DID come to exist, but we wish to know how and why so make up a story explaining it all. And people have done that over and over all over the world, from the Aztecs to the aborigines to the Arabs. Details differ some, gods differ in both name, characteristics and number but everywhere we see the same thing - God(s) did it. We don't understand, we don't know but want an explanation so...it must be gods that did it all.
You're partly right. But a lot of what you say as far as there being various descriptions of various gods doing the deed is a misunderstanding. It's the same events, the same interactions that this God had with mankind, that inspired the stories. It's not the same story being fabricated over and over again independently by different groups to fabricate an explanation where none exists. It's the same God, called by different names by different peoples, telling the same story. The same "God of the heavens".
The Sumarians saw these gods as their creators because they were. That's what free will gives us. The capability of creation. By their own free will, these beings decided to begin to mate with mortal humans, creating a race of humans with free will. Just as it says here ....
Gen6:2 - the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.
The 'sons of God', those created by God, made in the same image as the humans who already populated the earth, began to marry and interbreed with them, introducing free will into humanity. This 'created' the Sumerians. This is why Eve is considered 'mother of all the living'.
"What if they're not imaginative tales?"
You mean like the tale of a world wide flood? Or the one where Eve is made from a rib?
And while Gomorrah may have been destroy by fire and brimstone (asteroid impact or even volcano) a woman did NOT turn into a pillar of salt for looking at it.
I repeat: the bible may be loosely based on history, but the exaggerations and outright lies cannot be believed and it is far past time to think that changing them up a little to match reality actually produces something of value. That very sort of action, over centuries/millenia of retelling them, is likely a part of why they are sometimes so far removed from reality.
"You mean like the tale of a world wide flood? Or the one where Eve is made from a rib?"
But the only reason it's read as a worldwide flood is because in the text they describe it as "all the land". But people in that age had no idea Earth was a whole planet. They just knew that the whole world they knew was flooded. Doesn't mean that was a worldwide flood.
Eve being made from a rib actually makes more sense today than ever before. We can clone entire other animals from a single cell... or a rib.
"And while Gomorrah may have been destroy by fire and brimstone (asteroid impact or even volcano) a woman did NOT turn into a pillar of salt for looking at it."
Did not, why, because it's never happened during our lifetime? That we know of? You could, by the same standards, say giant reptiles did NOT exist. By what standards can we really determine what did or did not happen?
"I repeat: the bible may be loosely based on history, but the exaggerations and outright lies cannot be believed and it is far past time to think that changing them up a little to match reality actually produces something of value."
By what standards do you determine what's an exaggeration or an outright lie? To match reality? By the same standards one could deny the existence of dinosaurs, because in reality as we know it today they don't, and can't, exist.
"That very sort of action, over centuries/millenia of retelling them, is likely a part of why they are sometimes so far removed from reality."
You assume. But you have to stop and think first why you're deeming what's directly claimed is "impossible" or an exaggeration. Centuries from now there may be people who deny humans ever went to the moon for the same reason. That must be the result of these stories being retold over the centuries. The story got stretched a bit here and there. It doesn't mean they actually flew to the moon.
You're just jealous of Noah's cewl and very large boat, but he made payments, so there's no need to be .
Jealous? I don't know - somebody had to shovel the stalls out and it would probably have been me!
They also forgot to mention that last member of the crew; Billy Bob. Billy Bob caught the lion going after the lamb, tried to stop it and, well, Billy Bob didn't make it to journey's end. That could have been me!
""history" from the winners never seems to match the same event as told by the losers."
The known history of these texts should also be recalled to distinguish the difference between what you state here and how these are a notable exception.
First, let's recall the very focused effort of the exiled Jewish people to re-record these texts to ensure their survival. And I believe it was Cyrus, the Persian Emperor, who allowed the Jewish people to return to their homeland and have their religious texts back. So the OT is not the "history from the winners". The Jewish people lost and lost often, but their texts depicting their history were allowed to survive. Texts that told very much similar stories to those told by the Sumerians about the same ancient times. Stories about the confusing of a once universal language and stories of a flood that destroyed the world, but was survived by one man who knew ahead of time and built a boat.
That history is preserved by jews not Cyrus. Cyrus gave them religious freedom not books. In fact most biblical books are written down that time and during their self rule.
At one point there was a ruler who had taken over the lands inhabitated by the Jews, but allowed them to have their texts back, which originally were taken from them. I thought it was Cyrus, but I may be wrong about that. I don't recall for certain who the ruler was. I just thought it was important to recall examples of how exceptions were made where this particular text is concerned. Another example of this was the Greeks. The reason most surviving copies are in the Greek is because these texts were revered by the Greeks. They were fascinated by them. They retained their accuracy over many ages in many different ways. Unlike other texts that could and probably were often changed over time, so that the only real depiction of history we have most often belongs to whoever was in power at the time and how they chose history to be recalled.
Greeks didn't revere them, jews did and most literate jews knew greek and conversed in greek. Josephus and Philo wrote in greek.
Jews were not losers, they could preserve their culture.
Yes, exactly, in spite of everything, in spite of being taken over multiple times and under the rule of multiple empires, they were able to retain their culture and their own individual written history.
There is no point looking for pure 21st century science in ancient documents. To do so is unscientific in itself and false in logic.
To take a scientific approach to studying ancient texts is to examine the archaeology, anthopology and evolutionary links to our own selves and ethics etc.
Yes, that's the point. Use those texts as starting point to discover history, not as an actual, factual description of events. And quit spinning them into something they are not just to show that they are "accurate"!
Even when Scientists discovered universal laws and rules they came up with several mathematical equations. The reasoning behind it was by Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics, said, "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle".
Those documents no matter how old have some evidence of something of a miraculous nature. The planets near perfect to these equations that sustains life is unprecedented. That fact that our personal lives are not close to this perfection as we walk out our doors with unpredictability reveals that. So my question is why are the universal laws predictable? It makes no sense.
Those documents may or may not hold some fundamental truth. If not rudimentary truths. In the first chapter it states: That it was formless then the light came and somehow, waters were separated from waters to create the sky, so on and so on. I'm not talking religion here. Religion is man made. Let's face it if religion was perfect like the earth then the hungry would get fed and the homeless would be housed. I'm talking about the actual creation. Something happened and something is sustaining it. We maybe at the top of the food chain but we didn't cause the food chain either. There are forces at work here yet to be explained by the most intelligentual of us all.
It really would've been nice for it to read: In the beginning and then proceeded to tell us the mathematical equations and then we would not even be having this conversation. I never understood that. It's like digging for buried treasure already. I believe this is why folks are so angry. There's a recipe for cookies, enjoy the cookies but you can never have the recipe to make your own cookies.
In other words, don't reconcile. Because that's not reconciliation.
Every scientist in history (until only very recent history) believed in God and were deeply religious people.
The late nineteenth century began to see just a glimmer of a trend otherwise, and then by the middle to late twentieth century it very briefly became fashionable for many scientists to disbelieve in God. Many highly respected scientists STILL believe in God and many more "hedge their bets", including Stephen Hawking and hard core skeptic Pope Richard Dawkins the 1st.
Kurt Godel, Einstein's anointed successor, put forward solid scientific mathematical proof of God's existence, which no other atheist scientist has yet been able to disprove with math.
As for myself, I am a highly educated Theist and a respecter of science. In no way is this contradictory or a problem at all. For example, a scientific holistic examination of the Bible (which takes into consideration Anthropology, the use use of grammatical devices, Psychology and Comparative religion etc) reveals a clear and valuable ancient document with powerful spiritual messages. In other words the science behind Bible study, or any other scripture, is in fact the scientific approach to the study of the scripture: if a person goes looking for 20th Century science in the Bible then of course they won't find it!
In light of these truisms the forum question here is largely redundant unless we choose to ignore all of history, the Principle of Evolution, correct scientific approaches and basic commonsense.
Unfortunately, Godel defined a god as being something far different that what Christians (or any other religion) proposes. It's easy to prove anything at all if you use the correct (but false) premises, which is what Godel did.
If that is the case a person should be easily able to disprove the Math, or formulate and alternative contradictory theorem Backed Up by Math.
It's easy for anyone to claim they can do it but if it can't be backed up with math it's just hot air.
Einstein said God is energy, he did not believe in personal God or Gods. For me God is just a word, we are both energy and bio organism beings all connected to the same univeres community.
It might interest you and others to realize that the Hindus were saying the same thing thousands of years ago. Hence further proof that science and religion are in harmony.
The only true religion can be nature. For most other religions contradict each other, by claiming are the only way to God. In nature why would the tree fight with all of it's branches then call it a graceful harmony. The way the bible is written 99% of us are going to hell, because God loves you. In my books be honest and do not harm is all the
needs. Where the
bible base on fear
and ignorance, as it dose not connect with science, nor with
the worlds collective
the Bible is who obeys gets rewarded
and the ones who don,t get punished
Imagination is the closer way to god, since our collective
knowledge is limited
by to the surface of
the earth in 1% mass of this world. We
could not make possible that god
exist or not through
our own limited
through and in part
science. Yet , most
love a great fairytale.
I totally agree that many but not all religions have a problem with each other. However many do not (Hindu classical, Bahais, Bhuddist etc) and many are slowly evolving towards greater tolerance.
Somewhat agree there. The Taoism makes good sense and it's
base on life
They do not
does not carry the high
degree of contradiction and negative
many other religions do. So I get the connection of
science mixed in
I think the negative signs of religion comes from hard core fundamenalists similar to politics. Yes this is really bad to see.
The Taoist concepts of "God" are very different to fundamentslist religionists. They do have gods and see the god in all. To them we are all "sleeping buddhas" or potential buddhas. This is identical to classical Hinduism. Yet fundamental fanatical Hindus exist who turn their backs on classical teaching. There will always be those who want power over others.
Ahhh, so you do say meaningful things. But why do you write in short lines?
To support your argument, Ijust wanted to add that the Quran says the same about God/Energy.
Quran [24:35] ~ Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth.
light is one of the attributes given to us in the Quran. not only light.
Not science vs. religion; science and spirituality.
Science studies the products of God's creation; spirituality studies the sources of creation. Between the two of them, all of reality is covered -- not just the physical. They compliment one another -- one covering the realm of continuity; the other, the realm of discontinuity.
The OP: "Is it possible to truly be religious as well as believe in the evidence of science with theories such as evolution, the Big Bang and dinosaurs existing prior to man not along side?"
Answer: Absolutely yes!
Biblical literalists (both believers and atheists) miss everything by taking it literally.
Sciencist think that 99% of species lived on earth before homosapiens. How would that match up with Adam and Eve co existing with dinosaurs 6000 years ago. Later on were dinosaurs public transportation like in flintstones having dinner at xmass time.
As I said in my opening post you can't expect to find Exact 20th Century science in an ancient religious document. It doesn't make sense to try to do so. In fact to try to so is itself an unscientific approach.
There are other approximations to science in many different culture's scriptures.
Taoism also uses the I Ching which believe it or not may have a scientific basis: nothing actually happens at random and even the most chaotic event has enormous mathematical precision.
Taoism inspires religions, philosophy, medicine, science, nature and arts as more important than God.
That would pretty much negate "free will" - something I hate to think of. At the same time, however, physics has pretty much determined that not all events/actions have a cause, which indicates the idea to be incorrect. It would seem reasonable to say that an event without a cause is random by definition.
When a person allows themself to be trapped in a onesided group, their free will be very limited. I' ve always been the wild
and free wolf looking in at the chained up bulldogs or sheepdog on the false castle.
All physical events have a cause. This is totally diffferent to the question of free will. Free will is a whole other topic.
They have such good examples of fossils that when you put them side by side you can actually see evolution in action. I'm sorry but if anyone believes any less, they're still living in the dark ages
I believe there's probably a Creator who created the small creatures, and made them to evolve.
All living creatures can
inhabit because, the stars explosed into smaller stars call suns. Then smaller suns cools down to a planet like
earth. Then the earth cools down to inhabith plants and creatures, then I the co-create with nature from sandcastles to snow sculptures. Then that elvolves into creating homes just from natural materials. Then building up to making tiny home villages.
Maybe I'll evolves to being like Jesus, then evolves to being a God who owns a planet. Just kidding about that last part.
religion what we call, a group of people believe in one thing. man can not believe in nothing. evidence of science is the way to proof the truth or getting the truth.
1. They had over active imaginations.
2. They copied it from other cultures, that had over active imaginations.
3. They didn't copy it, instead they in fact fabricated it all, so they could control people.
Someone should keep a list. I know there are more.
As to the OP, a Jesuit priest proposed the Big Bang theory and considering some of the greatest minds of all time were religious, makes me think that science and the religious are compatible. It is a poor strawman and/or a generalization to assume that the religious are anti-science. Further, claiming that one is pro- "scientific" does not mean anything. I'm sorry, science does not equal bill nye, richard dawkins and carl sagan. edit: Thank God.
That's a rather cynical view with no evidence of any kind to back it up. Just a massive assumption. According to Genesis, which claims to be accounts of actual history, there were long-living beings who existed up to the time of Abraham. Other gods it spoke of. Like the gods the people of Abraham's father's home (Ur in Sumer) worshipped.
If there really were beings created, like Adam/Eve and all who were born of them, who actually lived for centuries, then they'd seem god-like to mortal humans. The Greeks, Romans, Sumerians, Egyptians, Indus Valley, Akkadians, Persians, etc all claimed the same. We assume they just had over active imaginations because nothing like that has existed in our lifetime, so naturally we assume it's all false. But in doing so we're committing a cardinal sin of science....
"Because that's the liberation that science provides. The realization to assume the truth, to assume the answer before you ask the questions, leads you nowhere." - Lawrence Krauss
Here you are assuming the truth, assuming the answer, prematurely. In spite of the overwhelming number of claims made directly by the people who lived during that time in that place who say otherwise.
I was illustrating how unbelievers will change their stories. First they will say it was all made up ( eg. to explain the unexplained) . Then they will say some other culture made it up and they copied their story. Then they will claim it was all intentionally fabricated just so they could control people. It would appear that they cannot make up their minds. What I find interesting, besides the inconsistencies is the compulsion or preoccupation to bandy the subject at all.
Ah, I see. I recognize the progression. You're right. The current train of thought where mythological gods is concerned is that these fictitious anthropomorphic archetypes were imagined by the mind to explain what they didn't understand by projecting human characteristics on the natural world. Example, thunder represents some gods anger. The thought is that multiple different cultures mass fabricated these elaborate stories to "make sense of things". And it's just dismissed as such.
Rapid advancements of technological knowledge and know-how was the result of the discovery of farming and the increased interactions between people made possible through the formation of highly populated cultures. Even though the evidence contradicts this progression. Farming spread all throughout the world in a fairly consistent progression. But technological advancements like what's seen in Egypt and Sumer and the Indus Valley and Greece and Rome didn't follow. Highly populated cultures existed thousands of years before the first Sumerian culture thousands of years prior in northern Mesopotamia. Same there. No progression. No inventing of written languages. No formation of organized governments or class systems.
Yet the standard view is to just continue to go along with this wildly inaccurate assumption. the ironic part is that these ancient religious texts that they've spent so much time and effort trying to dismiss/ignore hold the answers to these questions. The answer is that the what Genesis says happened actually happened. God introduced new beings into this already populated world. Beings who lived much longer lives. And through these beings God introduced free will. The capability to behave of our own will, free of Gods/natures. The first thing in all of existence whose behavior is not mandated by some set of laws.
Once these beings began inter-breeding with humans, like what's described in Genesis 6, free will was introduced into naturally evolved humanity. This caused a dramatic change in behavior as it's when humans developed a more enhanced ego, a stronger sense of "I". This is what separated us from the animal kingdom and the natural world we evolved from. A free will. One that caused the formation of class stratification, the prizing of personal possessions and deceit. This is when humans began to draw boundary lines on the map. Rather than the view common amongst indigenous cultures that all the land belongs to all the living, humans now viewed the natural world as own-able property. A change dramatic enough that it was actually taken notice of and described by some of the writers of the time. Like the Roman poet Ovid ....
[i]"There broke out ... all manner of evil, and shame fled, and truth and faith. In place of these came deceits and trickery and treachery and force and the accursed love of possession ... And the land, hitherto a common possession like the light of the sun and the breezes, the careful surveyor now marked out with long boundary lines. - Ovid"
Despite the efforts to dismiss these texts, the truth will come clear before long. It'll be undeniable. By the very same means, the practice of science and investigation, the truth will be unearthed and discovered to be the very same stories once dismissed as "ridiculous".
I believe, it's just that we have not understand it yet
I forget who, but someone stated in this thread that no fossils have ever been found.
I wonder where they think oil, and coal comes from..well, from layers of fossils that's where
Mass is not a meaningless term. It's a measurement. A duplicatable measurement. It has meaning. It exists. Mass is what differentiates those things which you constitute as abstract ideas and things that are physical matter. The amount of gravitational pull there is in a particular space is in direct proportion to the amount of mass in that space. It's a real thing.
There's an important distinction it's important that you make or you will continue to confuse yourself. Just because something isn't a physical object, doesn't mean it's only an intangible idea or concept. Mass, weight, dimension, time, these things are real components of this universe. There not just ideas. Ideas can change. Ideas aren't constricted by rules or laws. If something is abstract, or intangible, then it can be changed and manipulated with no concern about laws. Weight can be measured. Dimensions can be measured. Time can be measured. These things are constant and have a measurable impact on things of mass. Like mass. The amount of mass has a direct impact on the way the space around it behaves. The matter matter, things of mass, behave. Like temperature, it's not something you can hold in your hand, but it's very much a real thing. If it's hot, you can't see it, but you can feel it. It's there. It's real.
I wish I was able to express things in the way you do.
For some reason I can't always write what I'm thinking, but writing here will hopefully help me develop my skills of expression
What do you mean by "real"? Please be free to define 'mass'?
The amount of pull is called mass by some.
Please be free to tell me what you mean by real. Love too is real! You can feel it!
All measurements are against a standard, if the standard changes measurements too. Suppose there are humans in another planet that take 25 hours instead of 24 and they too divide time into 24 equal units as we do, their hour and minutes will be longer than ours.
Things, physical objects exist. Non physical, nothings, are only ideas.
real - actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
mass - "lump, quantity, size," ; is the measurement of size and density of accumulated particles.
I mean real as in it exists. If mass didn't exist, if it were just an arbitrary abstract idea, it couldn't have an effect on matter. It does. The mass of an object directly relates to the force of gravity created by that object. This is why the sun's gravitational pull is much higher than Earth's, because the sun's mass is much higher. It's a quantifiable/measurable amount.
Love has measurable, observable effects on the body. Chemicals associated with when a person is feeling love can be observed. Something real is happening.
The mammalian trait to care for loved ones and protect them is a very real effect of what we today call "love", and had a very real impact on the evolution of mammalian species. This characteristic is one of the many that separate us behaviorally from reptiles.
Something that isn't real can't have a real impact on the material world.
"actually existing as a thing"
So does mass exists as a thing? Sun's matter is more hence it has a higher gravitational pull.
Something real is happening, release of a chemical called oxytocin. It is the changes that occur is called love, not a thing. . It is not an "actually existing as a thing".
Similarly time, space, dimension also don't "actually existing as a thing". Dimension is a property of a thing.
Space, time, dimensions and math etc (in fact most of the universe) are all non physical phenomena that do in fact exist.
It is only when the alleged non physical "God" is looked at that some people become sceptical.
As we are surrounded and engage daily with many non physical phenomena it shouldn't be strange that there is another one called "god" for lack of a better word.
Yes. Something having mass is what makes it a tangible observable thing. Mass makes it an object.
That doesn't make any of it any less real. They do exist, just not as objects.
I understand the confusion. But in the ancient past the 'heavens' is the sky. It's the sun. It's the dome of the sky during the day and it's the planetary objects at night.
There is time. The fact that you existed at one point as a baby, then a toddler, then finally as an adult, means time exists. The fact that we can act and behave at all means time exists. Without time all would be stagnant.
If a room is 12x12, you're actually measuring the space in the room. The walls make the room a room, set the dimensions, but it's the space that's being measured. It's the space that matters. Space is the absence of physical objects, but space is still a thing. It's a relevant thing that exists.
Surely it is true to say that without a difference, without a change, nothing can be perceived.
In order to convey that phenomenon of change, we need to quantify the change. "Time" is a function of one gauge used to measure one aspect of change. "Distance" is function of another gauge.
To say that "Time exists" is, I think, erroneous. We use a clock as a gauge, to measure the function "Time," but it's not to say "the clock IS Time."
So you are equating mass to shape/matter?
That doesn't exist as a thing and do not fit your criteria. They "exist" inside the mind of a human as a thought.
According to that both are created together. But it is not so according to you.
It means that the motion standardised to earth is counted as time. Time do not "actually exist as thing". Our growth in days and years are all motion that is compared to earth's motion.
No, we are measuring the tape an object. We are measuring the boundaries of the room, the walls. Space has no boundaries. Space is absence of things (physical objects) how can then be a thing?
For something to have shape, it must have mass.
Yes, I get how you see it. But you're not taking into consideration that though our understanding of something may only exist as intangible thoughts, they are still very much real. Reality is shaped by the happenings and properties of these things. They are very real elements that cause reality to be different than if they didn't exist. Therefore real.
Like mass, for example. The 'm' in Einstein's E=mc2 represents mass. That formula, like many formulas of physics, is something that's put into real use on a daily basis. Those letters represent things that are real parts of reality and therefore must be accounted for. Therefore real.
No, you just have to understand the minds of those doing the writing. Their talking about the sky. It's really simple, don't overcomplicate it.
The fact that time has an effect, the fact that you're different now than you were five years ago, or yesterday, means it's a very real component of existence. Without it existence wouldn't be what we experience.
So, the only reason you'd want a large room is because the walls are longer? Or because there's more space for you to use to do things in that room? Clearly, space is a usable element of existence. It's important. Without space between things life and existence would be very different. Without the X, Y, and Z axes of the dimensions of space, life would be very different, therefore a real, relevant element of reality.
Then you are equating mass to matter.
Define "real". Love affects as very much, yet it is only a concept.
"In the beginning god created heaven and earth".
That means heaven is whatever outside of earth, according to them. That means earth was created in the beginning but you say no.
It is the motion of molecules in my body that ages me and that motion standardised to the earths movement is called time. If everything in this universe standstill there will be no time. It is the motion that is remembered that is called time. Without motion and memory there us no time.
I want a large room is because there is more distance (absence of things - space) between the walls. I can stretch the tape more. If there was no space the whole universe become one solid block, there won't be any life.
The problem is that you are not defining the terms like exist, real, time or space objectively and try to see it through the prism of human experience. XYZ are dimensions of things, you can't orient nothing.
It's not just a concept. There are very real chemical happenings that coincide that have an impact and cause sensations we feel. That's more than an abstract concept.
Earth was created in the beginning. Earth was created by the same thing that created the heavens.
Whether or not we remember is irrelevant. Most of our history we don't and can't remember, but it still happened. It's still a very real part of our past.
Right, exactly, more distance between the walls. Which means more space. You can stretch the tape more because there's more space. Like you said, without space the whole universe becomes one solid block. Therefore space is a very real, very relevant component to existence.
That is not the definition.
The chemicals that produce love is not love, love is the "feeling", the emotion. It is neither tangible nor it "exist as a thing". The thing is oxytocin not love.
But you said it was the singularity that was created in the beginning not earth.
The past is memory either individual or collective. Imagine a hydrogen atom, what is the relevance of time for it.
Space is "real" but not a thing. It is the absence. If there was a thing you wouldn't be able to stretch the tape.
You haven't properly defined real either.
I think the word is tangible meaning, something not abstract.
If it is tangible you can feel by touch, and see it
Love is abstract, although it may be real, it's in the mind
Things like mass are measurable and those measurements duplicatable, which makes it the exact opposite of subjective.
Does that mean things exist only after it becomes tangible?
No, that means that subjective is based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Mass, being duplicatable and measurable, like temperature or pressure or gravity or whatever else, is the exact opposite of something that's subjective. Personal feelings or tastes or opinions cannot alter the outcome. The outcome is objective because it's real. That's what science is. It's the establishment of what can be known for certain objectively. If it were not objective, if it were only subjective ideas, then it could and probably would be different for everybody.
She was saying that tangible should be the definition of exist, in that case what is not tangible become nonexistent. Say for example a planet xyz in c galaxy is not tangible, does that mean it doesn't exist?
No, that isn't what I was saying at all, I was saying that matter, and mass is tangible, something you can see, touch, and yes measure. Whereas love is abstract and intangible though it may be real
How you got that I was saying if it’s not tangible it’s not real, beats the heck out of me
By the way, being tangible does not make it subjective, you need a good dictionary
The word is objective
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/128565? … ost2708788
Any planet would be tangible, and real
Please explain how you think a planet would not be tangible
Since all planets are tangible, can you tell me the total number of planets in this universe?
Banging my head against the wall
Being tangible means you can see, feel, taste, or hear it
But if a planet is too far away for me to do all those things, it is still real, because if I was next to it I could see, or feel it.
You are tangible, but because you're on the internet I can't do all those things, but someone or something, including yourself, can see, touch, and hear you
Tangible is physical, or real
Love is a feeling, and is not tangible, even though it's real to you, love is subjective, a planet is objective
Looks like it is me who is doing it.
That means if you or someone is not there to touch it, it doesn't exist. You made the definition dependent on an observer. If there is non to touch it or if everyone lost the ability to touch, it becomes nonexistent by your "definition". A bacteria cannot be touched, but it do exist.
That will make it synonyms not definition. A definition is a statement that clarify the meaning. Tangible has three meanings, it doesn't even qualify as a definition.
Planet is objective but your definition is subjective.
From merriam Webster
2 : capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind <her grief was tangible>
See love is tangible.
The definition of exist you gave is subjective.
You're kidding right? There's no person who could think that's what I said
You'll never get a response from me again.
If you're that much in the dark, and if the English language is that unclear to you, I don't know who can help you with the answers you seek
Yea, studying English will be helpful for you. You will be able to communicate and express your ideas clearly and will not have to complain like this.
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/128565? … ost2708496
I agree with what you say about Genesis 2-11. It does line up with what we know about history. I've actually written an hub on that subject. You and I have communicated before and you know that I respect your viewpoints. You have some very interesting ideas.
Did I possibly post on the wrong place a couple of posts ago, HeadlyvonNoggin. I really shouldn't come in here and spout off on these subjects any more. It's not worth the stress. As I said before, you have some interesting concepts and I respect them. Sorry if I was short.
As a sensible answer to your original question, the essence of faith is only that you believe in Jesus. Your relationship with him is what counts.
As to the details of evolution and science, that's no-one else's business what you believe. And I must say looking at the bible for scientific answers is like looking in a cookbook for a recipe for cement. It's a collection of historical narratives, not a science text.
The feelings we associate with love are caused by real, physical, chemical happenings. It doesn't exist as a "thing", but that makes it no less real. It has a real impact on our behavior and has had a very real impact on humanity in general. Something that isn't real can't have had that kind of impact.
The singularity created the heavens and the earth. No additional manipulations of any kind were required. Because the singularity existed as it did, the heavens and the earth exist.
The movements within a hydrogen atom that make it what it is would not be possible without time. The movements of its electron wouldn't happen without time so therefore hydrogen atoms wouldn't behave as they do without time. If hydrogen didn't go through its progressions under pressure and heat the sun wouldn't burn like it does. Time is relevant in all of it.
Something doesn't have to be a solid observable object to qualify as "real". The space between things exists and is therefore real.
What I understood from what you wrote is that any human thought is "real". So a hallucination is real, because it has a profound effect on the one who hallucinate. Cold is real even though it is ABSENCE of heat.
In that case what happened to the "actually existing as a thing" definition? You see not only you are inconsistent but contradictory.
Yes but in contradicts the bible, it do not say anything about singularity.
Human thoughts are real in that they're the result of real electrical impulses. A physical cause results in those thoughts. Now that doesn't mean that whatever the thought is is real. But the thought itself, the phenomenon we experience as thought, is real.
Cold is also real. Water wouldn't turn to ice, for real, without a real cause. Temperature has a very real impact on the things that experience it.
Not a contradiction. The bible simply says the heavens and the earth were created "in the beginning". They did indeed form before anything else it specifically describes. the oceans, the atmosphere, plantlife, etc. Before all of that, in the beginning, the heavens and earth formed. Therefore what it says is correct.
The pink unicorn, the atheists are so fond of, is real.
Cold even though is the decrease in motion of molecules, the absence, non reality, is real.
Dreams are real.
Hallucinations are real.
Mirage is real.
Illusions are real.
So what is there that is not real?
But most people agree that hallucinations and illusions are not real.
Have you heard "imaginary", is that real too? According to your definition it is for "they're the result of real electrical impulses".
Earth, bible says, was created in the beginning. Light was created after earth. There is no singularity in the beginning but there was heaven and earth.
Dreams and hallucinations are real in that they're really happening. What's imagined, though a real thought in the mind, does not exist in reality. For example, if I were to ask you to walk into a room and measure the empty space you could do that and actually come up with the same result I did. If I, however, asked you to walk into a room and measure the pink unicorn, you would of course have very little chance of reaching the same conclusion as I because it doesn't exist.
Yes, Earth was created in the beginning. If you'll notice it doesn't say light was created, it says "let there be light". Light already existed, but was not to that point capable of penetrating the dense atmosphere to reach the surface of the Earth. The singularity IS heaven and earth, minus time.
You forget thay more than one can share an illusion/hallucination and they can come with a measurement.
Now if you walk into the outer space and "measure" the empty space, what do you measure?
In what sense dreams and illusions are real? They are not real.
So my question was how do you differentiate between the "reality" of mind and that "exist in reality". Exist and real are synonyms, so exist in reality means real in reality, circular. So what do you mean by "exist in reality"?
There was no earth in singularity, earth formed millions of years later not in the beginning.
Did light exist before singularity?
If it only mean light penetrating earth why god saw light as good and separated it from darkness only after creation of earth?
And why the firmament/atmosphere was created after light?(1:8)
We've been discussing exactly what differentiates what does and doesn't exist in reality. Objective truths, things that can be seen and observed and measured objectively are reality. Temperature is reality. Space is reality. Time is reality. Anything that's not subject to the whims of an individual, but that is constant no matter the observer.
Notice it doesn't say God created light. Light already existed. He just said "let there be...". Verse 2 describes the state of the earth at that point as being covered in oceans and shrouded in darkness, which is what the Earth looked like at the end of the Hadean eon. The Earth was already formed, the oceans formed first, and there was a thick atmosphere where no light could get through. God saying 'let there be light' was a significant point in Earth's history because literally everything it mentions after requires light. The firmament/atmosphere and the earth's water cycle (water above/below) requires light. The formation of land required light. Plant life of course, animal life.
A Mirage is not subject to the whims of an individual so it is reality?
Love is subjective to whims, hence is not reality but you said it is.
If objective truths are not seen or observed, is it not objective truths. You make existence contingent upon an observer who can see and measure. Measurement is a comparison.
Your singularity, it was not seen or measured, didn't it exist?
It there is only one thing in this universe how is it measured?
There was a mud ball in my backyard which no one saw, didn't it exist?
It also say let there be a firmament, so was it already there?
Let earth bring grass, so grass was already there?
Can you tell me whether earth is created in the beginning or not.
If created in the beginning then how it doesn't contradict your singularity.
if not why bible say so?
What is heaven?
If light already got to earth what was the source?
Headly, a couple of posts back you said this: "For example, if I were to ask you to walk into a room and measure the empty space you could do that and actually come up with the same result I did."
I suggest to you that one would not be measuring the "empty space," but the boundaries that enclosed the empty space." In order to measure anything you must be able to define it.
Also, immediately I walked into that Empty Space, it would no longer be "Empty," would it?
Empty Space cannot be defined, it's Infinite. You place a definition around the Empty Space so as to measure it.
The theory of "God" refers to an Infinite concept. Anything you or I become aware of is by its very nature "Finite," it cannot be "Infinite." (Unless we regard the Finite as simply a manifestation of the Infinite.)
Any and everyone here in HubPages who speaks of "God" is applying his/her imagination to what the nature of "God" might be. Thus all argument is about Imagination, not reality.
Once we try to define or describe "God," that "God" is no longer infinite. We cannot talk of anything infinite with any kind of understanding, because it's indescribable. Therefore we, like every other human throughout history, must use metaphor to describe "God."
Temperature is not reality, it only describes a quality of reality, using an analogy, for example the expansion of a drop of mercury. Time is not reality, it only describes a change in reality in relation to the movements of hands on a clock.
I get what you're saying but I'm not sure it's entirely true. Outer space, for instance. We're able to define it without it having any observable boundaries. To say something is infinite defines it as something not finite. You can describe something as something other than finite.
But yes, in the case of God, attempting to speak about something so infinite can only really make Him smaller than He actually is. No explanation can truly match up to what He truly is. But we must attempt to understand and speak about Him in a way we can grasp. He's a part of reality that must be included in the conversation.
I would say temperature and time are in fact reality. They are components of reality that together make reality what it is.
Yep! we can feel Temperature, so it's real
Sorry but no. Let's be accurate here. We feel heat or lack of it with an inbuilt bodily defence mechanism.
Temperature is the measurement we give to the heat (energy) differential. The discipline of science requires clarity and honesty in communication to the best of our ability. Temperature is not real, it merely lets us know the extent of that difference in heat. It's a man-made expression, a unit of measurement.
At least this is how I understand it.
Temperature is real. Yes it's a system of measure we've applied to measuring how hot/cold something is, but if it wasn't real it wouldn't have a real impact on the world. When water reaches 100 degrees it boils. Consistently. It's always the same, unless the air pressure differs, which can cause the temperature to differ slightly. If temperature were not measuring something real then there wouldn't be a real, measurable impact.
It is not when water reaches 100 it boils, it is when water boils we call it 100.
Because it is always at the same point. A point we mark with mile markers, or temperature readings, along the way. A condition that makes up part of the reality we experience. Remember, considering you've shown such knowledge of physics, is that if there is a symbol that represents it in physics, then it is physical. Like temperature. Or mass. The reason it is useful in physics equations, the reason it must be enumerated and included in equations, is because it is a real condition.
That will make it an experience not reality. A symbol won't make it physical.
I never said it is not useful but what is reality. Concepts are useful that is why we conceive it, but it has no representational reality.
The 100 is simply a name, what happens is the vibration of molecules becomes faster and then it start to move independent of each other. Heat and cold are sensations, not reality but an interpretation of our body based on sense organs.
Do you think all you have to do is say "no" and that's the final word?
The word temperature is made up by man, but actual heat, and cold is not
It can be felt, and measured
(the degree or intensity of heat) present in a substance or object, especially as expressed according to a comparative scale and shown by a thermometer or perceived by touch.
We're not debating whether or not the words were made by man, but they do describe a natural phenomena that is real
The dictionary does not negate what I previously said
Temperature is tangible, and we feel the intensity of heat, and cold
We express everything in words, we have nothing else.
Do you ever agree with anything?
I read one of my favorite quotes and when I did I felt that I owe you an apology
I'm not taking back what I said about the temperature, but the way I said it.
You have been kind, and it's no excuse but I have pressure at school. forgive me
“To know yourself as the Being underneath the thinker, the stillness underneath the mental noise, the love and joy underneath the pain, is freedom, salvation, enlightenment”. Eckhart Tolle
"Do you ever agree with anything?" Please don't get uppity with me.... I put questions, respectfully, giving my opinion, which I am entitled to do. At the end of my post I said, "At least that's how I understand it." This is to show that I am open to other opinions.
I find that, at the age of 73, my mind is somewhat more open now to other points of view than it tended to be at 23. Yet I can and do find new points of view of my own and feel much more capable of stating them, regardless of whether someone like yourself gets annoyed with me. It's more important in my view to state strongly what I think science supports. If ultimately I am proven wrong, that sits fine with me.... no problem with it at all. The Road of Inquiry is bound to have a few cul-de-sacs.
I have formed a respectful relationship with Headlyvonnoggin and I think he reciprocates. We don't have to agree with each other, but we mutually benefit from the exchanges. We are 180 degrees opposite in religious beliefs, so I value our relationship.
Does this help you to understand where I am coming from?
Your first remark to me was "no" as though what I said was junk.
Yes I certainly see where you're coming from
And I guess you missed where I apologized to you
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/128565? … ost2709379
Or just didn't care.
At least I can admit when I'm wrong. I won't bother you again
I do care that you appreciate that I care. Yes, I did miss your apology, thank you for that.
What is your geographical location? If it's in time zones of the USA, my location is 1/2 day ahead of yours. By the time I wake up in the morning there have been numerous posts to several threads I am following - it's a busy read and easy to miss some.
It's my observation that you seem to know most things and rarely ask questions of those who might know a little more than you do.
Slarty O'Brian's posts tend to be read before I can get round to yours..... I can learn a lot from him.
A mirage is a naturally occurring optical phenomenon in which light rays are bent to produce a displaced image of distant objects or the sky. People see the same distortion of light because that's really happening and all of our eyes work the same way. What the mirage looks like, however, is subjective.
Love itself, the feeling and the meaning we assign to it, is subjetive. But the actual feeling, the actual sensation, is real. The actual chemical happenings that cause it are real.
The singularity existed 13.7 billion years ago and hasn't been in that form since. so we're like 13.6 billion years too late to get to observe it. However, because we can apply the impact of time to the elements involved and the natural laws involved, we know it existed at one time.
The earth was created in the beginning. That's why the formation of planets is part of the big bang theory. Because that same series of events led to both the formation of the heavens and the earth.
The authors of the bible had no way of knowing or understanding what the singularity was. Why should the bible say things that only one era of humans understand and all the others do not? It's written in terms that the people of that age understand.
There's a difference between "let there be" and "let the earth bring forth".
The sun was the source of light.
When two people look at the same mirage from the same vantage point it is similar for both.
The chemical changes are real but love is not. The same chemical changes and electric impulse is the reason behind fear too. So if you are shown the impulses and chemical will you be able to differentiate love?
According to you if something exist it should be observed and measured, neither love nor singularity can be measured/observed (in love what you are observing is just a facial expression, if not send me the photo of love that I can observe it) and hence according to your definition it should not exist.
That does not mean earth was there in the beginning it is like saying your body was in the singularity, nonsense.
That means it was written by people who didn't know and now you have to reinterpret.
Then what is the great light to govern the day that god created on the fourth day?
A concept is an abstract idea. Things like time, temperature, frequencies of sound and light waves, air pressure, weight, dimension, mass, these are mile markers placed along very real components of reality. Things that can't be sensed purely by touch or site, but in other ways. Components just as real as matter. Components that combine together to shape the reality we experience. If they are represented by formulaic symbols in physics, then they are physical.
In the environment created by the physical laws, what existed in the singularity, over time, resulted in the formation of stars and planets. Nothing else is required. Both were created at the same time, "in the beginning". In the beginning meaning, before the creation account begins. Before we reach the point where in verse two the planet is covered in water and shrouded in darkness. Before that, "in the beginning", the heavens and the earth were created.
Yeah, yet not knowing, they still got it right. It's still consistent with what we now know. The universe and Earth were created first. Then the oceans formed before anything else. It was, at that time, shrouded in darkness. Then came light. Then the oxygenated atmosphere formed and the earth's water cycle was established. People of that age had no way of knowing any of this, yet got it right. It's not a matter of reinterpreting. It's what forefather of the modern church St. Augustine preached centuries ago ...
"Interpretation of biblical passages must be informed by the current state of demonstrable knowledge" - St. Augustine
You're reading this as if English were the original language it was written in. It's not. This is a translation of a very ancient text in a very ancient language. It is very common in Hebrew for a statement to be made about a subject that is brought up. When it begins to speak of the sun and moon, it simply makes a statement that it didn't specifically address before. God made these. It doesn't mean they were made during this portion of creation, only that God made them. The light spoken about at the beginning is from the sun. The sun was part of the 'heavens' and already there. It makes absolutely no sense to think this author, who has already covered the fact that he does in fact recognize the light of day comes from the sun, was speaking of some disembodied light at the beginning.
Time, temperature, frequency. ..... are not things, if so you would have been able to draw it. Time is the motion compared to motion of earth, temperature is the vibration of molecules, frequency is the vibration per one part of rotation of earth drawn in a clock.
Things are things whether it can be touched or not.
You still have not OBJECTIVELY defined " real".
What existed in the singularity, if there was any, is matter/atoms not earth. 100 years before all the elements that make up your body existed but you didn't. So it is nonsense to say you were created 100 years before. According to your logic you/ humans and plants were all created in the beginning but obviously it is not.
You reinterpreted it to fit what you know.
Exactly, reinterpret it somehow so that it won't appear nonsense. That is the reason why church fought against Gallileo and Darwin, it was very difficult to reinterpret it not to look like nonsense but now experience made it less ridiculous.
About the light
I believe Genesis is speaking more of “Order” than of “Creation”
Genesis is simply giving the order, and the timeline of the Creation of everything, everywhere. Like everything in the sky (Planets, Sun, Stars) When animals came about (Fish, Fowl,Land Animal) etc, but it’s not giving the time of each individual creation.
For instance when it speaks of forming Adam and Eve, it is speaking of the order in time when mankind came into existence, not about creating two people.
Genesis says that the earth was dark and without form. Darkness is all there was.
So that was the timeline, or order when there was only darkness
Before Genesis speaks of the Order, or time that the heavenly bodies came into existence, it speaks of the light.
A time when the universe was light and darkness wasn't the only feature. That would become the time when man was in the thoughts of God, because the darkness was gone
You're right about the order. "days" four and five that describe animal life being told to "be fruiltful and multiply" and to "fill the earth" should make it obvious it's not talking about a 24 hour day as filling the earth through procreation would take decidedly longer.
"A time when the universe was light and darkness ...."
It wasn't all the universe. In the beginning a point of view is specified when it says God's spirit was on the surface of the waters. Creation is being described from the surface. Early on, when the oceans first formed, there was a thick atmosphere that was translucent. It allowed light through, but you couldn't see the sun. So there was light/darkness, day/night, but no visible sun/moon/stars. Until later. After plantlife .....
From http://www.palaeos.org/Hadean under the section "Formation of the oceans"...
"These processes began to occur as soon as the surface cooled enough to allow the water cycle to establish itself. In fact, the primitive Earth long remained covered in darkness, wrapped in dense burning clouds into which continuously poured water vapor from volcanic emissions.
The universe is all existing matter and space, It’s the whole cosmos, and I see it as talking about the universe when it was lighted.
Like we say the dark ages, the first age was the darkest, then there was the dawn.
Just because it is written in that order in the bible doesn’t means that’s the order it was created.
In Genesis 1:31 it says God created the 6th day, then in Genesis 2:1 it says the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. Then Gen. 2:2 says he rested on the 7th day. The way it’s written it sounds like God created heaven and earth between the 6th and 7th day, but we know those were created in Gen.1:1
It says he created the light meaning that only darkness had prevailed, now it didn’t because the light had been created. It’s just speaking of the order. It doesn’t mean there was light before he created the things that supply the light. It was light after, that’s just the way it is written, as in the example above
Actually, I’ll have to disagree with the earth having a translucent atmosphere
Scientists now say that the reason the earth didn’t free was because there was so much dense clouds that covered our atmosphere.
From Live Science
Clouds May Hold Key to Why Early Earth Didn’t Freeze Over
by Andrea Thompson
A paradox about the climate of the early Earth that has been plaguing scientists for nearly 50 years may have a new solution.
The so-called 'young' sun paradox — first proposed by Carl Sagan and his colleague George Mullen in 1972 — refers to the fact that the Earth had liquid oceans for the first half of its more than 4-billion-year existence despite the fact that the sun was likely only 70 percent as bright in its youth as it is now.
A lower solar luminosity should have left Earth's oceans frozen over, but there is ample evidence in the Earth's geological record that there was liquid water — and life — on the planet at the time.
Read more http://www.livescience.com/6257-clouds- … reeze.html
That can't be right. The order it gives is correct, and can be seen and verified.
"...and I see it as talking about the universe when it was lighted."
That's not possible. The natural laws that dictate when something is "lighted" and when it isn't never changed. The point described at the beginning, where the earth is already formed, the oceans already formed, is LONG after the universe was "lighted".
Genesis 2 is a separate texts that Genesis 1 was edited onto much later. Genesis 2 begins long after creation, or when "the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them."
It doesn't say He created the light. It only says "let there be light". Which is exactly what happened at that point chronologically after the formation of the oceans and before the formation of the atmosphere.
As for the clouds and the liquid ocean, I'm not sure why that's even having to be discussed. The Earth was molten for millions of years. The water-heavy atmosphere encasing it and blocking the sun had a lot to do with the very surface cooling and hardening. But the Earth below that was still molten. The Earth actually had to cool to the point that the water vapor trapped in the atmosphere could condense and form the oceans. A still molten Earth below the surface would be plenty of heat to keep the oceans liquid. For quite a long time.
The 'whys' and 'hows' of it may still be up in the air, but what we know is what existed when. We know the oceans existed first. We know, because of simple physics, that the atmosphere was very dense and would block out all sunlight for millions of years.
Things that exist are more than just what can be drawn. Something visible is just something that can be picked up by one particular sense. There's also sounds, smell, taste, feel. There's more than matter that makes reality what it is. Matter alone does not reality make. Time, temperature, frequency, these are real components of reality as well.
You're the one that keeps saying time is irrelevant. The only difference between you and I existing now and existing as particles created by a singularity is time. The environment created by the natural laws, the environment the matter of the universe exists in, results in planets and suns and us.
I reconsidered in light of modern knowledge and found it to line up.
If it were just plain wrong then no amount of reinterpreting would matter. The fact that it still can be interpreted in these modern times should be telling.
That is the definition of reality. The reality is that molecules move and water begins to change into water vapor at a particular temperature. At a particular marker along the temperature scale. That IS reality. We feel the sensations of hot and cold because our bodies evolved a way to feel something that is really happening. If there wasn't something there to feel, we wouldn't have evolved a way to feel it. Boiling water is evidence that it's not just the sensations we feel. It exists apart from and outside of us.
Having a symbol in physics means there's a very real element having to be accounted for when doing equations in regards to physics (ie the physical world/reality).
They are components of reality not reality. You do not tell me what you mean by reality though you continously tell me about reality. Sime times you say it is human experiences including imaginary unreal objects then you contradict yourself in the next sentence.
You haven't tell me what time is. Suppose you wake up 7 billion years before in space tomorrow, how do you 'measure' time?
The reason we exist is because of motion of objects.
You reinterpreted it to fit the line, that can be done with any document as ling as ibe is willing to commit the fallacy if equivocation.
It shows the need to believe, not anything else. Ecven after vehemently opposing heliocentric theory and evolution, now the church endorse it is telling.
No, reality is the other way, where water change into vapour we call 100, where it turns to ice zero, then we extrapolate and standardise it. It is where the sun rise is east, not sun rises in the east.
We feel touch, the movement. If the total vibration is less than the vibration of our body we feel it as cild and if it is more as heat. In reality anything above absolute zero is "hot". Absolute zero is where all motion stops.
No, it can represent a concept too.
It definitely depends on what religion you choose. And what aspects of theories you are referring to. If you believe that the Bible is the word of God then know this: true science does not disprove the Bible but rather harmonizes with the Bible. Proving that the Bible is God's word. After all, who best would know how life was created than the creator. No human was there.
Besides what makes more sense? that this beautiful universe full of order came about by accident or through intelligent design.
To illustrate: If you were walking through the woods and found a beautiful log cabin, would you marvel and say "wow I guess the trees chopped themselves and arranged themselves just so" or would you marvel at the craftsmanship.
Notice what the Bible says:
"“Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.”"
"“Lift up your eyes to heaven and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who brings out their army by number; he calls them all by name. Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power, not one of them is missing.”"
Although, the Bible is not a science book, when the Bible does touch on science it is accurate.
Here are a few examples of how accurate the Bible is when it touches on science:
"“He stretches out the northern sky over empty space, suspending the earth upon nothing.”"
"“All the streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is not full. To the place from which the streams flow, there they return so as to flow again.”"
"“There is One who dwells above the circle of the earth.”"
I replied in a hub
http://insightfultiger.hubpages.com/hub … man-origin
Of course science proves the bible is the word of God. It has been repeatedly tested by lots of scientists, written up for publication and peer review all agrees with the experiments.
Now if you could just point me to some of those experiments and tests, along with some peer review and re-tests, I would love to see them...
Are you kidding or is that true about scientists, and the bible?
With all due respect, I think you misunderstood me. I said that true science harmonizes with what the Bible says and that proves that that the Bible is God's word. As the creator he is able to tell us how everything was created.
So the publications, made by scientists, that explain true science harmonize with the Bible. If you want peer reviewed articles there are many cited in this publication
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books … th-Asking/
For example: Scientist are finding out that you need life in order to create life. We can't create life from nothing.
“With you [God] is the source of life.”—Psalm 36:9.
The Hedron collider experiment led to proof that this universe is organized and not chaotic. We also know that plants and animal life are organized according to their kind (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25)
Genesis 1:12 And the earth began to produce grass, seed-bearing plants+ and trees yielding fruit along with seed, according to their kinds. Then God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:21 And God created the great sea creatures* and all living creatures* that move and swarm in the waters according to their kinds and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
The Bible does say there are boundaries to these “kinds.” Allowing for a degree of variation within each kind.
Also, there are many findings and reports made by credible Anthropologists regarding the fulfilled prophecies of the Bible.
God's word told us that the earth is hanging on nothing and round in ancient times, when most people thought it was flat and rested upon some animal.
If you read my hub in response to this question you will see more of what I mean.
Really? Science harmonizes with biblical tales?
You mean like creating the universe in 7 days instead of 15 billion years? Like making man from a handful of dust and woman from a rib instead of billions of other species? Like a world-wide flood that never happened? Or killing all life on earth with that flood, that never happened? Like men days dead that come to life, but never happened? The list goes on and on where science "harmonized" by showing clear evidence the old tales are completely false.
But the earth does not "hang on nothing" at all. It doesn't hang, period, despite what God's word says. And "round" does not mean "spherical"; "round" can be as flat as a circle of paper.
Nor have anthropologists found fulfilled prophecies, not unless the "prophecy" is so broad as to be meaningless and thus any "interpretation" at all fits the bill.
"You mean like creating the universe in 7 days instead of 15 billion years?"
Clearly, from the fact that days 4 and 5 talk about life "being fruitful and multiplying" and "filling the earth", what's being described is not something that can be accomplished in a 24 hour day. If there's anything even people of that age understood, it's that populating the Earth via procreation would take much longer than a day.
"Like making man from a handful of dust and woman from a rib instead of billions of other species?"
Knowing now we're made of the same elements and did in fact come from the Earth, and the fact that we can clone from a single cell, much less a rib, and that a simple change would make that cone female, this story is much less far-fetched today than it was in the age it was written. It's actually feasible.
"Like a world-wide flood that never happened?
Why do you assume a text written over 3000 years ago, when talking about a flood that destroyed "everything", is talking about the planet? They didn't even know the Earth was a planet. How could they know the status of the world beyond the valley in which they lived? The assumption that this is talking about a global flood is just that, an assumption.
"Or killing all life on earth with that flood, that never happened?"
All life in that region. A flood really happened, and undoubtedly had a significant impact on life in that region.
"Like men days dead that come to life, but never happened?"
The whole point in having faith in Jesus is believing something that doesn't commonly happen, happened. That's what makes these events significant. It wouldn't be significant if it were a common occurrence.
Insightful tiger, i agree God tells us what is happening all the time. 6000 year old earth since carbon dating can not be trusted. Use the geneology of the Bible and it proves everything. evolution is a fake science since there are no true fossels to show the evolution. . A fish might adapt to its enviroment but it still is a fish of that line. an ape is an ape . Not one fossil proves an ape changed into man. No where no how. Scientists who dribble ablout the big bang theory struggle with the beginning moments of time since they are limited by their own creativity. If they really studied the earth and all the miraculous life forms on earth , the lowly scientist would find that God created the Heavens and the Earth. Those scientists who believe in evolution are the same ones who would allow u to be walked to a gas chamber and be extinguished because they dont have any true understanding of how this marvelous universe came to be. The same God who created Earth created us. Look at the fossils and our ancestors. No apes, No chimps, no primordial oooze. Just the glorious power of God himself
While I too agree God exists, science and evolution and the big bang do nothing to threaten that. They are true and show God to be true. They are simply the 'how'. They show the natural world to be exactly as one should expect if looking for a God like the one described in the bible created it. A natural world that by all accounts appears to have formed itself. The bible doesn't say God made or shaped these things with physical hands. He willed them and they became. So a universe that came forth from a single point and complex life evolving over time are exactly what you should expect to see. Anyone who thinks these are proofs that there is no God just doesn't know what they're talking about or what they should be looking for.
There is plenty of fossil evidence to show evolution happened. Look into 'proto-mammals'. There are actual 'in-between' species that show reptiles transforming into mammals. In-between species that have both reptile and mammalian characteristics. There is also a clear progression in homo species from apes to man. Same skeletal features, same blood, muscles, characteristics.
To think science is some widely-held conspiracy of ill-intended scientists who would allow you to be put in a gas chamber is small-minded, ignorant paranoia.
"They show the natural world to be exactly as one should expect if looking for a God like the one described in the bible created it."
And so the loving, caring god of the bible creates mosquitos, poisonous snakes, volcanoes, asteroids, tsunamis, disease and all the other things to make life miserable for most of humanity. You have a strange idea of loving and caring means.
Hmm, just genuinely curious about your perspective. Why is it you rationalize that the elements within nature, among those exemplified, are intrinsically designed to effect the human being. There is no evidence to support the claim that they are supposed to.
So in your mind a "loving God" would have only created a place with nice things? No danger, no pain? I'm not sure what the point of living would be. If every moment was good and free of pain or challenges or danger. Would we even know we have it good if good is all there was? The point of life isn't to just live hassle free, pain free. It's dealing with challenges and dangers and finding happiness in the face of all that goes against us. There's no rewards in life if there's nothing to beat or overcome. There must be death for death gives life meaning and purpose and urgency. Yes this God is loving. Just because you have a particular idea of what a "loving God" should have done means nothing.
Agreed. My concept of what love is means nothing. Just as yours doesn't.
But tell me - did you intentionally infect your children with AIDs or polio? Do you put them in a room full of poisonous animals? Do you send them outside in the snow without proper clothing? Do you allow others to abuse them or kill them? Do you intentionally arrange that they spend an eternity suffering in Hell?
I didn't. And I don't make excuses for those that do.
Though I don't have any children, I wouldn't insulate them from life. I would want them to experience the full spectrum of life, the good and the bad. I would want them to face down dangers and overcome obstacles.
That would be cheating them of what experiencing what life really is.
Eternity in hell is an invention of the church. It's not what the bible says. Think about the most well known verse, John 3:16, think about what it says ... "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish..."
Burning eternally is not perishing. It's actually the opposite. Basically you have a free will. It's up to you to choose whether or not you want to participate in the here-after. If you don't you cease to exist. You didn't ask to exist in the first place. If you don't want to be a part of it you don't have to be. This God went out of His way to ensure we have our own minds and our own wills. That's love.
I presume you wish the same spectrum for yourself; better give up health care and do what you can to contract AIDs. Or move to Afghanistan and advertise your Christianity.
You have a choice in what you believe? Given that the large majority of people throughout the mellienia have never heard of your god do you expect them to make up the same stories? Or, if they HAVE heard of it do you expect them to believe in the fairy tale? Hint: belief is not something you can force on anyone, even yourself. Lip service is one thing, but a god will know whether you actually believe or not.
I do not wish to be spared the same ills that befall everyone else. The progression of life is an honor we all share. And illness is part of that. You can never truly appreciate times of good health if you've never experienced illness.
AIDS is yet another example of the impact that free will has on the world around us. With a little bit of knowledge AIDS could be eradicated, yet it persists because of the choices people make.
It's stated in the bible that how much you know and understand will be taken into consideration, but it's no accident that a majority of the world is aware of this particular story. It's no accident that this age-old tale has survived throughout the ages.
The main point is accepting the terms necessary to participate in the next phase of existence. Belief in Jesus is simply one way to accomplish that. Belief in Jesus and His sacrifice/resurrection means you automatically acknowledge God as the authority because you believe Him capable of having power over life/death.
No, the main point is not accepting the orders of the priesthood. The main point is belief in a god that cannot be shown to exist, and THAT is more than a little tough to swallow for an awful lot of people. Or will you now claim that because the belief isn't there, the knowledge isn't either and a free pass to heaven awaits?
And no, it's no accident that most of the (current) world population has knowledge that something called "Christianity" exists although the general population for thousands of years never heard of it. For centuries it was taught at sword point and even now the priests and people of the system ignore the golden rule and take the tale where it isn't wanted. Not an accident at all.
"And no, it's no accident that most of the (current) world population has knowledge that something called "Christianity" exists although the general population for thousands of years never heard of it. For centuries it was taught at sword point and even now the priests and people of the system ignore the golden rule and take the tale where it isn't wanted. Not an accident at all."
That's free will. People of their own free will have chosen to behave in that way. That's all part of life and part of the point to everything.
If God could be shown to exist, belief would not be necessary. God purposefully cannot be shown to exist as that would infringe on our ability to choose Him freely.
I still don't accept that's true. Lucifer knew good existed and turned against him. Abraham, Moses, lot, Isaac, Noah, etc all interacted with God and all had to choose to obey. Free will is simply one option in theology, and it sends that you're fixated on it
That's another misconception. Lucifer is clearly working with God throughout the story. Having a discussion with God about Job, meeting Jesus on the hill. Lucifer is serving a purpose and is not God's opponent. He's devil's advocate, so to speak.
I'm fixated on free will because it's obvious it's the central theme of the bible. The whole reason judgement would exist, the whole reason there would need to be commandments, the whole point of the whole story is the fact that human behavior is in contrast with God's will. That's only possible through free will.
But you understand that in the realm of theology and early to mid Christian philosophy, free will was only one of the options, right? You understand that Jews have a very different idea about the garden of eden than you and other Christians have and do not accept the concept of original sin, right? The new testament, especially the epistles didn't seem to get your message about Lucifer, although I'm more inclined to agree with your position in his role than there's - but all of that is completely irrelevant to the point. You can see god face to face on earth and know with certainty that he exists without needing faith, and you still have the choice whether or not to follow him.
The message of the garden of Eden, and all the themes of the bible, are clear. Right from the beginning it describes a natural world that totally bends to the whim of God's will, then Adam and Eve don't. That's very clear. From that point on the central theme has to do with how people don't behave as God wills. He gives them laws and commandments and they break them. There's no misinterpreting that.
People are the one thing not in God's control. Religion is a part of that. The actions and messages of religion are created by humans. If you go by the bible it's clear what the message is. Free will is a very real element that makes the whole thing consistent.
Faith is a way God gave us to make the acknowledgement of His authority we need to make to participate in the afterlife without having to sacrifice animals and all the other OT stuff. Simply believing makes you a child of God. Belief would be undermined if God visibly existed. You have to be able to doubt His existence. You have to search for Him inwardly, and not depend on our senses for confirmation. God standing over your shoulder, visibly watching all we do would undermine our free will.
So you do or you do not know/understand how the Jews view the story of the garden of evil, free will and original sin? Since these are their stories, I think understanding how they view and interpret these texts is not only necessary, but mandatory.
Jews are human too and therefore fallible. The story as described is exactly what the original text says and the message is clear. It doesn't matter what humans have made of it in the ages since. Science has shown us that behavior of everything can be understood to follow every specific laws/rules. Human behavior is the one exception to that. If there were actually a time when the being responsible for creating the natural world interacted with humans, our behavior is the single most relevant thing for Him to take interest in. It's the only reason He'd need to interact at all. Knowing now, scientifically, just how significant it is that we can actually choose our own behavior willfully is a really big deal that makes the story being described the single most relevant thing in this life.
Are you fallible? What makes you believe that everyone on earth, including the culture that wrote and developed the theology and understanding of these stories got it wrong for six thousands years, yet it's clear to you? You still have not answered whether or not you know how the Jews view the fall and the garden of eden. Do you?
What would make your hypothesis wrong? I see you constant taking every argument, including a literal reading if the text and twisting it to fit by changing our alternating whatever necessary. You say no one has ever disproven anything about your hypothesis, but I disagree - and I still think that the burden of positive, testable and falsifiable proof is on you, as you're making the claim in the first place. I know you're a good guy, and you're incredibly smart, but I don't think you've met that burden. You cannot bypass the burden of proof by just making more symptoms until the other person gets tired of pointing out the flaws in them. That's not how you prove a hypothesis.
I have shown my work. It's really very simple. The text gives a specific timeline and describes events along that specific timeline. I have sown where exactly these events can be found, which match the given timeline exactly. I have given you the specifics in the past. You have chosen to not look into it further to vet what I'm saying. I can't make you acknowledge it.
My interpretation is right where others are wrong because I have something they don't. A clear, exact picture of history that allows me to read the story in an accurate context. I have shown the proof. It's not hidden. It's very clear and it's all public information.
Furthermore, you insist that they're clear, but realty would contradict that assertion. There are hundreds of ways to interpret that story, and your version is in the tiny minority. If it was clear, I doubt understand why Jews and Christians alike either can't see it or anecdotes discard it. That doesn't seem like clarity to me. I think it seems clear to you because you've taken it and turned it into a narrative that fits your ideals and beliefs. But it isn't clear to me, it isn't clear to the believers you talk to, it isn't clear to the he's or historians or archeologists or anthropologists or religious leaders. It sounds to me like it's only clear to you, which is not surprising since it is a hypothesis that you came up with in the first place.
A hypothesis that compares it to reality. I'm simply reading it in the context of what has been established to be the reality that these stories are set against. Besides, the free will theme isn't dependent on my particular interpretation. Is it not clear that God set a specific law that Adam and Eve specifically broke? What's so difficult to understand? What's not clear about that? And there's no conflict amongst Jews or Christians about that.
No, but you're particular interpretation does seem to be dependant on free will, which is not the only viable option. With all due respect, Christians and Jews DO disagree about the garden of eden. Quite a bit.
Look, there's nothing complicated about this. Creation shows a natural world that becomes exactly what God wants. He says "let there be" and there it is. It even goes so far to say God looked on all He made and deemed it good. Then it tells a very specific story about something else He created. He made one rule, one law, and they broke it. That's the significant aspect of the story. You'd be hard pressed to find anything else the story is describing. Then throughout the entire rest of the bible, He's giving laws and commandments and punishing people because they're breaking them. It's really not difficult to see. It's right on the surface. There's nothing to misinterpret. None of that would be possible without free will.
But both Jews and Christians argued that it was possible without free will. For centuries. Free will is simply the popular theological perspective at the moment. That didn't make it correct, and Insisting that it is by cherry picking items that support it and asserting that it is so simply doesn't work. There are alternatives. Some denominations support predestination. I know you say they're wrong, but that simply doesn't carry any weight. The substitution/atonement model is only one possible model of Jesus, but it's the only one you seem to be concerned with. The is also christus Victor, the moral influence theory of atonement, etc. That enable a believer to let go of the constrictions of the penal atonement/free will/original sin concepts nearly entirely. Limiting possibilities does not negate free will, if it exists. Free will also only works if people are actually consciously able to choose their beliefs, which simply isn't true.
The answers are found in God's word. I don't want to argue. It seems there is some questioning going on. I just want to respectfully share what I know, but it's your choice, obviously, what you put your faith in.
First, let's address the time periods and the flood account at the same time. From studying Anthropology we learn that the main reason scientists believe humans are as old as they are is because when you look at the carbon dating evidence, the remains(talking about human remains not dinosaurs) found are very old. Also if you look at the layers in the soil, the deeper you go the older things get (logically speaking). Notice what the flood account says.
Genesis2:5 No bush of the field was yet on the earth and no vegetation of the field had begun sprouting, because Jehovah God had not made it rain on the earth and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 But a mist would go up from the earth, and it watered the entire surface of the ground.
So from this account, had it rained on earth at this point in time? No. The soil was watered by a mist that came up. (Coincidentally, that's probably why no one believed Noah when he said water was going to fall from the sky, nevertheless God never lies) Now the rains come. Notice what the Bible says
Genesis7 :11 In the 600th year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the 17th day of the month, on that day all the springs of the vast watery deep burst open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.+ 12 And the rain poured down on the earth for 40 days and 40 nights.
What did you notice? Did you notice that the water not only fell from the sky but come up from the ground as well?
Now thinking back on what we know from Anthropology, what happens to the soil layers if water comes up from the deep under the soil? What else is coming up with the water? Is it not true that looking at the layers might be misleading? would not older sediment also rise up with the water?
Next lets address the suffering going on in the world today. Does that disprove a loving God?
Lets see what the Bible says. In Genesis 3 we see that the Serpent leads a rebellion with the humans (Adam and Eve) and other disobedient angels following along later(the fathers of the Nephilim-Genesis 6:4). That Serpent that challenged God's authority with his words and actions is identified in
"He seized the dragon, the original serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for 1,000 years."
We also find out that that Satan has been giving a period of time to show how he would rule the world.
"On this account be glad, you heavens and you who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea, because the Devil has come down to you, having great anger, knowing that he has a short period of time.”
Even Jesus called him the ruler of this world
"I will not speak with you much more, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has no hold on me."-John 14:30
The bible says...
“The Evil One controls the whole world.”—1 John 5:19.
"14 Therefore, since the “young children” are sharers of blood and flesh, he also similarly shared in the same things, so that through his death he might bring to nothing the one having the means to cause death, that is, the Devil,"-Hebrews 2:14
“The Son of God came . . . to destroy the devil’s work.”—1 John 3:8,
Notice he has power to cause death. Although things are grim now, God promises us through his word the Bible and through his son that he will crush the rebellion and a new system of things will prevail.
"44 “In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom+ that will never be destroyed.+ And this kingdom will not be passed on to any other people.+ It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms,+ and it alone will stand forever," - Dan 2:44
"3 With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them.+ 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes,+ and death will be no more,+ neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore.+ The former things have passed away.” 5 And the One seated on the throne+ said: “Look! I am making all things new.”+ Also he says: “Write, for these words are faithful* and true.” Revelation 21:3-5
For more info read God's word at jw.org
You joined here 16 months ago according to your non-existent profile. You have published no hubs. There is nothing about you, your gender, your age, your nationality.... nothing that conveys to us that you are genuinely human and real. What have you to hide?
All you do is put over a narrow-minded view of religious belief.
Why should any one of us regard what you say with any amount of credibility?
I don't understand fundamentalists. They own cellphones and TVs, all products of the scientific method, yet they dismiss the results of the same scientific method when it comes to evolution, geology, cosmology, and anything that conflicts with their narrow interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is a book of faith--not history. Sure there are historical facts contained in the Bible, but the point of Scripture is to build faith. As Joseph Campbell said, and I paraphrase, you don't go into a restaurant and eat the pages of the menu. The pictures and words point to something greater.
Freud was right. Religion simply masks a deep underlying and universal fear of death!
None of that matters. Nothing any human has said or thought about what it says means nothing. We have something they don't. We have science. And science makes it clear that everything in the universe behaves in very specific ways. That's what the natural laws are. They are laws determined because the way matter and energy behaves is so specific and consistent. We humans are the one exception to that. Even animals behave as expected. A cow is a cow. A horse is a horse. But humans are different. You don't need to root through centuries of theologic debates. None of that matters. The point is clear. Especially now. Our capability to willfully and consciously choose how we behave and what we do is the point. There's literally no scientific explanation for how that's possible. That's the single most significant thing that makes us who and what we are.
Bringing things like what Jews and Christians throughout the centuries into the conversation only complicates it needlessly. It's really very simple.
What?! The ultimate showdown?! Shouldn't someone alert the media? You would think Stephen Hawkins would show up... or at least Bill Nye. Luckily Billy Graham's death was just an internet hoax, we can call him and see if he can make it.
If none of it matters and nothing anyone has ever said or interpreted about the words matter, then your hypothesis falls in the same category. Asserting something is not nearly in the same category as actually proving it. You have not come close to any standard of proof that I know of, which is why it seems you stick with assertions and sweeping claims instead. You're interpreting a book just Luke other people interpret a book. Without evidence, you're assertions carry as little weight as those that came before you. A human is still a human, like an ape is still an ape. Saying that free will is what sets us apart simply by claiming it makes little difference. Then again, you have repeatedly said that indigenous Pele have no free will and therefore do not have art, etc - not only is that arrogantly insulting, it simply isn't true.
You have not shown your work, headly, which you don't seem to be able to understand no matter who tells you. You have created a timeline based on a loose interpretation of the story and then searched for recorded events that you can dump into that timeline in order to bolster your hypothesis. Anyone can do that. Ken ham does that to disagree with you. You can say that you're right and everyone else is wing until the cows come home, but it doesn't matter. That's simply another assertion - just like the aig group. Assertions are not proof. You say you have proof, but taking about it is not presenting or demonstrating it. It is not testing it or having it reviewed. It is not arguing as a layperson against another layperson who has invented this as a hobby. For someone who lauds science and the scientific method, you know more than most that it doesn't work that way. A single scientist claiming something means nothing without research, opposition, testing, falsifiable and peer review, none of which you have - recruit to repeatedly say that you have it. You have had many opportunities to do so, and have failed. Anyone can claim anything they want, it doesn't make it true. You know that. And if you want to write all of this off to my "bias" But if you do, the sane can equally be said about you.
Do you mean to tell me you don't acknowledge a significant difference between indigenous humans and us? There's a specific place, that can be seen in the archaeological record, where humans changed. There's a ton of evidence. That happened right in the same time and place as the events of Genesis. This can be proven. It coincides exactly with that timeline and series of events I mentioned. This can be proven and shown to match up exactly with the very specific timeline given specifically in the text. I have provided all of this. Because we're comparing a text to known facts in science, that's as scientific as it's going to get. But the fact is it gives a specific timeline, history can be shown to match up exactly, both in time and place, with what's described. A significant change that started right there in Mesopotamia, then spread to Greece and Rome and elsewhere, eventually wiped across all the world, wiping out all the indigenous cultures the world over. It can be seen in history. I'm sorry if you see my pointing out the blatantly obvious as "insulting" or "arrogant", I can't do anything about that. Doesn't change the facts.
The facts, again, according to you. I'm sorry that you don't see how easy it is to look at history and look at what you want to be true about it and find little pieces to seemingly bolster a point and make them fit. People do it all the time. It's cherry picking and confirmation bias. We as human beings accept the evidence that we want to be true, and ignore, reject or alter the things that challenge it, and that's all I see you doing. Massive walls of text are simply assertions on top of more assertions. You can say they line up all you want, but it doesn't make it true. This is why I simply don't see this conversion going anywhere without actual evidence. I think you're quick to point out what you see as biases in others while vehemently denying the same ones in yourself. If this was as clear as you say it is, why are you the only one who sees it? Not archeologists. Not anthropologists. Not historians. No one has seen the credence and veracity of this claim except a layman without credentials in any of the relevant fields being discussed. You ignore the theology of the people who wrote and maintained these stories. You ignore the theology of the early and later church. You quickly claim all of them wrong, while claiming yourself right. You insist that others disprove your outlandish claims without anything more than your insistence presented as evidence. You shift the burden of proof, change the texts while Insisting you don't. This has been explained to you time and time again, to no purpose. I'm sorry that this is as far as it ever seems to go. I'm proud that you're so convicted by your theory, but without peer review and falsification, it's always going to be your hypothesis and nothing more, and it doesn't look like you can understand why. I feel sorry for that. I would like to see it go further through the chain. While we disagree on almost every point, I do not have the hubris required to insist that everyone but me is simply wrong, not am I philosophically ignorant enough to think that simply by claiming it, I make it so.
Julie, I have given you the evidence. You, for whatever reason, chose not to look at it. You can't then turn around and keep talking to me like I haven't offered any evidence. You can't keep talking like I'm just some crazy person with no evidence to back me up yet stubborn enough to just continue to be insistent. I'm insistent because of the evidence.
I've seen the evidence. I know it well. I know there's no doubt. You telling me I'm cherry-picking history and seeing what I want to see sounds to me like a Christian trying to argue against evolution. You know how you can read their assertions, knowing full well they're wrong and that the evidence shows it, yet they're so insistent that that's what's really happening. Well, reading about you saying I'm just seeing what I want to see is just like that to me. The evidence is clear. There's no room for doubt.
Yes, I do understand how see history how you want to. That's why I've used multiple points of verification. It's not just cherry-picked events. It's a series of events, over a specific timeline, in a specific region. AND the impact of these events being verified as well.
I find it insulting that you actually ignore the evidence I gave you, then choose to speak as if I never gave it to you and have nothing but certainty and "hubris". Like I'm some random a-hole blatantly lying on the internet. I've been here for three years now. I have consistently had the same explanation that has stood up to each and every critique. If there were some solid grounds for the dismissal of what I'm saying all you or anyone else would have to do to shut me up is bring it up. Still, three years later, you nor anybody else have anything but trying to paint me as some sort of delusional loon.
I don't think you understand (and it certainly doesn't seem like you do) that disagreement with what you've claimed doesn't equal a refusal to look at the information you present. But making a bunch of claims that no one has ever heard of before is not evidence. They are claims. In addition to that, all I have are claims that you have multiple various sources that you've thoroughly examined. I'm sorry, but that's not good enough. If this were not your hypothesis, if it were mine, what would you require for examination? Peer review? Historical record? Independent confirmation? I would like the same, but I don't have it. All I have is you. That's the problem. You are admittedly a layman. A smart one, yes, but still a layman. Yet you are the only one who sees this. Not those who work or study in the relevant fields. Not pastors or theologians. Just you. And people in both sides find fault with your claims and do not see what you claim is blatantly obvious and clear to everyone. It's not clear to me. She, you can discount me as simply biased - but you would have to discount everyone else you've gone over this with. You'd have to discount all of the scholars. You'd have to discount everyone who works in the field. It's impressive that you're willing to stand alone on your convictions, but you do stand alone. Until this can be presented in an organized and methodical manner and be examined by scholars, it's always going to be just you. If the evidence is there like you say it is, it should be easy.
No, you don't understand. This is evidence, by definition, because this is the result of testing a hypothetical against the evidence. Predictions made off of this hypothesis proved true, over and over. This is why it's evidence.
"...people in both sides find fault.... "
There it is again. Please, insert relevant argument against here. If it existed, if there were an actual argument against what I'm saying, then all you have to do is bring it up and what can I say? If there's a fault, shut me up. I don't yet have peer-review. All I can do it point it out. I guess eventually I'll point it out to the right person. But none of that changes the facts.
Laymen or not, it's pretty simple. You, being a layman yourself, can duplicate my experiment. First, put together a timeline using Genesis 5. For example, you can use this timeline to determine exactly how many year passed between when Adam was created and when the flood happened. 1656. Before this it says Cain went off and built a city. So, about a century after Cain was kicked out of the garden, it says he built a city. A city that actually existed. It's called Eridu. the first human city. Every event spoken about is there. In the right place and time.
The reason most haven't seen it yet is because they read the bible to mean Adam/Eve were the beginning of humanity. So they're not considering looking into it taking place long after the planet had been populated. It's a simple misconception that can really confuse things for a good long while. We only now have the historical evidence to understand what it actually meant.
Is evidence still evidence when only one person sees it? Or is it a claim that needs to become evidence in order to be shown to others? I'm genuinely asking here, because if it was as clear as you claim it is, it should be easy to show it to others convincingly and it just isn't. Not to atheists. Not to Christians. Not to Jews. Not to scholars. Many people have pointed things out to you, you deny it and spin a response to explain it that is simply not in the text you're trying to prove.
How do you know that Eridu is the city founded by Cain? Do you use only the genealogy in Genesis to create the timeline, or another source? Do you assume it to be accurate? What do you verify it against? How do you demonstrate that the timeline is true before you start finding pieces from history to fit into it? How do you verify the conclusions you've made? I'm genuinely not trying to be obtuse. I want to understand. Without frustration on either side.
Think of it this way. This hypothesis is this pretty significant event if true. It involves beings created like Adam and Eve, living centuries, being created. What would you expect to see if the Genesis story literally happened in our past? It's really that easy.
First, the timeline, from 100 years after Adam's creation until 1656 years after, from Adam to the flood, there existed a city. So we're looking for a culture in Mesopotamia where there was a city built and was destroyed by a flood. Second, if this place was populated, then that population should show some signs that this interaction really happened. That's where the mythological stories of the Sumerians come in. They claim exactly what should be expected. According to them a "god" showed up one day, built a city, and turned them into the workforce that farmed the land. That actually happened. They were the first to do that. In fact they were the first city to ever have a working class and a ruling class. And their mythology actually has a god for each character; Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, and the God of the heavens".
Basically, everything you should expect to see if these events are true. The timeline has key events along it that are earmarked specifically by large events in the text. Specifically states when they happened. Like the flood being 1656 years after Adam. Because it says Seth was a replacement for Abel, and was born when Adam was 130, we know it's sometime around there that Cain was banished. So the culture we're looking for should have lasted about 1500 years before being destroyed by a flood.
There is a culture that matches up exactly with that timeline right in that part of the world. It's the first culture to create the first city. It was destroyed by a flood. A flood that happened between the creation of the cities of Ur and Uruk, which both Genesis mentions as well as the Sumerian King's List as being "the flood". Then, about a century later, the Babel story happened. An event that scattered all these people. That really happened. It was a climate change that happened right when the hypothesis expected, and really did cause mass migrations.
But I've given you all of this. All you have to do is see that what I'm pointing to really happened and that the timeline I'm pointing out really lines up. I've given you all the information you would need to do this. Yet you choose instead to not look at all then claim I have nothing.
I'm not refusing to look at anything. If I were, I would not still be asking questions or trying to understand. You still did not answer my question. How do you know it's that city? Within 1650 years, surely there were others that would fit the criteria. How do you narrow it down? How do you reach the conclusion that Cain asked with the sumerians? Whee would I look that up? What sources can you point to that are not Wikipedia? How did you make these determinations concretely enough to say they are facts? I don't actor that the fact that multiple cultures have god men means that Adam, eve and their offspring lived for hundreds of years. How do you prove it? Similar stories in a similar region is not sufficient to claim magic - not for me, anyway. There's still the problem that you're looking for then to be true. That's not objective. All you've given me are two books to read that doubt go as far as you've gone, several Wikipedia links and your writing. You've repeated it several times, yes, but that's still all it is. It's not an insult. It's simply what it is.
But you are refusing. Because I gave you the evidence that you still won't acknowledge as such. If you had looked at what I have given, and had found some realistic rebuttal, then you'd state it. You haven't. You talk like I haven't given you anything. All you have to know is Genesis literally happening just like described, starting about 5500BC, with a flood in 4000 BC. Southern Mesopotamia.
I just described how I determined that city to be the city. It's in a 1500 year culture that was destroyed by a flood. I had multiple checks that would have to be determined before it was determined the place. Many checks. And they all check out.
My determinations were made through trying to falsify my hypothesis. Using the hypothesis I'd make a prediction that if this is true, then I should see a flood here, or see an event where populations got scattered here, or signs of a population coming into contact with a super human being. Predictions proved true, one after another. No matter how outlandish the hypothetical predictions might have been. I didn't look for events that sounded right. I looked to the timeline, then found events that happened in that place and time. Events that turned out to be exactly what the hypothesis predicted. Over and over again.
I would think you'd know me well enough to know by now that I'm not just speaking so certainly because I'm just that arrogant. I can't say I'm not arrogant, but I'm not THAT arrogant.
Evidence is "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."
You said that city was the one Cain went to. What is the body of evidence that supports that claim? That was not the only city. What evidence is the that it was the first city? What evidence is there that Cain founded it? I hear what you're telling me, but telling me isn't evidence. It's you telling me something. How did you decide on that city? How did you eliminate all others? What proof is there that Cain was there?
I have not studied this enough to be able to refute your points with certainty. I admit that freely and always have, but that doesn't mean I just have to take your word for it. My ignorance does not become your evidence, and it direct become true simply because I an not knowledgeable enough to prove it wrong. That's not how the burden of proof works. I'm not rejecting it or denying it, I'm simply not accepting it. You're taking that lack of acceptance personally, and I understand why, but it all doesn't make your assertions true. What are your sources for cain's city? Let's start there.
Then can you understand how it might be a tad infuriating for you to say I don't have anything when clearly you can't say whether I have anything or not?
Like I explained, there were multiple checks to verify Eridu as THE city. First, it had to exist in the right time and place. It was built about 5500 BC and was destroyed about 4000 BC, so on top of it existing in the right place and time, it also lasted the right length of time. It had to be the first city showing a distinct behavior change. Check. The people there had to tell a story that lines up from their perspective. Check. It was said to be the first city by the Sumerian King's List. A list that also says a flood happened and gives a similar timeline. Check. It has to show evidence of a culture ending flood around 4000BC. Check. Every direction you look it qualifies itself as the right city.
You don't have to study very deeply. I've given you a specific place and time. And you know the story, inside and out. So, if that literally happened in this place in the world during this time, what should we expect to see? Give me one reason why these events couldn't have happened. All you'll find is more to support it did actually happen.
I'm asking for sources, Jeremy. It looks from my predictive that you recognized something that you wanted to find, and then you found it. You told me is readily available and gave me a timeline and then expect me to find something that proves you wrong and if I can't you're right? That's not how it works. I understand that there is that city. I understand that you have defined city as something with social strata and so Jericho which is older didn't count. Where does that definition come from? Did Jericho not have a ruler or a leader? How did it govern? What do you have that puts Cain in that city? Do they have mythology about a farmer with a strange mark on his forehead? Or is it just a city at the right place in the right time and you extrapolated?
I understand it may be frustrating for you sure, but I'm asking questions and asking for sources that corroborate your claims and conclusions, to which you just say it's clear and easy and I should look it up. Where? By what?
Is also a tad frustrating to repeatedly ask for information and be told to look it up because it all fits and it's blatantly clear and obvious by the one poison in all of history that seems to have noticed it, so gets angry when questioned.
"However, Jericho is often indicated as one of the oldest civilizations, with settlements dating back as far as 11,000 BCE. So many call Jericho one of the oldest cities in the world because some settlement has been established in or around Jericho since the shift to domestication of plants and animals."
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-are-the-ol … -world.htm
That puts both Jericho AND farming (domestication of plants and animals) several thousand years older than Eridu.
Jericho has long been a populated region because of the ample springs in and around it. But this is not classed as a city. Part of what qualifies a city as a city, is class stratification. Different classes living together. The first ever example of that is Eridu. That's why this is classed as the first city. This is widely recognized as such.
Your evidence there was no class stratification in the settlements of Jericho? (Did they keep slaves? Was there no ruling class? Were women treated the same as men?) Along with a generally accepted definition of a city requiring that (None of the dictionaries I checked gave a definition requiring that attribute)?
Now you're asking questions and asking for sources. Before you just made statements that I have nothing as if that were fact. If it were just something I was looking for and found, if it were just confirmation bias, then it wouldn't line up to a timeline. I can't make that happen. That goes well beyond confirmation bias. Those are concrete numbers that can be verified.
No, Jericho didn't have a ruler or leader. Every culture that existed before Eridu shows signs of everyone having equal status. There are numerous examples o f this.Eridu is noted archaeologically as being the first place where class stratification happened. The earliest. about 5500BC. Anything before that lacks any of this evidence.
There are no sources saying what I'm saying. But the evidence I point to has plenty of sources. The hypothesis is one you can easily put together because it's based directly on a text you know very well.
You keep asking for information as if there's more for me to give. You have it all. I'm showing you right when and where these events happened. I've given you the evidence that further supports these events happened. You're welcome to look for anything you can that shows they didn't. You're no longer allowed to just say they didn't happen or that I have nothing. Not unless you can back up what you're saying. Because I can back up what I'm saying.
But you're not backing it up. You're just saying you are. If eridu was the first city with social strata, there is no evidence whatsoever that Cain was there. The is no biblical support that name the city. There is no indication that the biblical writers defined a city the same way that you are doing. Saying that Eridu is the only city that fits therefore Cain must have been there is fallacious, and you know it. You admit that there are no sources that back up your conclusions. Ti have the same historical and archeological sources that scholars have, but you're refusing to name them. I can say whatever i like, thank you, and I dont need to disprove a claim that has not been proven except to the only person on earth who is claiming it. I'm sorry I started talking. We're never to get past these circles because you simply can't grasp your burden of proof out understand that lack of acceptance is not rejection out of hand. You have had numerous opportunities to present this theory clearly. When you recognize that people aren't grasping what you're getting at, instead of modifying and altering the presentation, you double down, accuse them of bias and truck right through, never recognizing that maybe it's the way that it is presented that is clearly not as clear to anyone else as it seems to you. It's that a problem for all of us or for you? I can't get you to see that there is a reason why no one buys what you're saying. I don't think it's the facts in history or archeology. I think it's your conclusions and its presentation that is faulty. I'm sorry for it, but I can't waste my time going around in circles. Better luck with the next person, but I have a feeling it will go just like this - that's what always seems to happen.
I am backing it up. You're just not familiar enough with what I'm talking about to realize it. No, there's no evidence of Cain being at Eridu. All we have about Cain is his name and roughly where he was when. What exactly would evidence directly linking Cain even look like?
What we're looking for is numerous sticking points. Verification points. If this hypothetical really happened, then this and this and this and this and this should be true. Multiple events using multiple checkpoints each illustrate the high likelihood that events just like what's hypothesized actually happened. To use an analogy, we're hypothesizing someone walked through here, so we're looking for the footsteps. We're looking for the resulting crater that shows an astroid impacted here.
Here we've got a very specific footprint....
Adam's creation .... 100 years ... city built ..... 1500 years flood ... 100 years ... Babel
Not only do we have to find verifiable events in the right part of the world, spaced apart by the right amount of time, but each of those events must satisfy multiple checkpoints of verification.
Do you really think so little of me to think my certainty is nothing more than just being an overzealous believer deluded by his own want to see what he wants to be true? Do I not seem rational to you? If I say I'm backing it up I'm backing it up. With enough verifiable information to satisfy the most skeptical of critics. Like Eridu. Not only did it exist in the right place, in the right time, for the right length of time. Not only does it show verifiable evidence as having the right characteristics. But the Sumerians and what they wrote about that city matches up with what this hypothesis expects. Everything that should be true if this hypothesis is true... is true.
I'd be fine if you had given even a satisfactory level of attention to this and had some valid reason for rejecting what I'm saying as delusion, but you haven't. You've admittedly barely looked at it at all, yet feel you have the room to say I have nothing and to dismiss what I'm saying as delusion of a believer. Seeing what you want to be true is a two-wayed street.
No, you do not seem rational, at least not to me. You've devised a scheme whereby if specific dates are used, evidence WILL be found to support the literal story of the bible.
But. You also ignore human settlements before the creation of the first man. You forget that there were cities being built all the time; that there was one in the approximately "correct" time frame was almost inevitable (and no, you don't get to define city in such a way that you can claim Eridu was the first city). You ignore that rivers typically flood every year, and that massive flooding can generally be expected at least once every 100 years (pretty close for what you're proposing). You forget that the bible specifically says the entire earth was flooded, killing all mankind everywhere, and no you don't get to decide that the "entire earth" refers to a very tiny portion of it. You pretend to know that the people of the fabled city of babel scattered across the entire earth in a reasonable time period AND that a god did the scattering rather than natural movements of people.
None of that points to rational thought; it DOES point to an extreme effort to construct supporting stories for biblical tales, but that is all they are. Stories, cherry picking some data while refusing other information because it doesn't fit what you want it to fit.
The first emperor was Sargon of Akkad, king of Kish. World is kishastum, so king of Kish is king of the world. The first city was Uruk. A small error by the bible writers as they copied the babylonian legends to make the bible.
Wilderness - "No, you do not seem rational, at least not to me. You've devised a scheme whereby if specific dates are used, evidence WILL be found to support the literal story of the bible."
That statement I'm having a hard time finding rationality in. How can that be a scheme? If specific dates are used, and evidence is found that supports the literal story of the bible, how exactly can that be a scheme concocted by me?
Let me make it clear that I am not ignoring previous settlements. I'm using the same classification of what defines a city as the experts do. One of those classifications is social/class stratification. Without having a divided ruling and working class, a governing body and a general population, it is not classed as a city. That rules out every culture that existed before Eridu because Eridu is the absolute earliest example of class stratification. Every culture that came before shows evidence of all the population having the same social status. Eridu is classed as the first human city, not by me, but in general.
As for the flood, it happen 1656 years later. Meaning we're looking for a culture that lasted roughly 1500 years. This doesn't apply going by your flooding is common model. Plus we're looking for a flood that ended the culture. That applies here, in the right timeframe, in the right geographic location, and lasted the right amount of time.
Wilderness - "You forget that the bible specifically says the entire earth was flooded, killing all mankind everywhere, and no you don't get to decide that the "entire earth" refers to a very tiny portion of it"
I'm not deciding anything. I'm simply recognizing the limited knowledge of the authors. How do you expect someone from 5000 years ago to report on the status of the whole Earth? How is that even possible? Because you're assuming Godly levels of knowledge. You wouldn't do that in any other case and what I'm saying wouldn't be dismissed, but would be common sense.
Wilderness - "You pretend to know that the people of the fabled city of babel scattered across the entire earth in a reasonable time period AND that a god did the scattering rather than natural movements of people."
I don't pretend. I used a very specific timeline and model, then found an event that occurred in the right time and place (Southern Mesopotamia around 3900BC) ...
"Thus, it also triggered worldwide migration to river valleys, such as from central North Africa to the Nile valley, which eventually led to the emergence of the first complex, highly organized, state-level societies in the 4th millennium BC. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.9_kiloyear_event
What caused it was a natural occurrence that caused the scrambling because that's how God works. If you're looking for some invisible hand then you're not looking for the right thing. God is the embodiment of nature. His will is directly reflected in the workings of nature.
Wilderness - "None of that points to rational thought; it DOES point to an extreme effort to construct supporting stories for biblical tales, but that is all they are. Stories, cherry picking some data while refusing other information because it doesn't fit what you want it to fit."
What exactly am I refusing? I'm doing exactly what a rational person should do. If these events did indeed happen, then we should be able to see those events in history. Because a particular timeline is given, again, if true, then those events should line up. They do. Exactly what should be expected to see is seen. All I can do is point it out. The only lack of rationality is here is refusing to actually look.
Of course you ignore earlier settlements. Adam cannot be the first person to exist if there were settlements (and cities) thousands of years before him. Scripture is very plain here; Adam was the first person, Eve (from his rib) was the second. Rationally, as no one at that point in the time line was first the tale is known to be false, but you ignore that small point.
No, the experts to do not define city as requiring stratification. As I am unable to verify that I asked you to show it, you fail to provide it; the only conclusion I can see is that you made it up yourself. No one else uses that definition.
No, we're not looking for a flood that ended a village culture. We're looking for the scriptural flood that wiped out all life on earth and it isn't there. You're the one saying the words of the bible are literal; either they are or they aren't.
The wiki article is a good example of the problem I'm having with this. Of several climatic changes along the time line you've picked one as evidence that scripture is true and factual. The bible says god scattered the people all over the world; wiki says climate change moved people a few hundreds of miles into a more hospitable area, and did so pretty much throughout the history of the region. How does this show god's hand at work? And why only one of the series? How does a few hundred miles translate into filling Australia and the Americas? Scripture says what it says, you say it is literal and true and promptly change it to mean something else.
You can point out events that generally fit the timeline. And you can, if you wish, point out events that show it to be false (migration of people to America before people existed, for instance) but you ignore them. It's easy to show that the events described in the bible cannot be true in any literal sense, it's easy to show that they are often gross exaggerations and sometimes pure, wild fantasy. Instead you find a few events that are within a few hundred years of the timeline you constructed, that are with a percentage or two of the severity indicated, that affected a percentage or two of the number of people available and use it as "proof" the biblical tales are true and literal.
It doesn't work for anyone but you.
Here, I'm still looking for the reference that specifically says this. But here's something I found that's speaking of Uruk, another Sumerian city, and it lists the things that classes it as a city ...
"As your text notes, Uruk, north of Eridu on the Euphrates River, is often listed as the first city and the first true agrarian state in the world , reaching this status by 3,600 BC. Sumerian "civilization" had begun. Archaeological evidence of a political state headed by rulers with total power, class stratification, full-time occupational specialization, widespread trade, and writing are all found at this site. " https://laulima.hawaii.edu/access/conte … tamia.html
1. headed by rules with total power
2. class stratification
3. full-time occupational specialization
3. widespread trade
But because you were unable to find anything, you just state "No". I must have just made it up. How nice.
Adam was not the first person and that is not what scripture says. If you'll notice, in the chapter before Adam and Eve, it says God created humans. Then, later when Cain is being banished, he voices a concern about the 'others' he'll likely come across. These stories are happening in an already populated world.
There you go again with this tale of a world-wide flood. You're taking this from a text written by a culture that didn't know what the 'whole Earth' even was. How are they supposed to be giving the status of the whole planet?
The climate change I'm pointing to only happened once, only had this impact once. That's why it's referred to specifically as an event. This one scattering of the people of Mesopotamia is directly linked to the emergence of multiple civilizations later. The people scattered here ended up in settlements along the Nile, along the Tigris/Euphrates, along the Indus Valley. And in each of these places, shortly following, civilizations sprang up showing much of the same advancements first seen in southern Mesopotamia. The people scattered by this climate change took their advanced ways with them and impacted each settlement they came into contact with.
The point is that this specific event happened at exactly the right time, in exactly the right place, and had exactly the right impact to be what the text is talking about.
But there you go again reading this "whole world" thing to include the Americas and Australia. Why? Would you do the same in regards to any other 3000 year old text?
The spread of modern society can be seen on every continent. These are the descendants of Adam/Noah. What first started in southern Mesopotamia, civilization, is well documented as spreading all throughout the world, replacing indigenous cultures along the way. That all started at that one climate change.
The entirety of human history is the exact expected result of what's being described.
Your link describes a political state, not a city. As such a state it makes a very good definition, but has nothing to do with the definition of a city.
The people of the area knew very well there were other lands (and people) just across the hills around them. They did not limit their travels to just the small area that a flooding river might inundate. So although they did not know of other continents they DID know of other peoples - peoples that were not killed in their local flood.
The Aztec and Incan civilizations did not start in Mesopotamia. People had already migrated to the western hemisphere long before the people of Mesopotamia even developed agriculture; they developed their own civilization and societies without any influence from biblical societies. The same holds true for the far east, Australia and much (most?) of Europe; those civilizations were already there before the time of Adam and Eve, let alone Babel. And no, they are not the descendents of Adam or Noah; the only evidence you have of such a thing comes from a very obviously false tale in the bible.
I've always said that the bible is a reasonable history of a small sect of people, once the supernatural and exaggerations are removed from it. It isn't literal, it is seldom true in the details, but overall it presents a good starting point. As you have done, there is ample evidence to be found of a local flood, of climate change and even some ancient settlemtents. What there is NOT evidence for is two people created from dust (and a rib) that carried the genetic structure passed down to the modern world, a flood destruction of all the people in even that area (and a man with an ark that saved the human race and all the animals), the destruction of a tower to heaven and immediate dispersion of all the people to the far corners of the earth.
Yes, much of the world carries the technology that was developed in America. That built on what was done in Europe. That developed from what was in Mesopotamia. That started in Olduvai Gorge in Africa. If you don't start where the growth exploded, why not start at the beginning? Societies and technology was developed long before, and far away from Mesopotamia; shouldn't we be looking there as defining the starting point of civilization?
Or am I missing the whole point of your discussion? Are you saying the same thing - that scripture is a poorly written exaggerated history that can be relied on only for gross events? That it is not literal, is not a record of what actually happened? That a great deal of it came from pure imagination with little to no root in reality?
Here's another reference. Here's the definition of a city-state on an Anthropology website ...
"It is a state that operates on a large scale with centralized social and political organization, class stratification, government institutions, and based on social inequality, with a small ruling class presiding over the state."
This will be my last post to you, at least for now. I never said you were delusional or anything of the sort. I'm not rejecting your idea, I'm not accepting it - they are two very different things. By twisting what I'm saying and taking it personally, you're all but ensuring that this conversation won't continue. I understand the timeline aspect, but when you're looking for specific things, you're bound to find them in the myriad of available history. That's all well and God, but side from the timeline and what you've chosen as fitting in it, there is lots more information, none of which says what you're concluding from it. That's something that I have a problem with. If there was a mythology of a marked man coming to and ruling a city that places Cain where you said he was, that might be a path worth pursuing. Backing up your definition of a city would be another, and demonstrating that biblical authors shared your definition of a city would lead credence to it as well. But the leaps that have been made and the lack of any sources you can name seem sketchy to me. I've asked you for sources over and over again, and instead of listing them, all you can say is that it lines up and everyone else should look it up. How? Where? By what search terms. What peer reviewed journals have you used to verify the pieces? It seems like you're ignoring your opportunity to provide what you claim to have, and you can't repeatedly say this is so blatantly clear when no one - and I do mean no one - can see it except you. If I'm biased, that's fine, but you can't claim the entire world is biased against your hypothesis without at least contemplating the idea that you're not presenting it in the proper manner with references, links and support each step of the way. It's not clear to me, to scholars, to Christians, to atheists, to anyone. Is that everyone's fault, or is it maybe not as clear as you think it is? I wish you luck with your book and your per review process, and would love to read the finished product. Take care.
"You have created a timeline based on a loose interpretation of the story and then searched for recorded events that you can dump into that timeline in order to bolster your hypothesis"
"You say you have proof, but taking about it is not presenting or demonstrating it."
"I'm sorry that you don't see how easy it is to look at history and look at what you want to be true about it and find little pieces to seemingly bolster a point and make them fit."
"It's cherry picking and confirmation bias."
These are all statements that only suggest one thing. Confirmation bias, which can only be the result of delusion. Of seeing things, not as they are, but as you prefer them to be. Caused by a deep rooted want for things to be a certain way. That is a direct condemnation of delusion. I'm not twisting what you're saying. I don't just lie. No matter how insistent you are that I do.
"but when you're looking for specific things, you're bound to find them in the myriad of available history."
That only applies without the timeline. You're right, if I had the entirety of history to just pull from, like some big grab bag, then it would be easy. But when you're looking for a specific event, like an event that caused massive human migrations, right around 3900BC in Southern Mesopotamia specifically, to then find an event exactly like that (see- 5.9 kiloyear event), then that's a little more than just confirmation bias. Understand, examples as specific as that happened over and over and over again as I researched this.
I'm not out here in these forums insisting this is right for my health, or to bolster my confidence in my faith, or whatever. I'm insisting because of the extremely high, verifiably high, probability of this being factually accurate. The longer you spend imagining what I must be doing instead, the longer you sound like a creationist denying evolution in the face of mounds of evidence because it doesn't match up with what they want to see. The same thing is happening here. Only, unlike what's usually the case, the roles are reversed. And you don't even realize it.
Now I give it to you that I'm just a guy on the internet without a bunch of letters behind my name to give me verifiable credibility. I do, however, understand the hows and whys of investigation and how to do it. Don't need credentials for that. If you're interested in learning some hugely interesting verifiable facts about our human history, the truth about who we are why we are how we are, then I suggest you look into this. If you think you know better, and that the reality that you prefer is right and anything that may challenge that can be just dismissed on a whim, then feel free. Just don't take the time to write out lies that say I don't have anything and that I'm just being delusional.
You know I cannot comment on the details of your research or claims, neither can I comment on the posts of JMcFarland. But the quote from yourself does, I feel, reflect the nature of your deliberations here.
I suggest you are concentrating on supporting your particular brand of christianity with your ideas and researches. Therefore you have a biased approach to your science. You might disagree with this, unable to see the trend in your own mind.... but to me it seems this way and it might appear similar to others. I might be mistaken.
I'm not trying to support any particular religious view here. I know that is the general assumption, which is then assumed to be the justification, or motivation, behind everything I'm saying. That's how these people rationalize it to themselves. This does indeed fit along with my beliefs, but my beliefs are shaped by facts and what I have determined to be true. I'm simply using what's available to me to establish what the truth is. I have no motivation beyond that. I'm not here trying to "win souls" or bolster my own beliefs in any way.
I'm not sure how else to put it. If the events depicted in the bible are literally true, then history should show that. These events happened in this physical world and left an impression. It's all there. I can show you exactly where it does. It's really just that simple. I can show you that the events depicted in Genesis can be seen in the historical record. They really happened. All the supporting evidence that should be expected to be found to support this is there. Right along the specified timeline. Not just those events, but the impact of those events.
Lies, Jeremy? It's simply a difference of opinion. I've asked for sources, you've given none. I've asked for independent verification of your conclusion, you've given none. I have not called you delusional or even implied it, it is possible that you're simply mistaken. I am not convinced by what you've stated. It's that simple. Your insistence that thisis blatantly obvious and clear is diminished by the fact that you're the only one who sees it. But if you're going to accuse me outright of bring a liar, I don't see the need to continue now OR later, and I will withdraw my request to an archeology friend of mine requesting more information. Again, I'm sorry you take this personally, but it's not my problem.
I'm sorry, but it requires a certain level of base knowledge that isn't common knowledge to see what I'm talking about. You have to educate yourself a bit, but the history only played out one way. There's only one timeline, one series of events, taking place in one particular part of the world you have to make yourself aware of, and you're done. A period of time between 5500BC and and about 3500BC in Southern Mesopotamia. Once you know those events, the events I consistently point to, then you know them. Then there's no denying that what this ancient text describes lines right up with it. Then it will be obvious. To you or anyone else who chooses to educate themselves to the facts.
No, it's not a difference of opinion because there are facts in play. Most times, you are right, this conversation is a difference of opinion. In this case in particular, it is not. You're attempting to use the same general statements of dismissal, yet in this case I'm giving you everything you're asking for. Usually you'd say there's no proof so it's just your opinion. But I do have proof. So instead, now, the goalpost gets moved, and instead of just requiring evidence, now you want evidence AND independent verification. Eventually I'll have that too. Then I'm sure the requirement will be something else. Because the interest here isn't in truth. The interest here is in being right, or dismissing what you don't want to be true. If the truth were the goal then you can simply follow the evidence. I've laid it out for you. It can be verified.
Atheist Peeps (and alleged agnostics of various shades)
It is illogical and unscientific to keep looking for 21st century science in ancient documents. Please desist.
The science involved in Bible study involves an holistic approach using archaeology, anthroplogy, study of ancient contemporary grammar etc. If you can appreciate Shakespeare it is because of the holistic approach to the study of Shakespeare. Why suddenly throw out scientific study when it comes to the proper study of scripture? I will let your conscience answer in silence.
Work has picked up and my injured calf muscle is ok so I will NOT have time to duel with words.
JCL my door is open.
Wilderness our intellectual levels are way to disparate to have a decent scientific conversation. Look at the science as described and try again. Good luck!
Jmcf my door is always open as you have the requisite intellect to discuss these things.
Hmm, interesting that someone would use the term: holistic because, in many ways, both sides of Theos use the holistic method, in combination with their particular tools of testing. I find it fascinating because it is rare to hear modern philosoph use that exact term.
The sad part about Oztinato's statement is that scientific study (which I am assuming is purely mechanic and absent of sensationalism) has not been "thrown out" nor has it ever proven, or disproven, the root of human origin. And, given the current stasis of technology being used to test parameters, highly doubt it ever will. Why? Simply said, the volume of things that have, do and quite possibly will exist, are too great in number to measure in full detail -each and every one -even if we had all their parts and pieces. DNA is limited and has no doubt changed, just in humans alone, since their beginning. In a single speck there can exist the traces of 25B years of history. The reality is, we don't have 25B years to study that speck as a whole and then its parts entirely, thoroughly.
Also, I have never met anyone who studied Shakespeare, in the mechanical sense, yet many who have read and appreciated Shakespeare simply because it's Shakespeare. I pity the human who would approach his words in solely the scientific method. How sad, narrow and genuinely unimaginative.
"Oh Captain, my captain! "
Its impossible to understand Shakespeare without understanding the context and antiquated grammar as it was written hundreds of years ago in a very different society.(likewise scripture)
You should know that. How come you dont??
Such an interesting perspective.
Shakespeare, among countless writers, scrib for their audience, in their society, in their time. How naive of us to assume he, or any other author, wrote for times before or times to come. Was Shakespeare to know his plays, sonnets and poetry would live on, and be treasured, 600 years aft his demise? Did he foresee his dialect replaced with "Western English". As said many times, a love letter in Russian can be seen as a hate letter to an ex-mum-in-law when translated to Mayan...
It is, therefore, only intelligent to say the same of the writers of the books within Torah, as well as the Letters within the compilation called New Testimony. Those writers wrote exclusively to their audience(s). Did they presume thousands of years later, those stone tablets and papyrus pages would become the fascination of millions? Absolutely not.
Therefore, we should not think it is or was necessary to transpose context to fit modern ideology. Same holds true of the philosophers of old. True, we can read, appreciate and perhaps, to some degree, apply their perspective to our time. But never should we dissect those writings into literary soundbites -scientifically or sensationally. Sadly, both sides of Theos have done just that. Science dissecting, Sensation dissecting. Then having the audacity to display those dissected bits (soundbites) like trophies, as to woo and sway the masses and convince them of their supremacy.
All one need do is read Shakespeare. I will wager heavily that once a person reads Shakespeare, they'll understand his words, his dialect, his point entirely, without the unnecessary handicaps. Same goes every any other written item.
So, again, I say, "Oh Captain, my captain!".
There are thousands of words and concepts and references in Shakespeare that can only be understood with scrupulous study: otherwise you will only get about 10% of it; unless your first language is Old English!
That's why most of the plays of Shakespeare come with detailed footnotes and copious explanations.
As I said you Should know that.
You're missing the overall point. The cities of the Ubaid culture, including Eridu were different than any others ...
"vThe Ubaid period as a whole, based upon the analysis of grave goods, was one of increasingly polarised social stratification and decreasing egalitarianism." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubaid_period
This was because, according to the Sumerians, a god showed up one day and turned them into a working class. The Ubaid is noted as being the first where this happened. Unlike any culture that came before where everyone was equal. There was a lack of equality here because there was someone who showed up who wasn't entirely human. Someone who lived for centuries. Someone who the Sumerians viewed as a god.
Everything is there. The Sumerians description of what happened, starting in Eridu, the actual class stratification found in the archaeological evidence, first ever, the technological advancements that showed up here first, taught to them by these same gods according to the Sumerians. What happened is what Genesis describes. It changed the world. Forever. Starting there. All the evidence backs it up.
I think we're on different tracks here. You reported that Eridu was the first city in the world; I replied that it certainly was not, that there were documented examples thousands of years older. Then you said that Eridu was the first "real" city because it culturally stratified and I asked for something saying that was the definition of a city. You have provided several links, all about stratification being necessary for a political state and nothing about the definition of a city.
In any case, definitions of what a city is has little to do with the veracity of scriptural tales and reports. It IS instructive, though, to look at what you are now saying; that the first technology appeared in your biblical timeline. This is completely false; the first technology was in turning stone into spear points, knives or grinding tools. Not buildings.
The advancements you are presenting as the first ever, given by gods, are nothing but improvements on the use of stone tools in creating better "caves" to live in; tools invented without gods tens of thousands of years earlier. No gods needed, and no evidence there was such - just human ingenuity. Yes, it changed the world, but so did an obsidian spear point or even a pointed stick charred hard by fire. And every other discovery ever made even though most of the methodology used during that time is long lost to us. What you are using as an example of the great and wonderful gifts from the gods are but improvements on older technology and all discovered independently of any god. Peoples from all over the world have, completely independently, proclaimed that "The gods did this" and "The gods did that" but as of this time not a single one of the claims has ever been verified to be true. Your timeline, giving a rough correlation between recorded events and actual history, shows only that things happened in Mesopotamia just as things happened all over the world. Not that a god was involved, whether an Incan diety or the Christian god.
You're right in that we're getting side-tracked. How our modern definitions apply to what is and isn't a city is irrelevant. What we're looking at here is the relevancy of Eridu being the city in particular that Genesis is talking about.
To call the advancements accomplished by the Sumerians as glorified pointy sticks is incredibly false. They invented mathematics, astronomy, the first written language, the first government, the first written laws, the first schools, the wheel, and on and on and on. Not to mention civilization proper. Nothing like this happened anywhere else. These advancements started here and then spread from here.
That's where that climate change comes into play. After that climate change came writing and advanced technology in Egypt and in the Indus valley and elsewhere. The people of this particular region accomplished things no one else did, and then these changes, including a dramatic behavior change, took charge all throughout the world.
Not only is Eridu where it all began, according to Archaeology, according to the Sumerians themselves, but from there came everything. The introduction of free will, depicted in Genesis, happened here. Not only do the dates match up, not onlly do other cities specifically mentioned in Genesis and by the Sumerians match up, but so does the impact of the events of Genesis. Everythingg we should expect to see, including texts claiming these super human beings actually existed and interacted with humans, is there.
"Mathematics in China emerged independently by the 11th century BC."
"Early Chinese mathematics is so different from that of other parts of the world that it is reasonable to assume independent development.
The Aztecs developed mathematics, and without influence from the Sumerians.
https://math.temple.edu/~zit/Native%20A … cs_num.pdf
So did the Incas
http://www.peru-travels.com/information … -incas.php
Even ancient, prehistoric, societies used very early mathematics. " the Ishango bone, found near the headwaters of the Nile river (northeastern Congo), may be as much as 20,000 years old and consists of a series of tally marks carved in three columns running the length of the bone. Common interpretations are that the Ishango bone shows either the earliest known demonstration of sequences of prime numbers or a six-month lunar calendar."
the Ishango bone, found near the headwaters of the Nile river (northeastern Congo), may be as much as 20,000 years old and consists of a series of tally marks carved in three columns running the length of the bone. Common interpretations are that the Ishango bone shows either the earliest known demonstration of sequences of prime numbers or a six-month lunar calendar.
the Ishango bone, found near the headwaters of the Nile river (northeastern Congo), may be as much as 20,000 years old and consists of a series of tally marks carved in three columns running the length of the bone. Common interpretations are that the Ishango bone shows either the earliest known demonstration of sequences of prime numbers or a six-month lunar calendar.
Again, you simply seem to ignore what doesn't fit with what you're trying to say. Mathematics has been developed independently several times in human history, beginning long, long before Eridu existed. What you're claiming to be new inventions from the gods are, just like the other technologies, simply building on what was already begun long before.
And most certainly free will did not originate in the garden of Eden, wherever that was supposed to be. It happened thousands upon thousands of years before, in the heart of Africa when proto-humans first appeared. Genesis can (and does) make claims otherwise, but as we both acknowledge scripture is not reality and bears only a tenuous correlation. As you are pointing out.
To compare Eridu technology to "pointy sticks" is no different that what you're saying; that the trip to moon originated in Eridu.
That's interesting about chinese mathematics. I didn't know that. But by that time the descendants of Noah had already reached there. The same goes for the Americas ...
"..another possibility is that these "spots" of patrism (free will) were the result of the migrations of the Saharasian peoples into America in the pre-Columbian era.... He notes that there were three main patrist areas of the Americas: Caribbean Mesoamerica (that is, where the Aztecs and Maya lived), Peru (where the Incas lived) and also the north-west Pacific of the north-west coast of Canada, including present-day British Columbia. He speculates that Saharasian peoples (people from Sumer) may have arrived in the morth-west Pacific first - possibly from Japan or China - and migrated southwards, displacing matrist cultures and painting further spots of patrism ove rthe general background of matrism, until they reached middle America and the Peru. Evidence for this includes cultural similarities between Indians of the Pacific north-wst and dynastic Chinese culture (such as artwork, clothing, drums, and diet) and linguistic similarities. At the same time there are cultural and linguistic simularities beetween the three patrist areas of the Americas, suggesting that the peoples are related.
Theis theory is controversial, bbut it has gained some support fro mthe Chinese archaeologist H.M. Xu. In his book 'The Origin of the Olmec Civilization' Xu suggests that, rather than being refugees from a esert area, the Olmecs were migrants from China. The Olmec culture flourished in Mexico from around 1200 to 400 BCE and is usually seen as the "mother culture" of all the middle American civilizations. The Olmecs built the first temples and religious centers in the region, ,and developed a rudimentary kind of state, in which an elite group ruled over a mass of peasant laborers. Xu argues that the Olmecs saled to Mexico from China after the fall of the Shang Dynasty in 1122 BCE. He notes that around this time about 250,000 people disappeared, and suggests that at least some of these traveled to the Americas. This explains the presence of what appear to be Chinese symbols in Olmec written records, and strong similarities in art, architecture, religion, and astronomical knowledge." - Steve Taylor, The Fall
So as you can see there's strong evidence that suggests mathematics and other advanced things that turned up in the Americas also came over from what started in Sumer. What this author refers to as "Saharasian people'.
I'm not ignoring anything. I'm taking absolutely everything into consideration. And there is a very obvious progression that shows what started in Mesopotamia, right where the stories of the bible are set, spread all throughout the world from there. That's the continued impact of the events of Genesis playing out throughout history, like ripples in water.
Wilderness - "And most certainly free will did not originate in the garden of Eden, wherever that was supposed to be. It happened thousands upon thousands of years before, in the heart of Africa when proto-humans first appeared. "
No. The point in which humans took a decidedly broad step away from behaving in harmony with nature is in the Ubaid culture. This is when humans began to change and bend the natural world to their whim.
Wilderness - "To compare Eridu technology to "pointy sticks" is no different that what you're saying; that the trip to moon originated in Eridu."
I'm not comparing Eridu technology to pointy sticks. You're trying to suggest that what was accomplished at Eridu was just a natural progression from when humans first started making tools. Writing alone should give you an indication. And astronomy and mathematics. The inventions of the Sumerians shows a much more advanced mind and thinking than what came before.
What you're saying might (might) have happened in the Americas would be improbable at best. The western hemisphere has been occupied for some 6,000 years, building their own version of civilization. To conveniently assume that Chinese sailed across and took over the entire west coast, building a new civilization based on Sumerian ideas (not present in China) seems pie in the sky. Don't forget, Chinese math was invented independently and is NOT based on Sumerian thought. Nor did the civilization take the same road as to politics or other technology. No, there is zero reason to think that the peoples of the "new world" were influenced by a civilization that came thousands of years after their migration - they did it themselves and the vast majority of anthropologists agree with that.
The Sumerians had a much more advanced mind than was previously present? And this is the reason you think gods gave the gift of knowledge?
All I can say to that is "How quaint!" It seems very obvious (as obvious as what you are proposing does to you) that the idea is more made up reasons to think the gods exist. There is exactly zero reason to think their brains (or basic gene structures) were any different from peoples all over the rest of the world, from Peru to Canada to Australia. There are certainly differences in both brain and bodies of different races, but nowhere enough to propose that all knowledge and/or civilization originated in Sumeria.
Or are you willing to take the next obvious step and declare that those people don't have the intellectual capacity of Europeans? Because progress very nearly stopped dead in northern Africa while it was Europe that provided the basis for the explosion or knowledge we've seen the past few hundred years.
Note, it's not sumerian 'thought' particularly as it's the impact of free will and how it changes behavior and thought. It would never occur to anyone without free will to invent mathematics or writing or astronomy. This requires a self-awareness not present in humanity before it was introduced through the descendants of Noah. If mathematics was developed independently in Asia, which it very well could have, it's the result of free will getting there first. Free will then reached the Americas through this migration from China.
The 'advanced mind' is more the result of free will. But the influence of the gods can be seen. The difference can be seen in what differentiates civilized humans from indigenous humans. Indigenous humans lack that acute self-awareness that makes us "civilized" humans think we can own land and property. Ideas that are all but remote to indigenous cultures. To them all the Earth belongs to all the living. As it should.
What happened in Europe first started in Sumer and spread to there. The progression can be seen. First in the Ubaid culture, then that climate change that dispersed the people of that age, then into Greece and Rome and elsewhere. Free will is what happened. Isn't it obvious? Afterall, it's the indigenous cultures who still live in harmony with nature, and it's the "civilized" humans who wreck things and run them off their land. That's because we were separated from nature long ago.
No, it isn't obvious at all. Free will existed many millenia before Sumeria; the results can be seen in the migration to the new world. It can be seen in the migration TO Sumeria as well as from it. It can be seen in the invention of tools and the changing lifestyle of humans a hundred thousand years before Sumeria existed.
You're making a giant assumption, and have another big definition problem here. An assumption that free will caused inventiveness and that the peoples of Sumeria got a god given gift the rest of the human race did not in their superior minds. And the only thing you've got to point to is a supernatural tale of the Garden, the snake and the tree; none of which ever existed at all.
Somewhere in the collection of humanity the mind we possess was bound to invent things. It already had, and there is no reason to believe it would not continue - that that mind happened to come up with ideas in Sumeria prior to other locations is as much happenstance as anything else.
I'm sorry, but you're completely wrong, and you're not doing yourself any favors by assuming what I'm doing is making stuff up. I have the evidence to back me up. I have two books where archaeologists heavily studied the topic and proved exactly what I"m saying ...
- Saharasia: The 4000 BCE Origins of Child Abuse, Sex-Repression, Warfare and Social Violence, In the Deserts of the Old World' by James DeMeo
- The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of A New Era' by Steve Taylor
They don't call it free will, they equate to the emergence of the modern human ego, but it's the same thing. They explain everything from the inventions to the progression that can be seen starting in Sumer and spreading from there. And they bring copius amounts of evidence to back it up. In fact, Saharasia is a big, thick book that is basically a huge catalog of evidence. Behavior patterns changed, and we can see exactly where. the emergence of the ego is exactly what the introduction of free will is. Like when it said Adam and Eve became aware of being naked. They became self-aware. They developed an ego. An ego that would make you more inclined to need to write things down or figure things out with math or astronomy.
You keep assuming what I'm doing being flawed by the fact that I'm a believer. You immediately and automatically discount me because of what my theory is based on or from what position I'm coming from. Hopefully you'll begin to realize this flaw in yourself and correct it. I've got nothing but truth to offer.
Sorry, you've got it backwards. Increasing local population levels give rise to the actions you list, not the other way around. Larger populations also allow a small percentage of people to think, to reason and to work on "academic" subjects, not the other way. The city, in other words, gave rise to math, astronomy and yes the social violence you mention, not some god given mental gift.
I'm quite well aware of what the bible said about A&E, but I also recognize that it didn't happen. Ego, self awareness, intelligence and yes, inventiveness existed and were used extensively thousands upon thousands of years prior to any Garden in your timeline. AND, we have the evidence to show it, not just a fanciful tale told by shepherds in the fields.
Reading back again, you may be right in your last paragraph, but not the way you meant it.
It becomes pretty clear that your basic stance is that the bible is right; that the stories are true. You even say so. And that is becoming apparent. You've taken some of the historical tales from the bible and found real events that might have been what was referred to. And then, without perceptible reason, jumped to assuming that the supernature tales are also true and are trying to concoct a reason to back it up. Now it's that the God gave man ego; ego that Eve used before receiving it to eat the apple. And to back it you've come up with a fantastic theory that the people of Sumeria were the only ones on earth (in spite of absolute and repeated evidence to the contrary) and are attempting to justify it by saying that because indigenous Americans were not as technologically advance it must be true.
It doesn't fly. It's a fine theory but so far you have exactly nothing to back it up with but half baked theories based on biblical tales; the very tales you're trying to prove with the theories! It just doesn't work that way.
No, no, don't get it confused. I have plenty to back it up. Let me repeat. First I formed and fleshed out the theory. If these events literally happened, flesh it out, what sort of things should we expect to see. I used this to form predictions. Like those books that talk about this massive behavior change. I found those books because my theory predicted it, and lo and behold, not only is it true, but there are multiple books dedicated to it. They laid out exactly what was predicted, from the behavior change, to where it started, to when. You understand? And they actually referred me to that climate change because this behavior change can actually be followed along that climate change and mass dispersion. Predictions that specific checked out, over and over again.
I take the time to have these conversations and flesh it out, not because I just enjoy to argue, but because I truly feel this is monumentally important and relevant to every human on the planet. Seriously, when I started this thing, it was just for my own understanding. I seriously never expected to find all I did. My thought was plenty of people have really looked into anything I could possibly think of to look into, and I'm not going to find anything that hasn't been found already.
I needed an anchor for the scripture. Those first few chapters seemed very myth sounding to me, except Jesus would refer to them as if they were true. I had no context to ground the stories in so I just couldn't get into them. I needed to understand where and when they took place. Find some context. I had this crazy idea about it already being populated and just started thinking about it. First off, the stories got a lot less confusing. They started to make more sense. So I found an approximate place in history based on Abraham being born 2000 years after Adam and Abraham having dealings with the Egyptians and started looking into already populated history.
The super human aspect came later. Once I had already fleshed it out and found that it was actually describing the onset of multiple civilizations incredibly accurately, I started to think well, the bible's whole timeline is built on the extremely long ages of these people, and the timeline is accurate. I thought of the possibility of each name in Genesis 5 representing a family line and not an individual, except it kept specifically saying so-and-so was 150 when so-and-so was born. It even says Abraham lived to like 150.
So then I thought about it. You know, every culture that came about after that climate change, the Sumerians, the Egyptians, the Indus Valley, the Hittites, the Greeks, the Romans, every single one of them actually wrote stories about these gods that lived among them. Yet all the stories were completely different. But they all share that theme. But just in that area. No other cultures told stories like this. Even though it's widely assumed all these cultures came up with these mythologies to make sense of things. Each one independently. Yet all these other cultures, like the Mayans and Incas, the Chinese, all these other civilizations didn't have mythological gods like that. All of them that did just existed in this specific area of the world. That's kind of strange, don't you think?
And according to all of them, these gods actually interacted with them, mated and had children by them. Then I realized that's the only people the 'Nephilim' could have been referring to in Genesis 6. It says they were the "heroes of old, men of renown". And their descendants were immediately visibly recognizable to people who spent multiple generations as slaves in Numbers 13 I think it is. They were described as very large. So who would the intended audience of this text be familiar with that would fit that bill?
Well, how about all the stories that were floating around that area of the world about these gods? Abraham even talks about these gods. I know it sounds crazy, but literally everything you should expect to see if true is there. It all lines up. Everything. Not only do the events line up. Not only does the timeline line up. But everything you'd expect to see if these people really lived that long actually existed. It actually explains a lot. If God actually created beings like what's described in a world already populated by naturally evolved humans, it's there.
Again, I just find this monumentally relevant and important. If I didn't believe it myself, if I didn't have damn good reason to think I'm really onto something, then I wouldn't be bothering you people with it. Beating you over the head with it. It's been a really frustrating thing for me. I have literally stumbled on something that really clarifies human history, that really fills in the blanks, and literally nobody is willing to even consider it. I come here because there are a higher than average number of educated informed people. But, as it turns out, they seem to be the worst with this assumption that I'm just some believer making stuff up for whatever reason they concoct in their minds.
I mean, I get it, it's healthy to approach the internet in general with a healthy level of skepticism. But come on. Most people talking against God and religion insist on evidence. I actually have evidence. Yet it's impossible to get people to take a real look at what I'm talking about. Even though you're so insistent on getting evidence, once you have it you refuse to take it seriously, or even consider it half-assedly. It's been a frustrating thing that I've gotten more than fed up about time and again, but I keep banging my head against the wall because I'm stupid I guess.
But, Headly, your evidence that a god came to earth and made A&E (and thereby mankind as we know it) is that people invented things and learned.
That's hardly evidence of a god (we learned a million times as much in the last 50 years and without any god feeding us information), and adding that because a historical account has a tenuous connection to reality means a fairy tale is actual and real doesn't add anything to it.
Now add in that much of the same thing happened all over the earth at different times and places, without any god forcing it, and the only possible conclusion is that the fairy tale part is just that: a fairy tale. That the history is exaggerated beyond recognition doesn't help, either.
No, no, no, what you're saying here is half the problem. The assumption made for decades now is that farming led to higher populations, which led to more interactions, which led to inventions and advancements, etc. Or that mythological gods of Greece and Rome are just invented to help them make sense of the natural world. All these assumptions that actually don't line up at all with the evidence. Like the technological advancements. If you look at the history of farming, it spread rather quickly, all throughout the world. If it were actually how you said it was, then inventions and advancement should have followed right along with farming. It didn't. Those advancements should have happened in all those pre-Sumer cultures, they don't.
That's what I find so insightful about this. It actually offers an explanation that simultaneously explains the bible, mythology, and human history. It offers explanations about the birth of civilization. It explains all of those particulars. It lines up better than all of those widely accepted assumptions. Assumptions that if one would just look at the evidence you'd quickly realize they don't match up. But many do what you do. They just assume that's how it is and don't bother to look.
There were so many things about our human history, just like the examples I gave above, that didn't make sense to me. All of the sudden this one explanation made sense out of all of it. You won't even realize just how many things this addresses until you take it seriously. It clears up so much I can't even begin to explain. Believe me, I'm so certain because there's so much that lines up I can't include it all here. It's not just the timeline. It's not just these events. It's literally every direction you look. When you've got the right answer, then everything comes into focus. That's how this has been.
Think about this. For about 6 months before I even dared speak any of this to anyone, I tried to break it. I was sure that it couldn't be true, but I couldn't find a good reason to say for certain that it was wrong. I was sure as soon as I brought it up to someone else they'd bring something up that just blew it out of the water. So I wanted to find it first, before I embarrassed myself. It never came. I've researched it from every angle, you can't imagine some of the things I've read just to test this out. The kinds of books I bought. Like that Saharasia, which is just basically a catalog of evidence. I have that thing sitting on my desk.
Sooner or later I'll tell the right people. This will catch on. Before long this will be taught in schools. This is pivotal information. It's vital, it sits right at the heart of the pivotal events that made modern humanity what it is. It finally puts some crucial puzzle pieces in place. I have no doubt at this point. After 3 years of having people try to criticize it online, countless discussions, I have no doubt. It addresses everything. Every criticism, no matter what direction you come at it.
OK, you have convinced yourself as a result of your research and your conclusions. This is what I see from the work, beginning with the belief that the bible is true and literal (literal as long as we change the meaning of the words to something they don't say, anyway):
The bible says people lived for a millenium. You can find no evidence of such, but build a timeline based on impossible ages for people. That timeline is then used to look for other evidence that will match biblical tales.
The bible says there was an ancient city. You find evidence that a city existed in about the right place and time on your timeline based on about a month per year. The bible may be correct.
The bible says there was a flood, destroying the world. You find evidence that a small, local flood destroyed some of the civilization existing at that time and place (again based on an incorrect timeline). The bible may be correct if we assume that the "world" means the local citizenry and that killing of everyone means a local village or two.
The bible says Babel was destroyed and the people scattered to the corners of the earth. You find that there was a climate change at about the right time and place, but cannot find the tower or even an abandoned culture. The bible may be correct, if changed to indicate a slow migration over hundreds/thousands of years instead of a rapid scattering and if the migration is only a thousand miles instead of across oceans and continents.
But. Then comes the big one; the one that counts and pulls it all together with a god. The bible says A&E were built in the Garden and were the first people. You can't find a garden, you can't find Adam or Eve, and must change the "first people" to just two more of the same old crowd. You find that primitive technology and farming were taking place (after being discovered thousands of years prior in hundreds of locations throughout the world) and jump to the conclusion that a god changed the Sumerians to give them free will. Free will (ego, whatever you wish to call it) had already existed for a hundred thousand years, but you will ignore the actions of anyone outside North Africa to pretend it only happened there, and define it in such a way that you can claim it began in Sumeria.
You've found the stick to poke holes in your arguments, but refuse to use it. There are no traces of a god to be found. The actions of the Sumerians were repeated all over the world without a god, or with different local gods. The things you admire in the Sumerians (mathematics, "astronomy" etc. were also repeated everywhere without a god. The agrarian society you think the gods provided was already in place there before the change in culture and provided the driving force behind the increase in knowledge, but you wish to attribute it to a god instead, in spite of seeing it in action many times throughout history. You attribute the relatively rapid rise in knowledge base to a god feeding information in spite of again seeing it happen over and over throughout the world.
You have no doubt that you are right. Of course you have no doubt: the reality of what happened is buried deep under a belief that a god did it. A belief supported solely by scripture, written by people known to exaggerate, and passed through generations by word of mouth with every mouth adding just a little bit to the story (that's how those things work, you know). As long as the end result must show biblical tales to be true and literal...why, the conclusions drawn absolutely will show it to be so!
"This is what I see from the work, beginning with the belief that the bible is true and literal"
Wrong. I just considered it seriously. Not starting from a belief. If you'll recall, I spent months convinced it couldn't be true trying to find something concrete that proved it. But whatever, assume delusion because I'm a believer. It's a safe bet.
"The bible says people lived for a millenium. You can find no evidence of such..."
Countless texts written by multiple cultures all claiming it's true. What evidence should we be looking for exactly?
"The bible says there was an ancient city. You find evidence that a city existed in about the right place and time on your timeline based on about a month per year."
Based on about a month per year? I don't even know what that means. Again, there were many qualifying factors that led to this. Length of time culture existed, 1500 years, when and where, 5500BC in Southern Mesopotamia, story by culture that built it that matches up, well documented behavior change, etc.
"The bible says there was a flood, destroying the world. You find evidence that a small, local flood destroyed some of the civilization existing at that time and place (again based on an incorrect timeline). The bible may be correct if we assume that the "world" means the local citizenry and that killing of everyone means a local village or two."
Again, we're talking about authors who had no concept of what the whole world was. So how could they be speaking of the whole world as we understand that to mean today? This is just common sense.
"The bible says Babel was destroyed and the people scattered to the corners of the earth. You find that there was a climate change at about the right time and place, but cannot find the tower or even an abandoned culture."
Wrong, the Tower is in Eridu ...
"The Egyptologist David Rohl, has conjectured that Eridu, to the south of Ur, was the original Babel and site of the Tower of Babel, rather than the later city of Babylon, for several reasons:
The ziggurat ruins of Eridu are far larger and older than any others, and seem to best match the Biblical description of the unfinished Tower of Babel
- One name of Eridu in cuneiform logograms was pronounced "NUN.KI" ("the Mighty Place") in Sumerian, but much later the same "NUN.KI" was understood to mean the city of Babylon.
- The much later Greek version of the King-list by Berossus (c. 200 BC) reads "Babylon" in place of "Eridu" in the earlier versions, as the name of the oldest city where "the kingship was lowered from Heaven".
- Rohl further equate Biblical Nimrod, said to have built Erech (Uruk) and Babel, with the name Enmerkar (-KAR meaning "hunter") of the king-list and other legends, who is said to have built temples both in his capital of Uruk and in Eridu.
Other scholars have discussed at length a number of additional correspondences between the names of "Babylon" and "Eridu". Historical tablets state that Sargon of Akkad (ca. 2300 BC) dug up the original "Babylon" and rebuilt it near Akkad, though some scholars suspect this may in fact refer to the much later Assyrian king Sargon II." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eridu#Poss … r_of_Babel
"The bible may be correct, if changed to indicate a slow migration over hundreds/thousands of years instead of a rapid scattering and if the migration is only a thousand miles instead of across oceans and continents."
Again, the people of that age had no concept of what the whole world was. Besides, the evidence of that behavior change shows that it did spread across all the Earth. Hard evidence. And who said the migration took hundreds/thousands of years? It didn't.
"You can't find a garden, you can't find Adam or Eve, and must change the "first people" to just two more of the same old crowd."
I didn't change it. Genesis 1 says God created humans, then Genesis 2 says God created Adam and Eve. It's always just assumed these are both speaking of the same event. The bible story is clearly set in an already populated world as evidenced in the story of Cain who specifically mentions 'others' he's likely to encounter.
"You find that primitive technology and farming were taking place (after being discovered thousands of years prior in hundreds of locations throughout the world) and jump to the conclusion that a god changed the Sumerians to give them free will. Free will (ego, whatever you wish to call it) had already existed for a hundred thousand years, but you will ignore the actions of anyone outside North Africa to pretend it only happened there, and define it in such a way that you can claim it began in Sumeria."
Nope, didn't jump to conclusions. I've already pointed out how what you think is wrong. Show me how I'm wrong. I can back up what I'm saying with evidence. I have an entire tome of evidence that shows a behavior change that people beyond me and much more qualified agree is evidence of the emergence of a modern human ego. I gave you two books as reference that you chose to ignore. I'm not ignoring anything.
"There are no traces of a god to be found. The actions of the Sumerians were repeated all over the world without a god, or with different local gods.
Completely wrong. Any arhaeologist will tell you that what the Sumerians did definitely was not repeated anywhere, let along "all over the world". As usual, you're doing what others do and are just assuming you already know how things happened, though there's no evidence to back it up.
"You have no doubt that you are right. Of course you have no doubt: the reality of what happened is buried deep under a belief that a god did it.
Typical. This is how important advancements in knowledge get missed over and over again. Assumptions just like the one you're making here. Because I'm a believer then my belief must be deluding my ability to see things clearly.
Stay in the dark, Wilderness, that's fine with me. Thanks for totally wasting my time.
I'm sorry you feel it was a waste of time; I've always found other viewpoints and, more importantly, thought processes to be educational. And I'm sorrier yet that you take offense to how I see your conclusions as coming from a belief rather than hard evidence. But allow me to respond to some of your points and perhaps you will understand.
"Countless texts written by multiple cultures all claiming it's true." (1,000 year lifespans). Only one culture I'm aware of has made that claim, and it's the one we discuss. In any case, claims do not evidence make - only claims. You've found evidence of a city, for example - find evidence beyond unsupported claims of long life. How? I don't know - that is your problem - but I DO know the mere claims are not proof. We've had claims for nearly everything under the sun, but the claimants very seldom produce solid, evidential proof.
Month per year - if lifespans were the more normal we can expect, your timeline is off by about a factor of 12 - one month in reality equals about one year of "biblical time" and your timeline. Was there a mistake in translation or were lifespans simply exaggerated to give honored ancestors a "bigger than life" aspect?
But the flood story tellers DID know that others lived on the ridgeline, and at least a little beyond. The ridgeline that the flood did not reach and where the people survived the flood. The flood that killed every living creature on earth outside the ark. That a deadly flood occurred is quite probably - that the bards expanded and exaggerated it beyond belief is unmistakable. Just as they do today, just as they did then with other tales they could not have witnessed (Eve from a rib, maybe).
The behavior change you describe (agriculture, learning, knowledge acquisition, astronomy, etc.) were all repeated over and over. People in the Americas, for instance, used agriculture and, later on, we see multiple examples of virtual explosions of knowledge. Sumeria was not unique here, not at all.
Yes, Cain met his siblings. Not others that had ancestors far predating Adam. This idea, that Adam was first, has been accepted for two thousand years by scholars across the world; I can see no reason to change the meaning again without hard evidence. That Cain met people is not hard evidence that the idea of A&E needs to modified and changed.
Sorry on the ego, but you continue to deny free will to the peoples that made use of the Bering Sea landbridge. The ones that came out of central Africa to Sumeria, the ones that migrated to China. The ones the carved stone spear points or made the cave drawings (and who would deny that artistic efforts requires ego, or free will?) a thousand generations prior to what you claim was the first instance.
As far as a behavior change...well, city dwelling rather than hunter gatherers will do that to a people. There is no need for a god to accomplish that - just human nature and a changing environment with a changing population density.
Again, what the Sumerians did WAS repeated. Over and over. Sumeria may have invented agriculture, but so did American Indians. And Chinese. And (I believe) Australians. And Europeans - early Europeans were hunter gatherers and it was much later that agriculture developed independently of Sumeria. Mathematics was invented independently. Peoples the world over have tracked and recorded the movement of celestial bodies - stonehenge is but one example of hundreds.
And finally, what I find: there are alternative reasons for what you find to be proof of the gods; reasons just as compelling but that do not require a god. Agriculture, for instance, makes cities possible (regardless of whether you like to accept that or not) and cities make the "thinkers", the "philosophers", possible that the produce mathematics and astronomy. No god required.
But there is another possibility as well. Over and over again in our history we see one person that comes up with one idea that changes the world forever. The Einsteins (that gave nuclear power), the Galileos (that gave true astronomy rather than merely charting movements). The Louis Pasteur's (that began modern health care), the William Shockleys, John Bardeens, and Walter Brattains (that provided the root for computers and the information age). The Henry Ford's, without whom the industrial revolution would have sputtered and died. Whoever found how to control fire. A single discovery or invention that transformed the world, all without the need of a god. There is absolutely no reason to think that Sumerians needed a god to give them the inventions and discoveries they came up with; all it took was a single person planting a single seed and having the light bulb go off.
But that doesn't work for you. As a believer it is ignored in favor of pretending that mankind cannot discover or invent; that a god must have done it. You've put a lot of work into this, but at the root it is still based on the idea that god exists, that it made the universe and mankind. Without that belief the whole thing just kind of falls apart, leaving only a rather tenuous connection between reality and the history of the bible; nothing for showing the gods are out there or interfered in the growth of the human species.
But you keep on, for you could be right yet. It could be the way you think it was. We'll just need a lot more evidence than conjecture. An example here is the conjecture of David Rohl who thinks the biblical tower was in Eridu, but has never found a single piece of it. Rohls "evidence" may be enough to justify doin the research to find out; it isn't enough to make the claim any more than yours is. Likewise, find that Garden with its trees. Find the tower. Find a major genetic change linked to ego, and that occurred at the right time and place. Find an ark large enough to carry a couple of farms on it, along with supporting groceries for a year, near the top of the Ararat mountain range and that dates to the proper time.
Or, if you're bound and determined that a god did it all, find that god. Until then your "proof" is but opinion and conjecture. Guesses and possibilities. A possible explanation sitting among others equally valid. Not proof.
"Sorry, you've got it backwards. Increasing local population levels give rise to the actions you list, not the other way around. "
That's demonstrably wrong. As both of those books cover. LIke you said, there were highly populated cultures that you were trying to say were cities that existed over a 1000 years before Sumer. Yet you don't hear about them much because none of what happened in Sumer happened there. farming spread pretty steadily throughout the world, lending to higher populations throughout the world, yet none of what I'm talking about followed as it should have if what you're saying were true. It didn't. It came with the wave of people that spread from Sumer. This is heavily documented in those two books I referred to. I suggest you look into them.
I wish you'd open your mind a little bit and consider the outside possibility that, though I have the handicap of being a Christian, I'm still capable of figuring things out.
Like I said, I have a lot, well beyond just the bible. I only used the bible to build the hypothesis. Everything else comes from outside of the bible. Mounds of evidence that supports the hypothesis because the hypothesis is accurate. And has proven itself accurate time and time again. That's why I know I know what I'm talking about. That's why I know this isn't just my "wishful thinking" or whatever. Because everything my hypothesis predicted proved true. No matter how specific it got. I found specifically, exactly what I was looking for. Each and every time.
The Sumerian King's List also supports extra long lifespans. And just as the hypothesis predicts, that' consistent with what should be expected considering the Sumerians were the ones located right in that same area. But nevermind that. Nevermind the whole superhuman aspect of it.
It's simply this. Just as other scientific truths that have been determined, the same method was used here. What evidence is available matches what should be expected if these things actually happened. You and others here are so often dismissing these texts as obvious fiction, yet the evidence supports that they're not. Whether you want to actually consider that or not. I undertand you've already made your mind up as far as what can possibly be true, and this flies right in the face of that, so of course you're going to go with your preferred answer. Some may say giant reptiles are impossible as that too sounds ridiculous given our life experiences. Of course at one time on this earth that was actually true. We know that because of evidence. That's how we determine things.
As usual, the atheist who normally demands evidence on a regular basis chooses to ignore it when it's provided. A very common response.
As for your whole "ridgeline" idea about the flood, another imagined answer preferred to over the evidence. Here's a description of why the author, because of the curvature of the Earth, would think the whole world is covered ... http://ncse.com/rncse/29/5/yes-noahs-fl … hole-earth under "curvature of the earth"
As for your claim that the behavior change seen in Sumer happened over and over, you're wrong. The experts disagree. Don't worry, you don't have to take my word for it....
"the prevailing view is still that male dominance, along with private property and slavery, were all by-products of the agrarian revolution...despite the evidence that, on the contrary, equality between the sexes - and among all people - was the general norm in the Neolithic." -Riane Eisler, American Scholar, Cultural Historian
"The thousand years or so immediately preceding 3000 BC were perhaps more fertile in inventions and discoveries than any period in human history prior to the sixteenth century AD" - V. Gordon Childe, Archaeologist and Philologist
"a tremendous explosion of knowledge took place as writing, mathematics, and astronomy were discovered. It was as if the human mind had suddenly revealed a new dimension of itself." - Anne Baring and Jules Cashford, The Myth of the Goddess
The ego thing, I already gave you books by experts that back up what I'm saying, so please stop acting like I made it up to fit my theory. Your imagined idea that free will existed since before we left Africa is exactly that. No basis in facts at all. Many animals have migrated. Migrating does not equate to a free will.
I see, so the others Cain was worried about running into were siblings. So God marked Cain in some way to protect him from his own siblings. That makes sense.
As for city dwelling leading to the behavior change or anything else, I've given you two books that refute that directly. With mounds of evidence. But you're probably right, better to just continue to think what you're right in spite of the evidence.
I'm sorry this particular conversation with someone with a differing viewpoint can't be as educational to you as others. I'm sorry you continue to choose your beliefs in the face of evidence to continue to believe what you think to be true is true. That's your choice and you're welcome to make it.
Go back and read your first italicized quote. The one that starts "the prevailing view... and ask yourself just WHY it is prevailing. You'll get an inkling of what is wrong with your picture.
Then ask why you would give a story from the bible about god taking action with Cain, and why you think it's valuable to mention, AFTER "forgetting" the supernatural. You'll get another inkling.
Then question why and how - possible scenarios - the people then were so inventive in comparison to their own past. If you're honest you'll find at least a dozen possibilities other than a god feeding the people information - what, outside of scripture, makes the god hypothesis any more likely than the others? When the only answer is that "it's obvious", you'll find yet another inkling.
But it's past my bedtime. You have a good evening/night, Headly - it's been interesting and, yes, informative but I must get some sleep tonight. Big day tomorrow.
It's a prevailing view because it's a common mistake. You're making it now. That's why we go by evidence and not by the whims of what "feels right".
As for Cain, I'm simply going by the concrete events specified in the story. A city being built. A culture destroyed by a flood. A mass dispersion of people. A specific timeline of when each of things happened. These stories are claimed to have taken place in Mesopotamia in our history. If they happened there should be evidence to show that. If you're going to rule it out you should first consider the evidence to see if it happened or not. That's what we do, right? We don't make up answers ourselves. We look to the evidence to see what it says and we let that establish the answers.
I have questioned the why and the how. The fact is, it happened in this one place and time unlike it did anywhere else. You're right that farming happened and large highly populated cultures showed up elsewhere. You yourself referred to some existing before Sumer, This is all true. However, what happened in Sumer didn't happen anywhere else. What did get repeated, like writing and such, the evidence shows people of Sumer going there first. The history of the Egyptians, for example, starts off set against a migration of people coming in from the deserts. Everywhere you look it all lines up. This is widely accepted stuff. By the people who look at the evidence to determine what's true.
I've considered other possibilities. The evidence doesn't match up with those other possibilities. It doesn't repeat like it should if it were as you say. But nevermind that, let's continue to ignore it and just say it isn't true because it's not what you prefer.
If you want to stop assuming you already know and allow yourself to learn something new, I've got truth for you. If you're more comfortable thinking you have all the answers already, that's your choice.
Great! You've found and considered other possibilities. Now, what "concrete evidence" can you produce of a god, making it the preferred one? Is there a corpse? A flying saucer? Artifacts? Where is the evidence of a god?
Is it found, like the mark on Cain, only in scripture? You say you're going on concrete evidence that a god marked Cain, but none of your list has anything at all to do with gods. Just man. So where's the evidence of a god?
You're not getting it. This has nothing to do with evidence of a God. This is evidence that supports Genesis being factual history. Everything we should expect to see if the events described really happened are there.
We're talking about a 3000 year old text that has somehow remained relevant and ever-present in every age since its inception, that has been held in high regard for numerous generations. A text that documents a God at one time interacting with humans. Everything we should expect to see if true is there. That part of the world has been in constant upheaval in every age since. I know you think you can just disregard these texts as delusional writings of age-old minds, but that just doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make sense that some fictional account would be held in such high regard for thousands of years. Now that we have the data, the data matches up with what's described. Whether you want to try to argue it or not. The fact is, if we're to consider the possibility that things happened exactly as described, all the supporting evidence is there to support it. Like it or not. Buy it or not.
Part of buying into atheism as a legitimate viewpoint is dismissing these texts as nothing but fictional imaginings. Given the evidence, there's nothing to suggest we can actually do that. There's quite a bit of evidence to show these texts are describing real events.
There's no need to consider another possibility. You can't yet rule this one out.
Yes, the assumption, because the Sumerian versions are older, is that Genesis is ripped off from those versions. But there's a second possibility. It could be that they're both talking about the same events that really happened. They both describe very similar events because those events actually happened. Based on the hypothesis I've been talking about, it lines up that the Sumerians would speak of these events as well as they're the population in the background of Genesis.
We have to be careful about those assumptions. Assuming Genesis is ripped off is one of those. We don't know that. Genesis can be shown to be factually accurate, down to the specified timeline. It's highly unlikely it's just a rip off.
Also, directly following the 5.9 kiloyear event that scattered the population of southern Mesopotamia, the cultures they scattered to spoke a wide range of different languages. This would indeed confuse the languages over time. The Egyptians, the Akkadians, the Indus Valley, all spoke unique languages, none of them anything like Sumerian. Which makes it that much more astounding that each culture so quickly adopted their own unique written language not long after.
by janesix 5 years ago
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved"Tim Minchin
by marinealways24 12 years ago
Where is common ground between science and religion? Will there always be science vs religion for their opposing views? I think science and religion have a lot more in common than some would like to believe.
by Hujiki 12 years ago
I want to write a blog about Science Vs Religion but can't get any starting points so i though to se
by Jacob 9 years ago
No. Many people, from evolutionary biologists to important religious figures like Pope John Paul II, contend that the time-tested theory of evolution does not refute the presence of God. They acknowledge that evolution is the description of a process that governs the development of life on Earth....
by SaiKit 11 years ago
A lot of skeptics made the following logical fallacy:Skeptics: Can you prove that God exists? if not, then you are illogical if you believe in a God that you can't prove to be existing! This is the fallacy of "False Delimma" Just because you can't prove a theory or belief, doesn't mean...